The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 2022-05-17 �LA AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING romp May 17, 2022 okEao`' 3:00 p.m. Council Chamber- 3' Floor of City Hall Contact: Kari Linder, City Recorder Email: Klinder@lakeoswego.citv or CitvRecorder@lakeoswego.citv Phone: 503.534.4225 Also published on the internet at: www.lakeoswego.citv. The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request ADA accommodations, please submit your request online or call 503.635.0282, four business days in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be livestreamed on the City's YouTube Channel and at www.lakeoswego.citv as well as broadcast live on Tualatin Valley Community TV; check their website for details. How to testify: If you would like to provide public comment or public testimony at an upcoming City Council meeting, please refer to the City's instructions for in person and electronic (via Zoom or by phone) participation. In order to participate online or by phone, email: CitvRecorder@lakeoswego.city by Noon the day of the meeting. Pre-registration is not required to testify in person at City Hall, but is encouraged and appreciated for meeting preparation. Simply fill out the request to speak card located on the table to the left as you enter the Chamber. Thank you. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Awards of Medal of Valor and Unit Citation to the Lake Oswego Firefighters 4.2 Proclamation— Historic Preservation Month and Awards 4.3 2022 City Hall Time Capsule 5. PUBLIC COMMENT The purpose of Public Comment is to allow the community to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed thirty minutes in total. 503.534.4225 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING To speak during a Public Hearing electronically via Zoom or by phone, email: CitvRecorder@lakeosweao.city by Noon the day of the meeting to receite login information and instructions. 6.1 Ordinance 2892, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50) to Comply with Oregon House Bill 2001, State Legislation Requiring that Cities allow Middle Housing - Including Duplexes, Triplexes, Quadplexes,Townhouses and Cottage Clusters- in Areas that Permit Detached Single Family Dwellings; and Adopting Findings and Conclusions for LU 22-0007. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of legislative hearing procedure by Jason Loos, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Erik Olson, Senior Planner 3. Testimony—the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 20 minutes for applicant presentation; 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; and 5 minutes per individual; 5 minutes for applicant rebuttal 4. Questions of Staff Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2892 and direct staff to return on June 7, 2022 with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 22-0007. 7. STUDY SESSIONS 7.1 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update. 7.2 Funding Options for Pathway Projects. 7.3 Boones Ferry Road Property— Development Solicitation for Affordable Housing. Motion: Move to direct staff to prepare a final draft Development Process IGA for City Council consideration on June 21, 2022. 503.534.4225 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA • The Consent Agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. • An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the Consent Agenda. • The City Council makes one motion covering all items included on the Consent Agenda. Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda. 8.1 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Milwaukie for Public Safety Communication Services provided by Lake Oswego Communications Center (LOCOM) for Another Four Years. Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign the 2022-2026 Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Milwaukie for public safety communication services by the LOCOM center. 8.2 Ordinance 2893, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to Remove the Special Street Setback Along a Section of South Shore Road; and Adopting Findings (LU 22-0004). Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2893. 8.3 Public Improvement Contract Award for the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project Work Order 321. Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a Public Improvement Contract with Knife River Corporation - Northwest for the construction of the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Work Order 321, in the amount of$5,464,863.32. 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (this concludes the broadcast portion of the meeting) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of ORS 192.660(2)(e) Conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions; and (f) Consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. 13. ADJOURNMENT 503.534.4225 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city 4.2 COUNCIL REPORT ___ o QREGoNI' Subject: Preservation Month Awards Ceremony with The Historic Resources Advisory Board and City Council Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Paul Espe, Associate Planner Report Date: May 5, 2022 Department: Planning and Building Services Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑x Not Applicable ❑X Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda This is an annual/reoccurring event. Staff Recommendation: Proclaim May, 2022 as National Historic Preservation Month and present the Preservation Merit Award to former HRAB member, Char Green. Recommended Language for Motion: Proclaim May, 2022 as National Historic Preservation Month and issue Preservation Merit Award to Char Green. Project/ Issue Relates To: The Historic Resources Advisory Board ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Every year during the month of May, communities throughout the nation celebrate Preservation Month, first created in 1971 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Over the past several years, Lake Oswego has celebrated Preservation Month with a proclamation and the presentation of a merit award to recognize those who have made significant contributions to the city's historic context. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 The Mayor will read the proclamation declaring May as Historic Preservation Month and the Historic Resources Advisory Board will present a Preservation Merit Award to Char Green for her work with the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Oswego Heritage Council. The Mayor's proclamation is attached. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Lake Oswego's heritage is highlighted each May in conjunction with activities across the nation to celebrate National Historic Preservation Month. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recognizes the importance in working collaboratively with other community preservation groups and they would not be able to accomplish this work without them. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Restore Oregon, the Architectural Heritage Council,The Clackamas County Heritage Council, The Oswego Heritage Council, The Lake Oswego Preservation Society, The Friends of Lusher Farm and The Oswego Pioneer Cemetery, all play a unique role and make significant contributions to Lake Oswego's and the region's cultural heritage. Preservation Merit Award The Historic Resources Advisory Board would like to present historic preservation merit award to Char Green who has contributed to the Y� community's historic built environment through a II } `� her participation with the Historic Resource j r, • Advisory Board, and the Oswego Heritage Council. Char served on the Historic Resources Advisory Board as vice Chair and Chair for approximately 6 - years (January 7, 2014 to July 8, 2020). She also served on the Oswego Heritage Council Board since 2015 and as the executive director for the Oswego Heritage Council from 2020-2022. Char is also a co-owner of Green Window Restoration with her husband Alan Green. This is a local business that specializes in the restoration of historic wood windows. The Greens are passionate about historic architecture and live in a home designed by Wade Pipes in Lake Oswego. Pipes was considered a premiere architect of English cottage architecture. Their home was built in 1924 for the first supervisor of Mt. Hood National Forest and his wife, a noted Pacific Northwest gardening expert. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 Growing up in a house full of books, Char loves to read history and biographies and is fascinated with genealogy. She was able to trace her husband's English Heritage back to 1066 and found that he may be related to William the Conqueror. Green's passion for history, genealogy and historic architecture are natural requisites for her great accomplishments with the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Oswego Heritage Council. While serving on HRAB, Char partnered with Rachel Verdick to present successful arguments for the retention of the Bates house on the National Register of Historic Places before the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Char also served on HRAB during the Carman Farm House appeal and State Supreme Court Decision which established that subsequent owners who acquire a historic property cannot simply opt out of the designation and must follow the standard procedure for designation removal. This case sets precedent that affects properties across the state. Char and Rachel also made the historic design review and resource designation process more approachable by working with staff updating the historic preservation code to be consistent with model code guidelines provided by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Their efforts helped the City become consistent with National guidelines while making the code more user-friendly and easier for landmark owners to understand. This also included development of a brochure outlining the Historic Designation process and land use procedures for exterior alterations making them more user-friendly. Char also helped the Hazelia Agri-Cultural Heritage Trail task force with the design and development of the Hazelia Agri-Cultural Heritage Trail; and, with the preservation of the two tile mosaics by award winning Artist Walter Graham (1903-2000). These mosaics were originally commissioned and installed in 1960 as an artistic element of the former Oswego Shopping Center. The mosaics are currently on display in the Windward Building. As Executive Director of the Heritage Council, founded over thirty years ago, Char created the Retrospective Exhibit for the opening of the new City Hall building. This was a large multi- panelled exhibit that provided a detailed chronology of the City of Lake Oswego. She also expanded OHC's growing city archive by creating a library of house biographies and historic photographs of the city, documenting its change over time. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 Historic Preservation Grant: The City of Lake Oswego is now accepting applications for historic resource rehabilitation grants ._ for preservation and repair of historic buildings listed on the City's Landmark Designation List. Those properties listed on the National Register, but not on the Landmark Designation List may also apply. Qualifying projects can receive a grant that provides partial reimbursement of the cost to do the work. Grant applications are available in Planning and Building Services or on line at https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/historic-resources-preservation-incentive- grant-program. Applications must be submitted before Friday, May 27, 2022 and will be reviewed by the Historic Resources Advisory Board June 8, 2022. Projects need to be completed by June 1, 2023. This year HRAB had six grant applicants; the Christie School at 2507 Christie Drive, 1136 Westward Ho, 432 Country Club Road, 885 Mc Vey (the Worthington House), 17901 Stafford Road (the Carter House), and 257 Iron Mountain Blvd (the Davidson House). RECOMMENDATION The Historic Resources Advisory Board recommends the City Council declare May Historic Preservation Month, and award the Historic Preservation Merit Award to: • Char Green: For her outstanding contribution to the city's historic preservation program written historic record and the community. ATTACHMENTS 1. Char Green Bio 2. Preservation Month Proclamation 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 p42, 0\ MEMORANDUM it o o wow °REG(3. TO: Joseph Buck, Mayor FROM: Larry Snyder, Chair; Meg Matsushima, Vice Chair Historic Resources Advisory Board SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Merit Award presented to Char Green DATE: May 17, 2022 Welcome Everyone! The Historic Resources Advisory Board would like to ly present historic preservation merit award to Char r,ri , , , s, !" Green who has contributed to the community's _,� - ;' r.l . ..P.47# .�:. historic built environment through her participation __ . :s =a� 'r �', '1 _ with the Historic Resource Advisory Board, and the 4 ► - 11 —' _' Oswego Heritage Council. Char served on the Historic Resources Advisory + Board as vice Chair and Chair for approximately 6 III 1 - years (January 7, 2014 to July 8, 2020). She also served on the Oswego Heritage Council Board since 2015 and as the executive director for the Oswego Heritage Council from 2020-2022. Char is also a co-owner of Green Window Restoration with her husband Alan Green. This is a local business that specializes in the restoration of historic wood windows. The Greens are passionate about historic architecture and live in a Wade Pipes home in Lake Oswego. Pipes was considered a premiere architect of English Cottage architecture. Their home was built in 1924 for the first supervisor of Mt. Hood National Forest and his wife, a noted Pacific Northwest gardening expert. Growing up in a house full of books, Char loves to read history and biographies and is fascinated with genealogy. She was able to trace her husband's English Heritage back to 1066 and found that he may be related to William the Conqueror. Green's passion for history, genealogy and historic architecture are natural requisites for her great accomplishments with the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Oswego Heritage Council. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 2 While serving on HRAB, Char partnered with Rachel Verdick to present successful arguments for the retention of the Bates house on the National Register before The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Char also served on HRAB during the Carman Farm House appeal and State Supreme Court decision which established that subsequent owners who acquire a historic property cannot simply opt out of the designation and must follow the standard procedure for designation removal. This case sets precedent that affects properties across the state. Char and Rachel also made the historic design review and resource designation process more approachable by working with staff updating the historic preservation code to be consistent with model code guidelines provided by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Their efforts helped the City become consistent with National guidelines while making the code more user-friendly and easier for landmark owners to understand. This also included development of a brochure outlining the Historic Designation process and land use procedures for exterior alterations making them more user-friendly. Char also helped the Hazelia Agri-Cultural Trail task force with the design and development of the Hazelia Agri-Cultural Heritage Trail; and, with the preservation of the two tile mosaics by award winning Artist Walter Graham (1903-2000). These mosaics were originally commissioned and installed in 1960 as an artistic element of the former Oswego Shopping Center. The mosaics are currently on display in the Windward Building. As Executive Director of the Heritage Council, founded over thirty years ago, Char created the Retrospective Exhibit for the opening of the new City Hall building. This was a large multi- panelled exhibit that provided a detailed chronology of the City of Lake Oswego. She also expanded OHC's growing city archive by creating a library of house biographies and historic photographs of the city, documenting its change over time. She also introduced marketing strategies to increase the community's knowledge about OHC, while maintaining and growing the success of OHC's annual fund raisers including the Heritage Home and Garden Tour, the annual Car and Boat show, the Rock Your Ribs barbeque event and monthly Chautauqua lectures that provided adult education courses and entertainment. F1ATTACHMENT 2 0�� F OJ' V 0 • (if) GREG�� Office of the Mayor, City of Lake Oswego National Preservation .Month WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for promoting sustainable practices, preserving neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego herby joins communities across the country to celebrate National Preservation Month throughout the month of May. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Lake Oswego City Council, proclaim May, 2022 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of the City of Lake Oswego to join their fellow residents across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Joseph M. Buck, Mayor May 17, 2022 6.1 etik E 4� COUNCIL REPORT o OREGOt.4 Subject: Ordinance 2892, Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) Code Amendments- LU 22-0007 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Erik Olson, Senior Planner Report Date: May 5, 2022 Department: Community Development Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑X Planning Commission Recommends Approval ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑X Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution El Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2892 to amend the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50) Recommended Language for Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2892 and direct staff to return on June 7, 2022 with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 22-0007. Project/ Issue Relates To: Code amendments to comply with the middle housing requirements of House Bill 2001. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑X Comprehensive Plan ❑Not Applicable Adopt code that complies with HB 2001 requirements ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL The Council will hold a legislative public hearing for LU 22-0007, the proposed code amendments to comply with the middle housing requirements of Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are part of the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." The amendments were prepared in 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 response to state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing"—including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The amendments are intended to enact these and other changes necessary to meet the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46). BACKGROUND The Planning Commission developed recommendations for the proposed amendments (Ordinance 2892) in four work sessions on December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022, January 24, 2022, and February 15, 2022, and the Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on April 11, 2022. The Commission recommends approval of Ordinance 2892 as reflected in the Findings, Conclusion, and Order adopted on May 9, 2022 (Exhibit B-1). The proposed code text is contained in Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2892 (Exhibit A-1.1), dated May 9, 2022. DISCUSSION The amendments will clarify and update various provisions listed below. GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add middle housing development in the purpose statements located within the following sections: 1. R-7.5, R-10, R-15 (Residential High Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.a 2. R-5, R-6, R-DD (Residential Medium Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.b 3. R-0, [R-2], R-3, R-W (Residential High-Density) Zones. LOC 50.02.001.c 2. Allow for the development of middle housing types in applicable Table 50.03.002-1 residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify that LOC 50.03.003.4.i(3) the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 4. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify that LOC 50.03.003.5.h.i the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 5. Add a definition of"cottage cluster", to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 6. Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and LOC 50.10.003.2 a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 7. Add a definition for "common courtyard" for cottage cluster LOC 50.10.003.2 developments. 8. Modify the definition of"duplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. (Maintains existing requirement that duplexes are two attached dwellings.) 9. Remove the existing definition of "dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table Table 50.03.002-1 2. Definition of Terms LOC 50.10.003.2 10. Add a definition for "dwelling, cottage cluster". LOC 50.10.003.2 11. Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family" to be for LOC 50.10.003.2 developments of five or more attached dwelling units on a lot, to distinguish from middle housing. 12. Remove the existing definition and other code references to "dwelling, zero lot line", and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions, within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; Table 50.03.002-1 2. Ministerial Development Classification; LOC 50.07.003.13.a 3. Definition of Terms. LOC 50.10.003.2 13. Add a definition for "cottage cluster dwelling footprint" to align LOC 50.10.003.2 with state minimum compliance requirements. 14. Add a definition for "middle housing" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. 15. Add a definition for "quadplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 16. Add a new definition of "townhouse" to replace existing LOC 50.10.003.2 definition of "attached townhome dwelling", in alignment with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Add a definition for "townhouse project" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 18. Add a definition for "triplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 19. Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family LOC 50.08.002.2.a; residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state 50.08.002.2.b; minimum compliance requirements. 50.08.002.2.d; 50.08.002.2.g 20. Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply to LOC 50.08.003.2.a single-family residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; and Table 50.03.002-1 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d 2. Exempt duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot, for lots that comply with minimum lot area standards for townhouse projects, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 4. Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension standards that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the following sections, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low Density Zones- Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.1.b 2. R-5 Zone - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.2.b.i 3. Residential High-Density Zones— Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.3.b 4. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 5. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 6. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 5. Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Zones; 3. Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) 4. Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) 5. Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Zones. 6. Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types to align with state minimum compliance requirements within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. R-5 Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.i(1) 3. R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table; Table 50.04.001-5 4. R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) 5. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-11 6. R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. Table 50.04.001-13 7. Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 8. Add maximum average floor area standards for individual units within a cottage cluster as follows: 1. 1,200 square feet per unit in the R-10 and R-15 Zones; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 2. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-7.5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-6, R-5 and R-DD Zones; LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv 4. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-0, R-2 and R-3 Zones. LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii 9. Add building separation standards for cottage clusters, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.e Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; and 3. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v Density Zones. 10. Apply maximum floor area standards for townhouses to the entire site as allowed by state middle housing requirements, rather than individual townhouse lots, by referencing the term "townhouse project" within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.d Density Districts; 3. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 4. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 5. Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iv Residential High-Density Zones. 11. Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iii Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; 3. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.e.iv Density Zones. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 7 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 12. Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, and exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in the following sections: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Density Zones; 2. R-5 Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i 3. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii 4. R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table; Table 50.04.001-9 5. R-DD Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(4) 6. R-2 Lot Coverage Table; and Table 50.04.001-12 7. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3); 50.04.001.3.d.ii(4) 13. Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(2) triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 14. Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply to LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(3) cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 15. Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft. to 25 ft. within the following sections to comply with state minimum requirements: 1. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 2. Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. Figure 50.04.001-11[5] 16. Eliminate references to single-family zones in the solar LOC 50.04.004.b adjustments standards related to off-site shade, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; and Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Applicability standards for Structure Design — Residential LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i Zones. 18. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 8 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 19. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i 2. On-Site Circulation — Bikeways, Walkway, and Accessways; LOC 50.06.003.3.a 3. Street Connectivity; LOC 50.06.003.4.a.iii 4. Transit System; LOC 50.06.003.5.a 5. Site Design - Standards for Installation and Construction; LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii 6. Solar Access; LOC 50.06.007.1.b 7. Definition of Floor Area. LOC 50.10.003.2 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale LOC 50.06.001.3.b by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 22. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in applicable zones: 1. Garage appearance and location standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.i 2. Driveway width limitations; LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(a); 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(b) 3. Driveway grade standards. LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(1); 50.06.003.2.b.iii(3) 23. Modify the following garage standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade: 1. Garage setback standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(1) 2. Garage width standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(2) 3. Garage appearance standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(3) 4. Garage window standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii 5. Garage location standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.ii(2) 6. Garage window standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iii 7. Garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone; and LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iv 8. Garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone. LOC 50.06.001.4.b.v 24. Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels of less LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii than 50 feet in width. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 9 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 25. Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit one Table 50.06.002-3 space per unit for middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 26. Modify parking dimension standards to apply equally to single- LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(2) family and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 27. Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access lane LOC 50.06.003.1.d.iii may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for middle housing on flag lots served by the access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 28. Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(d) no wider than the associated garage opening. 29. Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement for LOC 50.06.003.2.c.vi(2) driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 30. Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code, and remove the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Standards for Access Lanes; and LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii 2. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires LOC 50.06.003.4.c.v the Construction of a Street. 31. Specify that duplexes may be permitted on flag lots served by an LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii access lane, but not other middle housing types, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. 33. Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not apply LOC 50.06.001.4.a.ii to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 10 OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Exempt middle housing created through conversions or additions LOC 50.05.001.5a.ii to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan, in order to treat single-family and middle housing equally, as required for state minimum compliance. 2. Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District LOC 50.05.004.13.b Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to any new dwelling—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that the following design standards within the Old Town LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(f)(iii) Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District apply equally to LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(b) 1. Window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; 2. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(f)(ii) 3. Massing/Composition standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(a) 4. Window standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(b) 5. Building Height standards for the Craftsman Style; 6. Massing/Composition standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 7. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style; and LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(j) 8. Required design elements for the Craftsman Style. 4. Modify the following standards within the Old Town Overlay to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) and 2. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 5. Clarify that the design standards specific to multi-family LOC 50.05.006.9; dwellings in the Old Town Overlay are not applicable to middle 50.05.006.9.a; housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.05.006.9.b; 6. Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.i(1); and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village 50.05.007.3.c.ii(5) Center Overlay (LGVCO). 7. Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single- LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. 8. Limit the applicability of density transfer provisions in the LOC 50.05.010.4.c.iii Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 11 9. Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands LOC 50.05.010.4.g.ix(4) Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. 10. Allow for duplex development within the Resource Protection LOC 50.05.010.6.a.iii (RP) District, but not other middle housing types. 11. Allow for duplex development on sites otherwise encumbered LOC 50.05.010.6.d.i by an RP District, but not other middle housing types. REVIEW PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.06 & 50.07) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: Table 50.06.001-1; 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1); 2. Ministerial Development Classification; and 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3); 3. Review Criteria for Ministerial Development. LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii(8) 2. Clarify that duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (middle housing) where allowed in the following districts are not classified as ministerial development: 1. Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use Districts; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(h) 2. Special Purpose Districts. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(g) 3. Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(a); single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone, to 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2); align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.07.003.14.a.ii(5); 4. Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(b) housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.05, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction LOC 50.01.006.4 of nonconforming structures also apply to middle housing. 2. Revise provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex LOC 50.01.006.5.a construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 12 apply only to the newly-added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted, within the following sections: 1. LGVCO Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(7) Site Improvements standards; and 2. Residential Zones Structure Design Applicability LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iv standards. 4. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. The testimony before the Commission focused on a now-modified portion of Design and Dimensional Standard Item #20, to modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: The Commission received oral testimony from Carole Ockert (Exhibit G-007) on behalf of the First Addition Neighbors— Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FH). Ms. Ockert's testimony contended that the proposed code language to modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units did not maintain the original intent of those standards to prohibit large obstructions from being located within the required front porch (Exhibit G-007). Ms. Ockert proposed language to address this concern that would require that front porches in the R-6 Zone be unobstructed on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage, with an exception provided for railings. Code amendment language proposed by FAN-FH also suggested that a maximum railing height be established of, "up to 3 ft. in height... or the State mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." The Commission found that large obstructions located within the front porch can have a detrimental impact on neighborhood character. The existing front porch standards in the R-6 Zone were adopted to maintain First Addition's traditional streetscape by requiring sheltered main entries oriented towards the narrow/ numbered streets. The Commission found that this intent can be maintained, while still complying with state requirements that design standards not scale by the number of dwelling units, by adding language to the standard that more directly addresses front porch structural elements. With respect to the issue of railing height, the Commission noted that there are minimum railing (or "guardrail") heights established in the building code that may conflict with a maximum railing height of 3 feet. For example, railings required under the residential building code are subject to a minimum height of 36 inches; residential structures containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit are regulated under the commercial building code, where required guardrails are subject to a minimum height of 42 inches. The Commission found that a maximum railing height should provide builders with some flexibility to design railings without mandating a specific height, and a maximum 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 13 railing height can be established that is a few inches higher than the minimum 42-inch railing height required for residential structures containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit. Given that building code standards are subject to change, the Commission concluded that this code section should reference the building code itself while establishing the maximum height for railings in the R-6 front porch standards at 44 inches, or the minimum height required under the building code, whichever is greater. Additionally, staff received clarification from DLCD following the date of the Public Hearing regarding the maximum number of cottages that can be required in a cottage cluster (General Item #6). This prompted the Commission to direct staff to add language to the code amendments that establishes a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot: The Commission received communication from DLCD staff clarifying that provisions to establish a maximum number of cottages on a lot would be compliant with Division 46 (Exhibit F-2): A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard(at least eight) and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively, this could result in as few as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot... General Item #6 included provisions stipulating that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. City Council directed staff to set the minimum number of units for a cottage cluster at five as a means of differentiating requirements for cottage clusters from other forms of detached middle housing, which is consistent with previous Council direction to not permit detached quadplexes and avoids confusion with any potential future allowances of detached quadplexes. However, the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 03/07/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892 were silent on the number of cottage clusters or common courtyards permitted on each lot. The Commission found that establishing a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot would encourage cottage cluster developments that are more consistent with existing neighborhood character. If the code continued not to specify a maximum number of cottage clusters per lot, larger lots could potentially contain multiple cottage cluster developments. As an example, certain lots could be able to feasibly "fit" up to three cottage clusters, each centered around a separate common courtyard, which could accommodate the development of 15 to 24 cottage dwelling units on a single lot (depending on the size and physical constraints of the site). The Commission finds that developments of this scale require more review than a typical ministerial decision, as the development could begin to resemble a "miniature subdivision" without requiring a land division to be approved through a minor development process. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 14 The Commission concluded that a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot would be most responsive to the Council directive to develop code amendments that both comply with Division 46 and are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. The Commission noted that the guidance from DLCD includes language specifying that the City can establish a maximum number of cottages per lot through the indirect mechanism of establishing a maximum number of cottages per courtyard in combination with a maximum number of common courtyards per lot (Exhibit F-2). The Commission found that it is appropriate to implement a maximum number of cottages per lot through the establishment of a maximum number of common courtyards per lot (in combination with the proposed maximum number of eight cottages per cottage cluster). The Commission also found that for the public's and staff's awareness of the "one cottage cluster with one courtyard" maximum, and thus for proper implementation the DLCD's suggested indirect mechanism, this should also be stated directly in the Residential Use Table. Accordingly, the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1) and the use-specific standards for cottage clusters in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i(1) [Design and Dimensional Standard Item #1] are modified per the Planning Commission Recommended Version of the code amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 05/09/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 22-0007 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return on June 7, 2022 with a final version of Ordinance 2892, including findings and conclusions. