Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda Packet - 2001-09-17
Lake Oswego City Council 'fpm rd, Meeting of Sept ( /7 2001 SANE ps ryfCO CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION SESSION Monday,Septt1ber 17, 2001 ar 4:00 P.M. Main Fire Station 300 B Avenue ORmos AGENDA City Councilors Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Jack Hoffman, Council President Ellie McPeak Also published on the Internet at: ci.oswego.or.us Gay GrahamContact: Robyn Christie,City Recorder Karl Rohde E-Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us Bill Schoen John Tut-chi This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Public Affairs, (503)635-0236,48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. INFORMATION SESSION 3.1 Planning Commission recommendation regarding LU 00-0018 (A), alternative transportation targets and Planning Commission issues regarding LU 00-0015 (A), local street connectivity 3.2 Appointments to the Budget Committee 3.3 Youth Council Program 4. ADJOURNMENT City Council information Session Page 1 September 17, 2001 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001 SUBJECT: INFORMATION SESSION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LU 00-0018(A), ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TARGETS AND PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES REGARDING LU 00-0015(A), LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY. RECOMMENDED MOTION: No action is required. The Council may request additional information or provide guidance on any remaining issues. EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: PUBLISHED NOTICES IMPACT: Heisler Council Report (Date) September 6, Staff time w/Attachments: 2001 STAFF COST: NA Ordinance no's. 2246 and 2250 BUDGETED: Y N Resolution no.: FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: September 19, 2000. L; PT. DIRECTOR ASST. CITY MANAGER CITY M AGER Signoff/date Signoff/date Signoff/date I ianc/case tiles 20001u 00-00I8/cover memo 001 N. `,`y os tArc osyt c rikv., CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO &A . •• COUNCIL REPORT ORt60M TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager SUBJECT: Information Session on Planning Commission Recommendation on LU 00-0018(A), Mode Split Targets for Alternative Transportation and Hearing on LU 00-0015(A), Local Street Connectivity DATE: September 10, 2001 ACTION: No action is required. The purpose of the information session is to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Alternative Transportation Targets (LU 00-0018(A)) (Exhibit 1). The Commission also held a hearing on Local Street Connectivity(LU 00-0015(A)), but continued it for additional time for staff to work with Metro on interpretation matters. Staff will discuss the relevant issues with this case as well. BACKGROUND: Both of these items were denied by the City Council last year. The Planning Commission has made a recommendation to approve the revised policies regarding Alternative Transportation Targets. The attached staff reports discuss issues raised by Council and addressed by the Planning Commission in this case. Regarding LU 00-0015(A) Local Street Connectivity, the issues Council raised both during the hearing and during the joint study session with Planning Commission are addressed in the attached staff report. Staff requested continuance of the August 27, 2001 Commission hearing in order to more fully explore options with regard to making the development standard more understandable and working with Metro on some interpretation issues. EXHIBITS: 1. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 00-0018(A) 2. Planning Commission Staff Report, LU 00-0018(A) 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, LU 00-0015(A) Plcase files/2000/Iu-00-0018/0015/Council Information Session Report.doc Page l of 1 0 U J Council Report—LU 00-0015(A)/LU-00-0018(A)Council Information Session Report ApiarTED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF NEW ) LU 01-0018(A) - 1434 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT LANGUAGE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 8 TO RECOGNIZE NEED TO ESTABLISH ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 MODAL TARGETS FOR ALTERNATIVE ) to MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ) 11 12 NATURE OF APPLICATION 13 A request by the City of Lake Oswego for adoption of new Comprehensive Plan Text language 14 (Policy,Recommended Action Measure) to recognize the need to establish modal targets for non- is single occupant vehicle(SOV) person trips for all Metro 2040 design type areas in Lake Oswego. 16 These areas include town centers, main streets, transit corridors, employment areas and inner 17 neighborhoods, and will result in meeting Metro code requirements [3.07.640(A)] and 18 Transportation Planning Rule Requirements [660-12-035(6)]. 19 20 HEARINGS 21 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of 22 August 27, 2001. 24 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 25 A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code 26 LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision 2S B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals 29 Goal 10: Housing 30 Goal 12: Transportation 31 32 C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional 33 Planning Requirements 34 OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule 35 36 D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 37 Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2) 38 39 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 1 005 LU 00-0018(A)— 1434 1 E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies' 2 Goal 10: Housing, Policy 8 3 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 1 4 Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policy 3 5 Subgoal 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policies 1, 2, 3 6 CONCLUSION S The Planning Commission concludes that LU 00-0018(A) is in compliance with all applicable 9 criteria. to 1 t FINDINGS AND REASONS 12 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated August 15, 2001 on LU 00- 13 0018(A), (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the 14 further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the 15 supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they 16 are consistent with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral 17 deliberations on this matter. 18 19 ORDER 20 21 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 22 23 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 00-0018(A) be approved by the City 24 Council. -'. 26 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning 27 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. 28 29 DATED this 10th day of Se tember 2001. 30 31 32 33 Daniel Vizzi , air 34 Planning Commission 35 36 37 39 Iris Treinen 40 Senior Secretary Although the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies are not described as a criteria under LOC 49.60.1505 for legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,they are listed here and discussed in the Staff Report to address consistency of the proposed amendment with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan,and to illustrate how the referenced LCDC goals cited have been and will be met through the adoption and implementation of this proposal, PAGE 2 0 0 6 LU 00-0018(A)— 1434 1 ATTEST: 2 3 PRELIMINARY DECISION - August 27, 2001 4 5 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring, Webster 6 NOES: None 7 ABSTAIN: None 8 ABSENT: Groznik, Sandblast 9 10 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - September 10, 2001 11 12 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring, Webster 33 NOES: None 14 ABSTAIN: None 15 RECUSE: Sandblast 16 ABSENT: None PAGE 3 007 LU 00-0018(A)- 1434 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: City of Lake Oswego LU 00-0018(A) LOCATION: STAFF: Applies City Wide Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF HEARING: August 15, 2001 August 27, 2001 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS: All I. APPLICANT REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego proposes amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12, Transportation, to add the following Comprehensive Plan Policies and a definition relating to the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas. These changes are required by the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: Goal V,Transportation Demand Management- Proposed New Policies: 4. The City establishes the following alternative transportation targets* for trips into, out of and within Lake Oswego's land use design type areas which it will strive to achieve by 2040. The City will analyze its progress toward these targets every five years. EXHIBIT 2 Page l of 9,LU 00-0018(A),Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission Staff Report 0 0 0 Ainimmommumow Alternative Trip Targets by Design Type Land Use Design Type Areas (See Figures Current Estimate of Alternative Trip 26—29 of the Comprehensive Plan) Alternative Trip Share Share Targets Lake Oswego Town Center 35% 55% Lake Grove Town Center 31% 31% Lake Oswego Main Streets 35% 44% Boones Ferry Main Street 31% 44% Kruse Way Employment Center ; 29% 45% Corridors (State Street 35% A Avenue 35% Boones Ferry 28% 44% Kruse Way) 29% Inner Neighborhoods (all other areas) — 35% 45% 5. The City shall identify and support actions that will implement the adopted alternative trip targets. Definition: Alternative Trip Share Targets: Pedestrian, bicycle, transit and carpool trips as a percentage of all person-trips for all modes of transportation. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 10: Housing Goal 12: Transportation C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional Planning Requirements OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2) E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies' Goal 10: Housing, Policy 8 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 1 Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policy 3 Although the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies are not described as a criteria under LOC 49.60.1505 for legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, they are listed here and discussed in the Staff Report to address consistency of the proposed amendment with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and to illustrate how the :-eferenced LCDC goals cited have been and will be met through the adoption and implementation of this proposal. Page 2 of 9,L1.00-0018(A , Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission Staff Report 0AU Subgoal 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policies 1, 2, 3 III. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS REQUEST: The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00-0018, which proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12, Transportation, to add policies and a definition relating to the establishment of non- single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas. The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requires these changes. The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00- 0018 (Exhibit 1, minutes). The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13,2001, to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation. At the joint meeting, there were no specific comments regarding LU 00-0018. At the public hearing, however, Council members raised the following issues: 1. Concern that it was impossible to "enforce" rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips 2. A dislike of the language was expressed (confusing terms), and 3. Concern that the language was redundant with existing adopted comprehensive plan policies. The Planning Commission met on July 9, 2001 (Exhibit A, Minutes) to discuss these issues. The Commission concluded in response to the comments listed above, that: 1. It does not anticipate any "enforcement" from this policy, since it merely sets targets, but view it as a basis to support future studies to determine a base line and changes in the single-occupancy vehicle usage rate. Thus, the study will define the methodology of determining whether the policy is being met, and from those studies, the Planning Commission and City Council will decide what "action measures" it believes are appropriate, to advance towards the policy aspirations. It agreed with the Council that the language was confusing and reworded the proposal to eliminate the term "Non-SOV Mode Split Target",replacing it with "Alternative Trip Targets." Metro has indicated that this language is satisfactory to them (Exhibit B-2). 3. The policies are not redundant with existing comprehensive plan policies, but supplement them by establishing a tool with which to track whether substantive policies and implementation measures are having an effect on alternative transportation modes The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in these documents include encouraging a compact urban form, reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita, reducing reliance on a single mode of transportation and maintaining Page 3 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission Staff Report � J and improving water quality. In 1999,Lake Oswego adopted one of the Title 1 Functional Plan requirements, which is to designate specific Design Type areas including Town Centers, Employment Centers, Main Streets, Regional Centers, Transit Corridors and Inner Neighborhoods, in its Comprehensive Plan. The City also adopted definitions and maps for these design types located within the City. This report addresses adoption of related Comprehensive Plan changes that are intended to support and complement adopted requirements and to comply with additional Functional Plan requirements (Title 6) by establishing mode split targets for non- single occupant vehicle(SOV) trips to, from and within design type areas. Achievement of these targets in the long term, is intended to result in a more balanced transportation mix in design type areas and greater access to non- SOV modes of transportation. Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) indicates that the alternative mode split target shall be no less than the regional targets for the 2040 Growth Concept land use design types established in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These targets are based on the Metro targets, with the exception of the alternative share targets for the Lake Grove Town Center. Metro estimates that the current alternative mode share is 31%,but its modeling results indicate that in the future the mode share expected for this type of a town center would be only 22%. The Planning Commission concluded at its work session that it would be more acceptable to at least maintain the current mode share as a target, which is reflected in the recommendation. IV. FINDINGS: �, City of Lake Oswego Development Code: 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: 1. Comply with any applicable state law; 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197, 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code, Development Code or Development Standards,comply with any applicable provisions of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Although these proposed changes are not subject to 49.60.1505(3), above, since they are not amendments to implementing standards, this report includes applicable Comprehensive Plan policies for purposes of illustrating how the City's past actions have met the requirements of the Metro Functional Plan and Transportation Planning Rule and how this proposed amendment is consistent with and/or implements the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan policies. B. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197. 1) Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. This Goal requires communities to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. It requires the development Page 4 of 9,LU Oo-OO t 8tA), Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission.Staff Report 0. 2 C� of plans that encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capacities of Oregon households that allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The proposed policy amendments will result in encouraging more accessible housing (more types and densities of housing) in main streets, town centers, employment centers, along transit corridors and in neighborhoods. As the City increases alternative trip mode share, housing in these locations will be more accessible as it will be served by several modes of transportation in addition to single occupant auto travel. Therefore, this policy complies with Statewide Planning Goal 10 because it will allow for increased accessibility of housing to transportation options. 2) Goal 12,Transportation and Administrative Rule 660-12 The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR 660-12-035 (6) Regional and local TSPs shall include interim benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress toward meeting the requirements of this section at five year intervals over the planning period. MPOs shall evaluate progress in meeting interim benchmarks at five year intervals from adoption of the regional and local TSPs. Where interim benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this section. The Goal requires cities to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation. Additional travel options will reduce reliance on a single occupant vehicle trips because alternative and more convenient and economic transportation options than SOVs are expected to be used by residents, shoppers and employees. The proposed policy changes are in compliance with the TPR in that they establish benchmarks with which to measure progress in meeting the overall Cite goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled. 3) Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility,Section 3.07.640 indicates that mode split will be used as an important factor in assessing transportation system improvements. It also indicates that Cities and Counties shall identify actions which will implement the mode split targets. These actions should include consideration of the maximum parking ratios adopted as part of Title 2, section 3.07.220; Regional Street Design considerations in Title 6 and transit's role in serving the area. The City to date has undertaken the following actions: • In 1998, the City of Lake Oswego adopted Metro's maximum parking ratios (DA 4-96). • In 1998, the City also adopted policies relating to transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel as part of the development of its TSP (PA 7-97). Page 5 of 9,LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission Staff Report 0 1 3 • Lake Oswego has also developed a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as part of its Public Facilities Plan, which includes a balanced list of projects, including roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes (PA 7-97). Bicycle and pedestrian projects were ranked based on whether they were located in areas of high employment or housing density, the connectivity provided, distance to activity centers, whether they were included on the RTP, the level of traffic volume in the corridor or street and whether there was an existing parallel facility. • In addressing street improvements, the City amended its acceptable level of service (LOS) for major streets from LOS "D" to LOS "E" in all areas of the City, in order to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains goals, policies and recommended action measures that: • Require that streets designated as Regional Streets on the RTP are designed to balance all modes of travel and the Metro publication "Creating Livable Streets" will be used as a resource for street design for those streets. • Require the City to work with regional agencies to develop interim benchmarks for measuring progress toward transportation goals and policies • Require the City to educate and inform employers regarding Tri- Met's demand management programs and to include promotional information in business license renewal packets for businesses with 25 or more employees. • Require businesses in the City's highest density employment areas, such as the Kruse Way Corridor, to develop Transportation Management Associations. • Require development of design and zoning standards for development within Design Type areas that promotes compact urban form, ensures pedestrian scale design and encourages transit usage in order to reduce auto dependence. In conclusion, the City's Comprehensive Plan currently contains many policies and program requirements for increasing alternative modes of transportation. The recommended policies and definition will bring the City into compliance with the Metro requirements to state the alternative trip targets for design type areas. Requiring measurement of progress toward these benchmarks every five years will allow the City to adjust its strategies and programs to better meet the targets. It is one more tool that the City can use to gauge its progress toward increasing Page 6 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets 44 Planning Commission Staff Report 0 non-SOV trips. C) Comply with any Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies. GOAL 10: HOUSING,Policy 8 9. Link housing density and location to reduce automobile travel by locating high density residential (R-0, R-2 and R-3) and mixed use developments within walking distance of bus lines or transit centers, and preferably clustered to as to avoid strip development. This policy instructs the City to link location of higher density housing in close proximity to transit availability. Studies have shown that housing densities of 7 dwelling units per acre or greater within 'A mile of transit are the minimum necessary to generate the ridership to make transit financially feasible. The proposed amendments to the Transportation Chapter will provide the City with measurable targets for increasing alternative mode splits with a review of these targets every five years. These proposed amendments are in compliance with this Housing policy because the use of benchmarks will enable the City to measure its success, and then adjust its programs, zoning, etc,. in order to move towards these benchmarks. Therefore, they support making this land use and transportation connection. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination 3. The City shall work with Metro,Tri-Met, ODOT and Clackamas County to develop interim benchmarks for measuring progress towards transportation goals and policies over the planning period. The adoption of alternative transportation targets will implement this policy to develop measurable benchmarks. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION, Subgoal 5, Transportation Demand Management GOAL. Lake Oswego shall develop strategies and implement programs that reduce the number of automobiles traveling in Lake Oswego, especially during peak morning and evening traffic hours. POLICIES: 1. Work with ODOT, Metro, Tri-Met and Clackamas County to develop travel demand management programs to maintain the total number of vehicle miles traveled per-capita in the City at current levels to the Page 7 of 9. LU 00-0018(A), Alternative TransportatioTArgpts Planning Commission Staff Report UJ year 2005 and to reduce current vehicle miles traveled by 10% by the year 2015. 2. Support the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)Employee Commute Options (ECO) goals for trip reductions. 3. Increase the attractiveness of alternative transportation through mixed-use development in areas consistent with the Region 2040 Plan. The language in this subgoal and policies supports the intent of the TPR and Metro Functional Plan as it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita. In general, TDM strategies are designed to manage the flow of traffic on, and extend the life cycle of, existing facilities by reducing and reshaping the demand for use of those facilities. Most TDM strategies are designed to influence travel choices by providing a reason to choose a means of travel other than driving alone. Achieving the stated reductions in vehicle miles traveled will be largely as a result of TDM strategies that will encourage non single-occupant vehicle (non-SOV) trips. Adopting the suggested text amendments will provide a tool to accomplish this by providing a benchmark for measuring the effectiveness of the City's programs and strategies for increasing non-SOV trips. The following includes some of the programs and strategies that the City has accomplished to date to increase trips using alternative transportation modes: • In 1997, the City adopted DA 4-96-1247 which requires employee carpool and vanpool parking spaces (5%E of total spaces) for all commercial and industrial development which requires a total of 50 or more parking spaces. • Covered bicycle parking is required for all new multi-family residential developments of four units or more, commercial, industrial and institutional uses as well as modifications to these structures by more than 10% of the floor area. • The building design standard has been amended to require all commercial, industrial, institutional, multi-family residential and attached single family development to be designed to incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves and awnings to protect pedestrians from the elements, encourage pedestrian access, including locating buildings within 30 feet of a public street and having a public entrance directly from the street. • In 1999, the City applied to Metro for funding for a feasibility study for creation of a TMA in the Kruse Corridor. It is anticipated that funding may be available within 2-5 years. • The 1997 adopted parking requirements included modifiers for parking requirements. Reductions are available for access to transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle access within the Downtown Redevelopment District and reductions based on a parking study. Page 8 of 9,LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets Planning Commission Staff Report , �� ' V. CONCLUSION: The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan are in compliance with applicable state laws and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, Metro Functional Plan Requirements and City Comprehensive Plan policies. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed text amendments to the City Council. VII. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS FOR INCREASING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TRIPS. While the above recommended changes represent the minimum the City must do in terms of meeting the Functional Plan at this time, in examining the detailed Round 3 modeling results, there may be opportunities to craft additional programs and strategies in order to improve non- SOV travel within the design type areas. Staff has attached a memo in Exhibit C-4-4 summarizing these suggestions. EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2001 work session regarding alternative transportation benchmarks (LU 00-0018) B. Planning Commission Memo dated June 27, 2001, regarding work session to discuss Council comments and direction to staff if additional code amendments required with Exhibits B-1) Minutes of September 19, 2000 City Council Hearing on LU 00-0018 B-2) Email from Tom Kloster at Metro dated June 27, 2001 C. Council Report for September 19. 2000 with Exhibits: C-1) Ordinance 2250 C-2) LU 00-0018 — 1374 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order C-3) Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 5, 2000 C-4) Planning Commission Staff Report, LU-00-0018 C-5) Planning Commission Findings, LU 00-0018 — 1374 C-6) Minutes of May 8, 2000 and February 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting :ase files/2000/LU 00-0018(A)Staff report LU 00-0018(A).doc Page 9 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets ?:arming Commission Staff Report 017 DRAFT `,�OE LAKE 0•Sly ° CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ''' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ` ' '' __-1-- July 9, 2001 OREGON/ I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 9, 2001 to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, U. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards* and Commissioners Frank Groznik, Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring and Alison Webster. Commissioner James Johnson was excused. Councilor John Turchi was present as City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda City Councilor John T:irchi related that he was Council liaison to the Planning Commission and that he had arranged his schedule so it would allow him to attend Commission meetings. IV. APPROVAL OF MLNUTES Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of June 11, 2001, after they had been amended to change a word in Commissioner SandbIast's comments on pane 3, paragraph 2 from `worried" to "questioned." Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Waring recused himself. Commissioner Johnson was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini revised the meeting Agenda to allow the Commissioners to vote on Findings, Conclusions and Orders before beginning the Work Session. V. OTHER BUSTVi ESS — FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER City of L ake Oswego Planning Commissionz: EXHIBIT A I Minutes of July 9,2001 1 (LU 00-001 S A) LU 01-0004, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order The staff advised the draft to be voted on was a more complete document than the previous. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised that approval by a majority of members present and eligible to vote would be necessary to adopt the Findings document. Commissioner Sandblast moved to direct the staff to provide a staff report regarding the revisions. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0004 Sedoruk/Prince Comprehensive Plan and Zoning_ Map Amendments. Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and the vote was split after Commissioners Edwards and Groznik voted yes, and Commissioners Sandblast and Vizzini voted against. Commissioners Waring and Webster recused themselves from the vote. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Council was scheduled to hear the matter and if the Corrected Findings were not forwarded to them, the Council would consider the previously adopted Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order. Chair Vizzini indicated that he believed the Council should have the revised Findings, even though he did not agree with the Conclusion. Mr. Boone advised that the vote on the Findings and Conclusion was to indicate they did reflect the majority opinion of the Commission and Commissioners who did not support the Findings, Conclusion and Order could explain for the record why they disagreed with them. Chair Vizzini observed there was insufficient support for conducting another vote at' the meeting. Ms. Heisler related that the City Council had agreed with a request from the applicants to continue the hearing and the applicants had indicated they intended to hold another meeting with the neighbors. VI. GENERAL PLANNNG—WORK SESSIONV Long Term Care Housing (LU 99-0070) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that the staff had responded to a Commission request to clarify some issues related to Long Term Care Housing by preparing a Comparison Chart and maps (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 in the staff report dated July 2, 2001). She noted the maps identified where long-term care use categories were currently allowed and where they might be allowed under the proposed language. She explained the map in Exhibit 4 identified areas (in olive color) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and where Special Use Housing was currently permitted outright, and areas (in pink) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and abutted Major or Minor Arterial Streets that would be permitted as conditional uses under the proposed language. She pointed out that an olive colored line outlined areas that were within one half mile of commercial services. She clarified that under the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 N 0 Page 2 of 11 Minutes of July 9. 2001 current Code Special Use Housing could be sited on any parcel in any residential zone if it was over one half acre in size and the facility provided some sort of transportation. She clarified that the criteria that would allow Special Use Housing as a conditional use in the R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones were that the use was part of a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses and served as a transitional use between a major street and lower density uses. She observed there were parcels that might fall into that category in Stafford (near Rosemont), but that would be hard to determine without a complete analysis. She noted the Planning Commission had not discussed how to address Special Use Housing locations in commercial areas. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Map 5 designated (in olive) where it was currently possible to locate Nursing and Convalescent Homes and Skilled Nursing facilities as Conditional Uses and identified (in pink) where the uses might be allowed as a Conditional Use under the proposed language. She noted that this map also highlighted Collector Streets. She observed that the proposed language would reduce the number of locational possibilities for the facilities. She acknowledged that there were other parcels that should have been colored pink near Lakeridge High School and Luscher Farm, and parcels that abutted McVey, Stafford and Country Club Roads. She recalled the Commissioners had wondered whether the proposed long term care housing regulations would open the door for other special needs housing, such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation and half-way houses (see Exhibit 6, June 5, 2000 memorandum from Ron Bunch to the Planning Commission). The staff memorandum had advised that the definitions proposed by the Long Term Care Housing Ordinance were sufficiently specific to prevent it from being interpreted to include a range of short-term and special needs housing; however, the Zoning Code allowed and broadly defined "institutional uses," and institutions such as halfway houses. short-term homeless shelters, and drug rehabilitation facilities could conceivably be sited in residential areas. The staff had recommended that the Planning Commission include a recommendation to the Council to pursue a tightening of regulations and criteria for institutional uses. Ms. Heisler confirmed for Chair Vizzini that the maps in the staff report did not reflect where lots might be assembled into parcels that were large enough to be potential Special Use Housing sites under current regulations. He observed that a developer might be able to assemble sufficient sized property along the City's major corridors for Special Use Housing facilities, but if the facilities were sited along Neighborhood collectors, such as Greentree Avenue, Knaus Road, and Lake Forest Boulevard, they could be intrusive. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Carman Oaks (which abutted Carman Drive), a facility at the National Guard Armory (along South Shore Boulevard), and a facility at the City Library site would not be allowed under the proposed regulations because they did not abut a major arterial (please refer to the comparison chart on page 3 of the staff report). Chair Vizzini suggested that an additional locational requirement that the facilities were to be within a certain distance of services would allow the facilities on Reese Road, but not along South Shore Boulevard, near the Blue Heron Neighborhood (a residential City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission O Page 3 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 neighborhood that should not have the impacts of a nursing facility), Ms. Heisler suggested a requirement that would restrict the facilities to a site within a certain distance of a Major Arterial street. Chair Vizzini opined that the need for facilities for the aging population should be balanced against the impact of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Several Commissioners recalled that FAN residents considered the City Library and the Adult Community Center to be intrusive. °Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 7:17. Ms. Heisler confirmed the Library and Adult Community Center operated under a Conditional Use Permit in a residential zone, and the proposed regulations would not allow long term care facilities there. She pointed out that the definition "residential care housing" provided that up to one third of the total occupant capacity could be for skilled nursing care (see page 21 of the staff report). Ms. Heisler observed that the proposal had not addressed location of the facilities in commercial zones. She asked if the locational criteria used in residential zones should be used in commercial zones (a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses; transitional land use; easily accessible; near services). She said that the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40% might be very appropriate in a residential zone, but perhaps not in a commercial zone. She asked if the requirements related to mitigation of the impacts of traffic and maintenance of neighborhood scale and character should apply to a commercial zone. She asked if a separate section of the proposal should be created to deal with the uses in the commercial zones. The Commissioners discussed whether there was a need for criteria and standards other than those that already existed in the commercial zones, or whether the uses should be permitted outright in the commercial zones. The staff advised that Special Use Housing was currently permitted use in all three commercial zones; however, it had to meet special standards listed on page 30 of the staff report. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion that the "General Conditions" for Residential Care Housing printed on page 32 of the staff report should also apply to those uses in the commercial zones. Ms. Heisler pointed out that General Conditions (l)(c) only permitted siting along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. She advised there were NC Zoned areas along South Shore Boulevard, McVey Avenue, Lakeview Boulevard, Jean Road, Pilkington Road, and Kerr and Monroe Parkway. She asked if the facilities should also be permitted along non-arterial streets in the NC Zone. Commissioner Sandblast indicated he did not believe residential care housing was appropriate along Kerr and Monroe Parkways. Ms. Heisler advised that facilities that provided their own transportation would be allowed in many areas, including along Goodall Road, She acknowledged that with additional time the staff would be able to identify more locations for the uses than were indicated on the maps. She said she would provide those at the next meeting. She observed there were a number of big lots on the north side of Country Club Road. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 Ms. Heisler advised that Carman Oaks was a residential care facility of apartments without cooking facilities that also featured some skilled nursing units. She advised that it could continue as a conditional use under the new regulations, but a new facility could not be sited there. The Commissioners wondered whether developers would opt to seek a zone change for residential care housing. Mr. Boone advised that a rigorous analysis of alternative sites in the City was required to prove a public need for the change and that could discourage people who wanted to site a small facility. Commissioner Sandblast expressed his concern that the proposed language would allow the facilities to be sited in unforeseen locations. Councilor Turchi acknowledged the issue was a difficult one. He shared with the Commissioners that he had searched for a care facility for his father in an area near his home and had not found many. He related that he had favored smaller facilities that offered more personalized care. He observed that it was the larger institutional type structures that the Commissioners desired to keep out of specific areas. Ms, Heisler recalled that the Building Department had counted 25 adult foster care facilities (homes with 5 or fewer clients) within the City limits four years prior; that Marylhurst featured approximately 500 units; and that Carman Oaks featured 90 units. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he did not consider the proposed language to be too restrictive and he believed that it would allow the facilities to be sited in the City. Ms. Heisler related that the state legislature had been considering a recommendation by the Governor to impose a moratorium on assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone reported that he was in the process of preparing a matrix to show what federal and state regulations required regarding siting of different types of residential care housing, including drug rehabilitation and halfway housing. He advised against repealing the Special Use Housing provisions (which allowed housing for socially disadvantaged persons to be specially cited) and only allowing residential care housing for medically disadvantaged persons. He anticipated in that case higher jurisdictions would force the City to make some arrangements for housing for social rehabilitation. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion to add a socially disadvantaged element to the definition of "residential care housing" and couple that with stringent locational requirements. Ms. Heisler advised that a developer could still rely on the City's broad definition of"institutional use" to site a facility. Mr. Boone advised that a public agency or a private educational, cultural, religious or social welfare facility might qualify as a Major Public Facility and be allowed to site a facility — an "institutional use" - as a conditional use. However, he advised the Commissioners not to recommend a repeal of the Special Use Housing provisions because federal and state laws said the City had to provide for that kind of housing somewhere, such as in the "institutional use." provisions. He suggested the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that separate criteria should be created for siting socially disadvantaged housing. He said the matrix he was to complete and present to the Commission would include the state definitions of"skilled nursing" and "convalescent care" and he would further categorize uses into a City of Lake Oswego Planning Cer nussion Page 5 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 3 "halfway" and rehabilitation" housing category. He added that he also intended to define what was a "school." He anticipated the matrix would help the Planning Commission to decide whether to deal with the issue in the light of the proposed ordinance or to suggest to the City Council that Code provisions for "institutional uses" should be refined. The staff recommended that the Commission schedule another work session and a public hearing regarding the issue. They agreed to provide the matrix and refine the maps prior to the next meeting. Chair Vizzini observed the consensus was not to direct the staff to create separate locational criteria for facilities in commercial zones. Commissioner Sandblast asked for a brief staff report. Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, recalled the City Council had not favored the Planning Commission's recommendation of Code amendments in LU 00- 0015. She discussed the following concerns that had been expressed by Councilors (see staff memorandum to the Commission dated June 27, 2001). 1. The recommended changes "go too far" and should only reflect Metro's minimum requirements (that they be applied to parcels of 5 acres or larger and that they should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. The maps alarmed some people. Ms. Heisler advised the 13 maps could he eliminated because very few included parcels large enough for the Metro requirement to be applied and the text of the proposal clarified that connections (to schools. between activity areas or to transit facilities) were proposed in areas where right of way was available or could be made available through development or redevelopment. She noted that most of the proposed pedestrian access ways were located within existing rights of way or easements, or were routed over public lands. She suggested that some mechanism be used to keep track of them, such as including them in the Public Facilities Plan (PFP) or in neighborhood plans. She advised that eliminating the maps would not put the City out of compliance with Metro requirements. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity. Ms. Heisler reported that data to support the need for connectivity was provided by a Metro study that concluded that local street connectivity reduced traffic demand on regional roadways and in five areas that had been studied. She observed a healthy market demand for developments that were within walking distance of transit and employment areas. 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 C ;;4 She acknowledged that there would be only isolated instances in which connectivity would apply, particularly if the provision was applied only to parcels 5 acres or larger. She explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation that the provisions apply to parcels that were at least 5 times the minimum lot size in the zone and abutted developable land that was also 5 times the minimum lot size reflected the Commission's perspective that all of these situations should be reviewed, but that did not necessarily mean that a connecting street or accessway would be required. 4. Residents favor cul de sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. She said that although an advantage of a cul de sac might be that it helps reduce through traffic, that was also its weakness, because it increased traffic past certain properties by forcing everyone to take the same route. She noted the Metro provision for a shorter cul de sac allowed some flexibility in situations such as when there was no developable land or very steep land that would not accommodate another development beyond the development with the cul de sac. 5. Future connectivity is good, but don't snake people retrofit when they come in with a proposal. She recalled the Councilors were concerned that property owners who presented plans to construct a gazebo or garage would be subject to a connectivity review. She suggested that the Commission might address the Council's concerns by (a) eliminating all maps and references to maps and amend the text language to apply the connectivity review process to any parcel proposed for development that included creation of a lot and was greater than five times the required minimum lot size; and (b) removing requirements for future street plans for ministerial developments. She explained that would mean that someone who applied for a building permit for a single-family house would not be subject to the connectivity review process. 6. The recommendations do not go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. She explained that the Planning Commission recommendation had assumed that current review process requirements regarding notice to properties within 300 feet of a subdivision and a developer/neighborhood meeting would remain in place. Mr. Boone clarified that existing standards required a site analysis for a major development that could trigger an access requirement. Ms. Heisler pointed out that the language regarding lands that had been included on the maps in 26.025(2) tat the top of page 14] provided that a proposal for a ministerial development did not require dedication of a street, but required a future streets plan and placement of structures according to the setback of the future right of way. She suggested that the City might City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 2 j Page 7 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 require access dedication in the case of a lot partition, but she also recalled the Councilors' comment that, on balance, property rights were more important than obtaining an accessway. One Commissioner said that property owners might misinterpret conceptual maps as regulation, but they should be made aware of connectivity issues. Ms. Heisler advised there were not many opportunities for requiring a street inside the current City boundaries, but if the Stafford area were included, those opportunities would increase. Mr. Boone acknowledged that it had been a challenge for the staff to draft the proposal because the language might require an owner to provide a future streets plan when he only wanted to build a garage or a barn, but the language might also discourage him from placing the structure over an area where the City would like to see an access way. He referred to the example mapped on page 28 of the staff report. He noted the dots that represented a future residential access way showed in a very general way where it would be located, but unless the future pathway was platted, an owner might build a garage over it. He contrasted this hypothetical case to Dolan vs. the City of Tigard, advising that case revolved around a requirement to dedicate land, but the hypothetical case might simply be a situation where the City would encourage an owner to locate his garage on the right side of his house, rather than the left side, without any "taking" of property rights. The City would plan to build the access way on the left side when it had the funds to do so, and it would not be necessary to buy a garage on the left side or relocate the access way on the right side (where it might also be more costly to the City due to topography, or impact another nearby property owner with a smaller lot (a "domino" effect). He said the question was "When should we restrict development over a possible future access way?" He assured the Commissioners that the dots (indicating the access way) in the example were not going to be in the right place after a site analysis had been accomplished. He asked when that analysis should be accomplished. Commissioner Groznik opined that should be when there was an overriding public need for that connection. Mr. Boone observed that some would say it was needed now - for connectivity - but the City will not extract it now because it did not have the funds. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he believed it was important to determine the location of access ways now and funding for the projects should be included in the Streets Plan in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Heisler observed that would require an analysis by either the City or the developer. Mr. Boone observed that it complicated a partitioning process to have an access way sited ahead of the partitioning process. Commissioner Sandblast stressed that it was important to have a conceptual plan in place, even if the access way was not exactly located. Chair Vizzini said he desired to see a more aggressive approach to planning access ways than simply advising property owners of the potential street requirement. He said the marketplace should be made aware of them at the earliest possible time in order to prevent an unfortunate situation where a structure might have to be moved. He wondered whether some people might try to frustrate the connectivity policy by placing obstacles in the way. Mr. Boone clarified for Ms. Webster that he was not certain that placing a structure where an access way would go through was "devaluing" the owner's land, but that it might be possible to ity of Lake Oswego Planning Commissson Page 8 of 11 Nifiautes of Juty 9,2001 026 frustrate an access way to cause appreciation of the land. Chair Vizzini related that property owners in Forest Highlands might not welcome connecting pathways in their neighborhood because they did not want to see strangers walking through their back yards. Mr. Boone identified a difference between a roadway and a residential access way: it might be easier to site an access way by bending it. He recalled that some homeowners felt that access ways posed a security concern because they provided some dark, angled places for people to hide. He recalled that access ways could be designed with safety ion mind. The staff advised that access ways were often planned along the boundaries between lots. Councilor Turchi commented that if the City did not warn owners they needed to make accommodations for pathways that already existed in the City's Transportation System Plan the City was frustrating its own Plan and making it impossible to connect things. Ms. Heisler advised that all of the pathways identified in the Pathway Plan were along rights of way. She recalled the staff had identified opportunities for connectivity in areas where the lots were less than 5 acres in size, but they felt that a threshold of three times the minimum lot size was too small because those parcels were typically only partitioned into two lots. They believed that the larger parcels (at 5 times or larger) were situations where a future street would be constructed or partitioning might facilitate the location of access ways. Mr. Boone recalled a recent subdivision review where the DRC had allowed the pedestrian pathway to be located in the required 20% Open Space area, and the area of the access way still was counted as Open Space because the pathway was located where it provided an appropriate connection for the neighborhood. He clarified that location of a pathway would be inappropriate through sensitive land, but that lot clustering within subdivisions could result in additional land for a pathway. Chair Vizzini observed a general consensus that the maps should be eliminated. Ms. Heisler observed the Commissioners did not seem to favor a requirement for a connectivity review during ministerial applications. Chair Vizzini asked the staff to schedule a public hearing regarding the issue. Ms. Heisler suggested that it be scheduled for August 27, 2001. Modal Tareets (LU 00-0018) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, required cities and counties to establish benchmarks and measure the community's progress towards their targeted percentage of non-single occupant vehicle modes of travel. She noted the targets had been set for the City's "Design Type" areas, including Main Streets, Town Centers, Employment Centers and significant street corridors. (See chart of current and targeted percentages on page 2 of the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001.) She explained each jurisdiction was to measure and review its progress at five-year intervals. Mr. Boone related the City Council had not favored the previous Planning Commission recommendation of Comprehensive Plan amendments to add policies and a definition City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 /2► Page 9 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 �t • relating the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas. Ms. Heisler listed the Councilors' concerns. 1. It would be a challenge to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips unless single occupant vehicle trips were taxed. Ms. Heisler advised that Title 6 simply imposed a requirement to measure and compare the percentage of trips by alternative modes of travel against the percentage of non-single-occupancy-vehicle trips. She clarified for the Commissioners that Metro required this provision to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in order to gauge whether the Plan was working. 2. The recommended language is confusing. She pointed out that the staff was suggesting that the language "Non-SOV Mode Split Targets" be changed to "Alternative Trip Share Targets." She reported that Metro had indicated they could agree to the change of language and proposed text. 3. The recommended language is redundant with existing adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. She advised that Comprehensive Plan policies already called for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the City, and that would happen when drivers began to use other modes of travel besides single occupancy vehicle travel. Ms. Heisler related that Metro was now counting school bus trips as alternative trips, and that their expectations of the level of use of alternative transportation was not as high in Lake Grove (which has a low level of transit service and very few intersections per mile) as in Downtown, where there were many intersecting streets and route options that would encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. She clarified that the current and targeted share percentages reflected what the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) expected for each design type area. Chair Vizzini commented that the same factors (availability of paid parking, level of transit service and number of intersections per mile) might also be benchmarked in the Quality of Life Indicators Program. A Commissioner commented that the target for Lake Grove should be at least as high as the current percentage share of alternative trips. Mr. Boone advised the Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the issue before they made any additional recommendations to the City Council. Chair Vizzini directed the staff to schedule a public hearing. Vff. OTHER BUSINESS July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Ms. Heisler announced that a Metro representative was to discuss periodic review of the 2040 Plan, and Ron Bunch, Special Projects Manager, would discuss the connection between the Qualify of Life Indicators Program and sustainability at the Commission's July 23, 2001 meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 f 8 Page 10 of 11 JIinutes of July 9,2001 Foothills Road Improvement District Committee The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Groznik was to serve as Planning Commission representative to the Foothills Road Improvement District Committee and Commissioner Waring was to serve as alternative representative. Ms. Heisler related that the Committee was to consider whether the area should be planned to include additional uses and a non-industrial connection with the waterfront. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary 1:\pc\rninutes107-09-01.doc City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 (j j STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: City of Lake Oswego LU 00-0015(A) LOCATION: STAFF: Applies City Wide Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF HEARING: August 17, 2001 August 27, 2001 I. APPLICANT REQUEST: The City of Lake Oswego proposes: A. New Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 26, Local Street Connectivity Standard to comply with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements and Metro Code requirements regarding local street connectivity; and B. Text Amendments to LODS 25, On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways; and C. Text Amendments to LOC Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to add methodology for measuring a cul-de-sac or dead end street length and revising maximum length for a cul-de-sac or dead end street from 1000 feet to 200 feet. These changes are required by the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and are found in Exhibit 1, Ordinance 2307. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources EXHIBIT 3 Goal 8: Parks and Recreation Page 1 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity 031 Planning Commission Staff Report +4►^� .w Goal 10: Housing Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional Planning Requirements OAR. 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2) E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality,Policy 4 Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Policy 8)c) Goal 10: Housing, Policy 10 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets, Policy 9 Goal 13: Energy Conservation, Policy 5 III. DE ( RIPTION OF APPLICANTS REQUEST: A. Introduction and Background: The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in these documents include encouraging a compact urban form, reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita, reducing reliance on a single mode of transportation and maintainin and improving water quality. This report addresses adoption of related code changes that are intended to support and complement Metro Functional Plan requirements (Title 6) by establishing criteria for auto, bicycle and pedestrian route connectivity for residential developments. The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00-0015, which proposed a new Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 26, Local Street Connectivity. This new standard and other related code changes were proposed to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices, by requiring connected streets and accessways under certain conditions, limiting the length of cul-de-sacs under certain conditions and providing for construction standards for residential accessways. The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00- 0015 (Exhibit E-2, minutes). The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13, 2001, to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation. Page 2 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connec:iv;ty U 3 9 (�..r�� Planning Commission Staff Report ~ �� At the joint meeting, there were several specific comments regarding LU 00-0015 that were raised by the Council as follows: 1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro minimum requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. 4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal. 6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. The Planning Commission met on July 9, 2001 (Exhibit B, Minutes) to discuss these issues. The Commission concluded in response to the comments listed above, that it would review a revised LODS 26 at a public hearing. The revisions would include eliminating the requirement for review of ministerial developments under the connectivity standard and elimination of the maps from the standard. B. Discussion: Local Streets generally serve the immediate travel needs of the City at the neighborhood level. They serve most short automobile, bicycle and pedestrian trips. When the local street system is designed to have many connections to local destinations, it reduces travel on major streets for local circulation needs. In addition, when direct multi-modal routes are in place, auto travel is reduced. The Metro standards require cities and counties to identify all contiguous areas of vacant and redevelopable parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed-use development and prepare a conceptual new streets plan map. The purpose of the map is to provide guidance to landowners and developers on desired street connections that will improve local access and preserve the integrity of the regional street system. The proposed draft does not contain maps, since the city currently does not have any residentially zoned parcels of five acres or more. The draft proposal would require review of developments under the connectivity criteria in the following circumstances: 1) when development is proposed that requires the construction of a street, 2) proposed development results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that is also at least five times the minimum or 3) construction of a structure other than a single family dwelling, zero lot line or duplex that also is at least five times the minimum lot size required by the zone and abuts similarly sized property. Development proposed under 3) could include conditional uses such as churches, long-term care housing or other institutional uses or multi-family uses. Page 3 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report 0 3 3 17PP In addition to the street plan map, cities and counties are to require new development that will require construction of new street(s) to provide a street map that provides full connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, preexisting development or water features where regulations implementing Title 3 of the Functional Plan do not allow or prescribe different standards for street facilities. When full streets are not possible, pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way are to be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. The draft standards also allow the review authority the ability to grant exceptions to the requirements to full street improvements when the presence of sensitive lands, extreme topography, traffic safety issues, freeways or existing development patterns preclude the logical connection of streets. The review authority may also grant exceptions to accessway requirements if the applicant demonstrates that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out-of-direction travel to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines or that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of accessways and when the applicant has submitted an alternate design which serves the purpose of providing safe, convenient and direct bicycle/pedestrian access which is consistent with the purposes of the standard. ►\ . FINDINGS: City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision A legislative decision is generally a policy decision that is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: 1. Comply with any applicable state law; 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197, 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code, Development Code or Development Standards, comply with any applicable provisions of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 1) Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197. A) Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources. This goal requires communities to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The proposed changes requiring through streets, rather than allowing cul-de-sacs and dead end streets as a matter of course, will provide more direct routes that may be used to travel to local destinations. Providing multi-modal through-routes will also encourage walking, biking and transit use, since users of these transportation modes will have shorter distances to travel in many instances, auto travel will be reduced, and hence, associated auto pollution. Therefore, the proposed changes will result in maintaining or improving the air Page 4 of 9, LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity ?laanmg Commission Staff Report 03.1 quality in Lake Oswego. B) Statewide Planning Goal 8, Parks and Recreation. This goal requires communities to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the resources to meet such requirements. These connectivity standards could result in additional and shorter routes to parks for many existing and future City residents by reducing travel distances. Therefore, the proposed changes will improve access to and from the city's parks and recreation facilities, making them more readily available to residents. C) Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. This Goal requires communities to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. It requires the development of plans that encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capacities of Oregon households that allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The proposed policy amendments will result increasing the availability and frequency of transportation routes to and from homes and schools, shopping, employment and bus routes for existing and future residents. Therefore, the proposed amendments will result in providing more accessible housing. Therefore, this policy complies with Statewide Planning Goal 10 because it will allow for increased accessibility of housing to transportation options and destinations. D) Goal 12, Transportation and Administrative Rule 660-12 The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR 660-12-020) (2)(b) ...The standards for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation necessary to carry out OAR 660-012-045(3)(b). The standards for the layout of local streets shall address: (A) Extensions of existing streets; (B) Connections to existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors; and (C) connections to neighborhood destinations. 660-12-045(3)(b): On-site facilities shall be provided which accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new subdivisions, multi-family developments, planned developments, shopping centers and commercial districts to adjacent residential areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile of the devilment. Single-family residential developments shall generally include streets and accessways. 660-12-045(3)(b)(E): Streets and accessways need not be required where one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) Physical or topographic conditions make a street or accessway connection impracticable. Such conditions include, but are not limited to freeways, railroads, steep slopes, wetlands or other bodies of water where a connection could not reasonably be provided. (ii) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands ?age 5 of 9, LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity 0 3 J (* Planning Commission Staff Report physically preclude a connection now or in the future considering the potential for redevelopment; or (iii) Where streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995 which preclude required street or accessway connection. 660-12-045(4)(b)(B): Pedestrian connections to adjoining properties shall be provided except where such connection is impracticable as provided for in OAR 660-012-045(3)(b)(E) Goal 12 requires cities to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation. Requiring frequent (every 530') full street connections and frequent (every 330') pedestrian/bike accessways, will provide convenient and more economic transportation by reducing trip lengths to local destinations. Reducing trip lengths by requiring more travel routes will increase the probability that walking and bicycling trips will be made rather than auto trips for local trip. Providing multi- modal travel options from neighborhoods to destinations will encourage alternative modes of transportation and thus, reduce reliance on the automobile. The proposed code changes, therefore, are in compliance with the TPR in that they will reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation and provide more convenient transportation to local destinations. The Transportation Planning Rule requires safe and convenient multi-modal connections to local activity centers and for connections to be stubbed to abutting properties when practicable. Exceptions are allowed for physical or topographic constraints. The proposed code changes require frequent multi-modal connections, where feasible, between neighborhoods and activity centers, allow for exceptions if physical and topographic constraints exist and require connections to be stubbed to abutting properties. Therefore, the proposed code changes are in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule in that they ensure connectivity, the extension of streets to abutting property, where feasible and exceptions to these requirements when physical and topographic constraints exist. E) Goal 13, Energy Conservation. Goal 13 requires cities and counties to conserve energy. Land, and uses developed on the land, shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The proposed amendments require frequent street and/or accessway connections with new development. Connections are to provide multi- modal connections to decrease trip length and to encourage alternative modes of travel activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, bus lines and parks. Providing frequent, multi-modal connections will save fuel in two ways: reducing fuel consumption and by encouraging non-auto trips by decreasing trip length. Therefore, these amendments will reduce fuel energy use and thereby comply with this goal. Page 6 of 9,LU OO1.5iA j,Local Street Connectivity t) U Planning Commission Staff Report r F) Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Section 3.07.630, Design Standards for Street Connectivity. This standard indicates that the aggregate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional street system when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional network. Therefore, it concludes, streets should be designed to keep through trips on arterial streets and provide local trips with alternative routes. The proposed standards are intended to improve local circulation in a manner that protects the integrity of the regional system by requiring frequent multi modal routes when development occurs, increasing the probability that local trips will remain on local streets or accessways and local trips will decrease on major streets, thereby complying with this criteria. 2) Comply with any applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies. Goal 6: Air, 'Water and Laud Resources Quality; Air Resources Quality 4. Increase the opportunity to use alternative transportation as a means to reduce air pollution by: a. Requiring safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle pathways as part of all new street construction projects, where feasible; c. Requiring the design of new development to be supportive of pedestrian, transit and bicycle users; The proposed development standard and related changes require additional connections to and from activity centers in the form of full street improvements every 530 feet or accessways every 330 feet, depending on topography, lot size and type of development proposed. These standards also require through streets rather than cul-de-sacs and accessways when full streets are not feasible. Requiring frequent travel connections encourages residents to walk or bike (non-polluting modes of transportation) rather than utilize their automobile for short trips to local destinations. These proposed requirements also will result in safe and comfortable pedestrian and bike facilities and are supportive of alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this policy. Goal 8: Parks and Recreation 8. Develop parks that: c. Are, where possible, accessible by a variety of transportation modes including transit, bicycling and walking. The proposed amendments will require full streets every 530 feet or residential accessways every 330 feet when development is proposed on larger parcels or groups of parcels. This will ultimately result in reducing trip length for many existing and new residents as development occurs. It will also provide additional auto, bike and pedestrian access to parks and may improve access to transit lines which serve major park and recreation facilities. Therefore, these amendments comply with this Chapter 8 policy. Page 7 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity 037 Planning Commission Staff Report Goal 10: Housing 10. Provide for an interconnected street system to encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel and to reduce vehicle miles traveled to local destinations thus reducing energy use, pollution and congestion. The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system with new development, rather than closed-end streets. This will reduce travel time and increase modal choices to local destinations. Therefore, the proposed amendments will result in reducing energy use, pollution and congestion associated with longer auto trip lengths and will provide safe and convenient options to auto travel where none may now exist. Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets 9. Ensure that connectivity of local streets is achieved in order to: a. Reduce excessive trip lengths; b. Efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical vehicles; c. Promote the use of alternative modes of travel; d. Ensure even dispersal of local traffic; and e. Provide local street circulation patterns that provide connections to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks and employment centers. The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system for the purposes stated in this Comprehensive Plan policy. By providing frequent interconnected multi-modal transportation routes, trip lengths will be reduced, emergency vehicles will be able to reach destinations more easily and quickly, additional modes of travel may be encouraged since travel distances to activity centers will be reduced and local traffic will not be restricted to one route choice as is often the case when roads and accessways are not interconnected. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this policy. Goal 13: Energy Conservation 5. Promote energy efficiency through site planning for all types of development including residential subdivisions, multi-family, commercial and industrial projects. The proposed amendments will require more energy efficient site planning by ensuring full street and accessway connections are constructed, when development is proposed under certain circumstances. Multiple routes to destinations results in shorter routes for more travelers, which increases walking, transit use where applicable and bicycling. Page 8 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity 03 3 Planning Commission Staff Report kn:4)7 � Interconnected streets and frequent intersections are characteristics of"transit supportive development,"which is a strategy to preserve mobility and livability, while conserving energy,reducing pollution and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this goal in that they will increase energy efficiency through site planning that requires more connectivity of travel routes. V. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to add a new development standard (LODS 26), amend LODS 20 and make changes to Chapter 42 to provide for local street connectivity, are in compliance with applicable state laws and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, Metro Functional Plan Requirements and City Comprehensive Plan policies. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed code amendments to the City Council. EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance 2307, Local Street Connectivity B. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2001 work session regarding local street connectivity(LU 00-0015) C. Planning Commission Memo dated June 27, 2001, regarding work session to discuss Council comments and direction to staff if additional code amendments required with Exhibits C-1) Ordinance 2246, Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015 C-2) Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing C-3) Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting C-4) Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps C-5) Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Tom Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro Street Design Work Team C-6) Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues D. Minutes of September 19, 2000 City Council Hearing on LU 00-0015 E. Council Report for September 19, 2000 without Exhibits: F. Draft illustrating changes from initial (2000) proposal Case files2000/LU 00-0015/2001 Activity/Staff report LU 00-0015(A) Page 9 of 9,Lt..'00I5(A), Local Street Connectivity I � ,, �iw Planning Commission Staff Report U e) It) � � EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY; AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 42.03.085 (CUL-DE-SACS AND DEAD END STREETS); AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LODS); AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE LODS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSWAYS. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Os\vego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by stfikeeut and adding the new text shown in redline and underline. Section 1. Section 42.03.085 is hereby amended to read as follows 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets. LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks LOC: 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Closed End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation 2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of-way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. Use of a "fish tail" or "hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at leas: one side of all closed end streets cul de sacs with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or closed end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more than 2b0-1-99A feet in length. A cul-de-sac or closed-end street shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. In:determining the length of a cul-de-sac or closed-end street for compliance with (3) above, the starting point for the measurement shall be at the.intersection of the centerline of the proposed closed-end street.or cul-de-sac with the projected edge of the.right-of- way of the nearest.intersecting through street, measured along the centerline of the cul- de-sac or closed-end street to the nearest point of curvature of the cul-de-sac bulb or the nearest angle.of a hammerhead turn around(See Appendix Al. The length of a cul-de- sac or hammerhead does not include the area devoted to the turnaround, and shall be measured along the centerline-according to the methods illustrated on Appendix A. A future street plan that shows a street will be extended from a proposed closed-end street, Page 1 of 4 04 1 EXHIBIT A (LU 00-0015-A) EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LL 00-0015-A) to.form,a;throusn street..wil1 not be.subiec t'to the 200'foot limitation and will be considered a temporary closed=end; In such cases atemporary provision for turning around=without using a driveway`shalI.be required. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) are hereby amended to adopt Chapter 26.000, Local Street Connectivity, as shown in Exhibit "A" for the purpose of providing a Local Street Connectivity standard to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. Section 3. Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 20.005, "On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit"B" for the purpose of providing construction standards for residential accessways. Section 4. Effective Date of subsection LODS 26.020(3). Prior to codification, the City Recorder shall insert the effective date in LODS 26.020(3) to be the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of_ , 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Page 2 of 4 042 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307(UT 00-0015-A) APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney M:\Ord\2307 , .j EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 26.000 entitled"Local Street Connectivity"as follows: 26.000 LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY 26.005 Title The title of this standard is "Local Street Connectivity" 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to any development that requires: a) The construction of a street, or b) Results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land, or c) Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20.105(2)(c), which is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is at least five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land. 26.012 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2) Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48.17;Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes,pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6) The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 044 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) 8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. 26.015 Definitions. 1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. 3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. 4) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. 5) Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is further developable if it contains land area that is at least five times larger than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of-way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met. 3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. 5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Sections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography(over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property_which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; J i EXFIIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants,restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6) If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of- way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. 7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2) based on findings that demonstrate: a) that reducing :he number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out of direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or b) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, 26.025 Standards for Approval 1. When an applicant proposes a development that a. Does not require the construction of a street, but creates new lots or parcels, (e.e., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and b. Is located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five(5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which the proposed development will occur, and; c. Abuts one or more_lots or parcels that are a minimum of five (5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which they are located, the Review Authority shall require: 1) A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020(2)— (7). 2). Placer.-.:nt of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or accessways to be construe::d, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. 26.030 Procedures For all development, the applicant sh submit: 1. Proof of notification e circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and subsection 2, below, to all property o :rs within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are prop, .i beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substa ally similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent to the appl: and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property locate .:hin 530 feet of a proposed development as stated above, in the manner required in LOt 44.920. 2. A circulation analysis ,:h includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: • EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LI 00-0015(A)) a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the proposed development site. b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of ten(10) percent or greater, with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet, c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas, d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site (e.g., bus lines, schools,parks, shopping); All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.035 Standards for Construction. l. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LODS 20.025 G47 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards(LODS)20.025, "On Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways," is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in redline and underline. 20.25 Standards for Construction. 7. A Residential accessway shall include:at least a 15-foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation,but shall be as straieht as practicable, considering the circumstances related to the property 8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock,or four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 9. Bollards,buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 10. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. P/case files/an000015-A/LODS 26.doc IVI:\Ord\2246-ExhA-LO DS26.doc 048 DRAFT i ,fiQEu+..osk,,_ ° CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO %' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 ‘ tiff /J July 9, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 9, 2001 to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. H. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards* and Commissioners Frank Groznik, Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring and Alison Webster. Commissioner James Johnson was excused. Councilor John Turchi was present as City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. 01. CITIZEN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda City Councilor John Turchi related that he was Council liaison to the Planning Commission and that he had arranged his schedule so it would allow him to attend Commission meetings. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of June 11, 2001, after they had been amended to change a word in Commissioner Sandblast's comments on page 3, paragraph 2 from "worried" to "Questioned." Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Waring recused himself. Commissioner Johnson was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini revised the meeting Agenda to allow the Commissioners to vote on Findings, Conclusions and Orders before beginning the Work Session. V. OTHER BUSINESS —FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 4 9 EXHIBIT B Minutes of July 9, 2001 ILU 00.0015-A) Lti 01-0004, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order The staff advised the draft to be voted on was a more complete document than the previous. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised that approval by a majority of members present and eligible to vote would be necessary to adopt the Findings document. Commissioner Sandblast moved to direct the staff to provide a staff report regarding the revisions. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0004 Sedoruk/Prince Comprehensive Plan and Zoning_ Map Amendments, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and the vote was split after Commissioners Edwards and Groznik voted yes, and Commissioners Sandblast and Vizzini voted against. Commissioners Waring and Webster recused themselves from the vote. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Council was scheduled to hear the matter and if the Corrected Findings were not forwarded to them, the Council would consider the previously adopted Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order. Chair Vizzini indicated that he believed the Council should have the revised Findings, even though he did not agree with the Conclusion. Mr. Boone advised that the vote on the Findings and Conclusion was to indicate they did reflect the majority opinion of the Commission and Commissioners who did not support the Findings, Conclusion and Order could explain for the record why they disagreed with them. Chair Vizzini observed there was insufficient support for conducting another vote at the meeting. Ms. Heisler related that the City Council had agreed with a request from the applicants to continue the hearing and the applicants had indicated they intended to hold another meeting with the neighbors. VI. GENERAL PLANNING— WORK SESSION Long Term Care Housing(LI: 99-0070) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that the staff had responded to a Commission request to clarify some issues related to Long Term Care Housing by preparing a Comparison Chart and maps (see Exhibits 3,4 and 5 in the staff report dated July 2, 2001). She noted the maps identified where long-term care use categories were currently allowed and where they might be allowed under the proposed language. She explained the map in Exhibit 4 identified areas (in olive color) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and where Special Use Housing was currently permitted outright, and areas (in pink) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and abutted Major or Minor Arterial Streets that would be permitted as conditional uses under the proposed language. She pointed out that an olive colored line outlined areas that were within one half mile of commercial services. She clarified that under the ®J 0 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 current Code Special Use Housing could be sited on any parcel in any residential zone if it was over one half acre in size and the facility provided some sort of transportation. She clarified that the criteria that would allow Special Use Housing as a conditional use in the R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones were that the use was part of a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses and served as a transitional use between a major street and lower density uses. She observed there were parcels that might fall into that category in Stafford (near Rosemont), but that would be hard to determine without a complete analysis. She noted the Planning Commission had not discussed how to address Special Use Housing locations in commercial areas. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Map 5 designated (in olive) where it was currently possible to locate Nursing and Convalescent Homes and Skilled Nursing facilities as Conditional Uses and identified (in pink) where the uses might be allowed as a Conditional Use under the proposed language. She noted that this map also highlighted Collector Streets. She observed that the proposed language would reduce the number of locational possibilities for the facilities. She acknowledged that there were other parcels that should have been colored pink near Lakeridge High School and Luscher Farm, and parcels that abutted McVey, Stafford and Country Club Roads. She recalled the Commissioners had wondered whether the proposed long term care housing regulations would open the door for other special needs housing, such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation and half-way houses (see Exhibit 6, June 5, 2000 memorandum from Ron Bunch to the Planning Commission). The staff memorandum had advised that the definitions proposed by the Long Term Care Housing Ordinance were sufficiently specific to prevent it from being interpreted to include a range of short-term and special needs housing; however, the Zoning Code allowed and broadly defined "institutional uses," and institutions such as halfway houses, short-term homeless shelters, and drug rehabilitation facilities could conceivably be sited in residential areas. The staff had recommended that the Planning Commission include a recommendation to the Council to pursue a tightening of regulations and criteria for institutional uses. Ms. Heisler confirmed for Chair Vizzini that the maps in the staff report did not reflect where lots might be assembled into parcels that were large enough to be potential Special Use Housing sites under current regulations, He observed that a developer might be able to assemble sufficient sized property along the City's major corridors for Special Use Housing facilities, but if the facilities were sited along Neighborhood collectors, such as Greentree Avenue, Knaus Road, and Lake Forest Boulevard, they could be intrusive. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Carman Oaks (which abutted Carman Drive), a facility at the National Guard Armory (along South Shore Boulevard), and a facility at the City Library site would not be allowed under the proposed regulations because they did not abut a major arterial (please refer to the comparison chart on page 3 of the staff report). Chair Vizzini suggested that an additional locational requirement that the facilities were to be within a certain distance of services would allow the facilities on Reese Road, but not along South Shore Boulevard, near the Blue Heron Neighborhood (a residential City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission V J Page 3 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 neighborhood that should not have the impacts of a nursing facility). Ms. Heisler suggested a requirement that would restrict the facilities to a site within a certain distance of a Major Arterial street. Chair Vizzini opined that the need for facilities for the aging population should be balanced against the impact of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Several Commissioners recalled that FAN residents considered the City Library and the Adult Community Center to be intrusive. *Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 7:17. Ms. Heisler confirmed the Library and Adult Community Center operated under a Conditional Use Permit in a residential zone, and the proposed regulations would not allow long term care facilities there. She pointed out that the definition "residential care housing" provided that up to one third of the total occupant capacity could be for skilled nursing care (see page 21 of the staff report). Ms. Heisler observed that the proposal had not addressed location of the facilities in commercial zones. She asked if the locational criteria used in residential zones should be used in commercial zones (a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses; transitional land use; easily accessible; near services). She said that the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40% might be very appropriate in a residential zone, but perhaps not in a commercial zone. She asked if the requirements related to mitigation of the impacts of traffic and maintenance of neighborhood scale and character should apply to a commercial zone. She asked if a separate section of the proposal should be created to deal with the uses in the commercial zones. The Commissioners discussed whether there was a need for criteria and standards other than those that already existed in the commercial zones, or whether the uses should be permitted outright in the commercial zones. The staff advised that Special Use Housing was currently permitted use in all three commercial zones; however, it had to meet special standards listed on page 30 of the staff report. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion that the "General Conditions" for Residential Care Housing printed on page 32 of the staff report should also apply to those uses in the commercial zones. Ms. Heisler pointed out that General Conditions (1)(c) only permitted siting along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. She advised there were NC Zoned areas along South Shore Boulevard, McVey Avenue, Lakeview Boulevard, Jean Road, Pilkington Road, and Kerr and Monroe Parkway. She asked if the facilities should also be permitted along non-arterial streets in the NC Zone. Commissioner Sandblast indicated he did not believe residential care housing was appropriate along Kerr and Monroe Parkways. Ms. Heisler advised that facilities that provided their own transportation would be allowed in many areas, including along Goodall Road. She acknowledged that with additional time the staff would be able to identify more locations for the uses than were indicated on the maps. She said she would provide those at the next meeting. She observed there were a number of big lots on the north side of Country Club Road. City of Lake Oswego Panning Commission 0 J N Page 4 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 Ms. Heisler advised that Carman Oaks was a residential care facility of apartments without cooking facilities that also featured some skilled nursing units. She advised that it could continue as a conditional use under the new regulations, but a new facility could not be sited there. The Commissioners wondered whether developers would opt to seek a zone change for residential care housing. Mr. Boone advised that a rigorous analysis of alternative sites in the City was required to prove a public need for the change and that could discourage people who wanted to site a small facility. Commissioner Sandblast expressed his concern that the proposed Ianguage would allow the facilities to be sited in unforeseen locations. Councilor Turchi acknowledged the issue was a difficult one. He shared with the Commissioners that he had searched for a care facility for his father in an area near his home and had not found many. He related that he had favored smaller facilities that offered more personalized care. He observed that it was the larger institutional type structures that the Commissioners desired to keep out of specific areas. Ms. Heisler recalled that the Building Department had counted 25 adult foster care facilities (homes with 5 or fewer clients) within the City limits four years prior; that Marylhurst featured approximately 500 units; and that Carman Oaks featured 90 units. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he did not consider the proposed language to be too restrictive and he believed that it would allow the facilities to be sited in the City. Ms. Heisler related that the state legislature had been considering a recommendation by the Governor to impose a moratorium on assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone reported that he was in the process of preparing a matrix to show what federal and state regulations required regarding siting of different types of residential care housing, including drug rehabilitation and halfway housing, He advised against repealing the Special Use Housing provisions (which allowed housing for socially disadvantaged persons to be specially cited) and only allowing residential care housing for medically disadvantaged persons. He anticipated in that case higher jurisdictions would force the City to make some arrangements for housing for social rehabilitation. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion to add a socially disadvantaged element to the definition of "residential care housing" and couple that with stringent locational requirements. Ms. Heisler advised that a developer could still rely on the City's broad definition of"institutional use" to site a facility. Mr. Boone advised that a public agency or a private educational, cultural, religious or social welfare facility might qualify as a Major Public Facility and be allowed to site a facility — an "institutional use" - as a conditional use. However, he advised the Commissioners not to recommend a repeal of the Special Use Housing provisions because federal and state laws said the City had to provide for that kind of housing somewhere, such as in the "institutional use." provisions. He suggested the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that separate criteria should be created for siting socially disadvantaged housing. He said the matrix he was to complete and present to the Commission would include the state definitions of "skilled nursing" and "convalescent care" and he would further categorize uses into a Oi3 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 "halfway" and rehabilitation" housing category. He added that he also intended to define what was a "school." He anticipated the matrix would help the Planning Commission to decide whether to deal with the issue in the light of the proposed ordinance or to suggest to the City Council that Code provisions for "institutional uses"should be refined. The staff recommended that the Commission schedule another work session and a public hearing regarding the issue. They agreed to provide the matrix and refine the maps prior to the next meeting. Chair Vizzini observed the consensus was not to direct the staff to create separate locational criteria for facilities in commercial zones. Commissioner Sandblast asked for a brief staff report. Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, recalled the City Council had not favored the Planning Commission's recommendation of Code amendments in LU 00- 0015. She discussed the following concerns that had been expressed by Councilors (see staff memorandum to the Commission dated June 27, 2001). 1. The recommended changes "go too far" and should only reflect Metro's minimum requirements (that they be applied to parcels of 5 acres or larger and that they should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. The maps alarmed some people. Ms. Heisler advised the 13 maps could be eliminated because very few included parcels large enough for the Metro requirement to be applied and the text of the proposal clarified that connections (to schools, between activity areas or to transit facilities) were proposed in areas where right of way was available or could be made available through development or redevelopment. She noted that most of the proposed pedestrian access ways were located within existing rights of way or easements, or were routed over public lands. She suggested that some mechanism be used to keep track of them, such as including them in the Public Facilities Plan (PFP) or in neighborhood plans. She advised that eliminating the maps would not put the City out of compliance with Metro requirements. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity. Ms. Heisler reported that data to support the need for connectivity was provided by a Metro study that concluded that local street connectivity reduced traffic demand on regional roadways and in five areas that had been studied. She observed a healthy market demand for developments that were within walking distance of transit and employment areas. 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. 054 by of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 She acknowledged that there would be only isolated instances in which connectivity would apply, particularly if the provision was applied only to parcels 5 acres or larger. She explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation that the provisions apply to parcels that were at least 5 times the minimum lot size in the zone and abutted developable land that was also 5 times the minimum lot size reflected the Commission's perspective that all of these situations should be reviewed, but that did not necessarily mean that a connecting street or accessway would be required. 4. Residents favor cul de sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. She said that although an advantage of a cul de sac might be that it helps reduce through traffic, that was also its weakness, because it increased traffic past certain properties by forcing everyone to take the same route. She noted the Metro provision for a shorter cul de sac allowed some flexibility in situations such as when there was no developable land or very steep land that would not accommodate another development beyond the development with the cul de sac. 5. Future connectivity is good, but don't make people retrofit wizen they come in with a proposal. She recalled the Councilors were concerned that property owners who presented plans to construct a gazebo or garage would be subject to a connectivity review, She suggested that the Commission might address the Council's concerns by (a) eliminating all maps and references to maps and amend the text language to apply the connectivity review process to any parcel proposed for development that included creation of a lot and was greater than five times the required minimum lot size; and (b) removing requirements for future street plans for ministerial developments. She explained that would mean that someone who applied for a building permit for a single-family house would not be subject to the connectivity review process. 6. The recommendations do not go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. She explained that the Planning Commission recommendation had assumed that current review process requirements regarding notice to properties within 300 feet of a subdivision and a developer/neighborhood meeting would remain in place. Mr. Boone clarified that existing standards required a site analysis for a major development that could trigger an access requirement. Ms. Heisler pointed out that the language regarding lands that had been included on the maps in 26,025(2) [at the top of page 14] provided that a proposal for a ministerial development did not require dedication of a street, but required a future streets plan and placement of structures according to the setback of the future right of way. She suggested that the City might City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission U J J Page 7 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 require access dedication in the case of a lot partition, but she also recalled the Councilors' comment that, on balance, property rights were more important than obtaining an accessway. One Commissioner said that property owners might misinterpret conceptual maps as regulation, but they should be made aware of connectivity issues. Ms. Heisler advised there were not many opportunities for requiring a street inside the current City boundaries, but if the Stafford area were included, those opportunities would increase. Mr. Boone acknowledged that it had been a challenge for the staff to draft the proposal because the language might require an owner to provide a future streets plan when he only wanted to build a garage or a barn, but the language might also discourage him from placing the structure over an area where the City would like to see an access way. He referred to the example mapped on page 28 of the staff report. He noted the dots that represented a future residential access way showed in a very general way where it would be located, but unless the future pathway was platted, an owner might build a garage over it. He contrasted this hypothetical case to Dolan vs. the City of Tigard, advising that case revolved around a requirement to dedicate land, but the hypothetical case might simply be a situation where the City would encourage an owner to locate his garage on the right side of his house, rather than the left side, without any "taking" of property rights. The City would plan to build the access way on the left side when it had the funds to do so, and it would not be necessary to buy a garage on the left side or relocate the access way on the right side (where it might also be more costly to the City due to topography, or impact another nearby property owner with a smaller lot (a "domino" effect). He said the question was "When should we restrict development over a possible future access way?" He assured the Commissioners that the dots (indicating the access way) in the example were not going to be in the right place after a site analysis had been accomplished. He asked when that analysis should be accomplished. Commissioner Groznik opined that should be when there was an overriding public need for that connection. Mr. Boone observed that some would say it was needed now - for connectivity - but the City will not extract it now because it did not have the funds. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he believed it was important to determine the location of access ways now and funding for the projects should be included in the Streets Plan in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Heisler observed that would require an analysis by either the City or the developer. Mr. Boone observed that it complicated a partitioning process to have an access way sited ahead of the partitioning process. Commissioner Sandblast stressed that it was important to have a conceptual plan in place, even if the access way was not exactly located. Chair Vizzini said he desired to see a more aggressive approach to planning access ways than simply advising property owners of the potential street requirement. He said the marketplace should be made aware of them at the earliest possible time in order to prevent an unfortunate situation where a structure might have to be moved. He wondered whether some people might try to frustrate the connectivity policy by placing obstacles in the way. Mr. Boone clarified for Ms. Webster that he was not certain that placing a structure where an access way would go through was "devaluing" the owner's land,but that it might be possible to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Li r)(j Page 3 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 frustrate an access way to cause appreciation of the land. Chair Vizzini related that property owners in Forest Highlands might not welcome connecting pathways in their neighborhood because they did not want to see strangers walking through their back yards. Mr. Boone identified a difference between a roadway and a residential access way: it might be easier to site an access way by bending it. He recalled that some homeowners felt that access ways posed a security concern because they provided some dark, angled places for people to hide. He recalled that access ways could be designed with safety ion mind. The staff advised that access ways were often planned along the boundaries between lots. Councilor Turchi commented that if the City did not warn owners they needed to make accommodations for pathways that already existed in the City's Transportation System Plan the City was frustrating its own Plan and making it impossible to connect things. Ms. Heisler advised that all of the pathways identified in the Pathway Plan were along rights of way. She recalled the staff had identified opportunities for connectivity in areas where the lots were less than 5 acres in size, but they felt that a threshold of three times the minimum lot size was too small because those parcels were typically only partitioned into two lots. They believed that the larger parcels (at 5 times or larger) were situations where a future street would be constructed or partitioning might facilitate the location of access ways. Mr. Boone recalled a recent subdivision review where the DRC had allowed the pedestrian pathway to be located in the required 20% Open Space area, and the area of the access way still was counted as Open Space because the pathway was located where it provided an appropriate connection for the neighborhood. He clarified that location of a pathway would be inappropriate through sensitive land, but that lot clustering within subdivisions could result in additional land for a pathway. Chair Vizzini observed a general consensus that the maps should be eliminated. Ms. Heisler observed the Commissioners did not seem to favor a requirement for a connectivity review during ministerial applications. Chair Vizzini asked the staff to schedule a public hearing regarding the issue. Ms. Heisler suggested that it be scheduled for August 27, 2001. Modal Targets (LU 00-0018) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, required cities and counties to establish benchmarks and measure the community's progress towards their targeted percentage of non-single occupant vehicle modes of travel. She noted the targets had been set for the City's "Design Type" areas, including Main Streets, Town Centers, Employment Centers and significant street corridors. (See chart of current and targeted percentages on page 2 of the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001.) She explained each jurisdiction was to measure and review its progress at five-year intervals. Mr. Boone related the City Council had not favored the previous Planning Commission recommendation of Comprehensive Plan amendments to add policies and a definition City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 9 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 relating the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV)mode split targets in design type areas. Ms. Heisler listed the Councilors' concerns. 1. It would be a challenge to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips unless single occupant vehicle trips were taxed. Ms. Heisler advised that Title 6 simply imposed a requirement to measure and compare the percentage of trips by alternative modes of travel against the percentage of non-single-occupancy-vehicle trips. She clarified for the Commissioners that Metro required this provision to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in order co gauge whether the Plan was working. 