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2892, 5/9/22 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 5/9/22 (Supersedes version dated 4/18/22) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, 5/9/22 (see Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2892 dated 5/9/22) C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission — Public Hearing 4/11/22 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 15 D. Staff Memos & Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 3/7/22 D-2 Supplemental Staff Memo, 4/1/22 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits] F. Written Materials F-1 Email from DLCD Staff, 3/9/22 F-2 DLCD Answers to LO Questions, 4/14/22 F-3 DLCD HB 2001 Findings Guidance F-4 MHCAC Key Issues Summary Memo, 11/3/21 G. Public Testimony G-001 S-Clark, dated 3/9/2022 G-002 R-Mullen, dated 3/28/2022 G-003 B-Miles, dated 4/10/2022 G-004 R-Ervin, dated 4/11/2022 G-005 S-Labhard, dated 4/11/2022 G-006 C-Miller, dated 4/11/2022 G-007 C-Ockert, First Addition Neighbors— Forest Hills, dated 4/11/2022 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 21-0057 then press "Enter": https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-proiects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT A-1 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 ORDINANCE 2892 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING: LOC 50.01.006 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SITE FEATURES; 50.02.001 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; 50.03.002 USE TABLE; 50.03.003 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS; 50.04.001 DIMENSIONAL TABLE; 50.05.001 GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT; 50.05.004 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT; 50.05.006 OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN; 50.05.007 LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT; 50.05.010 SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS; 50.06.001 BUILDING DESIGN; 50.06.002 PARKING; 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY; 50.06.004 SITE DESIGN; 50.06.007 SOLAR ACCESS; 50.07.003 REVIEW PROCEDURES; 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES; 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES; 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 22-0007). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, in 2019 the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 2001 (2019), which requires cities over 25,000 in population to allow the development of"middle housing"— including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters—within zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, a goal of the Lake Oswego City Council is to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change;" and WHEREAS, an initiative of the Council is to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability;" and WHEREAS, the Council has held six separate study sessions regarding the implementation of HB 2001 from August 2019 through February 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received staff updates at fourteen meetings on the progress on the State's rulemaking process for HB 2001 from January 2020 through January 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2020, the State of Oregon adopted rules to implement HB 2001: Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules ("Division 46"); and WHEREAS, City staff engaged the public early in the process, including a kickoff meeting, interviews with neighborhood association representatives, and a survey that received over 880 responses from Lake Oswego residents in January and February 2021, all providing vital input relating to the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 21-18 creating an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) to provide high-level policy guidance on key issues Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 1 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 related to middle housing implementation required under HB 2001; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution 21-19 to approve appointments of a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests to the MHCAC; and WHEREAS, the MHCAC conducted six meetings between July and October 2021, where public input was accepted, in order to develop conceptual code amendment recommendations related to middle housing implementation; WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, staff and members of the MHCAC presented the MHCAC code amendment recommendations at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Council directed staff to pursue conceptual code amendment recommendations developed by the MHCAC that are required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46; and WHEREAS, in December 2021, staff hosted a virtual Community Forum in order to provide information on middle housing implementation and to allow for public input before drafting recommended code changes; and WHEREAS, the public engagement effort associated with the virtual Community Forum included a middle housing website and online survey, available to the public through December 2021; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a total of nine work sessions from March 2021 through February 2022, with public comment to aid the Planning Commission on identifying and clarifying the scope and issues of the proposed code amendments; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on April 11, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 22-0007, with Planning Commission recommended code amendments dated May 9, 2022 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 22-0007 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on May 17, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the public hearing before the Council was continued on June 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 2 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 allow middle housing while maintaining consistency with the sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability of Lake Oswego pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 22-0007), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in double underlined type and deleting text shown in strikcthrough type in Attachment 2, dated May 9, 2022. Section 3. 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. Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the day of , 2022. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 3 OF 4 DRAFT: 05/06/2022 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jason Loos, City Attorney Ordinance 2892 (LU 22-0007) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 4 OF 4 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 1/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.01.006 NONCONFORMING USES,STRUCTURES, LOTS AND SITE FEATURES //// 4. DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES a. Single-Family and Duplex Middle Housing Dwellings,Accessory Structures,and Historic Landmarks This subsection is applicable to nonconforming single-family(attached or detached) and duplcx dwellings, middle housing dwellings, historic landmarks designated or listed upon the Landmark Designation List, and accessory structures to a single-family dwelling,duplex middle housing dwelling, or historic landmark. i. Nonconforming Structures Not Located in the Flood Management Area Subject to the time limitation in subsection 4.c of this section, when all or any portion of a nonconforming structure listed above is damaged by any cause other than an intentional act of the owner, and no part of the structure is located in the flood management area,the reconstruction of the nonconforming structure shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the damaged portions of the structure failed to conform. ii. Nonconforming Structures Located in the Flood Management Area Subject to the time limitation in subsection 4.c of this section, when all or any portion of a nonconforming structure is damaged by any cause other than an intentional act of the owner, and part of the structure is located in the flood management area,the reconstruction of the nonconforming structure shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the damaged portions of the structure failed to conform, except that no part of the structure shall be reconstructed within the flood management area. iii. Nonconforming Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling or Landscaping Located in an RP or RC District or Construction Setback (1) Nonconforming Structures See LOC 50.05.010.4.a, Rebuilding Nonconforming Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Located in RP or RC District or Construction Setback, and LOC 50.05.010.2.b and c, General and Specific Exceptions. (2) Nonconforming Landscaping See LOC 50.05.010.5.c.iii(8)(e), Landscaping in an RC district, and LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(a)(v), Landscaping in an RP district. iv. Damage to a Nonconforming Structure by an Intentional Act of an Owner When all or any portion of a nonconforming structure is damaged by an intentional act of the owner, all reconstruction of the structure shall conform to this Code. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 2/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 b. Structures Other Than Single-Family or Duplex Middle Housing Dwellings,Accessory Structures, and Historic Landmarks i. Applicability This subsection is applicable to structures other than those listed in subsection 4.a of this section. ii. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure (1) Damage to Nonconforming Structures of Less than 50%of the Structure Replacement Cost If a nonconforming structure is damaged from any cause to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions is less than 50%of the current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding may be reconstructed to the extent that it was nonconforming, except that no portion of the structure shall be reconstructed in the flood management area. (2) Damage to Nonconforming Structures of More than 50%of the Structure Replacement Cost If a nonconforming structure is damaged from any cause to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions is 50%or more of the current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding shall conform to City codes and standards. Item 1 [N]: Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction of nonconforming structures will now apply to middle housing dwellings. This is required pursuant to Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules ("Division 46"), which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. Subsection 4.a.iii, below, will continue to apply standards to nonconforming single-family or duplex dwellings located within an RP or RC District or Construction Setback that will not be applied to middle housing dwellings. //// 5. NONCONFORMING LOTS a. Development Permitted A nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located may be developed as permitted in that zone; provided,that(i) the structure complies with all applicable Code standards or(ii)the applicant obtains a variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances. Exception: No middle housing except a duplex and accessory structures to a duplex shall be developed on a nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 3/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 2 [N]:Allow for duplex construction on nonconforming lots, but do not allow for the construction of other middle housing types on nonconforming lots. Though Division 46 generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations, it does allow some exceptions to this rule. For instance, Division 46 specifically allows cities to limit the construction of middle housing on nonconforming lots to detached single-family and duplex dwellings. b. Lot Line Adjustment Lot lines may be adjusted; provided,that the degree of any existing nonconformity is not increased and no new nonconformity is created on any of the lots involved as a result of the adjustment. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 4/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.02.001 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1. RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-low density zone districts are R-15, R-10, and R-7.5. b. Purpose To provide lands for single-family residential development with densities ranging from two to five dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. Item 1.1 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for Residential Low Density Zones to clarify that all residential low-density zones will now provide lands for middle housing development. This amendment ensures consistency with other code amendments to comply with the Division 46 requirement to allow middle housing development in all zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings. Item 4.1 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Low Density Zones Purpose statement. This amendment ensures consistency with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which require that cities eliminate any density limits applicable to middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis. 2. RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-medium density zone districts are R-6, R-5, and R-DD. b. Purpose i. R-5 To provide lands for single-and multi-family residential development with densities ranging from seven to eight dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development..- Item 1.2 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-5 Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. Item 4.2 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the R-5 Zone purpose statement. See Item 4.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 5/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 ii. R-DD Zone (1) The purpose of the R-DD zone is to assure that both single-family homes and middle housing are protected from noise, light,glare and reduction in privacy to the maximum extent possible during the area's transition to higher density residential use,to facilitate good architectural design and site planning which maintains residential choices of unit size, cost and other amenities and supports the economic feasibility of new construction and development, and to assure protection and compatibility of all land uses, including commercial, residential, park, open space and historic sites. Item 1.3 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-DD Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. (2) The R-DD zone is intended for use in low density residential districts which are undergoing transition to increased densities, and which have scenic, historic, natural or residential features which should be preserved and integrated with new development. iii. R-6 Zone The FAN R-6 zone is intended to implement the land use policies of the First Addition Neighborhood Plan.The purpose of this zone is to ensure the design quality of proposed development in the neighborhood by: (1) Ensuring that proposed building designs are visually compatible with the character of existing structures, maintain adequate light and air between structures, and complement the neighborhood's architectural character. (2) Minimizing the visual impact of garages from the street, and to continue established alley uses and functions such as access to garages, off-street parking and trash removal. (3) Encouraging compatible and sensitive remodeling and renovation of existing residences. (4) Preserving the small-town character of the existing streetscape by allowing single-family and middle housing development that is human scale and pedestrian oriented. (5) Enhancing the natural environment of the neighborhood as one of the dominant characteristics. (6) Preserving FAN's historical and architectural character by encouraging infill development that is compatible in design character to landmark structures on abutting lots. Item 1.4 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for the R-6 Zone. See Item 1.1 [G], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 6/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 3. RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY ZONES a. Districts The residential-high density zone districts are R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W. b. Purpose To provide lands for single-and multi-family residential development with densities of at least 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and to provide lands for middle housing development. Item 1.5 [G]: Include middle housing development in the purpose statement for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 1.1 [G], above. Item 4.2 [D]: Remove density limits for middle housing that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential High-Density Zones purpose statement. See Item 4.