2. The recommended language is confessing. She pointed out that the staff was suggesting that the language "Non-SOY Mode Split Targets" be changed to "Alternative Trip Share Targets." She reported that Metro had indicated they could agree to the change of language and proposed text. 3. The recommended language is redundant with existing adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. She advised that Comprehensive Plan policies already called for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the City, and that would happen when drivers began to use other modes of travel besides single occupancy vehicle travel. Ms. Heisler related that Metro was now counting school bus trips as alternative trips, and that their expectations of the level of use of alternative transportation was not as high in Lake Grove (which has a low level of transit service and very few intersections per mile) as in Downtown, where there were many intersecting streets and route options that would encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. She clarified that the current and targeted share percentages reflected what the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) expected for each design type area. Chair Vizzini commented that the same factors (availability of paid parking, level of transit service and number of intersections per mile) might also be benchmarked in the Quality of Life Indicators Program. A Commissioner commented that the target for Lake Grove should be at least as high as the current percentage share of alternative trips. Mr. Boone advised the Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the issue before they made any additional recommendations to the City Council. Chair Vizzini directed the staff to schedule a public hearing. `TI. OTHER BUSINESS July 23,2001 Planning Commission Meeting Ms. Heisler announced that a Metro representative was to discuss periodic review of the 2040 Plan, and Ron Bunch, Special Projects Manager, would discuss the connection between the Qualify of Life Indicators Program and sustainability at the Commission's July 23, 2001 meeting. 8 Pael0ofll City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission g Minutes of July 9,2001 Foothills Road Improvement District Committee The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Groznik was to serve as Planning Commission representative to the Foothills Road Improvement District Committee and Commissioner Waring was to serve as alternative representative. Ms. Heisler related that the Committee was to consider whether the area should be planned to include additional uses and a non-industrial connection with the waterfront. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary 1:\pc\minutes\07-09-01.doc City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 11 of I1 Minutes of July 9,2001 (.)% `AK `°N C.0 CITY OF LAKE OSWF ;O ii MEMORANDUM a.t�� TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission i FROM: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Ma • '"` f SUBJECT: LU 00-0015, Discussion of Council Comments and Direction to Staff if' Additional Code Amendments are Required DATE: June 27, 2001 ACTION: The purpose of this work session is to discuss the Council's comments regarding LU 00-0015 Local Street Connectivity and to determine whether the Commission would like to make changes to its previous recommendation to Council. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00- 0015, which creates a new Development Standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and amends LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks to comply with Metro Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements. Exhibit 1 contains the previously recommended ordinance language. The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00-0015. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13, 2001 to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation. At the public hearing and the joint meeting, Council members raised the following issues: 1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro minimum requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. 4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal. 6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. Page 1 of 6, LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity. Planning Commission Work Session—July 9,2t 16 I (LU 00-0015-A)BIT C The minutes of the Council hearing on LU 00-0015 are found in Exhibit 2. The minutes of the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting are found in Exhibit 3. These points are discussed in the staff analysis below. DISCUSSION: 1. The recommendations should be closer to the Metro minimum requirements. The purpose of these standards, as stated in the draft, is to furnish a layout of local streets that does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices, which then will increase the use of alternative transportation modes. The minimum requirements per Metro Title 6 would include: • Identification of all contiguous areas of vacant and underdeveloped parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed use and preparation of a conceptual local street plan. • The map should conceptually demonstrate opportunities to extend and connect to existing local streets,provide direct routes and limit the potential of cul-de-sacs and other closed end street designs. • The maps shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where there is extreme topography, railroads, freeways or preexisting development or environmental constraints. • Provide for bike an pedestrian connections at spacing of no more than 330 feet, with same exceptions as stated above, • Include no closed end streets longer than 200 feet, or with more than 25 dwelling units, and, • For redevelopment of existing land uses that require construction of new streets, develop local approaches for meeting the connectivity and design standards outlined in Title 6. The Planning Commission's recommendation included 13 maps containing a combination of proposed street connections and residential accessways (pedestrian connections). Very few of these maps contain parcels or groups of parcels of five acres or more. Rather, the maps identify areas throughout the City where street and pedestrian connectivity was determined to be desirable. The rationale behind these choices is explained in detail in Exhibit 4. To summarize Exhibit 4, connections were proposed in areas where either right of way was available or could be made available through development or redevelopment, to provide connections to schools, between activity areas, or to transit facilities, where none exists now. The purpose of the maps is to act as a reminder to property owners, developers and City staff and review bodies that connectivity is desirable in a particular location and that, if a rational nexus can be established between what they are requesting of the City and the connectivity requirements, then the City will require the needed improvements. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss eliminating the maps altogether and rely on the text only to describe the situations in which connectivity will be examined and possibly requested. This can be accomplished while remaining in compliance with Title 6, in that no other parcels of five acres or larger remain to be developed in the City. The southerly parcel ' �3 Page 2 of 6, LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity «+ Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 '�:�' on Map 1 was approved for a 23-lot subdivision recently and the connectivity requirements would no longer apply. Proposed pedestrian connections on Maps 7, 8, 10 and 11 are located within public rights of way or easements or on publicly owned land. The City could pursue these connections at any time, whether they are mapped or not. Also, if they were desirable to neighborhoods, residents could include them in their neighborhood plans or request construction through the neighborhood enhancement grant program or the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The proposed text requires all parcels that are at least four times the size of the minimum lot size required in the zone. and are abutting other redevelopable parcels, to be reviewed for connectivity. In regard to other Title 6 requirements, the recommended proposal contains language requiring street and pedestrian connection spacing and addresses redevelopment situations. Item 6, below, addresses the breadth and depth of the those recommendations 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity. The Metro policies and implementation requirements contained in the Functional Plan and the Framework Plan are based on research that Metro has done as well as experience both in the Portland metro area and elsewhere. Exhibit 5 is a report summarizing the Metro Regional Street Design Study. This study modeled and evaluated street connectivity impacts on traffic conditions along regional streets designated in the 2040 Growth Concept. The study concludes that moderate to high local street connectivity reduces traffic demand on the regional roadways and overall vehicle traffic demand across each of the five representative case study areas. Reducing the need to drive forms the basis for connectivity. If streets go through and contain opportunities for pedestrians and bikes, transportation choices will be increased and, therefore, utilized more. Connectivity can be defined as a system of streets with multiple routes and connections serving the same origins and destinations. It relates to the number of intersections along a segment of street as well as how an entire area is connected by the system. An area with high connectivity has multiple points of access around its perimeter as • well as a dense system of parallel routes and cross-connections within the area. The purpose of a "redundant" street system is to provide multiple choices for drivers wishing to travel short distances completely within the area, and from within the area to points outside of the area, without being forced to travel on a major arterial. More people will walk, take transit or ride a bike if the transportation system provides these kinds of safe and convenient opportunities. The urban principle of the "five-minute walk," was popularized by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and has been implemented through several "new urbanist" designs, including Seaside, Florida, The Kentlands and Laguna West, Sacramento, California. But connectivity is not a new concept. The history of society is the history of connectedness. Before automobiles, all streets were connected and multi-modal. For most of history connectivity was not an abstract theory but a necessity of everyday life. Wage 3 of 6, LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity , •• ?lanning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 V 'i �` Related to connectivity is the issue of cul-de-sacs. The minimum Metro requirements of limiting cul-de-sacs to no more than 200 feet and containing no more than 25 dwelling units is contained in the recommended language. It appears to be a reasonable standard that can be applied with rational exceptions to the rule, which have also been included in the recommended language. Exceptions for steep topography, presence of natural resources and lack of undevelopable parcels abutting a site are included, 3. People like cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. Many suburban residents choose cul-de-sacs because they prevent through traffic on their street. However, if you live at the "mouth" of the cul-de-sac, you receive all of the traffic from the rest of the homes on the street, who are unable to choose an alternate route to their destination. Therefore, its great advantage—the elimination of through traffic—is also its weakness, because it compels everyone in a given subdivision to use the same few roads, often at the same times. Limiting cul-de-sacs to situations where they are absolutely necessary for the redevelopment of land and are the minimum length necessary, can be an important part of improving connectivity. The Planning Commission's proposed language recommends meeting the Title 6 requirements. 4. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. Opportunities for connectivity on parcels within the City are limited, if a minimum of five acres is the standard. However, the community can create more opportunities through the crafting of its requirements for connectivity. The Planning Commission's previous recommendation includes a review of connectivity opportunities if certain conditions are met such as lot size of at least five times the minimum required size in the zone in which it is located and buts any parcels that are at least five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which they are located. Exceptions are also included when certain circumstances exists, such as extreme topography, the presence of sensitive lands or access issues. By requiring this review for parcels less than five acres in size, opportunities for additional connectivity may be recognized. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for aproposal. The Council's discussion showed concern about requiring a particular connection when and if someone came in for a building permit for a gazebo or other ministerial permit and found out that they would have to have their plans reviewed for compliance with connectivity requirements. The Planning Commission's previous recommendation contains connectivity review requirements for several different scenarios including: fl Development which requires the construction of a street on lands designated on the Local Connectivity Maps. Since these types of development include a street, they would encompass major partitions, subdivisions and planned developments. Connectivity review would be conducted simultaneous with and be a part of development review. Establishing a rational nexus for requiring improvements in compliance with the standards would then be established. • Page 4 of 6,LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 t :t �`.7.1) Development which does not require the construction of a street on lands designated on the local Connectivity Maps. This type of development could include a subdivision, flag lot or partition that utilizes existing frontage on a public street. This section requires a future streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records as a condition of approval. The future streets plan is to show how the location of a future street or accessway will provide for full development of the subject parcel and any abutting parcels in order to meet the standards. Structures must also be placed in a manner that allows for the future streets to be constructed as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. The same requirements would apply to ministerial developments on mapped lands (future streets plan, placement of structures to avoid future street or pedestrian connection). Development on lands not designated on Local Connectivity Maps. This section applies to unmapped lands for development that requires construction of a street, is proposed on a lot or parcel which is five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required by the zone in which the development is located and abuts a property that is further developable (also five times or greater in size than the minimum required lot size in the zone). In order to address Council's concerns, the Commission may want to consider the following options: a. Remove all maps from the proposal. Amend language currently applicable to mapped areas to be applicable to any parcel proposed for development that includes creation of a lot and is greater than five times the required minimum lot size. b. Remove requirements for future streets plan for ministerial developments Redrafted text including these options appears in Exhibit 6 for the Commission's review. 6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. Neighborhoods would continue to review development requirements based on existing city regulations regarding neighborhood notice and public hearing notice. For example, following a pre-application meeting for a subdivision, a developer would be required to meet with the neighborhood association within which the parcel is located as well as all property owners within 300 feet of the site, prior to submittal to the City of a development application. A public hearing would also be held, which requires the same parties to be noticed as in the neighborhood contact stage of the development, and an opportunity to testify at the Development Review Commission. CONCLUSION: The City Council goals indicate that this item will be reviewed again in September, 2001. In order for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation in a timely fashion, it should schedule a public hearing no later than its first meeting in August. Page S of 6, LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 t3 5 *--01 EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2246, Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015 2. Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing 3. Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting 4. Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps 5. Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Tom Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro Street Design Work Team 6. Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues Case tiles/2000/LU 00-0015/Supplemental Staff Report.Connectivity round 11.doc Page 6 of 6. LL 0015, Local Street Connectivity t� rr,� er,' Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 ' V V STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: City of Lake Oswego LU 00-0015(A) LOCATION: STAFF: Applies City Wide Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF HEARING: August 17, 2001 August 27, 2001 I. APPLICANT REQUEST: The City of Lake Oswego proposes: A. New Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 26, Local Street Connectivity Standard to comply with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements and Metro Code requirements regarding local street connectivity; and B. Text Amendments to LODS 25, On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways; and C. Text Amendments to LOC Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to add methodology for measuring a cul-de-sac or dead end street length and revising maximum length for a cul-de-sac or dead end street from 1000 feet to 200 feet. These changes are required by the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and are found in Exhibit 1, Ordinance 2307. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Goal 8: Parks and Recreation Page 1 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report 001 V Goal 10: Housing Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional Planning Requirements OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule U. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6,Regional Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2) E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, Policy 4 Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Policy 8)c) Goal 10: Housing, Policy 10 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets, Policy 9 Goal 13: Energy Conservation, Policy 5 1II. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS REQUEST: A. Introduction and Background: The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in these documents include encouraging a compact urban form, reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita, reducing reliance on a single mode of transportation and maintaining and improving water quality. This report addresses adoption of related code changes that are intended to support and complement Metro Functional Plan requirements (Title 6)by establishing criteria for auto,bicycle and pedestrian route connectivity for residential developments. The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00-0015, which proposed a new Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS)26, Local Street Connectivity. This new standard and other related code changes were proposed to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices, by requiring connected,streets and accessways under certain conditions, limiting the length of cul-de-sacs under certain conditions and providing for construction standards for residential accessways. The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00- 0015 (Exhibit E-2, minutes). The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13, 2001, to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation. Page 2 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report 1;4�� 002 At the joint meeting, there were several specific comments regarding LU 00-0015 that were raised by the Council as follows: 1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro minimum requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. '. There is no data to support the need for connectivity 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. 4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal. 6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. The Planning Commission met on July 9, 2001 (Exhibit B, Minutes) to discuss these issues. The Commission concluded in response to the comments listed above, that it would review a revised LODS 26 at a public hearing. The revisions would include eliminating the requirement for review of ministerial developments under the connectivity standard and elimination of the maps from the standard. B. Discussion: Local Streets generally serve the immediate travel needs of the City at the neighborhood level. They serve most short automobile, bicycle and pedestrian trips. When the local street system is designed to have many connections to local destinations, it reduces travel on major streets for local circulation needs. In addition, when direct multi-modal routes are in place, auto travel is reduced. The Metro standards require cities and counties to identify all contiguous areas of vacant and redevelopable parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed-use development and prepare a conceptual new streets plan map. The purpose of the map is to provide guidance to landowners and developers on desired street connections that will improve local access and preserve the integrity of the regional street system. The proposed draft does not contain maps, since the city currently does not have any residentially zoned parcels of five acres or more. The draft proposal would require review of developments under the connectivity criteria in the following circumstances: 1) when development is proposed that requires the construction of a street, 2)proposed development results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that is also at least five times the minimum or 3) construction of a structure other than a single family dwelling, zero lot line or duplex that also is at least five times the minimum lot size required by the zone and abuts similarly sized property. Development proposed under 3) could include conditional uses such as churches, long-term care housing or other institutional uses or multi-family uses. Page 3 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report c.74 In addition to the street plan map, cities and counties are to require new development that will require construction of new street(s) to provide a street map that provides full connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, preexisting development or water features where regulations implementing Title 3 of the Functional Plan do not allow or prescribe different standards for street facilities. When full streets are not possible, pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way are to be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. The draft standards also allow the review authority the ability to grant exceptions to the requirements to full street improvements when the presence of sensitive lands, extreme topography, traffic safety issues, freeways or existing development patterns preclude the logical connection of streets. The review authority may also grant exceptions to accessway requirements if the applicant demonstrates that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out-of-direction travel to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines or that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of accessways and when the applicant has submitted an alternate design which serves the purpose of providing safe, convenient and direct bicycle/pedestrian access which is consistent with the purposes of the standard. IV. FINDINGS: City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision A legislative decision is generally a policy decision that is up to the discretion 01 Ibe City Council, but shall: 1. Comply with any applicable state law; 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197, 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code, Development Code or Development Standards, comply with any applicable provisions of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 1) Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197. .-1) Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources. This goal requires communities to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The proposed changes requiring through streets, rather than allowing cul-de-sacs and dead end streets as a matter of course, will provide more direct routes that may be used to travel to local destinations. Providing multi-modal through-routes will also encourage walking, biking and transit use, since users of these transportation modes will have shorter distances to travel in many instances, auto travel will be reduced, and hence, associated auto pollution. Therefore, the proposed changes will result in maintaining or improving the air Page 4 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity 4ft Planning Commission Staff Report 004 quality in Lake Oswego. B) Statewide Planning Goal 8,Parks and Recreation. This goal requires communities to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the resources to meet such requirements. These connectivity standards could result in additional and shorter routes to parks for many existing and future City residents by reducing travel distances. Therefore, the proposed changes will improve access to and from the city's parks and recreation facilities, making them more readily available to residents. C) Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, This Goal requires communities to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. It requires the development of plans that encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capacities of Oregon households that allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The proposed policy amendments will result increasing the availability and frequency of transportation routes to and from homes and schools, shopping, employment and bus routes for existing and future residents. Therefore, the proposed amendments will result in providing more accessible housing. Therefore, this policy complies with Statewide Planning Goal 10 because it will allow for increased accessibility of housing to transportation options and destinations. D) Goal 12,Transportation and Administrative Rule 660-12 The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR 660-12-020) (2)(b) ...The standards for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation necessary to carry out OAR 660-012-045(3)(b). The standards for the layout of local streets shall address: (A) Extensions of existing streets; (B) Connections to existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors; and (C) connections to neighborhood destinations. 660-12-045(3)(b): On-site facilities shall be provided which accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new subdivisions, multi-family developments, planned developments, shopping centers and commercial districts to adjacent residential areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile of the devilment. Single-family residential developments shall generally include streets and accessways. 660-12-045(3)(b)(E): Streets and accessways need not be required where one or more of the following conditions exist: (I) Physical or topographic conditions make a street or accessway connection impracticable. Such conditions include, but are not limited to freeways, railroads, steep slopes, wetlands or other bodies of water where a connection could not reasonably be provided. (ii) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands Page 5 of 9, LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity + Planning Commission Staff Report 0 0 5 physically preclude a connection now or in the future considering the potential for redevelopment; or (iii) Where streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995 which preclude required street or accessway connection. 660-12-045(4)(b)(B): Pedestrian connections to adjoining properties shall be provided except where such connection is impracticable as provided for in OAR 660-012-045(3)(b)(E) Goal 12 requires cities to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system and reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation. Requiring frequent (every 530') full street connections and frequent (every 330') pedestrian/bike accessways, will provide convenient and more economic transportation by reducing trip lengths to local destinations. Reducing trip lengths by requiring more travel routes will increase the probability that walking and bicycling trips will be made rather than auto trips for local trip. Providing multi- modal travel options from neighborhoods to destinations will encourage alternative modes of transportation and thus, reduce reliance on the automobile. The proposed code changes, therefore, are in compliance with the TPR in that they will reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation and provide more convenient transportation to local destinations. The Transportation Planning Rule requires safe and convenient multi-modal connections to local activity centers and for connections to be stubbed to abutting properties when practicable. Exceptions are allowed for physical or topographic constraints. The proposed code changes require frequent multi-modal connections, where feasible,between neighborhoods and activity centers, allow for exceptions if physical and topographic constraints exist and require connections to be stubbed to abutting properties. Therefore, the proposed code changes are in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule in that they ensure connectivity, the extension of streets to abutting property, where feasible and exceptions to these requirements when physical and topographic constraints exist. E) Goal 13, Energy Conservation. Goal 13 requires cities and counties to conserve energy. Land, and uses developed on the land, shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The proposed amendments require frequent street and/or accessway connections with new development. Connections are to provide multi- modal connections to decrease trip length and to encourage alternative modes of travel activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, bus lines and parks. Providing frequent, multi-modal connections will save fuel in two ways: reducing fuel consumption and by encouraging non-auto trips by decreasing trip length. Therefore, these amendments will reduce fuel energy use and thereby comply with this goal. Page 6 of 9, LL 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report � � 0 0 6 F) Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Section 3.07.630,Design Standards for Street Connectivity. This standard indicates that the aggregate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional street system when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional network. Therefore, it concludes, streets should be designed to keep through trips on arterial streets and provide local trips with alternative routes. The proposed standards are intended to improve local circulation in a manner that protects the integrity of the regional system by requiring frequent multi modal routes when development occurs, increasing the probability that local trips will remain on local streets or accessways and local trips will decrease on major streets, thereby complying with this criteria. 2) Comply with any applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; Air Resources Quality 4. Increase the opportunity to use alternative transportation as a means to reduce air pollution by: a. Requiring safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle pathways as part of all new street construction projects, where feasible; r. Requiring the design of new development to be supportive of pedestrian, transit and bicycle users; The proposed development standard and related changes require additional connections to and from activity centers in the form of full street improvements every 530 feet or accessways every 330 feet,depending on topography, lot size and type of development proposed. These standards also require through streets rather than cul-de-sacs and accessways when full streets are not feasible. Requiring frequent travel connections encourages residents to walk or bike(non-polluting modes of transportation) rather than utilize their automobile for short trips to local destinations. These proposed requirements also will result in safe and comfortable pedestrian and bike facilities and are supportive of alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this policy. Goal 8: Parks and Recreation 8. Develop parks that: c. Are, where possible, accessible by a variety of transportation modes including transit, bicycling and walking. The proposed amendments will require full streets every 530 feet or residential accessways every 330 feet when development is proposed on larger parcels or groups of parcels. This will ultimately result in reducing trip length for many existing and new residents as development occurs. It will also provide additional auto, bike and pedestrian access to parks and may improve access to transit lines which serve major park and recreation facilities. Therefore, these amendments comply with this Chapter 8 policy. Page 7 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity � Planning Commission Staff Report 4 iJ 7() 0 Goal 10: Housing 10. Provide for an interconnected street system to encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel and to reduce vehicle miles traveled to local destinations thus reducing energy use, pollution and congestion. The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system with new development, rather than closed-end streets. This will reduce travel time and increase modal choices to local destinations. Therefore, the proposed amendments will result in reducing energy use, pollution and congestion associated with longer auto trip lengths and will provide safe and convenient options to auto travel where none may now exist. Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3,Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets 9. Ensure that connectivity of local streets is achieved in order to: a. Reduce excessive trip lengths; b. Efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical vehicles; c. Promote the use of alternative modes of travel; d. Ensure even dispersal of local traffic; and e. Provide local street circulation patterns that provide connections to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks and employment centers. The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system for the purposes stated in this Comprehensive Plan policy. By providing frequent interconnected multi-modal transportation routes, trip lengths will be reduced, emergency vehicles will be able to reach destinations more easily and quickly, additional modes of travel may be encouraged since travel distances to activity centers will be reduced and local traffic will not be restricted to one route choice as is often the case when roads and accessways are not interconnected. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this policy. Goal 13: Energy Conservation 5. Promote energy efficiency through site planning for all types of development including residential subdivisions, multi-family, commercial and industrial projects. The proposed amendments will require more energy efficient site planning by ensuring full street and accessway connections are constructed, when development is proposed under certain circumstances. Multiple routes to destinations results in shorter routes for more travelers, which increases walking, transit use where applicable and bicycling. Page 8 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity ("' Planning Commission Staff Report Interconnected streets and frequent intersections are characteristics of"transit supportive development,"which is a strategy to preserve mobility and livability, while conserving energy, reducing pollution and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this goal in that they will increase energy efficiency through site planning that requires more connectivity of travel routes. V. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to add a new development standard (LODS 26), amend LODS 20 and make changes to Chapter 42 to provide for local street connectivity, are in compliance with applicable state laws and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, Metro Functional Plan Requirements and City Comprehensive Plan policies. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed code amendments to the City Council. EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance 2307, Local Street Connectivity B. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2001 work session regarding local street connectivity(LU 00-0015) C. Planning Commission Memo dated June 27, 2001, regarding work session to discuss Council comments and direction to staff if additional code amendments required with Exhibits C-1) Ordinance 2246, Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015 C-2) Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing C-3) Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting C-4) Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps C-5) Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Torn Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro Street Design Work Team C-6) Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues D. Minutes of September 19, 2000 City Council Hearing on LU 00-0015 E. Council Report for September 19, 2000 without Exhibits: F. Draft illustrating changes from initial (2000) proposal Case files2000/LU 00-0015/2001 Activity/Staff report LU 00-0015(A) Page 9 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY; AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 42.03.085 (CUL-DE-SACS AND DEAD END STREETS); AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LODS); AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE LODS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSWAYS. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in redline and underline. Section 1. Section 42.03.085 is hereby amended to read as follows 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets. LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks LOC 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Closed End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation 2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of-way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc, Use of a "fish tail" or"hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all closed end streets earl-de-suss with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or closed end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more than 200.1.000 feet in length. A cul-de-sac or closed-end street shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. 4. In determining the length of a cul-de-sac or closed-end street for compliance with(31 above, the starting point for the measurement shall be at the intersection of the centerline of the proposed closed-end street or cul-de-sac with the projected edge of the right-of- way of the nearest intersecting through street,measured along the centerline of the cul- de-sac or closed-end street to the nearest point of curvature of the cul-de-sac bulb or the nearest angle of a hammerhead turn around jSee Appendix A). The length of a cul-de- sac or hammerhead does not include the area devoted to the turnaround, and shall be measured along the centerline according to the methods illustrated on Appendix A. A future street plan that shows a street will be extended from a proposed closed-end street, Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT A (LU 00.0015-A) 0il EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) to form a through.street,will not be subject to the 200 foot limitation and will be considered a temporary closed-end. In such cases,_a temporary provision for turning around without using a driveway shall be required. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) are hereby amended to adopt Chapter 26.000, Local Street Connectivity, as shown in Exhibit "A" for the purpose of providing a Local Street Connectivity standard to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. Section 3. Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 20.005, "On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit"B" for the purpose of providing construction standards for residential accessways. Section 4. Effective Date of subsection LODS 26.020f)). Prior to codification, the City Recorder shall insert the effective date in LODS 26.020(3) to be the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Page 2 of 4 012 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney M:`Ord\2307 Page 3 of4 013 • EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 26.000 entitled"Local Street Connectivity" as follows: 26.000 LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY 26.005 Title The title of this standard is"Local Street Connectivity" 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to any development that requires: a) The construction of a street, or b) Results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land, or c) Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20.105(2)(c),which is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is at least five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land. 26.012 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2) Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking,bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains,pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes,pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6) The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 014 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) 8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. 26.015 Definitions. 1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. 3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. 4) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. 5) Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is further developable if it contains land area that is at least five times larger than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of-way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met. 3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. 5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Sections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography(over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property_which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6) If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of- way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. 7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2)based on findings that demonstrate: a) that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out of direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools,shopping, parks or bus lines,or h) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, 26.025 Standards for Approval 1. When an applicant proposes a development that a. Does not require the construction of a street,but creates new lots or parcels, (e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and b. Is located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five(5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which the proposed development will occur, and; c. Abuts one or more_lots or parcels that are a minimum of five (5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which they are located, the Review Authority shall require: 1) A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020(2)—(7). 2). Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. 26.030 Procedures For all development, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and subsection 2,below, to all property owners within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent to the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 530 feet of a proposed development as stated above, in the manner required in LOC 49.44.920. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: 016 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the proposed development site. b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of ten(10)percent or greater,with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet, c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas, d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile(1,320 feet) of the site (e.g., bus lines, schools, parks, shopping); i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.035 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LODS 20.025 017 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) 20.025, "On Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways,"is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in redline and underline. 20.25 Standards for Construction. 7. A Residential accessway shall include at least a 15-foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation,_but shall be as straight as practicable, considering the circumstances related to the property 8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands,other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 9. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 10. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them,and not flow along them longitudinally. P/case files/an000015-A/LODS 26.doc M:\Ord\2246-ExhA-LO DS26.doc 018 DRAFT /�O'ELAKEpSW�,C 7/7,w ° CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 9, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 9, 2001 to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards* and Commissioners Frank Groznik, Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring and Alison Webster. Commissioner James Johnson was excused. Councilor John Turchi was present as City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITI7FN COMMENT- Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda City Councilor John Turchi related that he was Council liaison to the Planning Commission and that he had arranged his schedule so it would allow him to attend Commission meetings. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of June 11, 2001, after they had been amended to change a word in Commissioner Sandblast's comments on page 3. paragraph 2 from "worried" to "questioned." Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Waring recused himself. Commissioner Johnson was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini revised the meeting Agenda to allow the Commissioners to vote on Findings, Conclusions and Orders before beginning the Work Session. OTHER BUSINESS —FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT B Minutes of July 9,2001 (LU 00-0015-A) • 019 LU 01-0004, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order The staff advised the draft to be voted on was a more complete document than the previous. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised that approval by a majority of members present and eligible to vote would be necessary to adopt the Findings document. Commissioner Sandblast moved to direct the staff to provide a staff report regarding the revisions. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0004 Sedoruk/Prince Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, Corrected Findings. Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and the vote was split after Commissioners Edwards and Groznik voted yes, and Commissioners Sandblast and Vizzini voted against. Commissioners Waring and Webster recused themselves from the vote. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Council was scheduled to hear the matter and if the Corrected Findings were not forwarded to them, the Council would consider the previously adopted Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order. Chair Vizzini indicated that he believed the Council should have the revised Findings, even though he did not agree with the Conclusion. Mr. Boone advised that the vote on the Findings and Conclusion was to indicate they did reflect the majority opinion of the Commission and Commissioners who did not support the Findings, Conclusion and Order could explain for the record why they disagreed with them. Chair Vizzini observed there was insufficient support for conducting another vote at the meeting. Ms. Heisler related that the City Council had agreed with a request from the applicants to continue the hearing and the applicants had indicated they intended to hold another meeting with the neighbors. VI. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION Long Term Care Housing(LU 99-0070) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that the staff had responded to a Commission request to clarify some issues related to Long Term Care Housing by preparing a Comparison Chart and maps (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 in the staff report dated July 2, 2001). She noted the maps identified where long-term care use categories were currently allowed and where they might be allowed under the proposed language. She explained the map in Exhibit 4 identified areas (in olive color) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and where Special Use Housing was currently permitted outright, and areas (in pink) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and abutted Major or Minor Arterial Streets that would be permitted as conditional uses under the proposed language. She pointed out that an olive colored line outlined areas that were within one half mile of commercial services. She clarified that under the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 020 current Code Special Use Housing could be sited on any parcel in any residential zone if it was over one half acre in size and the facility provided some sort of transportation. She clarified that the criteria that would allow Special Use Housing as a conditional use in the R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones were that the use was part of a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses and served as a transitional use between a major street and lower density uses. She observed there were parcels that might fall into that category in Stafford (near Rosemont), but that would be hard to determine without a complete analysis. She noted the Planning Commission had not discussed how to address Special Use Housing locations in commercial areas. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Map 5 designated (in olive) where it was currently possible to locate Nursing and Convalescent Homes and Skilled Nursing facilities as Conditional Uses and identified (in pink) where the uses might be allowed as a Conditional Use under the proposed language. She noted that this map also highlighted Collector Streets. She observed that the proposed language would reduce the number of locational possibilities for the facilities. She acknowledged that there were other parcels that should have been colored pink near Lakeridge High School and Luscher Farm, and parcels that abutted McVey, Stafford and Country Club Roads. She recalled the Commissioners had wondered whether the proposed long term care housing regulations would open the door for other special needs housing, such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation and half-way houses (see Exhibit 6, June 5, 2000 memorandum from Ron Bunch to the Planning Commission). The staff memorandum had advised that the definitions proposed by the Long Term Care Housing Ordinance were sufficiently specific to prevent it from being interpreted to include a range of short-term and special needs housing; however, the Zoning Code allowed and broadly defined "institutional uses," and institutions such as halfway houses, short-term homeless shelters, and drug rehabilitation facilities could conceivably be sited in residential areas. The staff had recommended that the Planning Commission include a recommendation to the Council to pursue a tightening of regulations and criteria for institutional uses. Ms. Heisler confirmed for Chair Vizzini that the maps in the staff report did not reflect where lots might be assembled into parcels that were large enough to be potential Special Use Housing sites under current regulations. He observed that a developer might be able to assemble sufficient sized property along the City's major corridors for Special Use Housing facilities, but if the facilities were sited along Neighborhood collectors, such as Greentree Avenue, Knaus Road, and Lake Forest Boulevard, they could be intrusive. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Carman Oaks (which abutted Carman Drive), a facility at the National Guard Armory (along South Shore Boulevard), and a facility at the City Library site would not be allowed under the proposed regulations because they did not abut a major arterial (please refer to the comparison chart on page 3 of the staff report). Chair Vizzini suggested that an additional locational requirement that the facilities were to be within a certain distance of services would allow the facilities on Reese Road, but not along South Shore Boulevard, near the Blue Heron Neighborhood (a residential City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 0Nt neighborhood that should not have the impacts of a nursing facility). Ms. Heisler suggested a requirement that would restrict the facilities to a site within a certain distance of a Major Arterial street. Chair Vizzini opined that the need for facilities for the aging population should be balanced against the impact of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Several Commissioners recalled that FAN residents considered the City Library and the Adult Community Center to be intrusive. *Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 7:17. Ms. Heisler confirmed the Library and Adult Community Center operated under a Conditional Use Permit in a residential zone, and the proposed regulations would not allow long term care facilities there. She pointed out that the definition "residential care housing" provided that up to one third of the total occupant capacity could be for skilled nursing care (see page 21 of the staff report). Ms. Heisler observed that the proposal had not addressed location of the facilities in commercial zones. She asked if the locational criteria used in residential zones should be used in commercial zones (a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses; transitional land use; easily accessible; near services). She said that the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40% might be very appropriate in a residential zone, but perhaps not in a commercial zone. She asked if the requirements related to mitigation of the impacts of traffic and maintenance of neighborhood scale and character should apply to a commercial zone. She asked if a separate section of the proposal should be created to deal with the uses in the commercial zones. The Commissioners discussed whether there was a need for criteria and standards other than those that already existed in the commercial zones, or whether the uses should be permitted outright in the commercial zones. The staff advised that Special Use Housing was currently permitted use in all three commercial zones; however, it had to meet special standards listed on page 30 of the staff report. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion that the "General Conditions" for Residential Care Housing printed on page 32 of the staff report should also apply to those uses in the commercial zones. Ms. Heisler pointed out that General Conditions (1)(c) only permitted siting along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. She advised there were NC Zoned areas along South Shore Boulevard, McVey Avenue, Lakeview Boulevard, Jean Road, Pilkington Road, and Kerr and Monroe Parkway. She asked if the facilities should also be permitted along non-arterial streets in the NC Zone. Commissioner Sandblast indicated he did not believe residential care housing was appropriate along Kerr and Monroe Parkways. Ms. Heisler advised that facilities that provided their own transportation would be allowed in many areas, including along Goodall Road. She acknowledged that with additional time the staff would be able to identify more locations for the uses than were indicated on the maps. She said she would provide those at the next meeting. She observed there were a number of big lots on the north side of Country Club Road. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 11 Minutes of July 9, 2001 022 Ms. Heisler advised that Carman Oaks was a residential care facility of apartments without cooking facilities that also featured some skilled nursing units. She advised that it could continue as a conditional use under the new regulations, but a new facility could not be sited there. The Commissioners wondered whether developers would opt to seek a zone change for residential care housing. Mr. Boone advised that a rigorous analysis of alternative sites in the City was required to prove a public need for the change and that could discourage people who wanted to site a small facility. Commissioner Sandblast expressed his concern that the proposed language would allow the facilities to be sited in unforeseen locations. Councilor Turchi acknowledged the issue was a difficult one. He shared with the Commissioners that he had searched for a care facility for his father in an area near his home and had not found many. He related that he had favored smaller facilities that offered more personalized care. He observed that it was the larger institutional type structures that the Commissioners desired to keep out of specific areas. Ms. Heisler recalled that the Building Department had counted 25 adult foster care facilities (homes with 5 or fewer clients) within the City limits four years prior; that Marylhurst featured approximately 500 units; and that Carman Oaks featured 90 units. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he did not consider the proposed language to be too restrictive and he believed that it would allow the facilities to be sited in the City. Ms. Heisler related that the state legislature had been considering a recommendation by the Governor to impose a moratorium on assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone reported that he was in the process of preparing a matrix to show what federal and state regulations required regarding siting of different types of residential care housing, including drug rehabilitation and halfway housing. He advised against repealing the Special Use Housing provisions (which allowed housing for socially disadvantaged persons to be specially cited) and only allowing residential care housing for medically disadvantaged persons. He anticipated in that case higher jurisdictions would force the City to make some arrangements for housing for social rehabilitation. The Commissioners discussed a suggestion to add a socially disadvantaged element to the definition of "residential care housing" and couple that with stringent locational requirements. Ms. Heisler advised that a developer could still rely on the City's broad definition of"institutional use" to site a facility. Mr. Boone advised that a public agency or a private educational, cultural, religious or social welfare facility might qualify as a Major Public Facility and be allowed to site a facility — an "institutional use" - as a conditional use. However, he advised the Commissioners not to recommend a repeal of the Special Use Housing provisions because federal and state laws said the City had to provide for that kind of housing somewhere, such as in the "institutional use." provisions. He suggested the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that separate criteria should be created for siting socially disadvantaged housing. He said the matrix he was to complete and present to the Commission would include the state definitions of"skilled nursing" and "convalescent care" and he would further categorize uses into a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 023 "halfway" and rehabilitation" housing category. He added that he also intended to define what was a "school." He anticipated the matrix would help the Planning Commission to decide whether to deal with the issue in the light of the proposed ordinance or to suggest to the City Council that Code provisions for "institutional uses"should be refined. The staff recommended that the Commission schedule another work session and a public hearing regarding the issue. They agreed to provide the matrix and refine the maps prior to the next meeting. Chair Vizzini observed the consensus was not to direct the staff to create separate locational criteria for facilities in commercial zones. Commissioner Sandblast asked for a brief staff report. Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, recalled the City Council had not favored the Planning Commission's recommendation of Code amendments in LU 00- 0015. She discussed the following concerns that had been expressed by Councilors (see staff memorandum to the Commission dated June 27, 2001). 1. The recommended changes "go too far" and should only reflect Metro's minimum requirements (that they be applied to parcels of 5 acres or larger and that they should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. The maps alarmed some people. Ms. Heisler advised the 13 maps could be eliminated because very few included parcels large enough for the Metro requirement to be applied and the text of the proposal clarified that connections (to schools, between activity areas or to transit facilities) were proposed in areas where right of way was available or could be made available through development or redevelopment. She noted that most of the proposed pedestrian access ways were located within existing rights of way or easements, or were routed over public lands. She suggested that some mechanism be used to keep track of them, such as including them in the Public Facilities Plan (PFP) or in neighborhood plans. She advised that eliminating the maps would not put the City out of compliance with Metro requirements. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity. Ms. Heisler reported that data to support the need for connectivity was provided by a Metro study that concluded that local street connectivity reduced traffic demand on regional roadways and in five areas that had been studied. She observed a healthy market demand for developments that were within walking distance of transit and employment areas. 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 0 2 , A She acknowledged that there would be only isolated instances in which connectivity would apply, particularly if the provision was applied only to parcels 5 acres or larger. She explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation that the provisions apply to parcels that were at least 5 times the minimum lot size in the zone and abutted developable land that was also 5 times the minimum lot size reflected the Commission's perspective that all of these situations should be reviewed, but that did not necessarily mean that a connecting street or accessway would be required. 4. Residents favor cul de sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. She said that although an advantage of a cul de sac might be that it helps reduce through traffic, that was also its weakness, because it increased traffic past certain properties by forcing everyone to take the same route. She noted the Metro provision for a shorter cul de sac allowed some flexibility in situations such as when there was no developable land or very steep land that would not accommodate another development beyond the development with the cul de sac. 5. Future connectivity is good, but don't snake people retrofit when they come in with a proposal. She recalled the Councilors were concerned that property owners who presented plans to construct a gazebo or garage would be subject to a connectivity review. She suggested that the Commission might address the Council's concerns by (a) eliminating all maps and references to maps and amend the text language to apply the connectivity review process to any parcel proposed for development that included creation of a lot and was greater than five times the required minimum lot size; and (b) removing requirements for future street plans for ministerial developments. She explained that would mean that someone who applied for a building permit for a single-family house would not be subject to the connectivity review process. 6. The recommendations do not go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. She explained that the Planning Commission recommendation had assumed that current review process requirements regarding notice to properties within 300 feet of a subdivision and a developer/neighborhood meeting would remain in place. Mr. Boone clarified that existing standards required a site analysis for a major development that could trigger an access requirement. Ms. Heisler pointed out that the language regarding lands that had been included on the maps in 26.025(2) [at the top of page 14] provided that a proposal for a ministerial development did not require dedication of a street, but required a future streets plan and placement of structures according to the setback of the future right of way. She suggested that the City might City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 025 require access dedication in the case of a lot partition, but she also recalled the Councilors' comment that, on balance, property rights were more important than obtaining an accessway. One Commissioner said that property owners might misinterpret conceptual maps as regulation, but they should be made aware of connectivity issues. Ms. Heisler advised there were not many opportunities for requiring a street inside the current City boundaries, but if the Stafford area were included, those opportunities would increase. Mr. Boone acknowledged that it had been a challenge for the staff to draft the proposal because the language might require an owner to provide a future streets plan when he only wanted to build a garage or a barn, but the language might also discourage him from placing the structure over an area where the City would like to see an access way. He referred to the example mapped on page 28 of the staff report. He noted the dots that represented a future residential access way showed in a very general way where it would be located, but unless the future pathway was platted, an owner might build a garage over it. He contrasted this hypothetical case to Dolan vs. the City of Tigard, advising that case revolved around a requirement to dedicate land, but the hypothetical case might simply be a situation where the City would encourage an owner to locate his garage on the right side of his house, rather than the left side, without any "taking" of property rights. The City would plan to build the access way on the left side when it had the funds to do so, and it would not be necessary to buy a garage on the left side or relocate the access way on the right side (where it might also be more costly to the City due to topography, or impact another nearby property owner with a smaller lot (a "domino" effect). He said the question was "When should we restrict development over a possible future access way?" He assured the Commissioners that the dots (indicating the access way) in the example were not going to be in the right place after a site analysis had been accomplished. He asked when that analysis should be accomplished. Commissioner Groznik opined that should be when there was an overriding public need for that connection. Mr. Boone observed that some would say it was needed now - for connectivity - but the City will not extract it now because it did not have the funds. Commissioner Groznik indicated that he believed it was important to determine the location of access ways now and funding for the projects should be included in the Streets Plan in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Heisler observed that would require an analysis by either the City or the developer. Mr. Boone observed that it complicated a partitioning process to have an access way sited ahead of the partitioning process. Commissioner Sandblast stressed that it was important to have a conceptual plan in place, even if the access way was not exactly located. Chair Vizzini said he desired to see a more aggressive approach to planning access ways than simply advising property owners of the potential street requirement. He said the marketplace should be made aware of them at the earliest possible time in order to prevent an unfortunate situation where a structure might have to be moved. He wondered whether some people might try to frustrate the connectivity policy by placing obstacles in the way. Mr. Boone clarified for Ms. Webster that he was not certain that placing a structure where an access way would go through was "devaluing" the owner's land, but that it might be possible to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 026 frustrate an access way to cause appreciation of the land. Chair Vizzini related that property owners in Forest Highlands might not welcome connecting pathways in their neighborhood because they did not want to see strangers walking through their back yards. Mr. Boone identified a difference between a roadway and a residential access way: it might be easier to site an access way by bending it. He recalled that some homeowners felt that access ways posed a security concern because they provided some dark, angled places for people to hide. He recalled that access ways could be designed with safety ion mind. The staff advised that access ways were often planned along the boundaries between lots. Councilor Turchi commented that if the City did not warn owners they needed to make accommodations for pathways that already existed in the City's Transportation System Plan the City was frustrating its own Plan and making it impossible to connect things. Ms. Heisler advised that all of the pathways identified in the Pathway Plan were along rights of way. She recalled the staff had identified opportunities for connectivity in areas where the lots were less than 5 acres in size, but they felt that a threshold of three times the minimum lot size was too small because those parcels were typically only partitioned into two lots. They believed that the larger parcels (at 5 times or larger) were situations where a future street would be constructed or partitioning might facilitate the location of access ways. Mr. Boone recalled a recent subdivision review where the DRC had allowed the pedestrian pathway to be located in the required 20% Open Space area, and the area of the access way still was counted as Open Space because the pathway was located where it provided an appropriate connection for the neighborhood. He clarified that location of a pathway would be inappropriate through sensitive land, but that lot clustering within subdivisions could result in additional land for a pathway. Chair Vizzini observed a general consensus that the maps should be eliminated. Ms. Heisler observed the Commissioners did not seem to favor a requirement for a connectivity review during ministerial applications. Chair Vizzini asked the staff to schedule a public hearing regarding the issue. Ms. Heisler suggested that it be scheduled for August 27, 2001. Modal Targets (LU 00-0018) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, required cities and counties to establish benchmarks and measure the community's progress towards their targeted percentage of non-single occupant vehicle modes of travel. She noted the targets had been set for the City's "Design Type" areas, including Main Streets, Town Centers, Employment Centers and significant street corridors. (See chart of current and targeted percentages on page 2 of the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001.) She explained each jurisdiction was to measure and review its progress at five-year intervals. Mr. Boone related the City Council had not favored the previous Planning Commission recommendation of Comprehensive Plan amendments to add policies and a definition City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 9 of 1 1 Minutes of July 9,2001 027 relating the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas. Ms. Heisler listed the Councilors' concerns. 1. It would be a challenge to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips unless single occupant vehicle trips were taxed. Ms. Heisler advised that Title 6 simply imposed a requirement to measure and compare the percentage of trips by alternative modes of travel against the percentage of non-single-occupancy-vehicle trips. She clarified for the Commissioners that Metro required this provision to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in order to gauge whether the Plan was working. 2. The recommended language is confusing. She pointed out that the staff was suggesting that the language "Non-SOV Mode Split Targets" be changed to "Alternative Trip Share Targets." She reported that Metro had indicated they could agree to the change of language and proposed text. 3, The recommended language is redundant with existing adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. She advised that Comprehensive Plan policies already called for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the City, and that would happen when drivers began to use other modes of travel besides single occupancy vehicle travel. Ms. Heisler related that Metro was now counting school bus trips as alternative trips, and that their expectations of the level of use of alternative transportation was not as high in Lake Grove (which has a low level of transit service and very few intersections per mile) as in Downtown, where there were many intersecting streets and route options that would encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. She clarified that the current and targeted share percentages reflected what the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) expected for each design type area. Chair Vizzini commented that the same factors (availability of paid parking, level of transit service and number of intersections per mile) might also be benchmarked in the Quality of Life Indicators Program. A Commissioner commented that the target for Lake Grove should be at least as high as the current percentage share of alternative trips. Mr. Boone advised the Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the issue before they made any additional recommendations to the City Council. Chair Vizzini directed the staff to schedule a public hearing. VII. OTHER BUSINESS July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Ms. Heisler announced that a Metro representative was to discuss periodic review of the 2040 Plan, and Ron Bunch, Special Projects Manager, would discuss the connection between the Qualify of Life Indicators Program and sustainability at the Commission's July 23, 2001 meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 10 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 028 Foothills Road Improvement District Committee The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Groznik was to serve as Planning Commission representative to the Foothills Road Improvement District Committee and Commissioner Waring was to serve as alternative representative. Ms. Heisler related that the Committee was to consider whether the area should be planned to include additional uses and a non-industrial connection with the waterfront, VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary I:\pc\minutes\07-09-01.doc City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of July 9,2001 029 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Ar Op Lk MEMORANDUM OR[GOM TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission FROM: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Ma 't'f"' SUBJECT: LU 00-0015, Discussion of Council Comments and Direction to Staff if Additional Code Amendments are Required DATE: June 27, 2001 ACTION: The purpose of this work session is to discuss the Council's comments regarding LU 00-0015 Local Street Connectivity and to determine whether the Commission would like to make changes to its previous recommendation to Council. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00- 0015, which creates a new Development Standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and amends LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements. Exhibit 1 contains the previously recommended ordinance language. The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00-0015. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13, 2001 to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation. At the public hearing and the joint meeting, Council members raised the following issues: 1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro minimum requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity 3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. 4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal. 6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. Page 1 of 6,LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Work Session—July 9,2001 EXHIBIT C (LU 00-0015-A) 0 The minutes of the Council hearing on LU 00-0015 are found in Exhibit 2. The minutes of the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting are found in Exhibit 3. These points are discussed in the staff analysis below. DISCUSSION: 1. The recommendations should be closer to the Metro minimum requirements. The purpose of these standards, as stated in the draft, is to furnish a layout of local streets that does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices, which then will increase the use of alternative transportation modes. The minimum requirements per Metro Title 6 would include: • Identification of all contiguous areas of vacant and underdeveloped parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed use and preparation of a conceptual local street plan. • The map should conceptually demonstrate opportunities to extend and connect to existing local streets, provide direct routes and limit the potential of cul-de-sacs and other closed end street designs. • The maps shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where there is extreme topography, railroads, freeways or preexisting development or environmental constraints. • Provide for bike an pedestrian connections at spacing of no more than 330 feet, with same exceptions as stated above, • Include no closed end streets longer than 200 feet, or with more than 25 dwelling units, and, • For redevelopment of existing land uses that require construction of new streets, develop local approaches for meeting the connectivity and design standards outlined in Title 6. The Planning Commission's recommendation included 13 maps containing a combination of proposed street connections and residential accessways (pedestrian connections). Very few of these maps contain parcels or groups of parcels of five acres or more. Rather, the maps identify areas throughout the City where street and pedestrian connectivity was determined to be desirable. The rationale behind these choices is explained in detail in Exhibit 4. To summarize Exhibit 4, connections were proposed in areas where either right of way was available or could be made available through development or redevelopment, to provide connections to schools, between activity areas, or to transit facilities, where none exists now. The purpose of the maps is to act as a reminder to property owners, developers and City staff and review bodies that connectivity is desirable in a particular location and that, if a rational nexus can be established between what they are requesting of the City and the connectivity requirements, then the City will require the needed improvements. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss eliminating the maps altogether and rely on the text only to describe the situations in which connectivity will be examined and possibly requested. This can be accomplished while remaining in compliance with Title 6, in that no other parcels of five acres or larger remain to be developed in the City. The southerly parcel Page 2 of 6,LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity y i Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 l 032 on Map 1 was approved for a 23-lot subdivision recently and the connectivity requirements would no longer apply. Proposed pedestrian connections on Maps 7, 8, 10 and 11 are located within public rights of way or easements or on publicly owned land. The City could pursue these connections at any time, whether they are mapped or not. Also, if they were desirable to neighborhoods, residents could include them in their neighborhood plans or request construction through the neighborhood enhancement grant program or the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The proposed text requires all parcels that are at least four times the size of the minimum lot size required in the zone, and are abutting other redevelopable parcels, to be reviewed for connectivity. In regard to other Title 6 requirements, the recommended proposal contains language requiring street and pedestrian connection spacing and addresses redevelopment situations. Item 6, below, addresses the breadth and depth of the those recommendations 2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity. The Metro policies and implementation requirements contained in the Functional Plan and the Framework Plan are based on research that Metro has done as well as experience both in the Portland metro area and elsewhere. Exhibit 5 is a report summarizing the Metro Regional Street Design Study. This study modeled and evaluated street connectivity impacts on traffic conditions along regional streets designated in the 2040 Growth Concept. The study concludes that moderate to high local street connectivity reduces traffic demand on the regional roadways and overall vehicle traffic demand across each of the five representative case study areas. Reducing the need to drive forms the basis for connectivity. If streets go through and contain opportunities for pedestrians and bikes, transportation choices will be increased and, therefore, utilized more. Connectivity can be defined as a system of streets with multiple routes and connections serving the same origins and destinations. It relates to the number of intersections along a segment of street as well as how an entire area is connected by the system. An area with high connectivity has multiple points of access around its perimeter as well as a dense system of parallel routes and cross-connections within the area. The purpose of a "redundant" street system is to provide multiple choices for drivers wishing to travel short distances completely within the area, and from within the area to points outside of the area, without being forced to travel on a major arterial. More people will walk, take transit or ride a bike if the transportation system provides these kinds of safe and convenient opportunities. The urban principle of the"five-minute walk," was popularized by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and has been implemented through several "new urbanist" designs, including Seaside, Florida, The Kentlands and Laguna West, Sacramento, California. But connectivity is not a new concept. The history of society is the history of connectedness. Before automobiles, all streets were connected and multi-modal. For most of history connectivity was not an abstract theory but a necessity of everyday life. Page 3 of 6, LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity W Planning Commission Work Session—July 9,2001 � % J3 Related to connectivity is the issue of cul-de-sacs. The minimum Metro requirements of limiting cul-de-sacs to no more than 200 feet and containing no more than 25 dwelling units is contained in the recommended language. It appears to be a reasonable standard that can be applied with rational exceptions to the rule, which have also been included in the recommended language. Exceptions for steep topography, presence of natural resources and lack of undevelopable parcels abutting a site are included. 3. People like cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods. Many suburban residents choose cul-de-sacs because they prevent through traffic on their street. However, if you live at the "mouth" of the cul-de-sac, you receive all of the traffic from the rest of the homes on the street, who are unable to choose an alternate route to their destination. Therefore, its great advantage—the elimination of through traffic—is also its weakness, because it compels everyone in a given subdivision to use the same few roads, often at the same times. Limiting cul-de-sacs to situations where they are absolutely necessary for the redevelopment of land and are the minimum length necessary, can be an important part of improving connectivity. The Planning Commission's proposed language recommends meeting the Title 6 requirements. 4. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. Opportunities for connectivity on parcels within the City are limited, if a minimum of five acres is the standard. However, the community can create more opportunities through the crafting of its requirements for connectivity. The Planning Commission's previous recommendation includes a review of connectivity opportunities if certain conditions are met such as lot size of at least five times the minimum required size in the zone in which it is located and buts any parcels that are at least five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which they are located. Exceptions are also included when certain circumstances exists, such as extreme topography, the presence of sensitive lands or access issues. By requiring this review for parcels less than five acres in size, opportunities for additional connectivity may be recognized. 5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal. The Council's discussion showed concern about requiring a particular connection when and if someone came in for a building permit for a gazebo or other ministerial permit and found out that they would have to have their plans reviewed for compliance with connectivity requirements. The Planning Commission's previous recommendation contains connectivity review requirements for several different scenarios including: IL Development which requires the construction of a street on lands designated on the Local Connectivity Maps. Since these types of development include a street, they would encompass major partitions, subdivisions and planned developments. Connectivity review would be conducted simultaneous with and be a part of development review. Establishing a rational nexus for requiring improvements in compliance with the standards would then be established. Page 4 of 6.LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity ;A Planning Commission Work Session—July 9,2001 034 Development which does not require the construction of a street on lands designated on the local Connectivity Maps. This type of development could include a subdivision, flag lot or partition that utilizes existing frontage on a public street. This section requires a future streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records as a condition of approval. The future streets plan is to show how the location of a future street or accessway will provide for full development of the subject parcel and any abutting parcels in order to meet the standards. Structures must also be placed in a manner that allows for the future streets to be constructed as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. The same requirements would apply to ministerial developments on mapped lands (future streets plan, placement of structures to avoid future street or pedestrian connection). Development on lands not designated on Local Connectivity Maps. This section applies to unmapped lands for development that requires construction of a street, is proposed on a lot or parcel which is five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required by the zone in which the development is located and abuts a property that is further developable (also five times or greater in size than the minimum required lot size in the zone). In order to address Council's concerns, the Commission may want to consider the following options: a. Remove all maps from the proposal. Amend language currently applicable to mapped areas to be applicable to any parcel proposed for development that includes creation of a lot and is greater than five times the required minimum lot size. b. Remove requirements for future streets plan for ministerial developments Redrafted text including these options appears in Exhibit 6 for the Commission's review. b. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review. Neighborhoods would continue to review development requirements based on existing city regulations regarding neighborhood notice and public hearing notice. For example, following a pre-application meeting for a subdivision, a developer would be required to meet with the neighborhood association within which the parcel is located as well as all property owners within 300 feet of the site, prior to submittal to the City of a development application. A public hearing would also be held, which requires the same parties to be noticed as in the neighborhood contact stage of the development, and an opportunity to testify at the Development Review Commission. CONCLUSION: The City Council goals indicate that this item will be reviewed again in September, 2001. In order for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation in a timely fashion, it should schedule a public hearing no later than its first meeting in August. Page 5 of 6,LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Work Session-July 9, 2001 03J EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2246,Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015 2. Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing 3. Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting 4. Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps 5. Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Tom Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro Street Design Work Team 6. Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues Case files/2000/LU 00-0015/Supplemental Staff Report.Connectivity round 11.doc Page 6 of 6,LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity Planning Commission Work Session—July 9,2001 036 EXHIBIT A • ORDINANCE No. 2246 (LU 00-0015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY; AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 42.03.085 (CUL-DE-SACS AND DEAD END STREETS),AND SECTION 49.20.105 (MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT); AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LODS) The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by stfikeeut and adding the new text shown in II.and underline. Section 1. Section 42.03.085 is hereby amended to read as follows 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of-way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. Use of a "fish tail" or "hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all el iSed end streets'cul de Baas with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or dead end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more than 2004484 feet(61 meters) length. A cul-de-sac shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. b ' 4. Ih determining the length of a cul-de-sac or dead end street for compliance with f 3) above. the startinR point for the measurement shall be at the intersection of the centerline of the proposed dead:end street or cul-de-sac with the projected edge'of the right-of-way of the nearest intersecting through:street, measured along,the centerline•of the cul-de-sac or dead end street to the nearest point of curvature. of the. cul-de-sac: bulb 'or the nearest angle .of a hammerhead turn around., The length of a cul de sac-or'hammerhead'does not.include the area devoted to'the turnaroiuid and shall be measured along the centerline (See manmaint'ained'by the Planning Director.) A future streetplan'that shows a street will.be exterld'ed from a proposed dead end•street,to form a'throuzh street,'Will not be subject to the 200 fooCliniitation'and will be considered- a..temporary dead end: In such cases,' a temporary provision for turning'around without using a driveway shall be required. 5. The Review.Authority May allow an exception to the 200 foot cul-de-sac length limitation in subsection 3 above.'based on findings that the application of the standard is impracticable due to the following.: a. Existing development patterns on abutting properf'ics.� rccliiilc lob�ical connection of through streets through abutting parcels in thefuture; or Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 (LU 00-0015) 037 37 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2246 (LU 00-0015) Ciil-de-saclehel exceeding 200 feet may eventually be necessary o convenient to permit future development of the property to the full density allowed by the Zoning Code. (Ord.No. 1713, Sec. 20; 12-19-78. Ord. No. 2164, Ren&Amd, 01/20/98, 44.08.390) Section 2. Section 49.20.105 is hereby amended to read as follows 49.20.105 Ministerial Development. 1. A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit from the City where the decision: a. Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgement; b. Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards; or c. Determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. 2. Ministerial developments include: a. Exterior modification of single family detached dwellings, duplexes or zero lot line dwellings or modification of an accessory structure in the DD zone, b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Is not located within a delineated RP resource or buffer area [unless the applicant desires to modify the buffer pursuant to LOC 48.17.305(3), in which case the application shall be processed as a minor development] or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 48.17. ii. Does not impact an Historic Landmark designated pursuant to LOC Chapter 58. iii. Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; or iv. Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) for the development in which the subject property is located. v. Is not located on weak foundation soils as identified in LODS 13.040(1). vi. Is not located in a "Known Potential Severe Landslide Area" as defined in LODS 16.010. vii. Is not located in "Areas of Special Flood Hazard" as defined in LODS 17.015. viii. Is not located in an area identified oh the"Local Connectivity Map" as defined.and adopted in LODS 26.015 and•is proposed on a lot or parcel that contains land arq that is smaller in size than five times the minimum lot size required by the zone in which the parcel is located. c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not increase building footprint or height; or Page 2 of 4 038 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2246 (LU 00-0015) ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the facade or, if the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; and iii. Complies with LOC 49.20.105(2)(b)(i) through(viil). d. Lot line adjustments which do not increase the allowable density on a site. i. Resource enhancemnet projects in an RP or RC District. • ii. Passive use recreational facilities within an RC or RP District if such a facility would otherwise qualify as a ministerial development. e. Construction or alteration of public transportation or utility facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and is not located in a delineated RP Resource or buffer or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 48.17. f. Building permits for structures approved pursuant to a prior approved major or minor development. g. A change of use from one permitted use to another that does increase on-site parking or loading requirements or change access requirements pursuant to LODS Chapter(7) and will not result in the construction or the increased use of private streets, driveways or parking lot aisles pursuant to LODS Chapter(19). h. Collocated Telecommunications Facilities. i. Delineation of a resource boundary pursuant to LOC 48.17.105(5). 3. Ministerial decisions are made without notice or the opportunity for appeal. (Ord.No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2092, Amended, 03/15/94; Ord.No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96; Ord. No. 2132, Amended, 07/02/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord.No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) Section 3. The Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) are hereby amended to adopt Chapter 26.000 and the Local Connectivity Map as shown in Exhibit "A" for the purpose of providing a Local Street Connectivity standard to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. Section 4. Effective Date of subsection LODS 26.020(3). Prior to codification,the City Recorder shall insert the effective date in LODS 26.020(3)to be the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2000. AYES: NOES: Page 3 of 4 039 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No.2246 (LU 00-0015) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: W.K. Klammer, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney M:'•Ord\2246 Page 4 of 4 040 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2246(LU 00-0015) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 26.000 entitled "Local Street Connectivity" as follows: 26.000 LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY • 26.005 Title. The title of this standard is"Local Street Connectivity". 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: 1. Any type of development proposed on lands shown on the Local Connectivity Map that are indicated in dark outline or contain symbols for streets connections or residential accessways, and 2. Any type of development on any parcel not on the Local Connectivity Map which requires the construction of a street, is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land. 26.012 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1. The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2. Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3. Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes, pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4. Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5. The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6. Ensure that the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements(Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7. Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 8. To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. Page 1 of 5 041 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2246 (LU 00-0015) 26.015 Definitions. Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is further developable if it contains land area that is five times larger than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located. Local Connectivity Maps: The maps shown in Appendix D of the Lake Oswego Development Standards. Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street on Lands Designated on the Local Connectivity Maps. 1. Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system as indicated on the Local Connectivity Maps, as well as at other points that are determined to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2. Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of-way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met. 3. Streets shall be designed to connect to all stub streets existing prior to [insert effective date of Ordinance No. 2246] which abut the development site. 4. Cul-de-sacs and permanent dead-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or dead end streets are allowed under subsection 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. 5. The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of subsections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography (over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; Page 2 of 5 042 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2246 (LU 00-0015) c. The presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets, or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6. If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of- way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. 7. The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2) or a modification in the location of mapped residential accessways based on findings that demonstrate: a. That reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out-of-direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or b. That existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, and c. That the applicant has submitted an alternate design which serves the purpose of providing safe, convenient and direct pedestrian and bicycle access which is consistent with LODS 26.012 does not preclude abutting property from meeting the review standards of subsections (1)-(6) above and provides street or residential accessway connections to all existing or approved stub streets or accessways which abut the site. 26.025 Standards for Approval of Development Which Does Not Require the Construction of a Street on Lands Designated on the Local Connectivity Maps. 1. When an applicant proposes a development that does not require construction of a street, is located on lot(s) or parcel(s) designated on the Local Connectivity Maps, but creates additional lots or parcels(e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and when the access standards (LODS 18.005) et seq. are met with the use of existing streets, the Review Authority shall require: a. A future streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future streets plan shall show how the location of a future street will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020 (1)—(7). Upon determination that an accessway or street will be constructed on the subject parcel(s), the applicant will grant an easement to the City for the accessway or street, and will either construct the accessway or street as a requirement of development, or will execute a non-remonstrance agreement for future construction of the street or accessway. The City shall determine whether the grant of the easement will permit construction and opening for public use the street or accessway, or whether the accessway or street should be constructed at a later time, in which case a non-remonstrance agreement will be required; and Page 3of5 043 A EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2246 (LU 00-0015) b. Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. 2. When an applicant proposes a ministerial development on lands designated on the Local Street Connectivity Map, according to LOC 49.20.105, the Review Authority shall require a future streets plan to be filed with the City as a condition of development, per subsection (1)(a), above. The applicant shall be required to place structures as described in subsection (1)(b), above. 26.030 Standards for Approval of Development on Lands Not Designated on the Local Connectivity Maps. For any development that: 1. Is proposed on lands not mapped on the Local Connectivity Maps, and; 2. Requires construction of a street(s), and; 3. Is proposed on a lot or parcel which is five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required by the zone in which the proposed development is located, and 4. Abuts a property that is further developable, the Review Authority shall require streets and accessway(s) be designed and constructed in a manner that meets the purposes of LODS 26.012 and the requirements of LODS 26.020 (l)-(7). 26.035 Procedures For all development, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to subsection 2, below, to all property owners within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent certified mail and proof of receipt required, or via delivery in the manner provided by Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the proposed development site. b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of ten (10) percent or greater, with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet, c, Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas, d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f, All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site (e.g., bus lines, schools, parks, shopping); Page 4 of 5 044 EXIIIBIT A ORDINANCE 2246(LU 00-0015) i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.040 Standards for Construction. • 1. Standards for full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. A residential accessway shall include a 15-foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation, but shall be as straight as practicable. 3. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 4. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 5. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. M:\Ord\2246-ExhA-LODS2 6.doc Page 5of5 04 ---4"1--.7'44 kvir- .-... ......7..-.r'.\, -i" • ,...,. . .... .. ... ........... . . U V L.RLC1OK, ••• ,_. ..- 7 I / • ... • • . • • . . irt. .. . .:.....:. . . .„ , . ,t.... 4 4 , ,f • . -"' 'e* thlb ... -—••- N:. . . . . . . . . ,...4.3„,.\...___s.0 ._,...._ _.. .. . . et.It 1 ilir VI . .. .. .-.--:. • • • .1441.444\41\1\ , .. . - , • . . . .....-. 33 • • _..y _..-.•-..• .. • • •s. •`,A• " . .'. . . .. .-.. \ *.'' •;:.--,-1 .e. .:_ ,., ..-.Z.- • i S,...-'7' - j.i:17;:.7:c-sf-• ' Cr) . .1.- .,.. 'CO ., • i V., '.:•,:-;'!•. " ( ' '•'- ... . . . .,:....._. , ..,... ' -. LOCAL CONNE envny MAP ..).;.--.,:::•-•., .-.-:- -- - N...:!-:.:..2.•:_, — . -. • LOOS 26--Map 1 _..-- : -• • , •-• • - _ -::;•: ... , '// r..."( Street Connectivity Area - - --- • —.r _. , , • -_-,-- ''—' e .1 I )-..:.:,-,.:,--:‘ • Proposed Street Connection .:-::-:'-•••••'. ,..• ".-.*-• . ' 0 0. Proposed Residential Accessway --. • ..-. . - ...e.i.-:7-;-::. t.,.-.-:._? - •..--.. .,• - - - .•:;_f_!• :. ' -- ' I: i•._ Semi-Public and Public Property Stream Corridor or Wetland AN Tree Grove ' ..... 0 • '.X). f , Or) 1 ,4:-::;?-:.i.:-: ,X X X ' r:Cri ..... C I- 1). A . 0 100 200 300 400 Feet b.. .• , --.,-,.:-_%:-;-•_-:- .).:--').,,--!• . ' L:C:;(5 '.-- ---.... ...,--::•:,- i :•!•.-,-,-,,-,:`•:,-) ?"..._" JUNE ...zos. - ,- -4:--.?:-:-?:::1 I r-.:-.:,-:,!•:-::-:-, x ., 0 x x 2000 zy 1 m •m 1. 'IC'el----- VIO 414:7L1 1 " 1 - .1 -TT— - --C- 1 ;id ri / ,,,,,--..... sirs . LANE H T 4.� kI r. VPs f __ BROOK r ' ija ,. G� T. W LEY ' j r tM8 NNI ,..„0„,,fiev. --a, .._ ,, .. .....__ , i - - , * , . . , IN __.r..,,_._,._.,„ ..„ ....„..,.....4...,,,::,_ . .. , "...„...,, • ___, ,.. - -„,•,..• . _.... ,.... . , ,. 4,‘, & Rj ---- --,,,, a. i i r. . . - - . . __- -.7::- 1 r�: _ nr vnvcnur •.., . ....... ,_ •` ��� f f AN �fj-:µ..ra�1...:„. 4 Aii.: ....,.., iym ' . - 1-' / .. 1 ._ _ , i , .. r V: Lai Z �iFr+ O�O-• .'� �r -1 .; l: l I .:�.�.�rl:.l 1 � �3 l iN t4t1 )11.114:116, .-.- WWII' :.• . .%....„ '‘41,, " L! ----- .,...-,.., L.1 _.,, .. •- ', ktAttisk%1 :Vt.... : 1.,:.1 . \ AC-kt-? .?1 • ii r: a-: r- .-y� •. _ . ':i' 14 r 1 1• .s • E z` RED % 1 ,ki r r. �.� . .� CEDAR NAY yl:Ta� BR' AL "' • WAY ZNeer a -- _(:- . r `; \ /1di di , \j\ ?fir; `` LAN EWOO • ffa . _+ ...� _ STREET I-()CAI. CONI�FC"IZVI"IY MAP _ III � µ • 1 __.,/ 1 LODS 26--Map 2 a._� - T.71Ic�1r.Ta� j , - - S n t 1 -- Street Connectivity Area � .•c� ♦ Proposed Street Connection SION - •• vv Proposed Residential Accessay — VIP �� �% Semi-Public and Public Property , `• "' 11101r 111111114 \i Li,A Stream Corridor or Wetland — - N Tree Grove IIL �_-- 1 , _ 1 ROV E A j ,__AVENl1F . \, ' C 0 100 200 300 400 Feet DUNE r \ 4 \ .?::--.;fri cc • O b• r, d y � y h' h 7 lkialli.,, lk, J ....tw Lime :,,, ,;„ ,,,,,1,1: 'r7,... Illy?' - lik ?.2---- c54.4* , NW.- :li- - .... .• - .. ,. ; „-\\ r PpG -� - `s �� WEFF PORK LANE rti.. li $411' ' ' - " SOU �y ��f-- "� , V.ii 3/4.a....00.72110•-•:;-:: ff'-0.14 y 1 F 1i: f.i � I 5 .tip ' '' rr. ./ ter'" vi‘i yigil • liw V*. t P ! f oiliwillior10-0::E:f-:11111611 1 O , N ` CAI �. , . , _,._:___....._ .....,,'%•••• :.-, 1.-- 7rr s 11,1111011S (�.., ' y s ' ROSEWOOC . , W a L()CAL CONNEC' IVI Y HAP ��� LODS 26 Map 3 r-.1 .. .r i - -—1- -I �`% Street Connectivity Area j s . - f . Proposed Street Connection t09 k _ •fry Proposed Residential Accessway ti; ," 7 ® Semi-Public and Public Property Ri NnuDW __ t- arL 1 X Stream Corridor or Wetland N Tree Grove A . . _� �k 0 100 200 300 400 Feet JUNE r 1- r_ j 2000 r Ica WA // tr:1, ;. 1 . ,, ,......-_ . --,444if-•j:,::::..b::,, --miiillk..:hii 1,m14:' tqw' - _.:,..;ii,,' , _i_________._, ill% "7 7; ::::. . -, ! is ,_:1_ ,;_:,-.--40 ----,-,-‘ it 2 . 64/41 • ' . V4 ‘ .-..aa .iiii "•16,' •-,:'Y.-%:( ,tivie.-1 :1,7 -- - f . ArIN4*I'',,.'11-3.1:_a'C'.--.7-7.,.,./.11 _,-..-z&te*ft ,t—t•ka L14L-7: . , .k..,... . ip rook C7:1, 't,-,. r-, -.. ,..: _ V. •tom i i- • -- t!St1 ,71k4p..lbtt , ,spo, • _.-, -:: E'' -,,. i � to Jr. 1 !_:::44:sk.,..: ,,,,,. N . ' ,:-.:-).:,I2J) , — --- 4 41:---: litct\ifilli11111'" \'c' C y. WAY; T / Y.'` `t r p`, -:. '.:14- --''4'' ' ' ' • Ntk. Er - 11‘r - 1.Yt3 -..it L__ - }-- `." . tO? 1_ ��������� ,t.: , -- �^ r DRIVE 4 y .t.--.4-frit .. ./.' '.- '- i RE , may;. ilk N41,1 NNiiit,,,.,,,,,s,,4,1,4 , ...- C,1, ..:,1.;,. r., 11 ,- ill.F.*0 'q' Er ,_1. ..1.::.:':::':.:::'::.:::',: -.:.:;.:/..r ') DELENhA-.141444% \\\441/§eAti , Jot . .,-, leliGIE: :. .-. ., A 1* .-.\%.,..\\4 °41,14tet .s. 1.s- I _ /... : 4 jai . ,... 41tP,-- 4' kr, allr 4 -44 MI - •1 liglikid 4 kh , 0 -4 /ESTRIDGE • „.._ \ .'-z` '' LN ) - , t1V1I3 f iip s - ,,‘.,_ .17,w, __ ..:- . ..., .,,,.,_t.: _.,, . ....,411", ,, ria.----- , .„: . . . . . ... _ •. •.• - 46 - `` . LOCAL CONNECTIVITY MAP yam, 41 tv DRIVE DRIVE LOOS 26- P 4 DRIV ;.Y s t" l E ; �` -^ 1 Street Connectivity Area 4 " 1� '" •w^k _ AI& - _ _ _ • Proposed Street Connection �� • ; tr14/j! ,�; - i �O. Proposed Residential Accessway �F It ' a , LANE Semi-Public and Public Property6 O�tUEN 5H E ` V43A ri30 I �-= " ff Stream Corridor or Wetland • DRI VEilii i . 1 •' ;444 .,.:-.,,, ie 24ret . I.lam, ,.. Tree Grove A 4 �;;' , V `'� _� ; _ 0 100 200 300 400 Feel _� JUNE 0- ROAD !�� 1• 2000 414 , ,-, . •••sil. ,- ,..._ - „_ . .:"•••111 .: ':-.!•••- I --I . _ .__... , • - . . • i _ iiiii...:-_,!.. lis . , , __, _ ..,,_.. ..,k,„•.:. ,,,......-„,-,is , . . :;„:,--,./.14,-;,•••,, w•.-,1-0. .tal, E•si,„f--1 E.,--:, , 1- '';‘,:z",---!..-.(1.-i,:-;-1:-...• _ Nss41/4,. --<_:-1•-;.•--7-:-:.? - --- - ASH 1_, • - =,..- 274..„:...--- ;., ,-. •. •.- , ... L,1 t14: . . . . ...< I I .. secREET . STREET r _. ,..„ . -rit, , ,h , .4::,•,-•,:. . •=•__,/,--1,,,„...., _ ' , ______,..,.,.;.,.... ...;&... .i..... ,.. .. _ -..4:::„.. .1„... 4,,,,.. •.... . . N„.. 1 .!. ...,...„......... .,.,• .. .:, _ _.1 ,iit:.„. -..;,, lie 4 - ii .=, :•••1 - L I . . STREET ,.. s ,,I.. < ,-. . ...'• „4 ' LH ,,, - _ . ;,,',',T11 ,40 , i :,Is . , lkt.,. iiiii .: ---...,......, , ,-.) , 0 , 4'.4,„4.:,'1. -:,..,.. i — 1:. --- .."---' :::;,::,, .. ' ? .1. .... 1 4k • . ,; Pt :-,.. .. __ .. :.. ........,. -,,,,,r .'1,..1/4, • •. 4II.1: *.t•..X N,.A.47.•r.%4bN10G4N.-Ic.xr%to)-EIkt.'4 N).Y 4Lr',ts4 t 4-,y`414•4.-•S,,A..\*N.T*1Ve-1 1-t,:.is7eM1/4I-,I l-Y,k,m,,,ci..p,'1-: --.-. rA-•--r"•,'..1..-.1,":ie)s.•..;:,-..-",-.:....-,.'..-,.,.-;:::-..-.:,-::-...,-..,.'-,....,.,.*..W7.,..-,-.-.:..:.:-: ..:--::..-::.::k-!';:.•-:.:„;.„,,;-:.-•- , BURI NHA\ MROA D, y•.-r.5,'I-, .A.. ',,4•.4 I-7s•-,:,,„: •.•'* .ri.--'-'e*p-:'4,'‘'..-..10...r3.'..s„.••.....•.-.,.,,t!,"i:n.'....,.t 4 , M - , '5•11:• ,.i• .. I < • 4s. . • - ,..- } IL ; 's•-z . ..s.X 4.A •' ! `t?,rel,till iiii .,,otp-1:41 y u3s6,. _ , N ...:.;-,•., _ t-.N.‘-'.* - e„•.,.::.::::: ,._; HELIII_OCK STREET , ., tiT i_..---, --- 1---, ..-:.::)-40 ., ,,,,:„. -:.,;-!• ---- z- A .,.• - ••:,i-t;'".--:::. ey- • -. - .. . . . lif : Lla EL-4 - CA iti:-Q Ill & .i.,;.,,,,,-.1-,--',.:-;- . :.::...•-c..0 1 .").• ::-4:-.1•0;!' " ...••-......;.' ff,,,,_i.-..f* . -- : .;:"4--;;"'r -,-.K k PA * : : -•. -, • . ._ - 'v.,, -,.1:W 7..?7:).- -• ''''::: - , ir,_-_ ..._ . I,OCAL CONNEenvrry MAP * -ti Oil : M eir .,f. 7,7- 1..,";: -..-•'',=.1\ .=--, -. 4.,—,. • t—, 1.: 1 ,:,-:,,v_t.-k, -:_--,-,--_, - .. i ?..4**4- '!tx.' -,-. ::, C:1 Street Connectivity Area ...v.„-,.,:a_.. ,-,-.. , • ,,,, •..,-i-..- ., x .,... Proposed Street Connection - I___r-,_-• s la ..._ . „.....y _c:.. -...,•,,,,.i..,-..,..4...,„...„,_,. . , •:. , . _ -. --'2, - .._,.. gib•UP Proposed Residential Accessway . 0 , ) '-' ,-- - - .._ ,_::_:., • ..,, r. •if 41.:;I:. •),!"-.:C.:. ...- 7-,---„, INN Semi-Public and Public Property ..-.._,I.:. • 1 ,, • os , _-, !,. ,. ,.::::g ---,: . _. _ = - x-.,-. Stream Corridor or Wetland .„,.. ___. - — .7:f ,_:-,:—..c- ,. , • J E1 I _ :::>--;.-,::,ji/ Tree Grove r AN = "0 • DRIVE :).:,--.:!;:- .) kiro, ii;j1,&.. m — . -1.____± E.,_,._______ - ., ' 0 100 200 300 400 Feet ' ''''' 1 _ - CHERRY --,. JUNE .-_- - -, Im__I!.3--•.-... .4 2,000 ..1 - Amem 4 '• LNINGSKCT t G��N:t `fkip ! I d i ex .'_‘: top . ' ;: Err M ��.:.. z '- Q.I. r , a 11 CHERRY ENE ,. :S, .:,; ! i`4• Nt(\:;>;,-' :-.:0-;-,- -.A.-.:(.-' ‘Ntillk ::),etitV 114% , *0/4,,••• •9;(4 6.1 tO\No‘N 1446 ii%, Ntlki 1 yam .[_C./;' - $-VI * 4 4 4$4siti ',..„: .r..4 . , . ,,,,„•:_.:.-—,o. 4 2,NI i ..''' ''_ ' - -'3. .--?-:2:;-`,0, \ilk .0 .\ .,., _., -.-- ' ' ." - ,,..._r_ ,.vi4P'— 406.**4\40. .', 1St \ ' - ... \ .:_ _ ...t, vo t i,.,;;,,,s\\kl, ..,::.k . y .. Cil (9 IM LOCAL CONNECTIVITYMAPO_,, 4 401111111016, . LODS 26 Map 6 Ns W ' r Street Connectivity Area j\ y • . Proposed Street Connection r :�' , xy�ycE �; t; � .l« - . ` ' \ 4a Proposed Residential Accessway 4,... ,i, ® Semi-Public and Public Property --.S...-:.X • _.e -., J-.- vv, 44167 , 0 0\4 _ , , ,„,, �� s ;. '� Stream Corridor or Weiland N fi ', _ ;�k x _ , �. a ''}�:- ;:: �:: ,' M aP Tree Grove X_ r.:-.70 is 66: `, ; V ,- - �, '' �� kik . .. 0 100 200 300 400 Feet _ ° t -rr- —, JUNE a�:- :-`\` , -t , `' r 2000 :. . .> 91<r.4y rs CHAPMAN . _ WAYjoicy4 IN 144 .4*,7 °-' Obi - ,„ . 7 —11154,•?.ii,t,i... i. i6,-, EEI COBB 4411)11; ("/ a .' 4 4* .-. + I iiii , - eta —11_hai'al Ig,L 4.-11;41 Ltj ir-,-,La- WAY itild 22'‘\\*ett\ /;1.0. 114 � i.... ..,,,, i ..„,:,„a. , piii 44„ iW.k..l.l„... N, ‘Sl1ks112%10 Wfi STREET irt . -1.1"k1A4, `�` _b nEe� - �., � s-r -•� t '� •.• WREN • ..ti_. ACK 1 ,i-R i' ii „, ., A.lt,.:...,. i-l- ,,, 1/ 4I irr I1„116,1,61M.4 1..u.„' ,a„„ j #1 11A f_ VEN STR EET , lam• .si c� it .i j ii„, .,, ._ ...,,. , ti.r, lilt- all- :- PI.M. - ft 'r.4 :t.,.,s '.. ; ' 4fi' ' ' 44441S. 0 LA MO- 1-711____ VNVSk. ., r 1 1 Z T.4 4 •. , . _ .... ar If . i - at' " '-i_ AidF' -� ? Eh LORDS j flt LAs- 'r 4tNE �.i 444 `` ,*�, vii_ 7 Sr LANma f._ 4 ,, 'I y /eats b. g ito ,,,;:i;" , Ili 4,___, 1--- ei N 71 l - �!14 t;'-:',.':-11-r1! lICa%mImft iln aal •`\ BERNARD^ ST gt -'ll a'I1I.IiI1i4IigmgR f,t r.Ickll.,g � 1,,,...,-,is4g1.44,1144-/r1•1 il4l4t.7W_.s-:'-:'" A:,,,rjR:'.74‘m..11:j1o,4-i-.'.,,kr r Ini n..i..11a•.14i t,...i„ 11-14 ROAD ® ` ; `� c �'` ! ,�I, L t 1%i1ft,%1L V l,r lii7i.'.4,.a''_ t - -� !` LOCAL CONNEC"ITVTi'Y MAP . w , LOOS 26 Map 7 ~� Ie ':• Street Connectivity Area a. v "'_3 , + Proposed Street Connection , �''-q {;�;� ` 1. Proposed Residential Accessway 414: emi-Public and Public Property \\.:Iillroi, Ill all L- t Stream Corridor or Wetland . t.,, ci. Tree Grove A U� \\ 0 100 200 300 400 Feet I illy _ _, \ . j� a ..-....:::;:, , . , ,,,,. -- - 'A4. -.•, N.,4''', ' -4.1,:k.7! .' ,..,,..t..., . ''''' . ..".:„. .,,,y '..__ __......„• : ., - .:._ 1JL 40- •Ap— . ,...,. :!-1-7) .-I2::: -.- . : ' . \N...? ..;''Z;t.. - _�`a .. <iTyl \ CHUKA 1''..a ..,...4..11‘,Nik .,-;-.4-.0,..-ve. ,..--•44, IN,..::4:IL..Wt... rt., iSr ,„4 ,,,, b. , .--s-keier 'Nor -No, .:•-•.. ' AM, L. , . 1411)...:± .4-." '''-_;1\14-- ii "rfts,(441i.t." - '''t Netn• ttp--;...— • .•• ..-.... •. - •• • :....:......: lia, 4'''l 111°.11\litiblt 4011H?:•::.' -- . . 7.42,...4 Itk. ` 4.4 Itar s'- - ��� 'IMN\1111i67....%.,,f' _\‘' _ • OAK TERRACE sfil7 Alita ��.. : .. C Off. • , , _. ...,..........,.. ,�., : o. gir `�, F.7v' _Y fit, S - `� R A ., .-r tt• :i'i : kSiiP ...tel .z :......., A . . .., . _.,,..-:., •.:_:::.. . .--•, pc ,. .,, _ r ; . , .. ..,.__., •t Tc dS+Y ... I J,_.,,./ .:....•:, ., irici• •:_:,...,_.. ,... .,„ .,,,,,, . ..,7 _: ,, \- j r":. .. H' L" n1E:scth �: r �� r % 4 _ `� '� LOCAI. CONNEC•l1YTIY MAP Y :-. >; LODS 26 Map 8 Q - za = ; , = — =" I ICI Street Connectivity Area ." -Ilkiip4iti 4746_ _ STREET _$ WALL . Proposed Street Connection _ _ 5. 4 ., ......___ „...„t . ., Proposed Residential Accessway® * Liif • r•ti -r ,. - . -. _ �� Semi-Public and Public Property .40 . CRESNtEW T 1ri - kk Stream Corridor or Wetland J _ a �; N.,,, Tree Grove 4* if "'-` �► A .�;r _, � ' 0 100 200 300 400 Feet -1 �" = — �� JUNE S 41a 1,., . . .• . isfrati ckt*Ic4:40 '• _. 'i±,j 46\16. • rttNtf LS?" . 1 „,- ',Li na, 4 ��f�r41 ' :i �•r;}. '"•. f ( i :3 DOVEf ...... 7: is , m, OLSON, '.i is .. _� COURT ,, ( 2 11! ,.. I . , Mer :— , � • '''' -' *)- ' ,:tr,,,, , Nitt,.' , *\..___ y4 oLD R —.-z— ' \ ' '‘ .‘1 4'1T 't ' 4 '''P' itt . i \ • v4t4A m, § . ..,v ill vilt.:ki*,,, -3 '' ,,,, ., _.,L 1 r4, '! :! '� _r Es t ..,.,.. , .i et _=_:__._._1-71 —'1' 761:; III in t►d�"�`Y Hii± fi:. .2wIILDS -- • ROAD ,Y ' a' ' `e ®pi `' " 3 -Am r' .. .. qiok(il% ,, i.ts. A,..-,. . ,: . ,.;.'1....: Z444 (l; •°S SANE ASS LN ,, • v'' ''N 4,101bt:ik kt1 ' ( , , I .::.1 . ., ., a4\s%ii., IS'Sba_ Niktif Ito, ,.1; j gm ‘14%,%74/04 ..0/ 1 :It‘o. 3MIRA�"�r t'a4r. �1 4 'r +�,�; �9$j I • T • WAY .�,1�, 4�°"��� '�`� INTl� RIVERS \ o II itigaott+4%, .‘ , . ti , . 404& B22:1114 .._.. awd: b.. . . .,n - .' A l ••i -r. -# ''>•-•Etlf.... %.''• ',.. '::',:.-., •:!..-4`,.+,r;!>..-4:P.-c:.-...'4 e ► LOCAL CONNECTIVITY MAP At ��� c LOOS 26 Msp 9 - :• - �'��� `® ' ' ta. Street Connectivity Area ♦ Proposed Street Connection •�. Proposed Residential Accessway A Semi-Public and Public Property Af°1 --\ - „ 7 l:;t::4 Stream Corridor or Wetland Tree Grove AN . 1141: / 0 100 200 300 400 Feet I ✓UvE _.! .e, I ..A A 0 'r I .,...t.. , 20oo y 055 - ` Yy'K4s,' KRUSE WAY-X.lc' -.X. om . f � . ! 4� _ ��yy z y ,i r • .' ..... : i • • MEADOWS �' " iTJJaj 4 4- rjc 1- " 1 j ?- DRIVE Y j: Y. f f .y �T . '1.4 ) '' .' ROAD 1 • 3 r.�j i u fa I 1 .- —T ` i., — c I INFIELD L11 t;; . /1 i''•fk.. L> sve lc. .:.....-K.....-..:: :.ii HERITAGE l: 1:,._ .... :-...J,.I! ,iI'' 4--,'-4-P ... .:. - ., .. . , ?1. - a„... Ali ' 1 zi O l 114E , Ll v LOCAL CONNECTIVITY MAP ='' el)5.. ; •t'S> -5 _ LODS 26 Map 10 Street Connectivity Area '� .'' Proposed Street Connection • PARKHILL o • P&- 40 1 roposed Residential Accessway I 1 Y f �� Semi Public and Public Property ` S:: 1d01 or Wetland111" lil ir= Trove CO __ - - - •• - .• A zr€= i ,EVT "� y �� t '=- 0 100 200 300 400 Feet JUNE y JUN ,1 ' (. ` \ ":.-'. :::'\ . ._. . . . 200C) ) Ile- - -\,.*- Mg ,r,o+' ::_i - ti '1:-.1 _ 1 kle 17---1 r7.7ci. .4 111 •�� itRUB o eona-o,� .0 .T o-,.itoff,1�kp.41:'� ` k ° j 4,71, ,,,,,,,,,,,,:. .,--. .-\_________ -.1 4, 2„e.-.-. COUNTRY--. � c4 1its, pk t . ,�, 3 ..... 144,. i,„, gIMmI ' , s:. '1 axe_. ,_, i • +. COMMONS •,Y , ''• }IIi• y ''i t \ o-t'Yll 17 CAR • l •i„1. r-sr^ %1111 Ill a-fi'-'• Asksp,..*::,-ip - Y. -.I'." 1:Al-I'. '''''''.. . ..t; . :( :-.e.i. — lit i� i ftilli c � : r1� � � ► � •a.: � \k r . ��� �- < O8 � : . @ed 111N . ( e IM..-•....:.:.::.I:.:...:::,.:t.....-.... '•,...:, ' ,, \ . I 1w,:-,;.t, if rit,„ ,\„,,„ L _ r KNAUS ROAD . n. r? 1 i ROAD LnCAL CONNE Y M ......'}, a'.•:„ :::.....--":' -: - .-.' ''' a 111 1-----Am-t- -1- ' 1- .. i_ I II: : : . ,..,,, ..‘,.... CIT�TIAP = -: :-• LODS 26-Map 11 • ICI Street ConnectivityArea i ;t Proposed Street Connection ti •• Proposed Residential Accessway Li �, _ ,^l{t�� h�_ � Semi-Public and Public Property „ ' --I' , �• ; r, , r t Stream Corridor or Wetland Vl ,_': ';::_ _ -i_i .: _ -z. _�` Tree Grove AN ...I COUNTRY 0 100 200 300 400 Feet JUNE r .. ' A .-•' CLUB �� � � :-..arj1 L� 2000 x:ta jilt, 1 ir..-' /14,-,:x-- . - -0..,- oxFoa vi I., g ,,, oi "):16,k:i, ��"�yj p. /. � p '11 DEVON LANE , ovFvliE `iki A \ . ..4 i •�t4a1 h LANE ry ; 61C1iERRY t°° o, RE 2 _ I 1 . ,s4474ekir. .r)!r 7 • ilP gal ' ".iii '--. *21' .v . , .........:: :.,,,.),. .. . ,. . .„_ •-wr ,r. ... . . •..1 L ',•,(3„45wAiff,_ •-•" .;i• ,,,,-_____.. -.C.11..,:k), ' - - 4---. ilk ,...,„_ ._.:.stirpt..&...., .‘...,44ti *ill '-'-;*k-.. ito • • lir"°- - -' -': ..--..•-• ••.•*,;-5".'"f'... ;;•••.l'•':.p:; -- r ... F:YJ -(t� ./, yam' . A. , Jd 5A t. 7.1 tips . - • r,? WV - II, ,144. ' :!. f•::-..-i---- ;, ,4-.•••-•;.-------e-•.:r --•:•:-.:•-•::•-•.--•'..--:-..4,- ,,•••-.:,, --,.....,..- ,.. ....... • . CHERRY CIRCL / 1 1 • ,iI _ Tb O `` :• • Y • Fr r t :! i f is :.gyv.:• <. ; t. .a � fr I i It , --, 0 L.----4 ......„-4-.- • ROAD SKYLAND �! '� v -!0' LOCAL CONNECTIVITY'SLAP r z=r. ® A' P 12 IF, ' !, a. 11:1Street Connectivity Area to Proposed Street Connection L� • Proposed Residential Accessway tibim DRNE i � -_ Pz, NN Semi Public and Public Property , - kf _ Stream Corridor or Wetland • _. ::` Tree Grove :.... t r, _ .:, ... . . AN r~ — : 0 100 200 300 400 Feet �uNE i ' 1 I I ! - ..- _ — —2000 �J tai 7:41 lit. 31---- V - ,.\\NII NI‘skit\-- ,..„....L.....s.., r. \ - •, . . . • i•-•-••••4 A\ Nii 4,k Vt;,,,,,k,IINN'iNtts‘ ,C4 445. -? , 1.1- ', j".."'; ,' .? , --.•\\,\\. _ i 1 ' - 14 ' , . '''.' .:.."''' ' $101 ‘04!:1- -Z:4\41, * I I j ' . ! Nlete ''''...., ,,k, 11611k. , _ - ftNISIPPC'4° 444 4. "'t — ,44 ..:...... , L., ,,,,- ..-- av, I N\ * '14. ' ' AIIIIP 4110)4017ft P0,4 0 lk.\ ,11/4,„Nio, ,hairt,„ . --r-- �� fi1''t -134/:1 l'-'115::::Y::::11 t... ., -01, - , 1'Y4 : - - 1.11::::::-:•1: .:..f.17-7:1141(611:1 Esc" ..,,.,,N, ti,,,,,,,, _.„. ti.E.y. -.. . ._ .- , . ! -.1/4.-3,%* \\V t'''' . . , i - - v.."-• .__- t qg f R' W - t� SA % kiii 1 k§ ii-Shkkl\ ktlb\ 31. tilk- IIL- 'QN‘\,144 `�`s LOCAL CONNECTIVITY MAP 11 LODS 26--Map 13'''--, ,A •-• - • irl- e•, ICI Street Connectivity Area I' _`�` . Proposed Street Connection Ow `'VP -- - .•� Proposed Residential Accessway _ 7 `� � u, �� Semi-Public and Public Property ++Q� i: e Stream Corridor or Wetland `1 J.-. ♦.„, 2- Tree Grove41 A�m .�1 r. ,� 0 100 200 300 400 Feet DUNE _ , /✓ w CITY COUNCIL MINUTE S 1 September 19, 2000 Mayor W.K. Klammer called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. on September 19, 2000, at the Adult Community Center. Present: Mayor Klam.mer, Councilor Hoffman, Schoen, Chizum, Rohde Lowrey, McPeak , and Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager; Jane Heisler, Project Planner; Kristi Hitchcock, Public Affairs Director; Robyn Christie, Deputy City Recorder. Youth Council Present: Matt Buehler, Kristin Johnson, Sarah Ramsay, Julia Cohen, Revati Patel, Brent Berselli Youth Council Excused: Sinan Ozgur 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Rohde reviewed the consent agenda for the audience. Councilor Rohde moved approval of the consent agenda with corrections to the minutes made at the Morning Meeting. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Klammer, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen, Chizum, Rohde, Lowrey, and McPeak voting in favor. [7-01 3.1 BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL 3.1.1 Council Goals Update Action: Accept Report 3.2 RESOLUTIONS 3.2.1 00-62, Recognition of Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association Action: Adopt Resolution 00-62 3.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.3.1 September 5, 2000, morning meeting Action: Approve minutes as correc:ed 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5• CITIZEN COMMENT 6. REPORTS EXHIBIT 2 -- . Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2000 Page 1 of 12 061 6.1 Peters Road (Minimum Density Petition) • Scott Shoen, 13521 Snowberry Court Mr. Shoen said he was representing the Friends of Oak Creek Open Spaces. He asked the Council to rescind minimum density requirements on all residential zoning. He said the Mountain Park area already had an unreasonable portion of the density in the city. Mr. Shoen spoke about the proposed development on Peters Road. He said there were fifty units proposed. He continued that if the rest of the available property was developed it could be as many as 111 new housing units. He pointed out that every house had an average of two cars. He spoke about a beautiful stand of mature fir trees that would be lost. He mentioned overcrowding in local schools. He said it was a livability issue. He said he wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhood, which were single family homes. Mr. Shoen spoke about the Comprehensive Plan that identified where density should occur. He said the city had already reached substantial compliance with Metro's Plan. He asked the Council to ease up the minimum density requirements in the Mountain Park area and the rest of the City. David Powell, City Attorney, asked citizens to speak generally about minimum density instead of specific development applications. • Joe Burke, 134 Del Prado Mr. Burke said he was speaking on behalf of the Mountain Park Board of Directors. He explained that density was transforming the character of the neighborhood. He said that many new units were now where there were once just a couple of homes. He said that Peters Road was slated for high-density housing. He said it was not unreasonable to ask the Council to rescind the minimum density requirements. He presented a petition signed by residents who were opposed to minimum density requirements. He said they were all against high-density development. He explained that 330 of 360 trees would be removed. He said of those left many would not last long because the root structure would be undermined. He said that tasteful single family homes could be built and the trees could be protected. He explained that the developer was interested in building larger homes. He said that the market for condos was soft and that the new home buying. public was not interested in high-density housing. He asked why the Council was so interested in enforcing maximum density. Councilor Hoffman asked for the comments to be labeled as ex parte contact and entered into the record on minimum density. Mr. Powell agreed. • Roberta Kaplan Israel, 13431 Vermeer Drive Ms. Kaplan Israel told the Council that her property overlooked three of the areas proposed to be developed. She asked that the City look to other equitable mechanisms for absorbing density. She said the developments would change the character of the area drastically. She explained that they were right at the base of the reservoir. She said schools would become overcrowded. She also voiced her concerns about transportation, traffic and new roads. She presented a petition signed by residents opposed to minimum density. She said minimum density requirements would severely impact quality of life. She requested that the Council look into changing the requirement. • Michael Spargo, 13440 Vermeer Drive Mr. Spargo said that he was new to the area but had already heard and seen a lot about development. He said there appeared to be quite a contrast with some parts of the neighborhood having beautiful fields and trees while others had mass development. He said he favored greenery to mass concrete. He asked about the benefits of minimum density. He said he saw a lot of negatives and had not beard enough benefits to warrant mass development. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 September 19, 2000 0 6<7 • Carolyne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way Ms. Jones said it was her understanding that the minimum density issue was tabled two or three times. She asked if there had been a change in that. Councilor Rohde explained that minimum density was passed on R-3 and R-5 zones. He said that it was tabled on R-7.5 and larger. Ms. Jones asked when it was passed on R-3 and R-5 zones. Councilor Rohde responded that it was two or three years ago. • David Groner,4700 Rembrandt Lane Mr. Groner spoke about traffic problems increasing year after year. He said there were now close to 5000 people living where there once was an airfield. He voiced his concerns about runoff from the reservoir causing flooding problems and soil erosion. He mentioned the amount of money that the city spent to improve the area by adding a serene trail with lights and irrigation. He spoke about the article "Lake Oswego City of Trees or City of Condos?" He asked why the City would improve an area that would only be destroyed when the area was developed. He mentioned 100-year-old trees and wildlife that enhanced the livability of the area. He said the proposed development in the area made him want to move. • Rick Petrie, 4908 Cascara Lane Mr. Petrie stated that condos, apartments and multiple units had already absorbed quite a bit of increased density. He asked the Council to take his comments into consideration. • Elizabeth Mahedy, 134 Del Prado Ms. Mahedy said she wrote the article in the Mountain Park Review that Mr. Groner spoke about. She said her neighborhood was bearing the brunt of density even though the area was very small. She explained that she moved to Lake Oswego from California because of density and school overcrowding. She said she had three children in the Lake Oswego School system. She said that Oak Creek Elementary would bear the brunt of the growth. She said that Lake Oswego schools were better than the private schools in California. She added that school crowding should be taken into consideration along with trees. She commented that the proposal was for an awful lot of houses to be put on a short stretch of land and that it would highly impact the area. She stated that the traffic was already a problem. • Michael Halverson, 13404 Vermeer Drive Mr. Halverson pointed out that the City was already meeting Metro's general requirement for minimum density. He asked the Council to give developers more flexibility. He said it was difficult to grant variances due to the minimum density requirements of any planned development. He asked that it not be required along Peters Road. He asked to allow staff to enable siting of single family homes among the trees. Councilor Lowery asked about options when an application was already in progress. Mr. Powell responded that the Council could not process a zone change within the time necessary to process a completed application unless the applicant agreed to delay the process to make the change. He continued that to change a zone it must comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to zone changes. He said he did not know if the particular parcels would qualify under those policies. He said that a zone change could be done as long as it met the Comprehensive Plan criteria. Mr. Bunch said that the property owner had to be the person to request a zone change. He indicated that the Council could initiate a quasi-judicial zone change application but the property owner may be reluctant for economic reasons. He Lake Oswego was in compliance with the Metro housing rule of ten units per acre overall density with a mix of 50% multi family and 50% single family residential. He said that in 1988 the zoning districts were carefully balanced to ensure ten units per acre. He said the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) would object to rezoning land unilaterally. Councilor Rohde stated that the metropolitan housing rule was state law not Metro law. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 September 19, 2000 Mayor Kiarnmer asked staff to explain, to the audience, reasons for minimum density besides state law. Mr. Bunch clarified that in 1988 the City signed onto the concept (with Metro) to maintain a compact urban growth boundary and urban form. He said that efficient use of land, public facilities and services, and a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled was the goal. Mr. Bunch said he could understand why the neighbors were upset. He explained that there were two ways to approach the problem. He said they could look at the area and make the finding that it was bearing more than its fair share of density. He said that the second option was to change minimum density requirements for R-3 and R-5 zones for the City as a whole. He said that the DLCD and Metro would object and could appeal the change. Mayor Klammer explained that some residents felt they were being penalized because they lived in the wrong place in the City. Councilor Chizum said the Council had voted at least three times not to accept the minimum density requirements that Metro had interpreted from the State. He said many people had spoken on the issue and that he could not recall one person speaking in favor of minimum density requirements. He said the majority of the Council went along with that. He explained that the problem was dealing with Metro and the DLCD. He said they were trying to get the current status of exempting R-7 and greater accepted. He said it would be difficult to ask to exempt R-3 and R-5 when a compromise had not been reached on the first part. He said this was all in spite of the fact that in the past Lake Oswego had far exceeded the minimum density requirements. He said the Council could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to exempt R-3 and R-5 but they recommended that the Council accept the minimum rule of Metro and the Council had turned it down at least three times. He said if an exception were made for one part of Lake Oswego then the rest of the city would expect the same. Mr. Halverson asked for clarification on what had been adopted. He said the neighborhood was only looking for fairness. Councilor Lowrey said he would be in favor of repealing the requirement. Mr. Powell explained that the Code said that legislative changes should start with the Planning Commission. Councilor Chizum agreed that he would also like to vote against it but that it would not happen that way. Councilor Schoen indicated that if a change were made at this point it would be a violation of state law. He said unless the State overturned its requirements or amended the rule it would be "like battling a dead horse." Mr. Groner spoke about manipulation of the density rule. He spoke about townhomes tightly surrounding a marsh and the irrigation and drainage problems that that caused. Councilor Hoffman stated that he was not in favor of repealing the minimum density requirements in R-3 and R-5 zones. He said he understood the concerns for the people yet he heard the same concerns in connection with long-term care facilities. He said the Council must be consistent and apply the requirements equally to the entire city. Councilor Rohde commented that minimum density requirements do not force developers to build at a density higher than the zoning allowed. Mr. Bunch explained that the application for development along Peters Road originally was for twenty-two units and now at seventeen it just met the eighty- percent requirement. Councilor Rohde asked about the zoning in surrounding areas. Mr. Bunch explained that the Oak Creek area was zoned R-5 with small portions of R-3 between Fosberg and Kingsgate and a small portion of R-7.5 on Melrose. He said most lots were 5000 square feet, some were larger and that the neighborhood was developed at R-7.5 factoring in open space. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 September 19, 2000 064 Councilor Rohde asked if the City was maintaining an easement for a pathway. Mr. Schmitz responded that he had not seen the plans. He said that the application had not been deemed complete and that conditions may apply. Mr. Burke stated that the issue did not compare to long term care housing. He said that people in long-term care housing did not drive and impact the surrounding neighborhood. He spoke about his bedridden father. He said that the discussion did not have any relationship to minimum density. Councilor McPeak stated that this was a difficult issue. She expressed that the matter should go to the Planning Commission to address the minimum requirement for lot size. She clarified that if the land were developed the requirement was to develop it to 8/10 of the possibility. She said they were asking to build almost all that were allowed but were not asking for more. She stated that they had state law to contend with. Youth Council Mr. Buehler stated that he was not in favor of high density, but agreed with it in this area, He said that Oak Creek Elementary was a big school and that there was a lot of open space in the area. He mentioned Westlake Park. Ms. Patel said she was not in favor of minimum density in this area. She said she lived on Kingsgate and commented that the area was already crowded with cars parked on the street and that school busses were overflowing. Ms. Ramsay recalled Feifer farm when it was still a farm instead of housing. She said that families who wanted land and a house should have that opportunity. She spoke about preserving some areas and making others higher density. Ms. Cohen said she was not in favor of holding up minimum density. She said that if density were increased it would be nearly impossible to travel the narrow roads. She commented that the Westlake area had been established to be denser than other areas to be a "family district." Mr. Berselli said he would rather have less dense areas. He agreed that cars parked along the s:eet made transportation difficult. He said overcrowding in the school system was a downfall. Councilor Lowrey asked about what options the Council had. He said he felt the restrictions were not as rigid as they were led to believe. He asked if there was some flexibility since there was already a lot of density in the area. Mr. Bunch explained that Title I of the Functional Plan, which required minimum density, had two safety valves. He said that the first, substantial compliance, was to provide Metro a plan with actions for meeting minimum density levels. He said the City's Metro housing target was about 3,350 units by 2017. He explained that the second safety valve was to give specific reasons why the City could not meet the housing targets and ask for an exception. He spoke about the image problem of going to the Metro Policy Advisory Council (MPAC). Councilor Rohde said that if Council asked for an exception the reason would be that the neighbors did not want the requirement. He said that Metro would not accept"not in my backyard" as justification for an exception. He said that the Council could not ask for an exception when there was open vacant land available. Mr. Powell spoke about the possibility of a Metro code change and said discussion was currently going on per Council's direction. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 September 19, 2000 065 There was a consensus by Councilors McPeak, Hoffman, Schoen, Rohde, and Mayor Klammer to not take further action. Councilors Chizum and Lowery stated that they were interested in pursuing the matter. Councilor Chizum asked when the proposal for Metro would be up for discussion. Mr. Schmitz said that they were still talking about it. Councilor Chizum asked if it was possible to add R-3 and R-5 zones into the proposal. Mr. Schmitz said the subject could be introduced. Councilor Lowrey said he was interested in anything to make communities more livable. Mayor Klammer spoke about an article from the Cascade Policy that called current planning in Lake Oswego new urbanism. He said not expanding the urban service boundary would escalate the price of land. He said it led to one adverse effect after another. He said minimum density was a State law that Metro was n)'ing to enforce. He stated that he was not happy with any of it. Mayor Klammer called for a break at 7:19 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Planning Commission recommendation to create a new development standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity), amend LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation planning rule requirements (LU 00-0015) Mayor Klammer read the hearing title. Mr. Powell reviewed the legislative hearing procedure. There were no conflicts of interest by the Council or challenges from the audience. Jane Heisler, Project Planner,presented the staff report. She explained that the staff report covered three items. She said it amended chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks,to create new requirements for the length of cul de sacs and created a method for measuring cul de sacs, which had been a problem in the past. It created a new development standard (LODS 26), local street connectivity. She explained that the purpose was to make sure any opportunity to achieve street access was reviewed and not missed during the development review process. It would also amend chapter 49 of the Development Code to require that proposed development on property on the local connectivity street maps or parcels that contained property that was five times or greater than the minimum lot size required in the zone get reviewed as minor developments rather than ministerial developments. Ms. Heisler explained that the recommendation came from the Metro Functional Plan requirements for street connectivity. She said it was also following up on a long history of legislation, much of which the Council had adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. She mentioned Goal 5, Transportation, and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). She explained that the purpose of this item was to create standards for bicycle and pedestrian circulation through developments and to shopping and employment areas. She indicated that another goal was to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita. Ms. Heisler said that the Regional 2040 Growth Concept outlined compact development with the goal of not moving the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) at a rapid rate, preserving open space, minimum density and design type areas. She spoke about having two town centers, one in the downtovvn area and another along Boones Ferry. She said the Concept focused growth and .:evelopment in those areas and along transportation corridors. She said it would encourage jobs in employment areas and referenced Kruse Way. She said part of the Concept was to try to make the area more livable as people live closer together. She mentioned reducing miles traveled, increasing alternative modes of travel (walking, biking,mass transit) and improving connectivity so that local trips could be made. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 September 19, 2000 Ms. Heisler said the Council had adopted design type areas. She explained that connectivity was a follow up piece to reduce miles traveled. She said that if the design of local streets was done correctly local traffic could be kept off of regional streets. She referenced a flow chart in the staff report (exhibit 7) that demonstrated the general connectivity process. She explained when connectivity would be reviewed and when a future street and pedestrian plan would have to be submitted. She said that streets would have to occur at least 530 feet apart, and accessways for pedestrians and bikes have to occur every 330 feet. It gave cities the opportunity to look and see where additional connectivity was needed. She explained that staff had reviewed the entire City and looked at the connectivity that is in place and identified opportunities on the maps. She said that when a development application came in, if it included an area on the connectivity mans and a street, then the connections (as indicated on the map) would have to be built. If the proposal did not include a street, but some kind of minor partition or flag lot, the applicant would submit a future streets plan including that property and abutting properties to show how the development could be accommodated now or in the future. She said that for areas not included on the connectivity maps then staff would consider whether the parcel was five times the size of the minimum or if it abuts property that also met that requirement then it would go through the review process. She explained that the process enabled staff to review parcels that were most likely to be redeveloped. She said the proposal also included many exceptions for topography, sensitive lands, traffic safety, easements and existing developments. Ms. Heisler introduced additional exhibits. Exhibit 9 was a letter from Jim and Roe Hinzdel. She explained that Exhibit 10 provided changes the RTP recently adopted by Metro. She said the RTP included some items not included in Staffs recommendation. She said an example was the semi-diverter recently proposed on block 136, something to be reviewed on a case by case basis. She said Exhibit 11 listed typographical changes. Public Testimony • Lynn Peterson, 555 G Avenue Ms. Peterson said she was in favor of the recommendations made by staff. She said she was also speaking about mode split targets. She said she worked on the RTP for Metro. She explained every action effects how Lake Oswego citizens travel around the region. She said connectivity was a tool to help people access schools, stores, and jobs without taking a car. She said that if there were a walkway then people would walk. She said that mode split targets were a measurement tool. Ms.Peterson spoke about connectivity creating more connections per mile and less congestion on arterials. She said it would reduce delay by 17% because local traffic would remain on local streets. She said data showed that the greatest benefits were with ten to sixteen connections per mile. She mentioned a 1995 travel behavior study, which stratified trips by origins and destinations. She said adults made on average four trips per day and spend about an hour per day traveling. She said that as areas become more urban there were fewer trips per car. • Jim Hinzdel, 1250 Wells Street Mr. Hinzdel said he owned the middle parcel of three parcels that front Highway 43. He spoke about 1000 feet of bikeways on or adjacent to his property. He asked what would trigger the connectivity requirements. He questioned if he were to build a gazebo or build another house would he have to put in 1000 feet of bikeway. Ms. Hinzdel explained that because his property fronted Highway 43 it was subject to Division and the access requirements of ODOT. He asked how that was intertwined with the :nectivity ordinance. Mr. Hinzdel spoke about the standards for a closed end street. He said it seemed strange to provide bikeways around the end of a cul de sac. He spoke about highway noise and referenced a noise study. Cary Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 September 19, 2000 Mr. Hinzdel referenced revisions he made of the ordinance. He said he wanted to protect natural resources in the area and reduce impacts of additional pavement, erosion and run-off. He suggested language to allow use of a local street to meet the requirement for residential accessways and the use of meandering pathways to reduce noise impacts. Mr. Hinzdel responded to Councilor Hoffman that there was a private easement on Wells Street and that his property was about four acres. • CaroIyne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way Ms. Jones said the recommendation contradicted the Comprehensive Plan and the idea that traffic should not move into neighborhoods. She said people used Old River Road as a cut through. She asked if the connectivity requirement was a blanket policy and asked about measure 56 notice and taking of property. She said that Old River Road was a walking park and that traffic from Mary's Woods and Marylhurst had been kept out of the neighborhood. She said that she would not like traffic from arterials being channeled through the neighborhoods. Questions of Staff Mayor Klammer asked how many acres of land there were in Lake Oswego. Ms. Heisler said there was about ten square miles. Mayor Klammer said this recommendation would only apply to roughly 21 acres if and when they were developed. Ms. Heisler said it would also apply if the property were on the connectivity map or if it was five times larger than the minimum lot allowed and abutted a property that was also five times larger. Councilor Chizum asked about the consequences of not passing the connectivity requirement. Mr. Powell said it was the similar to the minimum density requirement. He said that when Metro included connectivity in the RTP it was designated as part of the Functional Plan, He said this had been on the City's list of things to do for compliance and had asked for extensions. Councilor Chizum said that this could only apply to a small area. Ms. Heisler clarified that it would provide additional connectivity in new developments or where it could be retrofitted. She said the requirement was largely created for developing areas like those in Washington County. Councilor Rohde asked if the changes recommended by Mr. Hinzdel would take the recommendation out of compliance. Ms. Heisler said it would single out one zone for different treatment. She said there were not exceptions for sound but there were for sensitive lands and topography. Mr. Powell added that Metro rules say to use the most direct route. He said that Mr. Hinzdel's recommendations were for his specific parcel. He said Metro would allow a pathway to meander somewhat to protect natural areas. He said he would need more time to review the use of the closed in street system for a public accessway. Councilor Rohde asked for response to Ms. Jones notification question. Mr. Powell said notice was given to properties that exceeded the minimum standard as well as those that were on the map. Ms. Heisler added that staff sent 90 notices to property owners of 120 properties that could be affected. Councilor Lowrey asked if there were any reports with data to support connectivity. Ms. Heisler said Metro modeling included frequency of intersections. Councilor Lowrey asked if getting rid of cul de sacs would reduce miles traveled. Ms. Heisler responded that some cul de sacs were 1600 feet long. She said that having more through streets would help. Councilor Lowrey stated that he would like to see some studies. Councilor Rohde said that in the last six years he had seen substantial studies showing the benefits of connectivity. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 September 19, 2000 068 Councilor McPeak said she understood the need for connectivity yet had a problem with the way that it was applied in the proposed ordinance. She said that Metro applied connectivity to five or more acres. She asked staff to follow Metro's recommendation. She said she was "not asking to dump more tea in the harbor" but wished the proposed ordinance was written closer to that of Metro. Councilor McPeak spoke of the thirteen maps becoming part of the development process. Ms. Heisler said that it would give staff the opportunity to look at additional options for connectivity. Councilor McPeak asked how those opportunities would not impose a loss on property owners. Ms. Heisler spoke of the informal pathway on the Hinzdel property. She said the connectivity requirement would ensure that the opportunity for connectivity was not lost. Councilor McPeak asked how much legal force the maps would have on the property owners. Ms. Heisler explained that if, for example, Mr. Hinzdel wished to build a gazebo, which would require a permit that would be reviewed, an accessway plan would have to be submitted to show how the structure would not prohibit a future accessway-. Mr. Powell added that the property owner would be compensated before the city could require a street or pathway. Councilor McPeak asked when the process would change from a ministerial decision to a minor development process. Ms. Heisler said that staff would check applications and review those that were properties on the maps. She said the process would involve looking at where future access could go. She explained that when a property owner proposed a structure then the requirement would kick in to provide a future access plan. Councilor McPeak said it would be one more hurdle to justify permission. Councilor McPeak said that of the thirteen maps she only saw one property in excess of five acres. Ms. Heisler agreed and said that there would not be many properties that would apply under the Metro standard. Councilor McPeak said that when the Comprehensive Plan changed in 1992 there were three objectives: reduce through traffic, concentrate traffic on major streets, and maintain the character and livability of the community. She added that in 1997 the city adopted additional policies to emphasize street connectivity. She said she would like to pass an ordinance to meet the Metro requirements and then let it go. She said she would like to apply better new ideas on new development. Ms. Heisler said the key point in the earlier language was that it addressed through traffic. She explained that the connectivity standard was designed so that local traffic could get around easier. Councilor Hoffman asked why the requirement would be to review properties that were five times the minimum limits instead of five acres that Metro required. Ms. Heisler responded that they did not want to lose the opportunity for connectivity when it could be achieved, She explained that if a developer wanted to build at maximum density then they would be looking at building a street. If there were an abutting property of the same size then staff would suggest a through street instead of a cul de sac. Councilor Hoffman asked if there was a private easement on Wells Street (shown on map 5), Ms. Heisler said it was private property. Councilor Hoffman summarized that if a property owner were to redevelop they would have to make sure the development would not impact the potential accessway. He asked if an accessway was a public easement. Ms. Heisler responded that it could be a public easement dedicated as a right of way. Councilor Hoffman asked if this was a takings issue and when an easement converted from private to public. Ms. Heisler said that if a partition were proposed to create an additional lot, City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 September 19, 2000 0 6< then the ordinance (page 3) would require a future streets plan. Upon determination that an accessway or street would be constructed the applicant would grant an easement to the City and would either construct the accessway or street as a requirement of development or would execute a non remonstrance agreement. Councilor Hoffman said that there had to be a demand or need for the accessway or street. Mr. Powell said they would interpret if the impacts would warrant the City requiring the dedication of an easement. Councilor Hoffman asked how the Planning Commission determined the requirement for review of lots five times the minimum size allowed by zoning. Ms. Heisler said they had considered many levels. She said if a parcel was five times or greater than the minimum lot size then if a person proposed full development they would have to construct a street if it was a land locked parcel. Councilor Hoffman said that connectivity may only be required for more intense infill development. Ms. Heisler said staff was concerned about loosing the opportunity for connectivity in the future. Councilor Schoen asked if there was the intention to look at connectivity within developed areas. Ms. Heisler said only if the parcel was five times or greater than the minimum lot size and it abutted a property that was also five times or greater. She explained that other developments or sensitive land might preclude a through street. Councilor Schoen said there was no need to clutter the planning process. Mr. Powell responded to a previous question about Mr. Hinzdel's recommendation to allow a private easement system of closed streets to meet the requirement for accessways. Mr. Powell responded that that was contradictory to the proposal. Mr. Hinzdel said his point was that public streets in a closed street system did not need separate fifteen foot easements next to them to serve as a pathway. Discussion Mayor Klammer asked if a gazebo required a permit. Ms. Heisler said that any structure over 120 square feet required a permit under state law. Mayor K.lammer said that he intended to vote against the proposal. He said that the instances where connectivity would apply would be very isolated. Councilor Chizum agreed with Councilor Schoen's remarks. Councilor Rohde said the connectivity recommendation was perfect for a city the size of Lake Oswego. He said he had been involved with transportation policy for a decade and he had seen the need for connectivity. He said the Regional Transportation Plan had considerable information about the benefits of connectivity including: reducing miles traveled, encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel, better health because of reduced pollutant loads and increased opportunities for exercise. He spoke about the inclusion of pathways and bicycle ways. He mentioned that Cabana Lane could not be traveled by car but could be traveled by bike. Councilor Rohde said the recommendation served to tailor Metro's broad specifications to meet the needs of Lake Oswego. He said that if connectivity were limited to Metro's broad scale five acre parcels then there was no reason to consider it in the development code. He said would support the recommendation. Councilor Lowrey said he would vote against the recommendation because he had not seen any data. He said even if connectivity would reduce vehicle miles traveled it was not an end in itself. He said.it would be better to reduce pollution and fuel efficiency. He commented that people liked cul de sacs and that there was a benefit to having little traffic in neighborhoods. He spoke City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 September 19, 2000 0 r10 of kids playing in streets and funneling traffic to arterials. He said that Metro's charter did not have the intent to get so specific. He said that was not the function of Metro. Counci?lbr McPeak said she would vote against the recommendation. She agreed with Councilor Rohde but only to the extent that connectivity should be considered from this point forward. She said she disagreed with map 12. She said that the area was very steep and disagreed with staffs description that a pathway could be built. Councilor Hoffman said he supported the recommendation. He said he was not sure if it went far enough. He said there needed to be a discussion about policy an that there were no provisions for neighborhood review. He stated that he would vote no. Councilor Chizum moved to deny LU 00-0015 amending chapter 42 and chapter 49 developing a new development standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and not comply with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. Mr. Powell said that with a legislative matter that would be considered again in a different form, a denial was not the best resolution. He suggested asking staff to bring the item back for a study session. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Klammer, Councilors Chizum, McPeak, Hoffman, and Schoen voting in favor. Councilor Rohde opposed the motion. Councilor Lowery was not present for the vote. 15-1) 7.2 Planning Commission recommendation to amend the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12, Transportation, Goal V, Transportation Demand Management, to add policies and a definition relating to establishment of non-single— occupant vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas, to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility (LU 00-0018) Mayor Klarnrrier read the hearing title. Mr. Powell said the procedure was the same as the previous hearing and noted that everyone present had already heard the procedure. There were no conflicts of interest declared by the Council and no challenges from the audience. Ms. Heisler presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal created benchmarks and defined non single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. She said Metro came up with Non SOV, to mean all trips rather than driving alone in a car. She said the goal was to reduce vehicle miles traveled and it was to be achieved over a period of forty years. Public Testimony There was no public testimony. Questions of Staff Councilor Chizum asked how this recommendation differed from the previous report which expanded Metro's direction. Ms. Heisler responded that this mirrored Metro's direction. She said it was a tool for the community to use to see where it was now and where it was going to need to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the future. Councilor Chizum said to be consistent with the past he would have to vote against it. Ms. Heisler clarified for Councilor Chizum, that the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) that Metro used in it's modeling, encompassed our downtown and had a current estimated mode share (percentage of all trips that were being taken in Non SOV) of 35 percent. She explained that the target was 55 percent over a 40 year period. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 September 19, 2000 07 . Councilor Rohde had no questions. Ms. Heisler said it was a tool for the community to look at over several years to see how it is encouraging various modes of transportation. She said the Council adopted the TSP saying it wanted to reduce miles traveled. Councilor Lowrey asked if they were already encouraging multi modal transportation then why would they need targets. Ms. Heisler said it was a way to measure and come up with benchmarks. Mr. Bunch added that around the region Metro was modeling Non SOV modal share. He explained that Metro had the obligation to put together the Regional Transportation Plan and work in concert with the State of Oregon. He said that Lake Oswego did not exist by itself in that regard. He said that Metro needed the information to do long term modeling in aggregate for the entire region. Councilors McPeak, Hoffman, and Schoen had no questions. Mayor Klammer spoke of a retail store selling dummies so that people could drive in a carpool lane. He said it was impossible to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips. Councilor McPeak asked staff to let Metro know the language of the proposal was hideous. Councilor Rohde moved to approve LU 00-0018. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. The motion failed with Councilors Rohde, McPeak, and Hoffman voting in favor. Mayor Klammer, Councilors Chizum, Lowrey, and Schoen opposed the motion. [4-31 8. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 8.1 Councilor Issues for Discussion 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees. and Intergovernmental Committees 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager 9.2 City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Klammer adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Cl nstie Deputy City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ;Jovernbeu4. 2000 W.K. Klammer, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 September 19, 2000 0 7 2 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 1 of 22 � City Council ) �' } Meeting Minutes for February 13, 2001 public affairs@ci.oswego.or.us / 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone (503)635-0236 February 13, 2001 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council special meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. on February 13, 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, Deputy City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Long Range Planning Manager; Ron Bunch, Government Affairs Liaison; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Nancy Bantz, Special Projects Team;Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager Planning Commission: James Johnson, David Waring, Ray Edwards, Ken Sandblast (left 6:45 p.m.), Bill Beebe, Chair; Dan Vizzini, Vice Chair Natural Resources Advisory Board: Christine Roth, Vice Chair; Jonathan Snell, Russell Jones, Deborah Shimkus, Keith Moe, Chair; Nicholas Vance Others Present: Mike Abbate, GreenWorks; Jayne Cronlund, Three Rivers Land Conservancy; Marianne Zarkin, MacLeod Reckord; Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord; David Elkin, GreenWorks; Marcia Robertson, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board 3. JOINT DINNER MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Hammerstad requested the Councilors, Planning Commissioners and staff to introduce themselves, stating their neighborhood of residence and the most significant land use issue he/she saw confronting Lake Oswego. • Bill Beebe, Glenmorrie; variance standards • Dave Powell, City Attorney; Measure 7 • Ray Edwards, Glenmorrie; minimum density • Karl Rohde, Lakewood; variance standards • Bill Schoen, Blue Heron; minimum density • Jane Heisler, Planning; all issues • Gay Graham, Springbrook Park; Measure 7 and open space acquisition • Ellie McPeak, Glenmorrie; Measure 7 and minimum density • David Waring, Palisades, Measure 7 and assisted living for seniors • John Turchi, Red Fox Hills but moving to Lakewood; redevelopment and maintaining the character and quality of life in Lake Oswego • Jack Hoffman, First Addition; issues affecting his property personally, his neighborhood, and how he could empathize with citizens yet step back from those issues to help citizens understand the citywide implications of compatibility. • Ron Bunch, Government Affairs Liaison; communicating the views, values and concerns of the community in order to effectively represent Lake Oswego EXHIBIT 3 http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 7 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 2 of 22 • Judie Hammerstad, Palisades & Glenmorrie; development of Stafford • Ken Sandblast, Lake Forest; neighborhood planning as it helped to define issues for periodic review • Jim Johnson, Rosewood CPO; growth management relating to the fiscal side and the quality of life side, increased thinking in terms of regionalism as opposed to isolationism • Dan Vizzini, Forest Highlands; Lake Oswego's transition to a mature built out community in an evolving region, the Stafford Triangle, public involvement • PLANNING 101 Jane Heisler, Long Range Planning Manager, reviewed the basic foundations for planning, including the state requirement of a Comprehensive Plan outlining a framework from which to implement the community's desires. She discussed the role of the Planning Commission as advisory to the City Council as the policy makers. She recalled the origins of land use law in Oregon with the passage of the 1 and Use Act of 1973 creating the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and its staff department, the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD), in order to establish statewide planning goals and to set in motion the land use process in use today. She mentioned Metro's requirements in the Functional Plan. Ms. Heisler commented that one of the most difficult challenges in land use planning was developing consensus in the community among the various interest groups. She noted that the Commission tried to gear the level of citizen involvement to the potential impacts of a land use action, either notifying the neighbors or establishing an ad hoc committee and/or holding open houses as appropriate. She mentioned the Planning Commission's customer service attitude in trying to facilitate solutions between various groups, as opposed to simply making decisions. Mr. Edwards asked what happened if LCDC did not like a jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnson reviewed the periodic review and post-acknowledged plan amendment processes by which comprehensive plans could be changed. in response to Mr. Beebe's request, Ms. Heisler reviewed the differences between the Planning Commission and the Development Review Commission. She explained that the Planning Commission in Lake Oswego focused on issues relating to the overall development and vision for the city through its work on the development, maintenance and upkeep of the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Review Commission took care of the applications of the law. Ms. Heisler observed that Lake Oswego faced a periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan in the next two years, which was a thorough review and update of the Comprehensive Plan and implementation that looked at statutory law changes and community changes in circumstance. • OUTSTANDING LAND USE ISSUES Mayor Hammerstad noted the Commission's agenda, listing its items of concern. She mentioned a ncern of the Council with respect to neighborhoods: their isolation and view of only their neighborhood. She stated that the Council supported neighborhood plans and preserving the characteristics outlined in the neighborhood plans but reiterated the need to get people to see beyond their neighborhood to the community as a whole and to finding solutions that were good for Lake Oswego. 0 7 I http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/0 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 3 of 22 Mayor Hammerstad referenced the previous Council's remand of several items to the Planning Commission. She spoke to the Council and the Commission coming to common understandings over time in order to avoid conflict over issues. Mr. Vizzini observed that all the Commission's goals, except long term care housing, were included in the Council's priorities, which reassured him that the Council would deal with the Commission's concerns as it worked towards completing its 2001 goals. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Commission's concerns were not on the Council's calendar at this time. She indicated that the Council would probably not work on them until the fall, citing Measure 7. • Variance Standards I r. Sandblast reviewed the Planning Commission's view of the variance standard amendments as changing the existing unorthodox variance standards on hardship (justifying an action based on similar examples in the neighborhood) to a more traditional and typical variance on hardships (identifying the hardship). He explained that much of the testimony at the public hearing on the variance standards focused on whether an individual's property had some value taken away from it, not on the changes to the variance standards. Mr. Johnson clarified that many of the lake property owners discussed their concerns with the existing zoning of the property, indicating a problem with the Code but not a problem with variances. He said that a variance was intended to address a special and limited circumstance on an individual property, where that property was out of the ordinary or inconsistent with properties with similar zoning characteristics. Mr. Johnson emphasized that a variance was supposed to address an individual circumstance. He held that when too many variances requests came in for a given area related to a specific part of the code, then that was the time to change the code. He characterized the Lake Corporation members' concerns as relating to something specific with their district, and not to the variance standards. He indicated that the Commission felt that the City should address this need similarly to a neighborhood plan or specific overlay district. \tr. Johnson indicated that the Commission was trying to update an antiquated variance code, which he Leld used criteria more related to a conditional use permit than to the specific dimensional criteria more appropriate for a variance. He summarized their intent as trying to bring the variance standards in line with what were the special circumstances inherent in the subject property that rendered it different from other properties of similar location in the area. He emphasized that a variance should be something of general applicability city wide, not specific to a certain neighborhood. Ms. Heisler reported on a meeting held between staff and the Lake Corporation this afternoon, at which it became clear that the Lake Corporation had not attended the public information meeting. She said that Ms. Curl wanted the City to set up a meeting with Lake Corporation representatives to discuss this. She mentioned that staff also realized that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Corporation about what the regulations did, and that the property owners were possibly better off under the new variance standards than under the old ones. Mayor Hammerstad asked Ms. Heisler to set up a meeting between the Commission and the Corporation soon to discuss these issues, as well as discussing whether it was appropriate to have a zone district on the lake. She held that this was not an insurmountable issue, especially if they paid attention to the realities of property on the lake. 7 http://www.ci,oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 J Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 4 of 22 Councilor Rohde observed that the variance standards had had an artificial sense of urgency to them, which led the previous Council to pass them inappropriately. He spoke to stepping back and using an education process to get buy-in from the Corporation as a means of obtaining a better product. Councilor Rohde held that if the Lake Corporation did not understand,it was because the Corporation had a downfall in communication. He argued for stopping the process to allow the Corporation to participate, even though the Corporation did not realize until late in the process that it should be participating. Councilor Hoffman supported Councilor Rohde's request to table the issue but for a different reason. He questioned whether the existing variance procedures and zoning codes were appropriate for their community, now that Lake Oswego was a mature community. He discussed his discomfort with subjective variances as opposed to `by the book' variances. He said that he might support an unorthodox approach in which someone said that he/she needed a variance in order to fit in with everyone else. Councilor Hoffman observed that other cities have taken that approach in terms of infill. He contended that some houses in First Addition, which followed the Zoning Code specifications for height and pitch, ended up not fitting in with the neighborhood. He held that a more subjective process might yield houses that did fit in. He spoke to looking at what tools Lake Oswego would need to address the probable changes occurring over the next 20 to 30 years. Mr.Sandblast described the City of Portland's adjusted process, which allowed a developer or property owner to apply a more subjective method if he/she could show that his/her method still met the goals and purposes of the zone. He noted that this allowed the variances to be a more objective standard. David Powell, City Attorney, described the traditional understanding and use of variances, in which a property owner had to show that he/she could not make beneficial use of his/her land without the variance. He discussed the Lake Oswego's understanding, which defined `hardship' as a property owner could not make reasonable use of his/her property similar to like properties in the area. He pointed out that, while this gave the City flexibility, it also yielded little predictability. He mentioned `variance creep,' in which the Code disappeared as more and more houses changed. Mr. Powell described the two-tier system proposed by staff. Class 1 variances were very strict requiring compliance with the Code unless the applicant could tell the City why the Code was wrong while Class 2 variances were an administrative process allowing variations within a certain percentage without having to show the hardship of Class 1 variances. He indicated that the big issue, from a legal standpoint, was the lack of predictability under the current Code. He remarked that the philosophical underpinnings brought by Councilor Hoffman were worth a discussion. Councilor Rohde mentioned that he remembered only four variances coming to the Council. He asked if whether the subjective standard allowed the City to produce a better tailored product, which only came to the Council in the most egregious circumstances. He questioned how many variances would come to the Council if the standards were rigid. Mr. Waring recalled that staff presented this proposal to the Commission as a housecleaning project to clean up the variance procedures. Mr. Johnson concurred. He noted that most of the neighborhoods, outside of the Lake Corporation, opposed the proposed variance standards because they thought that the City was making it easier to get a variance and providing more flexibility. He stated that he disagreed with that. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 5 of 22 Mr.Johnson commented that the neighborhoods liked the subjective standards because they could use them to shut down a development on the basis of incompatibility. He spoke to writing variance standards as clearly and as objectively as possible, as they should be in dealing with dimensional standards, as opposed to changes of use, which used more subjective standards. Mr. Vizzini summarized the Council's direction as the Commission re-opening consideration of the variance standard changes with the intent of bringing a resolution of the lake properties question into the discussion. He mentioned the question of whether the Lake Corporation members would be satisfied with re-defining their problem in terms of a zoning issue as opposed to a variance question, expanding the conversation to include the issue of subjective versus objective tests, and bringing in examples from other municipalities. Mr. Vizzini noted that the Commission heard two to three dozen variances of meaningful character last year. He mentioned the impassioned testimony the Commission heard at their hearings from people terrified of the negative impact of the current variance process. He spoke to finding a balance that incorporated the need for the locationally specific variances necessary for development to continue. Councilor McPeak discussed the two problems she saw with the lake situation: the application of a cleaner variance procedure and the zoning. She said that she remembered from the previous discussion that a high percentage of variance applications have been in the lake area historically. She observed that the zoning issue was the more difficult issue, which had no time pressure. She indicated that she would like to learn more about it. Mr. Beebe questioned whether the Council wanted to get into the zoning issue because it involved the housing rule, density and other issues that were significantly interrelated. Mr. Johnson commented that he did not think that density was an issue around the lake, as it was a built environment. He held that the real issue was how much would the City allow on an individual lot, which brought up the big house/small lot issue. Councilor McPeak indicated that she thought it was time to tackle the lake issue. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned her perception that the Lake Corporation was amenable to working with the Planning Commission to find something that worked. Mr. Vizzini suggested starting with a discussion and seeing where it led them, as opposed to starting with the solution. He noted that the solution might not be in the zoning but in a design overlay. Mayor Hammerstad said that the Council would appreciate the Planning Commission revisiting this issue in light of comments made by the Councilors tonight. • Long Term Care Housing Mr. Vizzini said that the Commission had a number of hearings on this subject with good testimony from the builders and the neighborhoods about their concerns. He indicated that the Commission tried to strike a balance by finding a way to create the locational standards needed to site the facilities while not threatening the character of residential neighborhoods. He pointed out that long-term care facilities were substantial buildings that would be classed as multifamily if they were not care facilities. Mr. Vizzini said that the Commission did not want to encourage their development within single-family neighborhoods because they established a beachhead within an established residential neighborhood, if the care facility went out of business and some other use took its place. He explained that their idea was to locate these facilities on the edges of residential neighborhoods where transit, shopping, open space/park and recreational facilities were accessible. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/200Iccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 7 rI Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 6 of 22 Mr. Vizzini observed that the most controversial characteristic of the Commission's proposal was limiting their location to arterials. He indicated that the Commission did not have a problem locating them along major collectors but it did not want them on local service streets. Mayor Hammerstad asked for clarification on the definition of `skilled nursing facility.' She mentioned her research into assisted living and skilled nursing facilities on her mother's behalf. She pointed out that if the definition was the same one as used by the medical profession, then those in skilled nursing facilities would not be using transit. Ron Bunch, Government Affairs Liaison, explained that 'long term care housing' was a generic phrase used to describe a range of housing types: residential care (assisted living), skilled nursing and congregate housing (apartment building). He mentioned that the industry has started associating assisted living facilities with skilled nursing facilities in order to provide the flexibility needed with respect to level of care. Mayor Hammerstad observed that most assisted living facilities had their own bus services; the residents did not use public transit. Mr. Vizzini said that the Commission recognized that as an alternative to transit. Mayor Hammerstad discussed her preference that they not restrict these facilities to locations on collectors and arterials, given the limited number of properties of sufficient size remaining in the city and the fact that the residents did not use public transit. Mr. Vizzini explained that the location issue dealt with more than simply transit. He said that the neighborhood advocates referred to the disruption in the neighborhood caused by a 24-hour facility with staffing in shifts and emergency medical traffic at all hours of the day and night. He noted the concern that the sheer physical size of a facility located in the middle of a neighborhood would also change the character of a single-family residential neighborhood. He observed that the Commission did not find it a stretch to locate these facilities on the major collectors since most of those did not have transit services anyway, a problem solved by the facility providing transportation services. Mr. Sandblast clarified that the proposal restricted a skilled nursing facility to the arterials, not the residential care or assisted living facilities (page 55). He emphasized that the Commission meant the 24- hour intensive care facility. Mr. Bunch commented that, although it was highly unlikely that a 100% skilled nursing facility would locate in Lake Oswego, it was possible. He confirmed that such a facility would locate along the major arterials while a residential care facility could locate along minor arterials as well. Councilor Rohde pointed out that the problem with the original plan had been its limiting all categories of long term care housing facilities to major arterials, of which there were only four in Lake Oswego. He mentioned that he had felt the argument that a residential facility was incompatible with the neighborhood was wrong. He observed that this was a growing need in Lake Oswego, not a diminishing need. Councilor McPeak spoke to removing the detailed design characteristics listed on pages 52 and 53 from the ordinance, contending that including them in the ordinance built in too many restrictions. She spoke to working with the review process on the look of the development. Councilor Schoen recalled that the Council looked at the scenario of using the library property or the Armory for long-term care housing, neither of which qualified as a location under the ordinance. He http:f/www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/200Iccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 7 8 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 7 of 22 commented that he felt that the library property not qualifying was wrong. He held that the Armory would be an ideal location. Councilor Rohde observed that Carman Oaks did not qualify under the standards proposed. Councilor Schoen asked if there were limitations on family home care of five to six people. Ms. Heisler stated that that was an outright use under a state requirement. Mr. Vizzini recalled that adding major collectors increased five-fold the number of major streets available for locating these kinds of facilities. He commented that he had thought of the library as an example of an edifice sitting in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He said that the Commission could craft language to locate these buildings in single-family residential neighborhoods but he was certain that the Council would hear from the neighbors about it. Councilor Schoen pointed out that the library was an example of a location close to the Senior Center. He conceded that the neighborhood might be opposed but held that they needed to think in terms of the larger community. Mr. Waring mentioned that none of the testimony opposed senior housing or mentioned 'NIMBY' objections; the conflict lay in the developers saying the facility had to be big in order to be economic and the neighbors saying it had to be small to suit them. Councilor Hoffman recalled remarks Councilor Rohde made about not banishing senior citizens or isolating them from the rest of the community. He mentioned the possibility that the 'new urbanism' movement might support this kind of facility within a neighborhood. He spoke to allowing Lake Oswego residents to retire in place. He said that he was not certain that they could, which was why he favored looking at the more visual locational criteria. Mr.Johnson pointed out that the proposed standards applied to the lower density residential zones and to some commercial zones; these uses were allowed outright in the high-density residential zones. He held that the Council always had the option of a zone change if there were circumstances that warranted one, such as the facility on Carman. Mr.Johnson said that the standards were geared towards protecting the single-family neighborhoods and the areas of lower density. He held that if they had circumstances where infill would work, then the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan amendment standards allowed the Commission to take those things into account, as it did with Avamere and Carman Oaks. He noted that many people opposed that development but the Commission felt that it was appropriate at that location because of the circumstances, such as adjacency to high density residential. Mayor Hammerstad referenced her research into skilled nursing facilities. She observed that skilled nursing facilities would not be large facilities because of the expense to staff and maintenance and because people normally did not stay in them long. She reiterated that there were not many large parcels left in Lake Oswego where they could locate a large facility. She spoke to facilitating assisted living housing by allowing it to be sited where there was land available. Mayor Hammerstad asked to take out the major arterial locational requirement. She indicated that she did not mind the multi-family provision or looking at zone changes with a change in use. Mr. Edwards discussed his concern about what they could do to protect the neighborhoods from the disruptions inherent with a large group living within a regular neighborhood. He cited Glenmorrie's experience with the Christie School as an illustration, commenting that it was not a good situation. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 07 9 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 8 of 22 Councilor Turchi commented that he too researched assisted living facilities for older family members. He mentioned a relatively large tract of land across Overlook Drive by Lakeridge High School, which he thought would be a good location for a facility. He observed that it would likely be prohibited under this proposal, as it would sit on Overlook and connect to Stafford. Mr. Vizzini indicated that the Commission allowed for side street access within a certain number of feet of an arterial or collector. He said that they understood that there would be a problem with locating facilities directly on arterials, given the built environment as it stood today. He stated that the location issue came up because of the testimony from homeowners concerned about the size of these facilities and their operations. Mr. Vizzini spoke to the issue of aging in place. He held that it could be broadly defined as still being a member of the community; it might not mean staying in the neighborhood where someone lived for 20 to 30 years. Mr. Bunch mentioned that, during the zone change and plan amendment process, the City required Avamere to provide a market study to prove the need. He held that this was essential, as these facilities were becoming overbuilt to a certain extent throughout the state (per the Daily Journal of Commerce). He noted that Lake Oswego was considered a highly desirable location. He spoke to drawing a boundary between becoming a net importer of these uses versus providing them for the city's overall population. He commented that every community had some obligation to provide for a balanced share of this housing. Mr. Bunch mentioned testimony they heard about seniors wanting to be in a location where they felt part of the community, able to walk to the store or use public transit, etc. Mayor Hammerstad asked the Commission to readdress this issue in light of these locational considerations. She said that, personally, she would vote for what the Commission brought back to the Council, even if it was not exactly what she wanted, because she thought that the City needed a long term care ordinance. Councilor Rohde suggested that the Council take the heat on this issue. He pointed out that the Planning Commission made a decision to mollify the testimony it heard from the public. Mr. Sandblast left the meeting at 6:45 p.m. • Neighborhood Planning Ms. Heisler summarized her memos discussing whether to allow neighborhood plans to contain regulatory language. She said that the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that the City needed to move towards more directional policies as opposed to regulatory policies, which described whether the plan policy supported an existing Comprehensive Plan policy or was something new. She mentioned returning the neighborhood planning program back to the way it was originally envisioned with directional policies, and including in the process any additional work that needed to be done in order to implement those policies. Mr. Vizzini mentioned the Commission's discussion about changing the process and starting the discussion with the neighborhoods with a grounding in the Comprehensive Plan, and then moving to the specific neighborhood. Ms. Heisler noted the Commission's thought to allow regulatory policies in the neighborhood plans to the extent that the City allowed them in the Comprehensive Plan. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 Q 8 C Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 9 of 22 Mr.Beebe spoke in support of not precluding regulatory language in the neighborhood plans, as there might be something specific to a particular neighborhood, which no one else wanted. Ms. Heisler commented that they needed to make clear when the language was regulatory. Mr.Johnson pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was a regulatory document, as it regulated how the City was zoned. He said that the Zoning Code was the tool used to implement the Comprehensive Plan but the Comprehensive Plan was the criteria by which the City made zone changes. He stated that the specifics within each zone were the Zoning Code. He recalled that the Commission looked at the neighborhood plans as supplemental components of the Comprehensive Plan, and as such regulatory, in that they gave directional guidance towards certain policies. Mr.Johnson explained that some neighborhood plans had both a Zoning Code and a Comprehensive Plan component. He cited the First Addition plan as an example of a neighborhood plan requesting textual and map zone changes that were regulatory. He held that an approach involving both components was what they were talking about. Mr. Powell addressed the Mayor's question with respect to codifying the regulations. He said that he saw the push as codifying provisions as opposed to calling them regulatory, which was already happening, if Mr. Johnson was correct. He explained that what he meant by regulatory was following the Zoning Code plus any regulatory policies in the Comprehensive Plan. He observed that, at the neighborhood plan level, they were not talking about zone changes or Comprehensive Plan changes; they were talking about conditional use. Mr. Powell mentioned a possible discussion of allowing a particular conditional use, looking at the Comprehensive Plan and a particular neighborhood plan provisions, and asking whether or not they were regulatory and applicable to that specific development. He commented that that was not the model they should be following. Mr. Powell said that the neighborhoods could call for that level of regulations but they should do it by adopting a policy asking that the Zoning Code be changed to provide whatever they were asking for. He emphasized that the regulation was a directive to the City to adopt a Zoning Code provision, thus requiring the City and developers to look at only one document when trying to develop something. He indicated that doing so would be clearer from a legal standpoint and solve the problem of not knowing what was or was not regulatory within the neighborhood plans with respect to major developments. Mr. Johnson commented that he saw this as a matter of semantics rather than disagreement. He said that that was the approach that the Commission took with First Addition. He remarked that putting too many things in the Comprehensive Plan ran afoul of state law. Mr. Powell spoke to codifying the Comprehensive Plan, an intent of the City for years. He indicated that the 'interim' measure requiring the application of the regulatory provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for major developments became permanent, although it was not the City's intent to require developers to look to the Comprehensive Plan for what provisions they had to comply with. He commented that he thought the Planning Commission's recommendation essentially did that. Mr. Johnson indicated that Mr. Powell's comments clarified the matter. Mr. Vizzini commented that their last discussion dealt as much with process as product. He said that they recognized the need to more clearly delineate the product. He discussed the process as starting with the Comprehensive Plan as a learning tool and then working through the neighborhood issues. He held that if a neighborhood identified a need for regulatory changes, then the planning committee needed to http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/200Iccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 081 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 10 of 22 continue to work through to the final completion of all those pieces. He spoke to the neighborhood planning committee completely finishing the product with recommendations for a plan piece and a regulatory piece, as opposed to sending a half-finished plan to the Council. Mr.Bunch mentioned Lake Oswego's unique way of making Comprehensive Plan policies regulatory with one sentence in the Zoning Code. He spoke to fixing that by amending the Zoning Code to remove that sentence to get away from the regulatory intent. He indicated that the neighborhood plans could then be implemented based upon prioritization of their goals and policies and upon the availability of staff resources. Mr. Powell concurred that the City could do that but pointed out that by doing so, the City lost the regulatory policies it counted on for major developments. He spoke to, simultaneous with eliminating that sentence, analyzing the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans in order to identify what was regulatory, and adopting those as regulations. He observed that that was a big project but it would allow developers to know what they were supposed to do, based on the Zoning Code Mr. Bunch concurred. Mr. Edwards commented that adopting this process would take care of the new plans coming on board. He spoke to having staff go back to the existing plans and identifying what needed codification because he doubted that the neighborhoods would understand that there was another step to work on. Mr.Johnson spoke to only having a plan or zone change going back to the Comprehensive Plan; everything else went to the Zoning Code. Mr. Powell concurred. • Street Connectivity Mayor Hammerstad described the previous Council's discomfort with this proposal as it went further than the Metro requirements. and it was prospective rather than retroactive. She mentioned the retroactive issue regarding whether or not they wanted paths installed in already built neighborhoods. Councilor Schoen commented that he had voted against it but he would vote for it now in order to move it forward. He said that he did not think it should be retroactive, and noted the Council concerns about cost also. He argued that creating a giant pathway system connecting everything had a cost. Councilor McPeak noted that she also voted against it, as she connected it to minimum density. She said that she thought that the Council could have left it at the Metro requirements and passed it that night. She indicated that she too would vote for it but she would not change her views on those two major issues. Councilor Rohde argued that Lake Oswego developed without the connectivity required in the broader Metro document. He cited his own experience of walking from his home to City Hall, which would be much longer except for an unbuilt City street easement on a vacant lot that shortened his trip considerably. He commented that if that easement did not exist, he might not choose to walk under some circumstances. He reiterated that Lake Oswego did not properly plan for connectivity, citing cul-de-sacs ending one house apart but with no way to cut through the one lot; people had to go all the way around. Councilor McPeak pointed out that whole groups of people wanted it that way, citing Westlake. She observed that there was the point of view not to redo the charming historical development of Lake Oswego while moving forward with connectivity in the new neighborhoods. Councilor Rohde argued that lack of connectivity tied people to the automobile. He held that they would lose any goal to reduce reliance on the automobile if they did not address this problem. Councilor Schoen concurred with http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 08: Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 11 of 22 Councilor McPeak that there were people who did not want street connectivity. Ms. Heisler mentioned that 90% of the pathways identified on the maps were already on City right-of- ways or on parcels where the owner planned to put a pathway in already. She said that there were only two pathways identified on private property. Ms. Heisler noted that the suggestion to reduce the connectivity requirement from the Metro five acre minimum to five times the minimum lot size or greater, and surrounded by parcels of at least that size, was an attempt to review street connectivity. She observed that there were so many obstacles to a through street (undevelopable property beyond the railroad tracks, water, natural resources) that most of the time there would not be a through street. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that staff could get 100% of the paths on right-of-ways or with willing owners. Mayor Hammerstad held that doing so would be more palatable to those Councilors who were not comfortable with the proposal. She commented that the proposed street connections that she looked at made sense, although she understood that they probably would not be built for a variety of reasons. Mr. Beebe concurred that on the ground, the proposal would not have much impact. The Council agreed by consensus. • Minimum Density Mr.Johnson referenced the Peters Road neighborhood controversy as symptomatic of the misinformation in the community with respect to minimum density. He pointed out that a developer could develop at the maximum of the existing zoning. He observed that every time this issue came up at the Planning Commission for the last seven years with respect to a development, the City had not changed the zoning; the developer simply wanted to develop at the existing zoning. Mr.Johnson emphasized that minimum density simply mandated development at a certain percentage of the existing zoning. He spoke to doing a better job on education with respect to minimum density. Councilor McPeak concurred. Mayor Hammerstad agreed, commenting that minimum density was used at MPAC as a political football and a scare tactic. She suggested that the Planning Commission find another phrase, such as `residential opportunity.' Mr. Johnson suggested `efficient use of urban land.' Mr.Johnson noted that people were most concerned about infill development without understanding what the zoning allowed. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the Metro 2040 review session on February 28, which the Planning Commission was welcome to attend along with the six people from the staff and Council who were going. She held that the two biggest impediments to 2040 were financing and the lack of public buy-in because they did not understand the philosophical underpinnings of concepts like minimum density. Mr. Beebe spoke to discussing it in terms of trade-offs: using minimum density within the urban growth boundary or adding Stafford. Mr. Vizzini concurred with Mr. Johnson that the reality was that a developer wanting to develop to the zone maximum could do so. He observed that this was a problem for those who wanted to continue to under-develop their properties. He commented that a property owner could split an acre lot into five or six parcels, site a house on one parcel, never develop the remaining parcels, and comply with the minimum density requirements. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 ., f Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 12 of 22 Mr. Vizzini said that, if there was a political obstacle to the Council decision, perhaps the Commission could help by holding a public information session for public discussion and education before bringing the issue back to the Council. Mr. Beebe pointed out that passing minimum density brought the City into compliance with the housing rule and got Metro off their backs; the amount of development remained the landowner's choice. Mr. Johnson spoke to being players in regional planning. He argued that Beaverton and Hillsboro had the most appropriate locations for development because of the land that they had available. He stated that he did not see this as an issue of Lake Oswego not taking its fair share; rather it was a question of what was or was not available in terms of infrastructure and land. He suggested that Lake Oswego participate more strongly in those discussions. Mr. Johnson concurred with Councilor Rohde that no amount of additional public hearings would nullify the minimum density issue. Councilor Rohde spoke to testing this Council's mettle and passing it, as the opposition would never change its mind and did not care about regionalism or Lake Oswego taking its fair share. Mayor Hammerstad observed that they would be doing this if Metro did not exist because they did not want to move out into Stafford; therefore, they needed to use their land more efficiently. Councilor McPeak asked if they should make one more try to clarify the issue for the public or simply move ahead. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to proceeding with the existing process, noting that the Council would not get to the issue until the fall, thus allowing the dust to settle. Mr.,Johnson observed that the same people testified in opposition to minimum density while 95% of the community has said nothing in opposition to it. Mayor Hammerstad commented that she thought holding an informational session prior to the issue returning to Council would be useful. She spoke to the Council and Commission meeting again in a few months to discuss the progress made on the issues discussed tonight. Mr. Beebe thanked the Council for this meeting and agreed with holding another meeting in a couple of months. • Periodic Review Councilor Rohde asked for discussion of the periodic review issue. He spoke to changing the periodic review process from starting with a committee that made recommendations to the Planning which in turn made recommendations to the Council, to starting with the Council conducting the first review in order to give policy direction to the ad hoc task force and the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson mentioned that much has changed in state law since Lake Oswego did its last periodic review in the early 1990s. Jurisdictions could now go through an evaluation to determine whether it even needed to do a periodic review. Councilor Rohde mentioned the recommended action measures (RAMs) included in the previous periodic review. He commented that during the last periodic review, the committee members wanted to make the RAMs policies or goals because nothing was ever done with RAMs. He argued that `recommended action measure' implied action. He asked what the status was on implementing those action measures. Councilor Rohde characterized the Comprehensive Plan as a set of quality of life indicators. He contended that if they had paid attention to the RAMs, they would not have had to go through the quality of life indicators process. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/200Iccminutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 8 4 Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2001 Page 13 of 22 Mayor Hammerstad gave Ms. Heisler the assignment to present an update to the Council in the next month or so on the next periodic review and the status of the RAMs. Mr. Beebe asked if Council would find it helpful to have a Planning Commissioner present at the Council meetings when these items were discussed. The Council concurred. Mr. Vizzini spoke to the Commission spending some time thinking about the periodic review process and the issues raised by Councilor Rohde, particularly in light of the Council's e-government goal. He indicated that there were a variety of powerful strategies they could employ to create a 21st century process as opposed to a 19th century process. Mayor Hammerstad asked Ms. Heisler to prepare a report on the timeline and goals. Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 7:15 p.m. for a break. She reconvened the meeting. 4.JOINT MEETING WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD 4.1 Open Space Master Plan -T1'AFF REPORT Keith Moe, Natural Resources Advisory Board Chair, observed that the Board has pursued an open space master plan for years. He noted that this plan contained many ideas that they have always supported. He said that they were interested in seeing it implemented in a meaningful way instead of languishing in 'plan land.' Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord, reviewed the open space master plan. He noted that breaking out the open space planning as an independent element from a comprehensive parks and recreation master plan gave it greater standing as a stand alone part of the City planning process and documentation. He mentioned the goals of recognizing the value of protecting these natural resources and of recognizing their intrinsic value in terms contributing to the unique identity and special character of the community. Mr. Reckord pointed out that the plan looked beyond the protection of the actual resources in reconnecting citizens visually to the landscape and to other assets in the community. He mentioned identifying heritage landscapes, making regional connections and reconnecting fragmented habitat as examples. He characterized the plan as making recommendations about the management and stewardship of the community's open spaces. Mr. Reckord mentioned the Board's work in categorizing the City open space parcels and making recommendations for use and non-use. Marianne Zarkin, MacLeod Reckord, reviewed the six major concept areas in the plan: resource protection, green city/green neighborhoods, heritage landscapes, scenic resources, regional connections and water access. She explained that the recommended action measures (RAMs) listed in the report were things that might be capital improvement projects while the recommended regulatory measures (RRMs) were things needing more policy measures for enactment. Ms. Zarkin mentioned some of the resource protection measures, including acquiring properties to reconnect fragmented habitat and creating master plans for open space properties. http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/calendar/CouncilMtgs/2001ccmninutes/021301councilminutes.htm 6/27/01 0 Explanation of Rationale for Inclusion of Local Connectivity Maps LU 00-0015 Map 1 These areas include two parcels in excess of five acres each at the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary and three additional smaller parcels. Additional connectivity here is necessary to provide access to Lakeridge School The area between the two areas encircled in black is also a Tier 1 Urban Reserve area and will likely come into the City in the near future. By providing adequate connections in this area when it is developed additional new accesses onto Stafford Road can be limited or avoided. Map 2 The northerly area on Map 2 includes a previously dedicated right-of-way. If this area is connected, improved access to shopping and schools on Boones Ferry will be provided. The large vacant parcel abutting this area contains a stream corridor and wetland. Even though, through the development process, a street may not be allowed, staff felt it was important to include it on the map so that street and accessway connectivity considerations may be made/ The southerly parcel includes a previously dedicated "bridle path" that was superimposed over the original plat for this area by Oregon Iron and Steel. Connecting this to Twin Fir Road and Brookside Road in the future will allow additional pedestrian connections to shopping and transit on Boones Ferry and to the Hunt Club. Map 3.There is currently no easy way for residents of Lower Drive to access Boones Ferry Road bike,pedestrian and transit facilities. The identified parcel is currently planning to develop this site with stairs and a pavilion focal point on the Lower Drive side of the connection. Map 4 This area comprises five larger parcels for which review of connectivity was deemed important due to the lack of connections in the area to Westridge School, which is primarily due to the topography. When these parcels are redeveloped, there may be opportunities for additional street or accessway connections. Map 5 This area abuts State Street and Chapin Way, a dead end street and several other north/south dead ends including O'Brien, Gans, Lund and Bullock. Informal trails currently cross this area. Upon development, there may be opportunities to improve accessway connections through this wooded area to both Hallinan School and transit on Highway 43 Map 6 This area lies in the middle of a block that is 900 to 1000 feet long,contains parcels that could be redeveloped and contained existing access drives that could be refashioned to include pedestrian access upon redevelopment. The existing driveway serving the westerly parcels is a separate tax lot. Extension along the line of the existing driveway to the rear of the parcel with an accessway could provide access to a future connection through the westerly parcel could provide pedestrian and bicycle access to transit on Highway 43. Map 7 These parcels include land that was originally platted with the extension of Haven Street. As part of the street vacation, a 20' easement for purposes of a public pathway and utility easement was retained by the City (10' on each side of the centerline). By including this area within the Local Connectivity maps,development proposals may be reviewed to prevent encroachment over the existing easement so that pedestrian/bike accessway could be accommodated a the future to transit service on Bryant and the Bryant pathway. EXHIBIT 4 087 Map 8 This area is known as the South Shore Natural Area. It is owned by the City of Lake Oswego. A pathway from Oak Terrace up to South Shore in this vicinity would provide a shorter route for residents at the westerly end of Oak Terrace to access the pathway and transit stops on South Shore. Map 9 The northerly area encircled on Map 9 includes several parcels on which development is currently proposed. Mapping will assure the opportunity for street and/or accessway connections in the area between Old Gate Road and Melissa Drive, which are currently approximately 900 feet apart. The southerly mapped area includes a 3.8 acre parcel with two streets stubbed to it. Providing a connection upon redevelopment complies with the goal of providing a connected local street system and multiple routes to destinations. Map 10: The southerly encircled area comprises redevelopable land with a stubbed street (Langford Lane) abutting at the westerly end. When these parcels are redeveloped, this street could be connected to Carman, providing additional auto and pedestrian routes for residents on Langford. The northerly accessway noted on the map, between Meadows and Carman is currently in pedestrian use but portions of it are unimproved. Upon redevelopment of the parcels abutting it to the northwest, additional pathway enhancements could be made to encourage bike/pedestrian transportation to and from this large employment area. `lap 11: The diamond patterns on this map denote desired connections. The diamonds are shown on parcels currently in the City, however, connections would be made in the future over parcels that are currently unincorporated. Due to their current status in the County, they are not encircled in black. The parcels encircled in black constitute the Meyer Property, a City owned undeveloped natural area park. An informal pathway/gravel road is currently present. A more formalized and all weather accessway to and through the park connecting both ends of Atwater Lane would provide improved access for this area, as well as to transit on Country Club Road. Map 12: This area includes a large expanse of undeveloped area with no north/south pedestrian access. The area is extremely steep, making road construction questionable, however some type of pedestrian access (stairs of pathways) would provide additional options for traveling to Hallinan School or transit on Highway 43. Map 13: This area was included because at the northwesterly corner and the easterly edge (both ends of the dotted line), there is dedicated right of way. Whether future development requires a street or not in this area, an accessway between Wembley Place and Egan Way would reduce travel time and encourage walking for residents in this area going to Uplands Elementary and Lake Oswego Jr. High. Case files/2000/1u 00-0015/Explanation of Rationale for Inclusion of Local Connectivity Maps.doc 088 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2001 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Dept.of►fanning$Development Date: May 20, 1997 To: Tom Kloster, AICP and Rich Ledbetter, Metro Street Design Work Team From: James M. Daisa,P.E. Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc. Subject: Metro Regional Street Design Study Final Analysis and Conclusions for Connectivity Case Studies INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of Tasks 7 of the Metro Regional Street Design Study, prepared as part of the consultant work on the project. It provides a summary of cooperative efforts made by the consultant, Metro and the Street Design Work Team to model and evaluate street connectivity impacts on traffic conditions along regional streets designated in the 2040 Growth Concept. The overall goal is to test the premise that increasing local street connectivity improves traffic flow on regional streets. Objectives In coordination with the Street Design Work Team and travel forecasting staff, the consultant developed five prototypical subareas that are geographically representative. The subareas were evaluated with Region 2015 Growth Concept land use assumptions and local or collector street connections at "low", "moderate" and "high" levels of connectivity. Working with travel forecasting staff, the consultant prepared conceptual roadway networks, a more detailed 2015 regional triptable, sequential traffic assignments and selected output evaluation measures. The results allow evaluation of the impact of increasing or decreasing levels of street connectivity on the composition of vehicle traffic, and other performance measures, on regional streets. The analysis focused on vehicle impacts and did not evaluate alternative mode shares such as walking,bicycling,or transit. Definition of Connectivity "Connectivity"implies a system of streets with multiple routes and connections serving the same origins and destinations. Connectivity not only relates to the number of intersection along a segment of street, but how an entire area is connected by the system. An area with high connectivity has multiple points of access around its perimeter as well as a dense system of parallel routes and cross-connections within the area. Parallel routes, typically, are classified and sized appropriately for local traffic to discourage longer distance through traffic. The purpose of such a "redundant" street system is to provide multiple choices for drivers wishing EXHIBIT 5 089 Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc to travel short distances completely within the area, and from within the area to points outside of the area,without being forced to travel on a major arterial. An exemplary example of a well connected street system is the traditional grid pattern seen in downtown Portland and in many other communities in the Metro region. Grid street patterns result in dispersion of traffic throughout the system. While major arterials exist within the grid pattern, local travelers use interconnected local streets freeing the arterials for the movement of longer distance travelers. In contrast, conventional suburban development patterns provide a hierarchy of streets beginning with cul-de-sac and progressing to major arterials. Suburban street patterns are designed to collect traffic from residential neighborhoods, and channel it to progressively higher street classifications at limited access points. This pattern of streets commonly results in vast intersections at major junctions, severe congestion, and an environment which discourages pedestrian and bicycle travel. For simplicity this research and analysis defines connectivity in the linear terms of "intersection connections per mile". However, the analysis is based on areawide connectivity with the designated level of linear connections on the regional streets and parallel routes. Summary of Results The connectivity studies tested the evolving theories about the form and function of local and regional system of streets. The expected results and actual findings are summarized in Table 1. Generally, the findings of the case studies support the expected results of connectivity theories. Traffic volume along regional select links reduced under the high and moderate connectivity case studies in most cases. For each of the subareas, the results are encouraging in that vehicle hours of delay (VHD), vehicle miles of travel and average trip length were all reduced under the moderate and high connectivity scenarios. Finally, the level of approach volumes at key selected study intersections was less in most cases under the high connectivity scenario. The results of the case studies indicates that some longer distance regional traffic will tend to use parallel routes to regional streets to bypass congested intersections and street segments, providing the parallel route results in an equal or better travel time. However, the majority of longer distance travel remains on the regional streets. This finding is expected in using the regional model, which assigns traffic to streets in an attempt to reach "equilibrium" in a system of parallel connections. Overall Conclusion and Recommendations Overall, the connectivity case studies support the theory that an interconnected'street system improves traffic flow on regional streets. However, the study indicates that there may be impacts associated with connectivity, including intrusion of regional traffic into neighborhoods with streets parallel to regional facilities. An interesting finding from the case studies is that providing increasing levels of connectivity results in a diminishing return. This finding was consistently seen in all of the case studies and indicates that a specific threshold of connections per mile results in the optimal performance or the most "bang for the buck". The threshold is consistently seen between the moderate and high levels of connectivity, where the benefit between moderate and low connectivity substantially exceeds the benefit between moderate and high levels of connectivity. This leads to the conclusion that the most cost-effective means of improving regional street flow through increasing connectivity is to provide a moderate level of connectivity, between 10 and 16 connections per mile. Regional Street Design Project-Connectivity Case Studies Page 2 0 0 Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc Capacity and Environmental Impact Implications of Connectivity As defined, areas with a well connected street system (such as the traditional grid pattern) tend to have more intersections and more parallel alternative routes than areas with low connectivity and conventional suburban street hierarchy. Well connected areas are viewed as more urban and more densely developed than sparsely connected areas which are viewed as more suburban or even possibly rural. The primary impacts associated with higher levels of connectivity are: • Higher levels of connectivity can result in diversion of local and regional traffic into residential neighborhoods. To avoid this impact, designated parallel routes should pass through commercial areas (which tend to welcome additional traffic) on streets appropriately sized and designed for higher levels of traffic (major collectors, minor arterial, etc.). Implementing traffic management plans, including traffic calming, cart often mitigate residential intrusion. Longer distance travel is intended to remain on regional streets, often requiring capacity improvements to reduce congestion and discourage use of alternative routes. Avoid planning connections which clearly provide a convenient bypass of congested intersections. • Additional connecting intersections on regional streets reduce the overall capacity of regional streets. The premise is that the decrease in capacity is offset by the reduction in local traffic. However, it is important to recall that connectivity is not solely defined as the number of connections per mile of regional street, but as an areawide level of connectivity both within and external to the area. In fact, high areawide connectivity cart be achieved without increasing the number of intersections on regional streets. To achieve maximum capacity on regional streets, the timing of signalized intersections should be coordinated to provide good progression. Additionally, individual unsignalized intersections and driveways may require turn movement prohibitions or restrictions to maintain good flow and safety on the regional street, while still providing the desired level of connectivity and access to adjacent land uses. The remainder of this report presents a brief overview of the methodology, the results and conclusions drawn from the technical work. METHODOLOGY The technical process designed for this study applies the Metro Regional forecasting model as a primary analysis tool. Of importance to the study objectives was the model's powerful utility to forecast traffic flow based on input definition of street and roadway network connectivity. In theory the model attempts to assign and reassign traffic demand among the network links based on the level of accessibility and congestion within the network, attempting to solve for an "equilibrium" condition among traffic demand (or level of congestion) and transportation supply along alternative routes. Selecting Representative Subarea Scenarios The consultant assisted Metro staff in reviewing and obtaining input from the Metro Street Design Work Team in the selection of five "prototypical" subarea scenarios for connectivity case study evaluation. The established objective was to reflect the range of urban, suburban and mixed land use and street layout conditions existing within the Portland region. These selected subarea scenarios represent different levels of existing street connectivity from low to moderate to high. It is recognized that these five subarea scenarios are only illustrative of the types of Regional Street Design Project-Connectivity Case Studies 0 Page 3 Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc areas that exist within the region and indicate how real-world traffic patterns might change from varying levels of street connections to the regional arterial roadway system. Table 2 is a summary of the five subarea scenarios selected for the evaluation and defines the low,moderate and high connectivity for each. Preparation of Model Network Scenarios The consultant and Metro staff shared the role of preparing the scenario networks for the connectivity case studies. The process was streamlined to make use of the full Metro regional model network, including more than 1,600 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) and roadway segments representing the entire region. Metro staff provided a starting point 2015 network "database" and subarea maps, showing the model network and TAZ system overlaid on aerial photographs. Using these resources, the consultant staff identified a refined TAZ system identifying a roughly 4-to-1 split or disaggregation of existing TAZs, to refine the system suitable for traffic assignments under each of the low,moderate and high connectivity case scenarios. Once the TAZ splits were identified, Metro staff prepared a new triptable based on the finer TAZ boundaries, allocating the coarser land use summaries to the smaller areas within each TAZ. At the same time, the Consultant prepared three separate network scenarios within the 2015 regional model database. Each of the three network scenarios represent the level of street connectivity assumed under low, moderate and high for each of the five subarea scenarios shown in Table 1. Then the traffic assignment component of the 2015 regional model was run three times, once for each of the three low, moderate and high scenarios. These network assignments included use of a constant 2015 triptable prepared by Metro representing the finer TAZ system. The assignment networks and triptable were further input to "macro" calculations developed by the consultant to prepare the evaluation measures described below. Evaluation Measures Table 3 is a summary of the evaluation measures chosen to review the results of the connectivity case studies. Select link data represents the impact of local and collector street connectivity on representative segments of the regional street system. Select link summaries "skin" the travel characteristics from the results of the network assignment matching trip interchange and travel path data for a specific point of collection of points on the network. For the select links, results identify: average trip length, traffic volume, traffic composition between long and short distance trips and average travel time. The specific select links were chosen with input from Metro staff and the Metro Street Design Work Team. Zone data is summarized similar to select link data, representing the compilation of all TAZs within the subarea--in this case for each of the five subareas. For the zone data the results identify:vehicle hours of delay,vehicle miles of travel and average trip length in miles. Intersection approach volumes were summarized for selected high volume intersections within each of the subareas. This data indicates the level of approach volumes to each intersection for the low, moderate and high connectivity case studies. From this data general conclusions can be drawn about the impact of street connectivity on intersection delays and level of service measures which require additional information to calculate. Regional Street Design Project-Connectivity Case Studies Page 092 Fehr and Leers Associates,Inc SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS The connectivity case study results generally support the study team theories about street connectivity. Tables 4 and 5 show a summary of the select link measures, including regional street traffic composition and change in traffic volumes. Table 6 summarizes the average trip length and travel times between connectivity levels. Table 7 is a summary of the zonal data representing the aggregate performance measures of all trips for each subarea. Finally, Table 8 is a summary of the intersection approach volumes. Select Link Summaries The select link data shows a mixed bag of results. When only a few select links are chosen for each subarea as is the case here, the analysis may be inconclusive at best. Therefore, the reviewer must carefully consider whether these are representative or whether other select links should have been used for the analysis. Table 4 shows the following results: • For most of the select link locations, total traffic volumes decrease at the select link location along the regional roadway, varying from slight to significant decreases between the low connectivity and the high connectivity scenarios. Table 5 presents the percent change in traffic volumes showing an average change for all select links between 4% and 9%. This suggests that in most cases traffic volumes decrease on the regional roadways given a higher level of connectivity within the local network. • For about half of the select link locations, the % of total trips which are external to external (XX) zone pairs, increases between the low connectivity and the high connectivity scenarios. On average XX travel increases about 5% to 6%. One subarea (Sunnyside) experiences a larger increase in XX travel than the other subareas, about 2% to 9%. This supports the theory that regional roadways serve fewer local oriented trips when local network connectivity is available. Table 6 shows average trip length and travel time for each of the three subarea connectivity scenarios. These results are less conclusive. Overall, average trip length increase slightly between the low and moderate scenarios, and not at all between the moderate and high scenarios. Across the select link locations, average travel time results show a slight increase for less than half of the locations between the low and high connectivity scenarios, contrary to the expected findings. On average,for select links average travel time increases negligibly. Since regional streets would be expected to handle a higher percentage of through traffic as local traffic decreases, the average travel time and distance would be expected to increase. A possible explanation is that these measures show less variation due to off-setting changes in travel volume and composition on the regional roadways. As less traffic occurs on the regional roadway locations under the high connectivity scenario, less delay occurs at intersections and improved travel times result serving a higher percentage of through or non-local traffic. Subarea Summaries The subarea summaries combine the travel demand characteristics for all TAZs within the defined subarea. The results are calculated at the TAZ level, proportioned and aggregated to the subarea level. The results for the subareas are generally conclusive. Table 7 shows the following subarea results: Regional Street Design Project•Connectivity Case Studies Page 5 0 `) Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc • Vehicle hours of delay (VHD),vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and average trip length decrease for each of the five subareas between the low and high connectivity case scenarios. On average, the greatest decrease in VHD occurs between the low and moderate scenarios (14%), with diminishing decreases between the moderate and high scenarios (3%). VMT and average trip length decrease slightly between all cases(1-2%). • These results for vehicle traffic flow which show less overall travel and delay where street connectivity is high, also suggests the same benefits would be derived for bicycle and walking trips within these same subareas. In other words, better street connectivity would encourage reduced travel time and delay by these non-motorized modes. Intersection Approach Volumes Table 8 is a summary of the intersection approach volumes at each of the five subarea intersections selected for review. These results show intersection approach volumes decrease between the low and high connectivity case scenarios, an average of 10°!0 between low and moderate scenarios and 6% between the moderate and high scenarios. In some cases the differences are significant (as high as 50%) and would likely result in improved level of service and less delays at these intersections. Inspection of the connectivity networks provides an explanation for some of the decreases. In some locations, longer distance trips utilize parallel streets to avoid congested intersections, an impact which must be considered and mitigated when traffic intrudes upon residential neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of the connectivity case studies indicate that moderate to high local street connectivity reduces traffic demand on the regional roadways and overall vehicle traffic demand across each of the five representative case study areas. Generally, the incremental benefit between low to moderate levels of connectivity are greater than the incremental benefit between moderate to high levels of connectivity indicating a possible threshold for optimal levels of connectivity(between 10 and 16 connections per mile). Providing an interconnected street system can lead to some environmental and capacity impacts which, can be mitigated or avoided altogether with proper planning. The primary impacts associated with higher levels of connectivity are diversion of local and regional traffic into residential neighborhoods, and additional connecting intersections reducing the overall capacity of regional streets. However, a well connected street system serving local origins and destinations can be implemented without any additional connections to regional streets. lZegtorta(Street Design Project-Connectivity Case Studies Page 6 Table 1 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Comparison of Expected and Actual Findings Expected Finding Actual Finding_ Avragc Trip Length and Average,Trip Length and Travel Time Travel Time On average,increases in average trip length and decreases in travel Average trip length on time are negligible,due to the low proportion of short distance trips on regional streets increase,as the selected regional streets. the proportion of longer distance travel increases. Average travel time decreases as local traffic diverts to local connections and reduces volumes on regional streets, freeing capacity for longer distance trips. Traffic Composition Traffic Composition Composition of traffic While the actual findings generally support the expected findings,the volumes and regional streets average change in composition between low and high connectivity . would increase the cases was small. Significant increases in longer distance travel proportion of longer distance occurred in a few cases. Most of the case studies had very low travel (through traffic),as composition of short distance trips in the low connectivity scenarios, shorter distance travel finds resulting in small or negligible change with increasing levels of alternative routes on local connectivity. One case study(Sunnyside)reacted as expected,with streets. the proportion of longer distance travel increasing an average of 8%, and short distance travel decreasing an average of 50%. The Sunnyside area is one case study in which short distance trips make up a substantial proportion of the street's composition. Traffic Composition Traffic Composition Composition of traffic While the actual findings generally support the expected findings, the volumes and regional streets average change in composition between low and high connectivity would increase the cases was small. Significant increases in longer distance travel proportion of longer distance occurred in a few cases. Most of the case studies had very low travel(through traffic),as composition of short distance trips in the low connectivity scenarios, shorter distance travel finds resulting in small or negligible change with increasing levels of alternative routes on local connectivity. One case study(Sunnyside) reacted as expected,with streets. the proportion of longer distance travel increasing an average of 8%, and short distance travel decreasing an average of 50%. The Sunnyside area is one case study in which short distance trips make • up a substantial proportion of the street's composition. Fehr& Peers Associares, Inc. OJT) Table 1 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES (continued) Comparison of Expected and Actual Finding~; Expected Finding Actual Finding Trafficyolumes Traffic Volumes Overall traffic volumes on The case studies resulted in the expected finding with traffic volumes regional streets decrease as on regional streets reducing an average of 4% to 9%,and significantly shorter distance travel uses on some individual streets(up to 70%). However,because the average local street connections. change in composition of long distance and short distance travel is negligible,the volume reduction is evidence that longer distance travel is also being diverted to parallel routes to avoid congestion on regional streets. The exception to this is the Sunnyside area,in which the composition changed as expected. Traffic volumes in the Sunnyside area reduce an average of 12%to 20%. Subarea Performance Subarea PgrfQrmance Measures Measures The case studies generally result in the expected finding with subareas For the entire subarea,vehicle performance measures reducing with increasing levels of connectivity. hours of delay(VHD),vehicle Vehicle hours of delay decrease 14% to 17%,vehicle miles of travel miles of travel(VMT),and decrease 1%to 2%,and average trip lengths decrease about 2%. While average trip lenght(miles)all VHD shows a substantial decrease between low and higher levels of decrease as local trips divert connectivity,the measures of VMT and average trip length show small to more direct connections reductions. The reasons are(1)the majority of subarea trips are longer and travel shorter distances distance trips resulting in small changes in VMT and average trip and longer distance trips length and,(2)the reduction in VHD indicates longer distance trips experience less congestion on are utilizing parallel routes to regional streets. regional streets or divert to :parallel routes with reserve apacity. Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Volumes Volumes The case studies generally result in the expected findings with major Approach volumes at key intersection approach volumes decreasing on average 6% to 10%. The :major intersections decrease majority of longer distance traffic remains on the regional streets. s local traffic diverts to more However,inspection of networks indicates that some longer distance :erect connections and avoids traffic utilizes parallel routes. This is evidence of the potential impact -egional streets. Longer of through traffic intruding into adjacent residential neighborhoods. istance traffic utilizes increased capacity and remains on regional streets. rr& Peers Associates, Inc. 00 t5 Table 2 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Subarea Scenarios Subarea Description —�'--_--- Levels of Connectivity Tested* Bethany Rapidlygrowing g p area with large Low:6(existing) tracts of vacant land oriented Moderate: 10 toward US 26. Existing High: 14 subdivisions display low street g connectivity. West Portland Older suburban neighborhoods Low: 12(existing) with some infill development Moderate: 16 oriented toward 1-5 and Barbur High:20 Boulevard. Street connectivity within the older neighborhoods is relatively high where topography permits. Inner Southeast Urbanized older Portland neighborhoods with a highly Low: r12 connected local and arterial Moderate: 16 street system. 2040 Growth 11 Concept corridor and main street designations exist along many arterials in this area. High:20(existing) Lied County Older suburban neighborhoods Low:8 oriented along parallel Burnside Moderate: 12 Stark and Division. Area includes the Rockwood Town High: 16(existing) Center at 181"and Burnside, and overall relatively high local and arterial street connectivity. Sunnyside This area includes rapidly developing tracts located near or Moderate:te: 12(existing) along I-205 and Sunnyside Road. High: 16 The street network in this area has low connectivity with rapid development occurring on closed street systems. 'Street connectivity was estimated on an area-wide rather than on a linear arterial basis generally reflecting the opportunity ingress or egress an area via available connections from local to regional streets. The existing situation represents 2015 Growth Concept conditions Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc. 097 • Table 3 • CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Connectivity Case Study Evaluation Measures 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluation Measure Bethany Y West Portland __ Inner Southeast Mid-County Sunnyside_ a) Select Link Data: 1. US 26 4.1-5 7. Powell 9. 181' 12. Sunnyside e/o Murray bet. Barbur and Capiinl e/o 39th n/o Burnside e/o 1-205 Average trip length Average travel time 2. Murray Blvd. 5. Capitol 8.39°i Avenue 10. Stark 13. 122"d Traffic volume s/o US 26 s/n 1-5 s/o Hawthorne e/o 162nd n Jo Sunnyside Traffic mix (IX,XX,X1) 3. Cornell 6. Barbur 11. Division 14. Sunnyside bet. 142nd and e/o Capitol e/o 162nd w/o 142nd Murray b)Zone Data: aggregate aggregate abgregali, aggreg,ite aggregate subarea subarea subarea subsre.r subarea VH1) zone summaries zone summaries zone summarie, zone summaries zone summaries VMT avg. trip length c)Other: network network 11,11u,ork network network review review nog iew review review Intersection Approach Volumes '-w hr& Peers Associates, Inc. 5/19/97 O CO • • Table 4 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Traffic Composition on Regional Roads Low Connectivity Moderate Connectivity __ FI h Connectivity pry. Volume %XX %IX�XI )�J %ll Volume�y� ' %XX %IXXI %Il Volume ' %XX. %IXXI %II .Stull/�(�8L1',nPBatl191�1r!s)tat r „T „7 '. 44' �. r� .-.c i_rC•:%. !Rt�1& CIF^�E t�t`'s +.fit` `l T�_ .. .�.,it�,tt,', rt p ,� y,� , t 41r"41 j�'�'r*7 j `t ^•,,..33,,..1�� � .1h3i.. i�. ':J w.� .TI,. 1i;yl....c.a. ll_:<.liiaL+..l. Highway 26 e/o Murray ` 10j648 86% 14% , 0% 10,609 , 86% 14% , 0% 10,584 86% 14% 0% Murray Blvd. sic)Highway 26 5,287 65% 34% 2% 5,546 65% 34% 2% 5,690 64% 34% , 2% Cornell Road 142nd-Murry 2,588 43% 52% ,j 5% }� 2,271 51% r 43% q @y5ra% 2,171'�µ 56%upy�k' 'y 38% 6')/ gill A"fea"AI eS 'or an 1 m s ..� s. o % ;'`. "Y4�L 51 it a«lk3 ' ,•r a AN @Ni 106 iY�" 'fie NAM ON fli,..„.'u i i �1'N�13 1-5 Barbur-Capitol 9,803 97% 3% 0% 9,419 98% 2% 0% 9,344 9f3% 2% 0% Capitol Highway slot-5 1,484 63% 33% 4% 883 1 61% 35% 4% •1,546 i 64% 33% ' 3% 1 Barbur Blvd. e/o Ca itol 3 411 65% 32% 3% 3,235 62% 34% 4% 3,305 63% 33% 4% u ,Arati,.,t n'ec S 'hat. .. ,t,WM . ill ell t.M Rai {ux'_t w kt fliAlialliM : `,:" 1 00441#RO Powell Blvd. e/o 39th _ 1,669 89% 11% , 0% 1,248 . 87% , 12% 0% 1,002 87% 12% 1% 39th Avenue sic)Hawthorne 2,399 58% 39% 3% 1,512 67% 30% 3% 742 77% 23% 0% S178'E1re`ia"4'A arcliCiiri'" M OM r V `164 �� . ,.' �Itt��if. t r��f¢i(� 0�}4.�-(�r,,�.',041 ;•W ibit , r MOW r �y�( ty ..: �+ .�� � .r4. �. � 1`�� ��H+iKl"� I61��1�d'!'�1'»f, I���IFt I �����lR���M�FP�x � ���7��MF�n1G 181st Street No Burnside 3,610 75% 25% 0% , 3,520 75% , 25% 0% , 3,058 72% 28% 0% Stark Street e/o 162nd 2,501 , 71% 27% 2°10 2,434 72% 26% 2% 2,247 71% , 27% 2% Division Street e/o 162nd 2,833 75% }244% . ,. c 4^ 1% 2,540 85% 15% 0% 2,522 85% 15% 0% TAr Srta� t , Ii'i 3P i- 9 � ic b} u) j w ~ . . ,;.,, , WOO* mgo' ksviR o_ Sunnyside Road e/o 1-205 6,201 , 16% 62% 22% 4,402 17% 67% , 16% 3,637 18% 69% 13% 122nd Avenue No Sunnyside 1,775 33% , 62% 6% 1,526 40% 56% 4% 1,288 42% 54% 4% , Sunnyside Road w/o 142nd 1,823 18% 72% 10%!, 1,507 27% 72% 1% 1,466 24% 74% 2% Average 4,370 67% 29% 4% . 3,968 73% 26% 3% 3,821 72% 26% 2% Note. Volume is 2015 PM Traffic Volume Forecast %XX is Percent of Traffic Flow which Is external to external trips,with neither origin or destination within subarea %IXXI is Percent of Traffic Flow which is internal to external tops,ni external to internal,with either origin or destination within subarea %II is Percent of Traffic Flow which is internal to Internal trips,with both origin and destination within subarea Bold above shows estimate base case or existing level e1 connectivity assumed within each subarea Fehr Peers Associates,Inc. 5/19/97 Cam: Table 5 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Change in Traffic Volume on Regional Roads Low Connectivity Moderate Connectivity %Change From High Connectivity % Change From �7��q '�yi� d� $ �ry �{}� Volume Volume Low Volume Moderate StitYlArt1tll�r`t3eth` rfi r?; rt N 'YF -i�-T 3{rptr. uki� (t x;� rt�q j" 1 rr..• su 1 A - i y .' r . ,.�s If �i`� n,.�,:�..�,,:�rri`��4��1 � � f. +:�� r �R..� �t�1 '•` ;"��.�1 €��� Highway 26 _ e/o Murray .4 10 648 10,609 0% 10,584 0% Murray Blvd. s/o Highway 26 55287 5,546 5% 5,690 3% Cornell Road 142nd-Murra 2,588 2,271 -12% �� -4% SUIS r,8pa'ACK/Melitr o . z'"tt. '"Y':+ }eNK' - r ! t 2L1710 � a 4 ;i rk? I ii WW i _____ 1,. 1-5 Barbur-Capitol _ 9_I803, 9L419 -4% 9L344� -1% Capitol Highway sic 1-5 1,484 883 -40% ' 1,546 75% Barbur Blvd. e/o Capitol 3,411 3,235 4 -5% _ 3,305 2% ��;, 1��t y �y � p � ;y _ A' �q�, St38" ,"i`"e° 3',. lll)rCl �oLIl'cl0 . •Li a. .. � f` 1.P TIt � pp��,��I�� �rs 1,�, "iN4¢1' ki.lpl ft1C p ,,t�uh q�i ru I; ' 'i it��.•:!.,. .. ,.. .,_ t1','.w'', i'?-"�•U � .,.. '�.r.:- •:. ' �1 Y, �#�h'3iAif ESt�V�r�^SI'�tt��t 76 \ �� Powell Blvd. e/o 39th 1,669 1 2481 -25% 1 UO2 -20% 39th Avenue sic, Hawthorne 2,399 1 512 3 7 % Siillgr" g ai r6°.D L,._� ;i , .,,,, �!r`., . . O'Ii+1 i^g Ptika „. 1 41 i?; ', ' � �tir:,,'' . ,1 a 742 181st Street n/o Burnside 3,610 3,520 -2% 31058 -13% Stark Street e/o 162nd 2,501 2,434 3% Yu_ 2j247 -8% Division Street e/o 162nd 2 833 2,540 -10°/ 2 522 -1% Sub'�A:VATORSin'r' silo' 'ice- (°.1 41r P IT� ' 44 �; ?1c 1 kr, R . +i• x°t t� _ — 44. 1 1 44, Sunnyside Road e/o 1-205 _ 6,201 4,0 -29% 3,637 -1/% 122nd Avenue No Sunnyside ,_ 1,775 1,526 -14% 1,288 _~ -16% Sunnyside Road w/o 142nd 1,823 1,507 -17% 1,466 -3% Average 4L370 v 3,968 -9% - 3,821_ -4% i I~-%- Fehr Peers Associates, Inc, 5/19/97 G C3 Table 6 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Average Trip Length and Travel Time on Regional Roads low ConneclMy Modersle Connecllvfy %Chang..From low 4ligh Connectivity %Change From Moderele Avg.Tip Length Avg,Travel Time Avg.'Inn Length Avg.Travel Time Avg.Trip Length Avg Travel lime Avg.Trip Length Avg Travel Time Avg.trip Length Avg,Travel Time �.y� .t,. q,,p MOWN (Minutes) (Mile.1 (Minutes) (Miles) �4 (Minutes) (Miles) (Minute.) (Miles) (Minutes) Sub'Me61f.'1lielfi'snYt J1,t+Yxr�; 161 aSfA OWN IIIII .'ittiiW-051 , 1r 13r,3 l'p •s l F',*at�� ' ,,'I ` ., 7 7',7i.r�k14t'� t ORMO V lichway 26 aro Munay 15.0 28.2 15.0 28.1 DA 0.0 15.0 28.2 0.0 0,0 Murray 8lvd. alo Hlg wvay 26 7,5 15.7 7.4 15.5 0 0 0.0 7.5 15.6 0.0 0.0 Cornell Road 142r16Muna 5,7 13.1 5,7 13.0 0 0 0.0 5.8 13.1 0.0 0.0 .Vr nir•'1 ''ly"„' t`r -t,k, rrhr• L t r .i' ' -.a.3L,�>`n wr u + r + r c-'' '`1`T Jo tt ,, re .at„ fir '^"tl,iy��; 'y- y� ygc �e,�sty y 5 p 6 .A,e.�r,�`e:i P�nr+ �,�1.::r7'..h���;;1,��49. ,'gi•��` .'�i �• �.��... -. :r _ ,. �3'•.�8`'7�.I�F3(�i;','st�i ti';i 7'�.:+���a'a. rlrFti :�:'-�� r..l�.+r:..�.,..2.�i.�' r,T 1.�'tScte,tlt . .._ ., o,n +�.d:E, :`'`i��liy,�' 1' yam„ 1,6 nantxrr-Cereter 19.6 38.7 20.0 39.3 0.0 00 20.0 39.3 0.0 0,0 I Cspllol Highway slo US 6.1 15.3 6.4 16.7 0.1 0.1 6,4 16 it 0 0 0.0 Baraur Blvd elo Captlol 8.1 20.0 7.5 18.3 •0 1 •0.1 7.4 18.1 0.0 0.0 s •A<'e.'o:?"a,' '7 1`);ta>;('. ' ' # :?I1 ' ,' di6�(::WI;A t a 'a ,�J; 1 0 y'>af� 14 44001010 l g i MMO Atli , t t t o if i R Pawn.Blvd. eA+361n 9.0 27 1 9 9 27(1 0,0 0.0 9.4 26.9 •0.1 0.0 3001 Avenue slo Hnwtlwme 5.2 15.9 4 it 14.2 •0.1 -0.1 5,0 14.6 0.1 0.0 'At,i ADA4Z ai. I IX 1M 'k. `;.,,:. )f''oi ` '1 f c i ,tilt ic,4hy� i tr', la. V c ` it illWAI'`ti t+!`..,1+. `�'a d it vk, g��{�. l ty. � ,.r .. Avow r:,. e4�.yc �{��' rbrn an��bt,,i+�"'v�l� � ii r.i�x� � „ r. 4 r 6.4)it'll{'8':'8'liiArl 181st Sheol No furnskie 8.0 17.5 8 0 17.4 0.1) 0.0 8.3 17.8 0.0 0.0 Stark Sheaf el0 162nd v 9,0 _ 20.2 9.2 20 2 0 0 (IA 8.7 19.3 40.1 •0,1 1 ()Agog Street elo 102nd 9 4 21.5 9.8 22.3 0.0 0,0 10.0 22.7 0 0 0.0 14'ila NV'"ata"a . , *04140 t103,1`400110 3 loWi :i a >?I- 1441x�)04.1 (I. ';�1 ii%ft/v*1 gaiwito*seRipaigagio wawa 11(!I 00401 Sunnyslde Road eh)1.205 6.4 ' 16.2 7.3 16.5 0,2 0.0 7 5 16.6 _ 0,0 0.0 t22nd Avenrie No&aunysIde 6,2 18.0 00.0 14 8 0.0 -0,1 6.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 Srarnysld.Riwd w)n 142nd 7.4 16.2 8.8 10.7 0.2 0 1 8.9 19.7 0.0 0.0 Average 8.8 20.3 9.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0,0 0.0 ©old above shows estimate base case or existing level of connectivity assumed within each subarea. I Fehr Peers Associates, Inc. 5/19197 C) Table 7 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Zonal (Subarea) Data Low Moderate % Change High % Change from Connectivit Connectivit from Low Connectivit Moderate Vehicle Hours of Delay 495 483 -2% 472 -2% Vehicle Miles of Travel 49,610 49,136 -1% 48,757 -1% Avers e Tri Len th Miles) 4.93 4.88 -1% 4.84} g j,-1��% Vehicle Hours of Delay 426 418 -2% 409_ -2% Vehicle Miles of Travel 30944 30 352 -2% 30,158 -1% SAvera e Trii• Len•th Miles) 4.93 4.84 _ -2% 4,81 -1%it� 3''i'.�414— °� �A. - ` ±_ gyp ` �" ���'' Yt Oft' ' ," %? 9i7atiE i a,.,.''..}:( Vehicle Hours of Delay 403 377 -7% 372 -1% Vehicle Miles of Travel 29.550 28 259 -4% 27 492Y_ -3% , Average Trip Len th Miles) 4.16 3.98 -4% 3.87 3°! , „or SOMIN.,Q? . _ .':A • >`.,. t om-vaattang lAuv,ReaieN`,';.. Vehicle Hours of Delay _ 356_ 344 -4% 330 -4% Vehicle Miles of Travel 36,355 36�134^ -1% 35,873 1 -1% d, AverageylWC TripJip Length(Miles) 4.87 ;} �d 4.84 -1% 4.80 -1% SU rf1S�li;'f«J.NJ�J�t'e. } '�1�4 C W •wHT'�?t#7:h„ .r. ON YC d' �•i% cl• J: ,, 4 } f Vehicle Hours of Delay 1,869 1,424 -24% a 1,357 -5% Vehicle Miles of Travel 121,890 120,066 -1% 119,203 -1% Average Trip Length (Miles) 5.07 , 4.99 -1% 4.96 -1% Averages _ _ Vehicle Hours of Delay 710 , 609 -14% 588 -3% Vehicle Miles of Travel 53,670 52,789 -2% 52,297 -1% , Average Trip Length{Miles) _ 4.79 4.71 -2% 4.66 ' -1% Bold above shows estimate base case or existing level of connectivity assumed within each subarea. Fehr Peers Associates 5/19/97 102 Table 8 CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDIES Intersection Approach Volumes Low Moderate — % Change High %Change From Connectivity Connectivity From Low Connectivity Moderate :JJy Area;wl::,ct3dthany '>r Murray/Cornell 4,809 4,344_ -10% 3,184 -27% ,t Taylors Ferry/Capitol 2,214 2,034 -8% 2,194 8% Barbur/Capitol 5,818~ 5,383 -7% 5,594 4% IS,fTOVi'I elMtnne S;0310%eas "; ~ 39th/Powell 2,923 1,460 -50% f 1,066 -27% Foster/Powell/ 52nd 4,975 4,586 -8% 4,531 -1% 181 /Stark - 5,712 5,670 -1% 5,409 -5% Division/ 162nd 4,498 4,143 -8% 4,177 1% 122/Sunnyside 4,805 4,326 -10% 3,989 -8% 82/Sunnyside 7,909 7,171 -9% 6,705 -6% E Average 4,851 , _ 4,346 -10% 4,094 -6% *ehr Peers Associates 5119197 1 0 3 LU 00-0015 —Planning Commission Work Session July 9,2001 Proposed Text including the following substantive changes: 1. Requirements apply to parcels that are five times minimum lot size or greater and abut parcels five times minimum lot size or greater. 2. Remove map and rely on text only. 3. Do not apply requirements to ministerial developments LODS Local Street Connectivity, Amendments to LOC Chapter 49, Development Code and Chapter 42,Streets and Sidewalks Proposed New Development Standard: 26.005 Title The title of this standard is "Local Street Connectivity" 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: 2) Any type of development that requires a) _the construction of a street, ��t' h) results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land. 26.012 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the connectivity standards is to ensure that: 1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. Thi. will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel,provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2) Streets,alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclist. and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; Page 1 of I EXHIBIT 6 LODS 26-Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 -Proposed Amendments-Planning Commission 105 3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes, pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6) The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. 26.015 Definitions. 1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. 3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. SMndaFds, 5) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. 5) Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is further developable if it contains land area that is five times larger than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street-en Page 2 of 2 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit t —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 10b 1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system • to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of- way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met. 3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent dead-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or dead end streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. 5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Section 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography (over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route. b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; and e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements,covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6) If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. Page 3of3 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 1 0 7 7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2) based on findings that demonstrate: a) that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out of direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or b) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, and 26.025 Standards for Approval of Development Which Does Not Require the Construction of a Street But Creates New hots or Parcels 1. When an applicant proposes a development that a. Ddoes not require construction of a street, but creates additional lots or parcels (e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and when the access standards (LODS 18.005) are met with the use of �•risting streets, and., h. Is located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five (5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which the proposed development will occur. andi c. Abuts lots or parcels that are a minimum of live (5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which they are located, the Review Authority shall require: 1) A future streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future streets plan shall show how the location of a future street will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020(2)—(7). lB 2). Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or as7cessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. Page 4 of 4 LODS :6—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 108 4;6434— t i on-the- 4 ; 0 -74 26.0305 Procedures For all development, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to subsection 2, below, to all property owners within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent certified mail and proof of receipt required, or via delivery in the manner provided by Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 3530 feet of the proposed development b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of ten (10) percent or greater, with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet, c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas, d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets htkeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or-applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet )of the site (e.g., bus lines, schools, rks. shopping); Page 5 of 5 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit I —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 1 0 9 i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.01540 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. A residential accessway shall include a 15 foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum-6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation, but shall be as straight as practicable. 3. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 4. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 5. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. Proposed Revisions to Lake Oswego Code (Additions marked in underline and bold; deletions marked with strikethroughl. LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks LOC 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead-Closed End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation 2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of- way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. Use of a "fish tail" or "hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all closed end streets euk-de-saes with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or dead-closed end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more than 200 499Q feet (61 meters) in length. A cul-de-sac or Biel-closed end street shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. d Page 6 of 6 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 110 4. In determining the length of a cul-de-sac or dead-closed end street for compliance with (3) above, the starting point for the measurement shall be at the intersection of the centerline of the proposed dead end street or cul-de-sac with the projected edge of the right-of-way of the nearest intersecting through street,measured along_the centerline of the cul-de-sac or dead end street to the nearest point of curvature of the cul-de-sac bulb or the nearest angle of a hammerhead turn around (See Appendix A). The length of a cul de sac or hammerhead does not include the area devoted to the turnaround,and shall be measured along the centerline according to the methods illustrated on Exhibit A. A future street plan that shows a street will be extended from a proposed dead end street, to form a through street, will not be subject to the 200 foot limitation and will be considered a temporary dead end. In such cases, a temporary provision for turning around without using a driveway shall be required. Chapter 49 Development Code Article 49.20 Types of Development: 49.20.105 Ministerial Development: 2. Minsterial developments include: b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: 046 it 77 c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not increase the building footprint or height; or ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the façade or, if the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the façade visible from the residentially zoned property; and iii. Complies with LOC 49.20.105(2)(b)(i) through(vii) P/case files/an000015/Exhibit 4-5 ;Connectivity optional language. Page 7 of 7 LODS 26-Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 -Proposed Amendments-Planning Commission 1 1 1 C pl Mc[_oli CITY COUNCIL MINUTES I I I I I I I iy September 19, 2000 • Mayor W.K. Klammer called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. on September 19, 2000, at the Adult Community Center. Present: Mayor Klammer, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen, Chizum, Rohde, Lowrey, and McPeak Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager; Jane Heisler, Project Planner; Kristi Hitchcock, Public Affairs Director; Robyn Christie, Deputy City Recorder. Youth Council Present: Matt Buehler, Kristin Johnson, Sarah Ramsay, Julia Cohen, Revati Patel, Brent Berselli Youth Council Excused: Sinan Ozgur 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Rohde reviewed the consent agenda for the audience. Councilor Rohde moved approval of the consent agenda with corrections to the minutes made at the Morning Meeting. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion law& with Mayor Klammer, Councilors Hoffman, Schoen, Chizum, Rohde, Lowrey, and McPeak voting in favor. [7-0] 3.1 BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL 3.1.1 Council Goals Update Action: Accept Report 3.2 RESOLUTIONS 3.2.1 00-62, Recognition of Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association Action: Adopt Resolution 00-62 3.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.3.1 September 5, 2000, morning meeting Action: Approve minutes as corrected 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA CITIZEN COMMENT 6. REPORTS City Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2000 EXHIBIT D (LU 00.0015•A) 11 6.1 Peters Road (Minimum Density Petition) • Scott Shoen, 13521 Snowberry Court Mr. Shoen said he was representing the Friends of Oak Creek Open Spaces. He asked the Council to rescind minimum density requirements on all residential zoning. He said the Mountain Park area already had an unreasonable portion of the density in the city. Mr. Shoen spoke about the proposed development on Peters Road. He said there were fifty units proposed. He continued that if the rest of the available property was developed it could be as many as 111 new housing units. He pointed out that every house had an average of two cars. He spoke about a beautiful stand of mature fir trees that would be lost. He mentioned overcrowding in local schools. He said it was a livability issue. He said he wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhood, which were single family homes. Mr. Shoen spoke about the Comprehensive Plan that identified where density should occur. He said the city had already reached substantial compliance with Metro's Plan. He asked the Council to ease up the minimum density requirements in the Mountain Park area and the rest of the City. David Powell, City Attorney, asked citizens to speak generally about minimum density instead of specific development applications. • Joe Burke, 134 Del Prado Mr. Burke said he was speaking on behalf of the Mountain Park Board of Directors. He explained that density was transforming the character of the neighborhood. He said that many new units were now where there were once just a couple of homes. He said that Peters Road was slated for high-density housing. He said it was not unreasonable to ask the Council to rescind the minimum density requirements. He presented a petition signed by residents who were opposed to minimum density requirements. He said they were all against high-density development. He explained that 330 of 360 trees would be removed. He said of those left many would not last long because the root structure would be undermined. He said that tasteful single family homes could be built and the trees could be protected. He explained that the developer was interested in building larger homes. He said that the market for condos was soft and that the new home buying public was not interested in high-density housing. He asked why the Council was so interested in enforcing maximum density. Councilor Hoffman asked for the comments to be labeled as ex parte contact and entered into the record on minimum density. Mr. Powell agreed. • Roberta Kaplan Israel, 13431 Vermeer Drive Ms. Kaplan Israel told the Council that her property overlooked three of the areas proposed to be developed. She asked that the City look to other equitable mechanisms for absorbing density. She said the developments would change the character of the area drastically. She explained that they were right at the base of the reservoir. She said schools would become overcrowded. She also voiced her concerns about transportation, traffic and new roads. She presented a petition signed by residents opposed to minimum density. She said minimum density requirements would severely impact quality of life. She requested that the Council look into changing the requirement. • Michael Spargo, 13440 Vermeer Drive Mr. Spargo said that he was new to the area but had already heard and seen a lot about development. He said there appeared to be quite a contrast with some parts of the neighborhood having beautiful fields and trees while others had mass development. He said he favored greenery to mass concrete. He asked about the benefits of minimum density. He said he saw a lot of negatives and had not heard enough benefits to warrant mass development. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 September 19, 2000 i14 • Carolvne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way Ms. Jones said it was her understanding that the minimum density issue was tabled two or three times. She asked if there had been a change in that. Councilor Rohde explained that minimum density was passed on R-3 and R-5 zones. He said that it was tabled on R-7.5 and larger. Ms. Jones asked when it was passed on R-3 and R-5 zones. Councilor Rohde responded that it was two or three years ago. • David Groner, 4700 Rembrandt Lane Mr. Groner spoke about traffic problems increasing year after year. He said there were now close to 5000 people living where there once was an airfield. He voiced his concerns about runoff from the reservoir causing flooding problems and soil erosion. He mentioned the amount of money that the city spent to improve the area by adding a serene trail with lights and irrigation. He spoke about the article "Lake Oswego City of Trees or City of Condos?" He asked why the City would improve an area that would only be destroyed when the area was developed. He mentioned 100-year-old trees and wildlife that enhanced the livability of the area. He said the proposed development in the area made him want to move. • Rick Petrie, 4908 Cascara Lane Mr. Petrie stated that condos, apartments and multiple units had already absorbed quite a bit of increased density. He asked the Council to take his comments into consideration. • Elizabeth Mahedy, 134 Del Prado Ms. Mahedy said she wrote the article in the Mountain Park Review that Mr. Groner spoke about. She said her neighborhood was bearing the brunt of density even though the area was very small. She explained that she moved to Lake Oswego from California because of density and school overcrowding. She said she had three children in the Lake Oswego School system. She said that Oak Creek Elementary would bear the brunt of the growth. She said that Lake Oswego schools were better than the private schools in California. She added that school crowding should be taken into consideration along with trees. She commented that the proposal was for an awful lot of houses to be put on a short stretch of land and that it would highly impact the area. She stated that the traffic was already a problem. • Michael Halverson, 13404 Vermeer Drive Mr. Halverson pointed out that the City was already meeting Metro's general requirement for minimum density. He asked the Council to give developers more flexibility. He said it was difficult to grant variances due to the minimum density requirements of any planned development. He asked that it not be required along Peters Road. He asked to allow staff to enable siting of single family homes among the trees. Councilor Lowery asked about options when an application was already in progress. Mr. Powell responded that the Council could not process a zone change within the time necessary to process a completed application unless the applicant agreed to delay the process to make the change. He continued that to change a zone it must comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to zone changes. He said he did not know if the particular parcels would qualify under those policies. He said that a zone change could be done as long as it met the Comprehensive Plan criteria. Mr. Bunch said that the property owner had to be the person to request a zone change. He indicated that the Council could initiate a quasi-judicial zone change application but the property owner may be reluctant for economic reasons. He Lake Oswego was in compliance with the Metro housing rule of ten units per acre overall density with a mix of 50% multi family and 50% single family residential. He said that in 1988 the zoning districts were carefully balanced to ensure ten units per acre. He said the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would object to rezoning land unilaterally. Councilor Rohde stated that the metropolitan housing rule was state law not Metro law. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 September 19, 2000 a r.) �_ _L • Mayor Klammer asked staff to explain, to the audience, reasons for minimum density besides state law. Mr. Bunch clarified that in 1988 the City signed onto the concept(with Metro)to maintain a compact urban growth boundary and urban form. He said that efficient use of land,public facilities and services, and a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled was the goal. Mr. Bunch said he could understand why the neighbors were upset. He explained that there were two ways to approach the problem. He said they could look at the area and make the finding that it was bearing more than its fair share of density. He said that the second option was to change minimum density requirements for R-3 and R-5 zones for the City as a whole. He said that the DLCD and Metro would object and could appeal the change. Mayor Klammer explained that some residents felt they were being penalized because they lived in the wrong place in the City. Councilor Chizum said the Council had voted at least three times not to accept the minimum density requirements that Metro had interpreted from the State. He said many people had spoken on the issue and that he could not recall one person speaking in favor of minimum density requirements. He said the majority of the Council went along with that. He explained that the problem was dealing with Metro and the DLCD. He said they were trying to get the current status of exempting R-7 and greater accepted. He said it would be difficult to ask to exempt R-3 and R-5 when a compromise had not been reached on the first part. He said this was all in spite of the fact that in the past Lake Oswego had far exceeded the minimum density requirements. He said the Council could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to exempt R-3 and R-5 but they recommended that the Council accept the minimum rule of Metro and the Council had turned it down at least three times. He said if an exception were made for one part of Lake Oswego then the rest of the city would expect the same. Mr. Halverson asked for clarification on what had been adopted. He said the neighborhood was only looking for fairness. Councilor Lowrey said he would be in favor of repealing the requirement. Mr. Powell explained that the Code said that legislative changes should start with the Planning Commission. Councilor Chizum agreed that he would also like to vote against it but that it would not happen that way. Councilor Schoen indicated that if a change were made at this point it would be a violation of state law. He said unless the State overturned its requirements or amended the rule it would be "like battling a dead horse." Mr. Groner spoke about manipulation of the density rule. He spoke about townhomes tightly surrounding a marsh and the irrigation and drainage problems that that caused. Councilor Hoffman stated that he was not in favor of repealing the minimum density requirements in R-3 and R-5 zones. He said he understood the concerns for the people yet he heard the same concerns in connection with long-term care facilities. He said the Council must be consistent and apply the requirements equally to the entire city. Councilor Rohde commented that minimum density requirements do not force developers to build at a density higher than the zoning allowed. Mr. Bunch explained that the application for development along Peters Road originally was for twenty-two units and now at seventeen it just met the eighty- percent requirement. Councilor Rohde asked about the zoning in surrounding areas. Mr. Bunch explained that the Oak Creek area was zoned R-5 with small portions of R-3 between Fosberg and Kingsgate and a small portion of R-7.5 on Melrose. He said most lots were 5000 square feet, some were larger and that the neighborhood was developed at R-7.5 factoring in open space. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 September 19, 2000 iib Councilor Rohde asked if the City was maintaining an easement for a pathway. Mr. Schmitz responded that he had not seen the plans. He said that the application had not been deemed complete and that conditions may apply. Mr. Burke stated that the issue did not compare to long term care housing. He said that people in long-term care housing did not drive and impact the surrounding neighborhood. He spoke about his bedridden father. He said that the discussion did not have any relationship to minimum density. Councilor McPeak stated that this was a difficult issue. She expressed that the matter should go to the Planning Commission to address the minimum requirement for lot size. She clarified that if the land were developed the requirement was to develop it to 8/10 of the possibility. She said they were asking to build almost all that were allowed but were not asking for more. She stated that they had state law to contend with. Youth Council Mr. Buehler stated that he was not in favor of high density,but agreed with it in this area. He said that Oak Creek Elementary was a big school and that there was a lot of open space in the area. He mentioned Westlake Park. Ms. Patel said she was not in favor of minimum density in this area. She said she lived on Kingsgate and commented that the area was already crowded with cars parked on the street and that school busses were overflowing. Ms. Ramsay recalled Feifer farm when it was still a farm instead of housing, She said that families who wanted land and a house should have that opportunity. She spoke about preserving some areas and making others higher density. Ms. Cohen said she was not in favor of holding up minimum density. She said that if density were increased it would be nearly impossible to travel the narrow roads. She commented that the Westlake area had been established to be denser than other areas to be a"family district." Mr. Berselli said he would rather have less dense areas. He agreed that cars parked along the street made transportation difficult. He said overcrowding in the school system was a downfall. Councilor Lowrey asked about what options the Council had. He said he felt the restrictions were not as rigid as they were led to believe, He asked if there was some flexibility since there was already a lot of density in the area. Mr. Bunch explained that Title I of the Functional Plan, which required minimum density, had two safety valves. He said that the first, substantial compliance, was to provide Metro a plan with actions for meeting minimum density levels. He said the City's Metro housing target was about 3,350 units by 2017. He explained that the second safety valve was to give specific reasons why the City could not meet the housing targets and ask for an exception. He spoke about the image problem of going to the Metro Policy Advisory Council (MPAC). Councilor Rohde said that if Council asked for an exception the reason would be that the neighbors did not want the requirement. He said that Metro would not accept "not in my backyard" as justification for an exception. He said that the Council could not ask for an exception when there was open vacant land available. Mr. Powell spoke about the possibility of a Metro code change and said discussion was currently going on per Council's direction. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 September 19, 2000 irl 1 There was a consensus by Councilors McPeak, Hoffman, Schoen, Rohde, and Mayor Klammer to not take further action. Councilors Chizum and Lowery stated that they were interested in pursuing the matter. Councilor Chizum asked when the proposal for Metro would be up for discussion. Mr. Schmitz said that they were still talking about it. Councilor Chizum asked if it was possible to add R-3 and R-5 zones into the proposal. Mr. Schmitz said the subject could be introduced. Councilor Lowrey said he was interested in anything to make communities more livable. Mayor Klammer spoke about an article from the Cascade Policy that called current planning in Lake Oswego new urbanism. He said not expanding the urban service boundary would escalate the price of land. He said it led to one adverse effect after another. He said minimum density was a State law that Metro was trying to enforce. He stated that he was not happy with any of it. Mayor Klammer called for a break at 7:19 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Planning Commission recommendation to create a new development standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity), amend LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation planning rule requirements (LU 00-0015) Mayor Klammer read the hearing title. Mr. Powell reviewed the legislative hearing procedure. There were no conflicts of interest by the Council or challenges from the audience. Jane Heisler, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She explained that the staff report covered three items. She said it amended chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to create new requirements for the length of cul de sacs and created a method for measuring cul de sacs, which had been a problem in the past. It created a new development standard(LODS 26), local street connectivity. She explained that the purpose was to make sure any opportunity to achieve street access was reviewed and not missed during the development review process. It would also amend chapter 49 of the Development Code to require that proposed development on property on the local connectivity street maps or parcels that contained property that was five times or greater than the minimum lot size required in the zone get reviewed as minor developments rather than ministerial developments. Ms. Heisler explained that the recommendation came from the Metro Functional Plan requirements for street connectivity. She said it was also following up on a long history of legislation,much of which the Council had adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. She mentioned Goal 5, Transportation, and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). She explained that the purpose of this item was to create standards for bicycle and pedestrian circulation through developments and to shopping and employment areas. She indicated that another goal was to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita. Ms. Heisler said that the Regional 2040 Growth Concept outlined compact development with the goal of not moving the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) at a rapid rate, preserving open space, minimum density and design type areas. She spoke about having two town centers, one in the downtown area and another along Boones Ferry. She said the Concept focused growth and development in those areas and along transportation corridors. She said it would encourage jobs in employment areas and referenced Kruse Way. She said part of the Concept was to try to make the area more livable as people live closer together. She mentioned reducing miles traveled, increasing alternative modes of travel (walking, biking, mass transit) and improving connectivity so that local trips could be made. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 September 19, 2000 1 �� Ms. Heisler said the Council had adopted design type areas. She explained that connectivity was a follow up piece to reduce miles traveled. She said that if the design of local streets was done correctly local traffic could be kept off of regional streets. She referenced a flow chart in the staff report(exhibit 7) that demonstrated the general connectivity process. She explained when connectivity would be reviewed and when a future street and pedestrian plan would have to be submitted. She said that streets would have to occur at least 530 feet apart, and accessways for pedestrians and bikes have to occur every 330 feet. It gave cities the opportunity to look and see where additional connectivity was needed. She explained that staff had reviewed the entire City and looked at the connectivity that is in place and identified opportunities on the maps. She said that when a development application came in, if it included an area on the connectivity maps and a street, then the connections (as indicated on the map) would have to be built. If the proposal did not include a street, but some kind of minor partition or flag lot, the applicant would submit a future streets plan including that property and abutting properties to show how the development could be accommodated now or in the future. She said that for areas not included on the connectivity maps then staff would consider whether the parcel was five times the size of the minimum or if it abuts property that also met that requirement then it would go through the review process. She explained that the process enabled staff to review parcels that were most likely to be redeveloped. She said the proposal also included many exceptions for topography, sensitive lands, traffic safety, easements and existing developments. Ms. Heisler introduced additional exhibits. Exhibit 9 was a letter from Jim and Roe Hinzdel. She explained that Exhibit 10 provided changes the RTP recently adopted by Metro. She said the RTP included some items not included in Staffs recommendation. She said an example was the semi-diverter recently proposed on block 136, something to be reviewed on a case by case basis. She said Exhibit 11 listed typographical changes. Public Testimony • Lynn Peterson, 555 G Avenue Ms. Peterson said she was in favor of the recommendations made by staff. She said she was also speaking about mode split targets. She said she worked on the RTP for Metro. She explained every action effects how Lake Oswego citizens travel around the region. She said connectivity was a tool to help people access schools, stores, and jobs without taking a car. She said that if there were a walkway then people would walk. She said that mode split targets were a measurement tool. Ms. Peterson spoke about connectivity creating more connections per mile and less congestion on arterials. She said it would reduce delay by 17% because local traffic would remain on local streets. She said data showed that the greatest benefits were with ten to sixteen connections per mile. She mentioned a 1995 travel behavior study, which stratified trips by origins and destinations. She said adults made on average four trips per day and spend about an hour per day traveling. She said that as areas become more urban there were fewer trips per car. • Jim Hinzdel, 1250 Wells Street Mr. Hinzdel said he owned the middle parcel of three parcels that front Highway 43. He spoke about 1000 feet of bikeways on or adjacent to his property. He asked what would trigger the connectivity requirements. He questioned if he were to build a gazebo or build another house would he have to put in 1000 feet of bikeway. Mr. Hinzdel explained that because his property fronted Highway 43 it was subject to Division 51 and the access requirements of ODOT. He asked how that was intertwined with the connectivity ordinance, Mr. Hinzdel spoke about the standards for a closed end street. He said it seemed strange to provide bikeways around the end of a cul de sac. He spoke about highway noise and referenced a noise study. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 September 19, 2000 1 .1 9 Mr. Hinzdel referenced revisions he made of the ordinance. He said he wanted to protect natural resources in the area and reduce impacts of additional pavement, erosion and run-off. He suggested language to allow use of a local street to meet the requirement for residential accessways and the use of meandering pathways to reduce noise impacts. Mr. Hinzdel responded to Councilor Hoffman that there was a private easement on Wells Street and that his property was about four acres. • Carolyne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way Ms. Jones said the recommendation contradicted the Comprehensive Plan and the idea that traffic should not move into neighborhoods. She said people used Old River Road as a cut through. She asked if the connectivity requirement was a blanket policy and asked about measure 56 notice and taking of property. She said that Old River Road was a walking park and that traffic from Mary's Woods and Marylhurst had been kept out of the neighborhood. She said that she would not like traffic from arterials being channeled through the neighborhoods. Questions of Staff Mayor Klammer asked how many acres of land there were in Lake Oswego. Ms. Heisler said there was about ten square miles. Mayor Kiammer said this recommendation would only apply to roughly 21 acres if and when they were developed. Ms. Heisler said it would also apply if the property were on the connectivity map or if it was five times larger than the minimum lot allowed and abutted a property that was also five times larger. Councilor Chizum asked about the consequences of not passing the connectivity requirement. Mr. Powell said it was the similar to the minimum density requirement. He said that when Metro included connectivity in the RTP it was designated as part of the Functional Plan. He said this had been on the City's list of things to do for compliance and had asked for extensions. Councilor Chizum said that this could only apply to a small area. Ms. Heisler clarified that it would provide additional connectivity in new developments or where it could be retrofitted. She said the requirement was largely created for developing areas like those in Washington County, Councilor Rohde asked if the changes recommended by Mr. Hinzdel would take the recommendation out of compliance. Ms. Heisler said it would single out one zone for different treatment. She said there were not exceptions for sound but there were for sensitive lands and topography. Mr. Powell added that Metro rules say to use the most direct route. He said that Mr. Hinzdel's recommendations were for his specific parcel. He said Metro would allow a pathway to meander somewhat to protect natural areas. He said he would need more time to review the use of the closed in street system for a public accessway. Councilor Rohde asked for response to Ms. Jones notification question. Mr. Powell said notice was given to properties that exceeded the minimum standard as well as those that were on the map. Ms. Heisler added that staff sent 90 notices to property owners of 120 properties that could be affected. Councilor Lowrey asked if there were any reports with data to support connectivity. Ms. Heisler said Metro modeling included frequency of intersections. Councilor Lowrey asked if getting rid of cul de sacs would reduce miles traveled. Ms. Heisler responded that some cul de sacs were 1600 feet long. She said that having more through streets would help. Councilor Lowrey stated that he would like to see some studies. Councilor Rohde said that in the last six years he had seen substantial studies showing the benefits of connectivity. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 September 19, 2000 Councilor McPeak said she understood the need for connectivity yet had a problem with the way that it was applied in the proposed ordinance. She said that Metro applied connectivity to five or more acres. She asked staff to follow Metro's recommendation. She said she was "not asking to dump more tea in the harbor" but wished the proposed ordinance was written closer to that of Metro. Councilor McPeak spoke of the thirteen maps becoming part of the development process. Ms. Heisler said that it would give staff the opportunity to look at additional options for connectivity. Councilor McPeak asked how those opportunities would not impose a loss on property owners. Ms. Heisler spoke of the informal pathway on the Hinzdel property. She said the connectivity requirement would ensure that the opportunity for connectivity was not lost. Councilor McPeak asked how much legal force the maps would have on the property owners. Ms. Heisler explained that if, for example, Mr. Hinzdel wished to build a gazebo, which would require a permit that would be reviewed, an accessway plan would have to be submitted to show how the structure would not prohibit a future accessway. Mr. Powell added that the property owner would be compensated before the city could require a street or pathway. Councilor McPeak asked when the process would change from a ministerial decision to a minor development process. Ms. Heisler said that staff would check applications and review those that were properties on the maps. She said the process would involve looking at where future access could go. She explained that when a property owner proposed a structure then the requirement would kick in to provide a future access plan. Councilor McPeak said it would be one more hurdle to justify permission. Councilor McPeak said that of the thirteen maps she only saw one property in excess of five acres. Ms. Heisler agreed and said that there would not be many properties that would apply under the Metro standard. Councilor McPeak said that when the Comprehensive Plan changed in 1992 there were three objectives: reduce through traffic, concentrate traffic on major streets, and maintain the character and livability of the community. She added that in 1997 the city adopted additional policies to emphasize street connectivity. She said she would like to pass an ordinance to meet the Metro requirements and then let it go. She said she would like to apply better new ideas on new development. Ms. Heisler said the key point in the earlier language was that it addressed through traffic. She explained that the connectivity standard was designed so that local traffic could get around easier. Councilor Hoffman asked why the requirement would be to review properties that were five times the minimum limits instead of five acres that Metro required. Ms. Heisler responded that they did not want to lose the opportunity for connectivity when it could be achieved. She explained that if a developer wanted to build at maximum density then they would be looking at building a street. If there were an abutting property of the same size then staff would suggest a through street instead of a cul de sac. Councilor Hoffman asked if there was a private easement on Wells Street(shown on map 5). Ms. Heisler said it was private property. Councilor Hoffman summarized that if a property owner were to redevelop they would have to make sure the development would not impact the potential accessway. He asked if an accessway was a public easement. Ms. Heisler responded that it could be a public easement dedicated as a right of way. Councilor Hoffman asked if this was a takings issue and when an easement converted from private to public. Ms. Heisler said that if a partition were proposed to create an additional lot, City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 September 19, 2000 121 then the ordinance (page 3) would require a future streets plan. Upon determination that an accessway or street would be constructed the applicant would grant an easement to the City and would either construct the accessway or street as a requirement of development or would execute a non remonstrance agreement. Councilor Hoffman said that there had to be a demand or need for the accessway or street. Mr. Powell said they would interpret if the impacts would warrant the City requiring the dedication of an easement. Councilor Hoffman asked how the Planning Commission determined the requirement for review of lots five times the minimum size allowed by zoning. Ms. Heisler said they had considered many levels. She said if a parcel was five times or greater than the minimum lot size then if a person proposed full development they would have to construct a street if it was a land locked parcel. Councilor Hoffman said that connectivity may only be required for more intense infill development. Ms. Heisler said staff was concerned about loosing the opportunity for connectivity in the future. Councilor Schoen asked if there was the intention to look at connectivity within developed areas. Ms. Heisler said only if the parcel was five times or greater than the minimum lot size and it abutted a property that was also five times or greater. She explained that other developments or sensitive land might preclude a through street. Councilor Schoen said there was no need to clutter the planning process. Mr. Powell responded to a previous question about Mr. Hinzdel's recommendation to allow a private easement system of closed streets to meet the requirement for accessways. Mr. Powell responded that that was contradictory to the proposal. Mr. Hinzdel said his point was that public streets in a closed street system did not need separate fifteen foot easements next to them to serve as a pathway. Discussion Mayor Kiammer asked if a gazebo required a permit. Ms. Heisler said that any structure over 120 square feet required a permit under state law. Mayor Kiammer said that be intended to vote against the proposal. He said that the instances where connectivity would apply would be very isolated. Councilor Chizum agreed with Councilor Schoen's remarks. Councilor Rohde said the connectivity recommendation was perfect for a city the size of Lake Oswego. He said he had been involved with transportation policy for a decade and he had seen the need for connectivity. He said the Regional Transportation Plan had considerable information about the benefits of connectivity including: reducing miles traveled, encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel, better health because of reduced pollutant loads and increased opportunities for exercise. He spoke about the inclusion of pathways and bicycle ways. He mentioned that Cabana Lane could not be traveled by car but could be traveled by bike. Councilor Rohde said the recommendation served to tailor Metro's broad specifications to meet the needs of Lake Oswego. He said that if connectivity were limited to Metro's broad scale five acre parcels then there was no reason to consider it in the development code. He said would support the recommendation. Councilor Lowrey said he would vote against the recommendation because he had not seen any data. He said even if connectivity would reduce vehicle miles traveled it was not an end in itself. He said it would be better to reduce pollution and fuel efficiency. He commented that people liked cul de sacs and that there was a benefit to having little traffic in neighborhoods. He spoke City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 September 19, 2000 122 of kids playing in streets and funneling traffic to arterials. He said that Metro's charter did not have the intent to get so specific. He said that was not the function of Metro. Councilor McPeak said she would vote against the recommendation. She agreed with Councilor Rohde but only to the extent that connectivity should be considered from this point forward. She said she disagreed with map 12. She said that the area was very steep and disagreed with staff s description that a pathway could be built. Councilor Hoffman said he supported the recommendation. He said he was not sure if it went far enough. He said there needed to be a discussion about policy an that there were no provisions for neighborhood review. He stated that he would vote no. Councilor Chizum moved to deny LU 00-0015 amending chapter 42 and chapter 49 developing a new development standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and not comply with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. Mr. Powell said that with a legislative matter that would be considered again in a different form, a denial was not the best resolution. He suggested asking staff to bring the item back for a study session. A. roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Klammer, Councilors Chizum, McPeak, Hoffman, and Schoen voting in favor. Councilor Rohde opposed the motion. Councilor Lowery was not present for the vote. [5-11 7.2 Planning Commission recommendation to amend the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12, Transportation, Goal V, Transportation Demand Management, to add policies and a definition relating to establishment of non-single— occupant vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas, to comply with Metro Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility (LU 00-0018) Mayor Klammer read the hearing title. Mr. Powell said the procedure was the same as the previous hearing and noted that everyone present had already heard the procedure. There were no conflicts of interest declared by the Council and no challenges from the audience. Ms. Heisler presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal created benchmarks and defined non single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. She said Metro came up with Non SOV, to mean all trips rather than driving alone in a car. She said the goal was to reduce vehicle miles traveled and it was to be achieved over a period of forty years. Public Testimony There was no public testimony. Questions of Staff Councilor Chizum asked how this recommendation differed from the previous report which expanded Metro's direction. Ms. Heisler responded that this mirrored Metro's direction. She said it was a tool for the community to use to see where it was now and where it was going to need to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the future. Councilor Chizum said to be consistent with the past he would have to vote against it. Ms. Heisler clarified for Councilor Chizum that the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) that Metro used in it's modeling, encompassed our downtown and had a current estimated mode share (percentage of all trips that were being taken in Non SOV) of 35 percent. She explained that the target was 55 percent over a 40 year period. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 September 19, 2000 Councilor Rohde had no questions. Ms. Heisler said it was a tool for the community to look at over several years to see how it is encouraging various modes of transportation. She said the Council adopted the TSP saying it wanted to reduce miles traveled. Councilor Lowrey asked if they were already encouraging multi modal transportation then why would they need targets. Ms. Heisler said it was a way to measure and come up with benchmarks. Mr. Bunch added that around the region Metro was modeling Non SOV modal share. He explained that Metro had the obligation to put together the Regional Transportation Plan and work in concert with the State of Oregon. He said that Lake Oswego did not exist by itself in that regard. He said that Metro needed the information to do long term modeling in aggregate for the entire region. Councilors McPeak, Hoffman, and Schoen had no questions. Mayor Klammer spoke of a retail store selling dummies so that people could drive in a carpool lane. He said it was impossible to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips. Councilor McPeak asked staff to let Metro know the language of the proposal was hideous. Councilor Rohde moved to approve LU 00-0018. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. The motion failed with Councilors Rohde, McPeak, and Hoffman voting in favor. Mayor Klammer, Councilors Chizum, Lowrey, and Schoen opposed the motion. [4-3] 8. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 8.1 Councilor Issues for Discussion 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager 9.2 City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Klammer adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a4AA ) Robyn C)rristie Deputy City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL November 14. 2000 i /7/Zeii W.K. Klammer, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 September 19, 2000 12‘ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: September 19, 2000 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CREATE A NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (LODS 26, LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY), AMEND LOC CHAPTER 49.20 AND CHAPTER 42, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, TO COMPLY WITH METRO FUNCTIONAL PLAN, TITLE 6, REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY AND • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE REQUIREMENTS. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve LU 00-0015 amending Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks; Chapter 49, Development Code and creating a new Development Standard, 26, Local Street Connectivity, to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility. Direct staff to prepare Findings, Conclusions and Ordinance for final approval. Ordinance will be approved with findings at later date. EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: PUBLISHED r IMPACT: Heisler Council Report with NOTICES (Date) Staff time Attachments September 7, 2000 STAFF COST: N/A 1. Ordinance 2246 Ordinance no.: 2246 2. July 25,2000, Council Work BUDGETED: Session Minutes Resolution no.: Y N 3. Planning Commission Supplemental Report Previous Council FUNDING SOURCE: 4. Planning Commission Staff Report consideration: Study 5. Planning Commission Findings Session, July 25, 2000;. 6. Planning Commission Minutes 7. Flow Chart of LODS 26 Process 8. Explanation of Rationale for including Connectivity Map areas CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CITY NIAkAGER CITY MANAGER Signoff/date Signoff/date Signoff/date L/case files/2000/LU00-0015 Connectivity/Cover memo EXHIBIT E (LU 00-0015-A) 1 ```{Of TARE OSWtCO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT OREGON/ TO: Douglas 3. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Jane Heisler,Project Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt LU 00-0015 DATE: September 5, 2000 ACTION: Move to approve LU 00-0015, (Exhibit 1) creating new Development Standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and amending LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks to comply with Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation Planning Rule Requirements. The primary purpose of the recommended amendments is to provide additional auto and pedestrian/bike connections in residential developments. Direct staff to prepare Findings, Conclusions and Ordinance for final approval. Ordinance will be approved with findings at later date. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on June 12, 2000. The Commission left the record open for seven additional days for additional written testimony. Staff responded to concerns raised with a supplemental report which the Commission discussed on June 26, 2000 (Exhibit 3), at which time, it deliberated and approved the text as shown in Exhibit 1. The original Planning Commission Staff Report is found in Exhibit 4. Planning Commission Findings are found in Exhibit 5 and Minutes in Exhibit 6. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, Measure 56 Notice was mailed to all property owners owning lands shown on the Local Connectivity Maps as well as those with parcels 5 times or greater than the minimum lot size required by zoning, that also abut parcels that are 5 times or greater than the minimum lot size required by zoning. The intent of this approach was to provide notice to all property owners whose parcels appear on the Local Connectivity Maps as well as those parcels that, because of their size and proximity to other larger parcels, could also be subject to the new development standard. Approximately 90 notices were mailed representing ownership of approximately 120 parcels. Four property owners testified at the Planning Commission hearing. Although not required, notice of the Council hearing has also been provided to the approximately 90 affected property owners. Page 1 of 1 Council Report, LU 00-0015 September 5,2000 12 7 The Council met on July 25, 2000 in a Study Session to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendations (Minutes, Exhibit 2). DISCUSSION: LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide additional auto and pedestriarvbike connections in residential developments. Local Streets generally serve the immediate travel needs of the City at the neighborhood level. They serve most short automobile, bicycle and pedestrian trips. When the local street system is designed to have many connections to local destinations, it reduces travel on major streets for local circulation needs. In addition, when direct multi-modal routes are in place, auto travel is reduced. The Metro standards require Cities and Counties to identify all contiguous areas of vacant and redevelopable parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed-use development and prepare a conceptual new streets plan map. The purpose of the map is to provide guidance to land-owners and developers on desired street connections that will improve local access and preserve the integrity of the regional street system. The maps proposed as part of this new standard include some contiguous areas of less than five acres, where additional street or bicycle/pedestrian connections may be needed. These maps are attached to Exhibit 1, Ordinance 2246. The flow chart in Exhibit 7 provides a general summary of the process. Below, the process is described in more detail. In addition to the street plan map, Cities and Counties are to require new development that will require construction of new street(s)to provide a street map that provides full connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways,preexisting development or water features where regulations implementing Title 3 of the Functional Plan do not allow or prescribe different standards for street facilities. When full streets are not possible, pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way are to be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. The draft standards contained in this report use the Metro requirements as a starting point. The City has very few parcels of five acres or more. These have been identified, as well as larger, multi-lot areas where connections may be desirable to shorten trips for all modes of travel or only pedestrian and bicycle trips in some cases. When a street is proposed as part of a partition or subdivision,the applicant must provide the connections shown on the connectivity map or show why an exception would be granted. The property owner would be required to include the connection(s) shown on the Street Connectivity Maps in the subject development as well as expand on the connectivity map to meet the standards for street spacing of a minimum of 530' and pedestrian/bicycle access every 330 feet. In addition, the standards would apply to unmapped areas where a street is being proposed to serve development, that are 1) five (5) times the size of the minimum lot area required by the zone in which the parcel is located, and 2) are abutting a parcel(s) that can also be further developed (are five times greater than the minimum required lot size). Areas meeting these Page 2 of 2 Council Report,LU 00-0015 September 5,2000 1 z 8 criteria, will be required to show how the standards are proposed to be met or why an exception should be granted. The draft standards also allow the review authority to grant exceptions to the requirements to full street improvements when the presence of sensitive lands, extreme topography, traffic safety issues, freeways or existing development patterns preclude the logical connection of streets. The review authority may also grant exceptions to accessway requirements if the applicant demonstrates that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out-of-direction travel to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines or that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of accessways and when the applicant has submitted an alternate design which serves the purpose of providing safe, convenient and direct bicycle/pedestrian access which is consistent with the purposes of the standard. The Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3) covers specific questions raised by interested parties at the Planning Commission hearing. It provides detailed responses to questions and concerns regarding the proposed standards. The proposed standards also require ministerial developments, such as a garage or room addition, to be subject to the Local Street Connectivity development standard, upon determination that the resulting building permit could encroach upon the undeveloped portions of the parcel(s). If this determination is made, the property owner would complete a future streets/accessway plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records as a condition of development approval (see Exhibit 1, Ordinance, Section 26.025)1)a) & b). Structures must be placed in a manner that allows for the future street to be constructed as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future street. However, the connection is not required to be made as a condition of a building permit for remodeling or an addition. A citizen raised some additional issues following the Planning Commission public hearing which staff would like to address. Her concerns included the size of some of the parcels designated on the maps, such as those on Maps 6, 7 and 13. Exhibit 8 describes the rationale used for including each of the areas shown on the Local Connectivity Maps. In many cases,there are existing access easements, properties are City-owned, or informal trails exist now and could be formalized upon development. Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks: An additional requirement of Metro Functional Plan, Title 6, is to prohibit cul-de-sacs and other closed-end streets that are longer than 200 feet. The recommended changes to Chapter 42 amend the current 1000 foot length allowance to 200 feet, but provide an exception based on findings that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of through streets, or, if cul-de-sac length exceeding 200 feet may eventually be necessary or convenient to permit future development of the property to the full density allowed by the Zoning Code. An additional change that staff proposed to the Commission and the Commission recommended approval, was a methodology for determining the length of a cul-de-sac (Ordinance 2246, 42.03.085(4)). Page 3 of 3 Council Report,LU 00-0015 September 5,2000 1 2 9 One property owner testifying at the hearing wanted to make sure that his parcel could have a cul-de-sac longer than 200 feet. Minor changes were made to accommodate his concerns. Chapter 49,Development Code: Changes to 49.20.105, Ministerial Development,were made to remove improvements from the ministerial process if they were identified on the "Local Connectivity Map"or proposed on a lot or parcel that contains land area that is five times or larger than the minimum lot size required by the zone. Flagging the development in this way, will alert staff and property owners that the review process for Local Street Connectivity must be followed and it will be processed as a Minor Development rather than a Ministerial Development. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission Recommends Council Adoption of Ordinance 2246 (LU 00-0015). EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2246 2. Minutes of July 25,2000 Council Study Session 3. Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report, June 26, 2000 4. Planning Commission Staff Report 5. Planning Commission Findings, LU 00-0015-1382 6. Planning Commission Minutes, June 12 and June 26, 2000 7. Flow Chart of LODS 26 Process 8. Explanation of Rationale for Inclusion of Local Connectivity Maps J/case files/2000/LU 00-0015/9-5-00 CC Council Report. Page 4 of 4 Council Report,LU 00-0015 September 5,2000 1 3 0 LU 00-0015(A)—Proposed Language New Development Standard, LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity,Amendments to LODS 20, and Amendments to LOC Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks Planning Commission Public Hearing August 27, 2001 Proposed Text includes the following substantive changes from language proposed in 2000, resulting from the Planning Commission Work Session on July 9, 2001: 1. Remove map and rely on text only. 2. Eliminate connectivity review for ministerial developments Proposed New Development Standard: 26.005 Title The title of this standard is "Local Street Connectivity" 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: 1- -------;fir eeti v ity 4ap--U tt-a+e-indie-ated-in tiarotrtlin r streets co l Aany type of development en-any-parcel-not on the Local Cot eti*i4 p-wh-teh- that requires a) Tthe construction of a street, for b) Results in creation of an additional parcel and i+s located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land, or c) Construction ofa structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20.105(2)(c)iwhich is located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone within which theparcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land. 26.012 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the connectivity standards is to ensure that: Page 1 of 8 LODS 26-Local Street Connectivity Standard EXHIBIT F Exhibit 1 -Proposed Amendments-Planning Commission (LU 00-0015-A) 13- 1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance,promote the use of alternative modes of travel,provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2) Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones,pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes, pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas,parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6) Ensure that tThe Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. 26.015 Definitions. 1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. 3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. 4}------L- ps-shown in pendix D of the Lake Oswego Develepment Standards 5) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. Page 2 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit I —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission ,r � 5) Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is further developable if it contains land area that is at least five times larger than the minimum lot size required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street-DR Lands-De ignat 1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of- way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met. 3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed dead-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed--dead-end streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. 5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Section 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography(over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route;: b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or and e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. Page 3 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 133 6) If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. 7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2)ef-a-niedifteatien-4-the-l.eeatiewe-f-niapped-residential--aeeessways based on findings that demonstrate: a) that reducing the number or location of connections would not result in an increase in out of direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or b) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, anfl tl-an-altemate-f pfaviding-seferal ale-aeeess .. i-s ce tent--r 4th4 ie pur-poses-ef 'desstreet ef- e- 26.025 Standards for Approval of-Developmentof-a ted-oo-the-- oeal-€onneetiv y--laps 1. I. When an applicant proposes a development that a. Does not require the construction of a street, but creates new lots or parcels, (e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and-does -require-ee , tt-c- Bates adt it eta-l-lets-er t- th-t-lie use of existing streets, b. Is located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five (5) times the required minimum lot size in the zone in which the proposed development will occur, and., c. Abuts lots or parcels that are a minimum of five (5) times the required minimum lot size in the tone in which they are located, the Review Authority shall require: a- 1) A future connectivity streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future streets connectivity plan shall show how the location of a-future streets and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020(2)—(7). Page 4 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 1 3 4 l3 2). Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s)or ccessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. _. --LOC 49.10.10-5, the Review 38 _ a.l .Conneetivity-M-a-ps For-any-development-thati. 1) Is prop' ed t.,nd6 of . ,.a , , the r ,l C ne„t-M- n�z. Tps titd; 2) Requires ; es-or greater i n-si . ewe requi-red-bye-tene-iP-whieh-the-proposed-development-ia-leeated d it) Abuts a property that is further developable, ets e purposes of LODS 26.012 and the re hrough (7). 26.0305 Procedures For all development, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to subsection 2, below, to all property owners within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent , , . to the applicant and the owners of recor4d on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 530 feet of a proposed development as stated above, in the manner required in LOC 49.44.920. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 4530 feet of the proposed development site. b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of ten(10) percent or Greater, with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet, c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas, Page 5 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit I —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 135 d. The name, location, right-of-way,pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or-applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet ) of the site (e.g., bus lines, schools, parks, shopping); i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.03540 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LODS 20.025 Proposed Revisions to Lake Oswego Code (Additions marked in underline and bold: deletions marked with strikethrough). LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks LOC 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Bead-Closed End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of- way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. Use of a "fish tail" or"hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all closed end streets eul de-saes with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or dead-closed end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more than 200 +-000 feet f61meteFs4-in length. A cul-de-sac or dead-closed-end street shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. Page 6 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 136 4. In determining the length of a cul-de-sac or dead-closed-end street for compliance with (3) above, the starting point for the measurement shall be at the intersection of the centerline of the proposed dead closed-end street or cul-de-sac with the protected edge of the right-of-way of the nearest intersecting through streets measured along the centerline of the cul-de-sac or closed--dead-end street to the nearest point of curvature of the cul-de-sac bulb or the nearest angle of a hammerhead turn around (See Appendix A). The length of a cul de sac or hammerhead does not include the area devoted to the turnaround, and shall be measured along the centerline according to the methods illustrated on E-xh+b-it-Appendix A. A future street plan that shows a street will be extended from a proposed closed- dead end street, to form a through street, will not be subject to the 200 foot limitation and will be considered a temporary closed--dead-end. In such cases, a temporary provision for turning around without using_a driveway shall be required. Chapter 49 Development ('ode Article 49.20 Types of Development: 49.20.105 Ministerial Development: 2. Minsterial developments include: b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: viii. Is to" ned-in I ODSrZ eofntuitts-land that is smaller--in-s1ze-4h-a-u five f .n ♦{,e imum log ze required by ♦he a .,hinh tl el . 1 tedt 3t�r-ezr�a"-eve-nicer. c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not increase the building footprint or height; or ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the facade or, if the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; and iii. Complies with LOC 49.20.105(2)(b)(i) through(vii) Lake Oswego Development Standards: LODS 20.005 The title of this standard is "On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways." 20.25 Standards for Construction. 7. A Residential accesswav shall include at least a l5-foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation, but shall be as straight as practicable,considering the circumstances related to the property 8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands, other materials may be Page 7 of 8 LODS 26-Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 -Proposed Amendments-Planning Commission 1 37 specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 9. Bollards,buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 10. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. P/case files/an000015-A/—Proposed language PC Hearing Page 8 of 8 LODS 26—Local Street Connectivity Standard Exhibit 1 - Proposed Amendments—Planning Commission 168 • EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A01D AFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY; AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 42.03.085 (CUL-DE-SACS AND DEAD END STREETS); AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LODS); AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE LODS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSWAYS. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in redline and underline. Section 1. Section 42.03.085 is hereby amended to read as follows 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets. LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks LOC 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Closed End Streets. 1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation 2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius and right-of-way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks,bikeways, etc. Use of a "fish tail" or"hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all closed end streets with five or more lots. 3. A cul-de-sac or closed end street shall be no longer than 200 feet in length and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings, except where extreme topography, the presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17, floodplains as described in LODS 17.005, freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property, which preclude the logical connection of streets, arterial access restrictions , . A cul-de-sac or closed-end street shall provide a turnaround without the use of a driveway. strated. 4. In determining the length of a cul-de-sac or closed-end street for compliance with (3) above, the starting point for the measurement shall be at the intersection of the centerline of the proposed closed-end street or cul-de-sac with the projected edge of the right-of-way of the nearest intersecting through street,measured along the centerline of the cul-de-sac Page 1 of 4 4 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) or closed-end street to the nearest point of curvature of the cul-de-sac bulb or the nearest angle of a hammerhead turn around(See Appendix A). The length of a cul-de-sac or hammerhead does not include the area devoted to the turnaround, and shall be measured along the centerline according to the methods illustrated on Appendix A. A future street plan that shows a street will be extended from a proposed closed-end street,to form a through street,will not be subject to the 200 foot limitation and will be considered a temporary closed-end. In such cases, a temporary provision for turning around without using a driveway shall be required. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Development Standards(LODS)are hereby amended to adopt Chapter 26.000, Local Street Connectivity, as shown in Exhibit "A" for the purpose of providing a Local Street Connectivity standard to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. Section 3. Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 20.005, "On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit"B" for the purpose of providing construction standards for residential accessways. Section 4. Effective Date of subsection LODS 26.020(3). Prior to codification, the City Recorder shall insert the effective date in LODS 26.020(3) to be the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A) Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney M:\Ord\2307 Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 26.000 entitled"Local Street Connectivity"as follows: 26.000 LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY 26.005 Title The title of this standard is"Local Street Connectivity" 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to any development that requires: a. Requires The construction of a street, or b. Is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of five acres or larger. landr of leeated d. 26.012 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2) Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes, pursuant to LODS 16.005; 4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6) The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307(LU 00-0015(A)) 8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. 26.015 Definitions. 1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance. 2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of closed-end streets. 3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary. 4) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. 5) FurRedevelopable: For the purpose of this standard, land on which development has already occurred,but due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that current development will be converted to more intensive uses during the planning period. 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along the centerline of the right-of-way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site to be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5,below, are met. 3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings, except where the Review Authority has determined that this standard is impracticable due the criteria listed in LODS 26.020(5). 5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Sections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography(over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplains LODS 17.005, or other lands protected by City ordinances,where regulations de-net-allow discourage construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities; except where no EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307(LU 00-0015(A)) through street connections exists within '/4 mile of the subject site. If no through street connections exist within '/4 mile of the subject site, connectivity may be required, unless a benefit/cost analysis shows..... c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or state or county laws or standards,or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6) If the Review Authority allows an exception to the above standards for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of- way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connections in all directions from the site. 7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LODS 26.020(2) based on findings that demonstrate: a) that reducing the number or location of connections would not significantly add to travel time or distance from the proposed development to activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or b) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways. 26.025 Standards for Approval 20 When an applicant proposes a development that a:—Does not require the construction of a street, but creates new lots or parcels, (e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition),-and ivauiivu-minnmum iets e the e w hick the a l" atea the Review Authority shall require: 1) A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.020(2)—(7). 2). Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. 26.030 Procedures For all development, the applicant shall submit: EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A)) 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and subsection 2,below,to all property owners within 530 feet of a proposed development if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject development. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent to the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 530 feet of a proposed development as stated above, in the manner required in LOC 49.44.920. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the proposed development site. b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography fer-slepes-ef with contour intervals not more than five(5) feet, c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas and vegetation, d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways, e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; h. Activity centers such as schools, shopping,parks or bus lines, within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site; i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 26.035 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LODS 20.025 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 2307(LU 00-0015(A)) The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) 20.025, "On Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways,"is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in redline and underline. 20.25 Standards for Construction. 7. A Residential accessway shall include at least a 15-foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major trees or vegetation,but shall be as straight as practicable,considering the circumstances related to the property 8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of sensitive lands, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 9. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. 10. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. P/case files/an000015-A/LODS 26.doc M:\Ord\2246-ExhA-LODS26.doc wasys{ as : .02-c:o c; . . 'y � jE� Street connectivity \_:___,..___ standards chat,. nge Implementing the regional transportation plan 2 0 0 1 M etro's updated Regional Planning for future streets Transportation Plan is a blueprint to guide transportation investments in the Portland - ir' metropolitan region during the + 'cn,, next 20 years.Adoption of the f' plan,an important part of achiev � / ing the 2040 Growth Concept vision, marks the end of a five-year a E \t �� 1!I « The street and planning process. , - / 1 xk.a accessway plan i 1,,,,if! a rl if i -I was part of the Highlights of the 2000 plan include r` '' the need to: "3""M-' r --� on-site advertis- 669-9999 °._i--'' r, i . ' a; ing at Fairview • expand some roads and r .:, at Village. highways throughout the region to+ MI '4 A • expand bus and light rail service the raand tions ability to walk to hanges are in store for how Tasks for local planners local governments need to • build new sidewalks and Local governments must complete plan for future streets. The bikeways on existing streets two tasks to comply with the Regional Transportation Plan, • limit delays for national and adopted in August 2000, contains street connectivity requirements: international freight movement several significant changes. The • future street plan maps must he • implement strategies to ensure old requirements for street con- created to identify the most our system works efficiently nectivity, part of Title 6.of the critical future street connections • identify new funding sources to Metro Urban Growth Manage- to be built keep pace with growth. ment Functional Plan, will be • revisions to development codes replaced by new standards must implement street adopted in Chapter 6 of the 2000 connectivity standards as land is Regional Transportation Plan. developed. The change was made to simplify The tasks are outlined as follows: the standards in response to METRO comments from local planners Task 1 — Create a future R.gion.l s.rvices from throughout the metropoli- Creating livable street plan map communities tan region.Jurisdictions are encouraged to include the new A future street plan map shall bq Metro,the regional government that requirements when updating local created for all areas that are: serves the 1.3 million people who live in Clackamas, Multnomah and washing- plans and development codes for • contiguous parcel(s) of vacant ton counties and the 24 cities in the functional plan compliance. Portland metropolitan area,provides or re developable land of 5 planning and services that protect the acres or more nature of our region. continues w • planned or zoned for residential or mixed-use • code requirements for new street construction ".: development. (see Task 2) that will provide additional con- nections as development occurs. ' The future street plan maps shall identify all areas in a jurisdiction where key street connections Task 2 — Revise development code and should beprovided. Thisplan should be adopted ' P design guidelines as part of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. It will provide guidance to developers and others The second task is a revision of the development ,p. who construct street improvements and should be code and design guidelines to meet regional x'.. made available to them as early as possible goals for street connectivity. Development codes '' shall require all new residential or mixed-use during the development permitting process. q development that proposes or is required to When deciding where to require street connec- construct or extend street(s) to provide a street tions, jurisdictions should consider the following: map that: '' • connecting to existing or planned street inter- • Provides full street connections with spacing 3 , sections and street extensions of no more than 530 feet between connec- tions, except where prevented by barriers. • providing direct and logical access to surround- Acceptable barriers to providing street connectivity include topography (steep mg areas slopes); freeways; railroads; pre-existing .'' • limiting the need for cul-de-sac and other development; lease provisions, easements, �:' closed-end street designs covenants or other restrictions existing prior -Lk to May 1, 1995,which preclude street or e accessway connections; and water features • where regulations implementing Title 3 of 4, h �A -t the Urban Growth Management Functional 1 1 �_I ri l�Tl g if:-- !-,.. ),.:r g . .)., I' �1� Plan require different standards for street ?,,- e. =" ~`` 7 facilities. I J( � ' l C A1'd4 ti r � "�, � � ;�r_� • When full street connections are not possible, {%�.e.. 0 A�.'.,`...` provides bike and pedestrian accessways on Ll' __- i public easements or rights-of-way in lieu of ----- ( --- I ,� I streets. Spacing'of accessways between full r1 Waldorf r.J street connections shall be no more than 330 School _._.� -4 feet, except where prevented by barriers. j %kJ — • Limits the use of cul-de-sac designs and + AN 1 other closed-end street s stems to situationso n - Ct; �``�,;., Y tilli '` r �,.�/t" • w. where barriersprevent connections to FEET - 1-\ • .A ' r':- r- adjacent streets. y1 MN Vacant or redevelopable area Street connection required • Includes no closed-end street longer than ;s O-— (internal alignment flexible) '200 feet or having more than 25 dwelling ;„ units. Figure 1 -Future street plan map '.. • Includes street cross-sections demonstrating dimensions of right-of-way improvements, ''' Figure 1 illustrates a future street plan map with streets designed for posted or expected • that local planners could create to meet functional speed limits. plan requirements. Y, 1 '\.. �,, w •,-" ;., • Consideration of traffic calming devices to ill •. ,_ Y ,,j .,,, -i + �� = discourage traffic infiltration and excessive e`' ��a,� • , - speeds on local streets. ! �' ' k -,r Imo Jurisdictions may, but are not required to, iden- tify acceptable barriers to required street connec- �,�� ` F_! -, tivity on their future street plan maps. They are a ,' I _ strongly encouraged -..... 7.1- g y to post signs with notice of .. the intent to construct future streets at all points Y .. I where streets are to be extended. Wdlcicr5choo, ° __,0 . ... . 4 r f it I""P"lt"j -,. v}' e, T i' r •.,tv s•" ,y, 1;';' a "1w '' tit‘.:.'" r,' i. „ im '-aoo no r r, - r fi rI FT oNERoCk�A � F:,°f o LIT, THIS Rnout OADCWIIL RE U•.- •`.0 +�,s• , E%TENOEO WITH FUTURE ,,y ^_ IMMO Vacant or redevelopable area .,A+ ;,4•4 r1,,1 tit,: , OEVELOPMENT FOR INFORMATION CONTACT {:rii-r� �1 t,4,,e,00 y ,�„I CITY OF HAPPY VALLEY p �U��,.T p4A', , ,��;� O - -O Street connection required 760.332s (internal alignment flexible) t ,r u� •'e,r-'r uh�1_,YyP le. rSL,s�y"+�1, 4,td -4 ;. `�� ssI , tr. r.. ,- „, . 4 .,ti',,, ,,It t Figure 2-Future street plan for a single parcel li.. T..Lle,:iTfl.%l+i..I-v �:4 4,1 t{, ,,!„, ,,,, ' tYiNt?,' °t.l Figure 2 demonstrates a street map for a single ~ parcel that a developer would provide to meet code regulations. Happy Valley provides notice to potential buyers in a new subdivision of the intent to extend this street as future development occurs. Street design code language and guidelines must allow for, and should encourage, the following considerations in support of the development requirements: Figure 3 -Street cross-section example Local street, mid-block • Consideration of narrow street design alter- natives. For local streets, no more than 46 feet of total right-of-way, including pavement O. widths of no more than 28 feet,curb-face to 1.. r', ,vi'r� curb-face, sidewalk width of at least S feet I/ and landscaped pedestrian buffer strips that include street trees. `_ ___---- `-''`AMMON t t ' t 26 I 5' 1 5' I • Short and direct public right-of-way routes to connect residential uses with nearby commer- • cial services,schools, parks and other neigh- Figure 3 shows a street cross-section that could borhood facilities. be submitted for approval by a developer during the permitting process. • Consideration of opportunities to incremen- tally extend streets from nearby areas. ----2., z Frequently asked questions l------ - 1' Q. Does any street count as Q. Is street connectivity Q. Are large apartment a full street connection? required for industrial or complexes required to A. Any street that provides auto commercial areas? provide street connectivity? access during normal street use A. Metro does not require street A. Yes, As residentially zoned hours qualifies as a street connec- connections through these land land, they must meet street and tion.This includes streets that uses. Local jurisdictions are pedestrian/bicycle access connec- may be closed for special events encouraged to develop their own tivity requirements. The street or that provide narrow points to standards to address street con- and accessways may be privately limit access to one direction. nectivity for areas not addressed owned and maintained but must by the Metro requirements. meet a jurisdiction's street or Q. Can private streets or accessway design requirements accessways be counted for Q. Do the connectivity and provide public access during street connectivity require- requirements apply to all normal street usage hours. Private ments? new residential or mixed- accessways must have a public A. Yes, as long as they provide use development? easement. public access to or through the A. Yes. The planning and map- relevant land parcel and meet ping requirement is only required Q What is a closed-end allowable design standards for an on parcels identified as part of a street? improved public street or access- contiguous area of vacant or re- A. A closed-end street has only way. Private accessways must developable land of 5 acres or one egress to any other existing have a public easement. more. However, development or planned street. Cul-de-sacs, regulations shall require all new dead-end and looped streets are Q. How do regulations on residential and mixed-use devel- examples of closed-end streets. development in environ- opment that will construct or mentally sensitive areas extend streets to address the affect street connectivity connectivity requirements. • requirements? A. Construction of roads in Q. What parcels are consid- For more detailed environmentally sensitive areas ered re developable? information, call should comply with local regula- A. Re-developable land is defined Metro's Transportation tions regarding development. If a in the functional plan as land on Department, (503) road or pedestrian/bike facility is which development has already not allowed by local code in an occurred, but due to present or 797-1757. To receive environmentally sensitive area, expected market forces, there printed materials on connectivity requirements do not exists the strong likelihood that the 2000 Regional mandate construction.The first current development will be reasonable opportunity to provide converted to more intensive uses Transportation Plan, a connection that does not impact . during the planning period.This leave a message on the sensitive area should be made, definition requires local planners the transportation however. Metro's GreenStreets to exercise professional judge- hotline, (503) 797-1900 study will provide additional ment about local development guidance on balancing street conditions. option 2. connectivity and environmental issues by the summer of 2001. Printed on recycled content paper. 2O0O10583.rRW 00061 k/.ct 3.2 00/ 17/01 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Appointments to the Budget Committee RECOMMENDED MOTION: ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: I NOTICED (Date): IMPACT: • Schmitz memo of 14 September 2001 STAFF COST: $ Ordinance no.: BUDGETED: Y N Resolution no.: _ FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY M AGER r signoff/date signoffldate Document:, TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of the City Council FR: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager RE: Appointments to Budget Committee DATE: 14 September 2001 This matter was briefly discussed by the Council on the morning of 4 September. The discussion focused on the reappointment of the three incumbents since not one of them has served a full term. Some members of Council wanted time to consider this approach and the item was setover to the 18th. 3.3 09/ 17/01 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Youth Council Program Councilor Turchi prepared four models for a Youth Council Program. This information is provided to the Council for discussion. Council is requested to provide direction on how to proceed with the program RECOMMENDED MOTION: r ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): IMPACT: • Youth Council Models STAFF COST: $ Ordinance no.: BUDGETED: Y N Resolution no.: FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY M AGER signoff/date signoff/date Youth Council Models The goal of the Youth Council program is to: 1. Give input into council decision on issues involving youth. 2. Participate at council meetings on all issues that come before the council. 3. Educate members of the pre-voting age community about the workings of local government. 4. Provide students with access to the decision-making institutions of local government. 5. Train future local government leaders. 6. Identify projects that would more closely tie the community's school age population to civic duty and responsibility. 7. Be a part of an overall strategy of outreach to the community at large. 8. Provide mentorship and internship opportunities to members of the student school community. Model # 1 Full Engagement This model envisions an activist Youth Council will have opportunities in each of the areas above. its characteristics are: 1. Students selected by application and interviews from each high school. 2. Students receive elective academic credit for local government. 3. Students will meet in groups, select a spokes person who will meet monthly with the Mayor and one council designee to develop a monthly calendar. 4. The Youth Council shall meet once a month in a separate meeting. 5. Students will join in the annual council retreat for two hours to work on Youth Council goals. 6. Each council member will have one Youth Councilor mentorship student, as will the head of city departments. 7. Students will attend either morning or evening council meetings on a regular basis or be replaced. (Absenteeism should not fall below 80% in an yearly quarter) 8. While in attendance at city meetings attention should be directed at the content of the meetings rather than other activities. (i.e. homework etc.) 9. Each Youth Councilor will develop a plan for his/her involvement in the city government to be worked on with their mentorship team. 10. Each Youth Council member will compose a paper of not more that 1500 words that describes their experience and their relative success with their individual goals. Model #2 Observational Engagement This model envisions a more passive Youth Council with the emphasis on observation and limited involvement. 1. Students selected by application and interviews from each high school. 2. Students meet quarterly with the Mayor and Council members to discuss their observations and questions. These meetings will include an academic component. 3. Students will be paired with a council member and the Mayor to work on individual students plans for their Youth Council experience. 4. Students will be encouraged to attend council meetings with an emphasis on the work sessions where there is a less formal atmosphere. 5. To maintain membership on the youth council, members should attend at least 50%of all council meetings and be engaged. (i.e. no homework, etc.) Model #3 Individualized Mentorship Model This model envisions an active engagement of Youth Councilors with an individual member of the city council. The quality of the experience is dependent on that involvement. 1. Students selected by application and interviews from each high school. 2. Students will be selected by individual council members who will develop an individual plan with their student. 3. The individual plan will contain the student's goals for their program and a plan for reaching their goals. 4. Youth Councilor will attend city council meetings as necessary to meet the goals of their plan. Attendance will not be required. 5. Each students experience will be unique and fitted to their needs. 6. This could achieve elective academic credit at their high schools depending on the nature and extent of their plan. Model #4 Projects The model has students selecting as a group a project they want to work on as it relates to the city. One city councilor will serve as a mentor to the group. 1. Students selected by application and interviews from each high school. 2. Youth Councilors will select a project for sustains involvement. 3. Working with a city council mentor, students will engage local government at all levels in an effort to achieve their goal. 4. Youth councilors will take part in all aspects of local government from attending meetings, testify, lobbying at whatever appropriate levels necessary, negotiations, grass roots organization, and elections. 5. Youth councilors will meet on a regular basis and will report the city council on their progress once every six weeks.