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 7/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.03.002 USE TABLE //// 2. RESIDENTIAL USE TABLE TABLE 50.03.002-1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE TABLE P= Permitted Use I Blank= Not Permitted I C=Conditional Use I A=Accessory Use [x]Table notes located at the end of the table Residential Use Category Use Type R-3 R_0 Use-Specific R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 R-DD R-W [3] R-2 [3] Standards [4] RESIDENTIAL USES Dwelling, PPP PPP PPPP single-family [1] detached dwelling (one per lot) Dwelling z „ l„t P P R 12 1 P — P 12 12 — line (one per lot) Dwelling, duplex P P P PPP P PPP (one per lot) Dwelling, atc ed- P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.e townhomc Townhouse Project{one per Household lot) Living Cottage cluster P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.d (one per lot) Dwelling, P P P P multi-family Dwelling, PPP PPP PPPP auadplex Dwelling,triplex P P P PPP P PPP Manufactured P P P PPP P PPP 50.03.003.1.b home (one per lot) Manufactured P P P 50.03.003.1.c home park or subdivision LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 8/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.03.002-1: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE TABLE P= Permitted Use I Blank= Not Permitted I C=Conditional Use I A=Accessory Use [x]Table notes located at the end of the table Residential Use Category Use Type R-3 R_p Use-Specific R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 R-DD R-W [3] R-2 [3] Standards [4] Congregate C C C P P P P 50.03.003.4.aand b; housing R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 Group care home P P P PPP P P P Group and Institutional Residential care C C C P P P P 50.03.003.4.aand b; Housing housing R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 Skilled nursing C C C C C 50.03.003.4.c; facility R-2 zone: 50.03.003.3 //// [1] Erected on pilings over the water of Oswego Lake. Notes: [2] No commercial activity allowed. [3] If lot has multiple zones, e.g., R-0/EC, see LOC 50.02.002.2.e. [4] Site-specific use limitations, see LOC 50.02.002.2.c. Item 2 [G]:Allow for the development of all required middle housing types in applicable residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table. Per Division 46, middle housing must generally be allowed in any zoning district that allows single-family detached residential dwellings as a permitted use. In Lake Oswego,this means that middle housing regulations must apply within the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W Zones. Item 9.1 [G]: Remove code references to attached townhouse dwellings and defer instead to the new"townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the Residential Districts Use Table. In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts. This amendment ensures consistency with the removal of the definition of"attached townhouse dwelling" elsewhere in the code.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 9/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.1 [G]: Remove code references to zero lot line dwellings within the Residential Districts Use Table. In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "zero lot line dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts.This amendment ensures consistency with the removal of the definition of"zero lot line dwelling" elsewhere in the code.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "zero lot line dwellings." Item 1.1 [D]: Cross-reference use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the Residential Districts Use Table. This amendment ensures that code readers are able to reference the applicable use-specific standards for cottage clusters, which will be new elements within the code. See Item 1.2 [D], below. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 10/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.03.003 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS 1. RESIDENTIAL—PERMITTED USES a. Attached, Residential Townhome Uses in West Lake Grove i. Subject to the following conditions, in addition to the other provisions of this Code: (1) The minimum net density area for attached townhome housing is 2,500 sq. ft./lot area per unit. (2) The minimum required lot width shall be 17 ft.The maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, excluding parking. (3) Each unit of attached townhome housing shall be constructed on a separate lot. ii. Within the WLG RMU zone: (1) Attached townhomes are allowed solely or in conjunction with office uses in the same building. (2) When a combination of office-commercial and attached townhome residential uses are proposed together on the same site and in separate buildings, the commercial structure(s) shall front on Boones Ferry Road. Residential buildings shall occupy the rear portion of the parcel which is most proximate to the surrounding residential zoning districts. iii. Within the WLG R-2.5 zone: (1) The use is "Attached for-sale residential townhomes." (2) When subdivisions are proposed in the WLG R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80%of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this subsection,the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. //// d. Cottage Clusters In addition to the standards above,the following design standards shall be applied to cottage cluster developments. i. Individual cottage cluster dwellings must have a footprint of no more than 900 square feet each. ii. Common Courtyard Design Standards Figure 50.03.003-D:Cottage Cluster Orientation and Common Courtyard Standards LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 11/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Alley I I Cottage VA I I k X71 fry 0 Pedestrian Porch olipprPath Common Courtyard I I 15'MIN '4>—<-111 I I I I I I Sidewalk Street Parking Public Street LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 12/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 1. Q } A minimum of 50% of cottages must be oriented to the common courtyard. CI Cottages oriented to the common courtyard must be within 10 feet of the courtyard. 0 Cottages must be connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. u J Cottages must abut the courtyard on at least two sides of the courtyard. CI The common courtyard must be at least 15 feet wide at it narrowest width. (1) Each cottage cluster shall include no more than one common courtyard per lot that meets the following standards: (a) The common courtyard must be a single, contiguous piece on one lot; (b) Cottages must abut the common courtyard on at least two sides of the common courtyard; (c) The common courtyard must contain a minimum of 150 sa. ft. per cottage within the associated cluster; (d) The common courtyard must be a minimum of 15 ft.wide at its narrowest dimension; (e) The common courtyard shall be developed with a mix of landscaping, lawn area, pedestrian paths, or paved area, and may also include recreational amenities. Impervious elements shall not exceed 75%of the total common courtyard area; (f) Pedestrian paths must be included in a common courtyard. jg) Paths that abut a courtyard shall count toward the courtyard's minimum dimension and area. Parking areas, required setbacks, and driveways do not qualify as Part of a common courtyard. (2)A common courtyard may function as a community yard. Hard and soft landscape features may be included in a common courtyard, such as pedestrian paths, lawn, groundcover, trees, shrubs, patios, benches, or gazebos. iii. Cottage Orientation (1) Each cottage within a cluster must either abut a common courtyard or must be connected to it by a pedestrian path. (2) A minimum of 50%of cottages within a cluster must be oriented to the common courtyard by: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 13/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (a) Having a primary entrance into to the living area of the cottage facing the common courtyard: lb) Being within 10 ft. from the common courtyard, measured from the wall or front porch of the cottage to the nearest edge of the common courtyard: and (c) Being connected to the common courtyard by a pedestrian path. (3) Cottages within 20 ft. of a property line abutting a public street must have a primary entrance into the living area of the cottage facing the street, unless required otherwise by subsection (1) above. (4) Cottages not facing the common courtyard or the street must have their primary entrance into to the living area of the cottage facing a pedestrian path that is connected to the common courtyard. See Figure 50.03.003-D: Cottage Cluster Orientation and Common Courtyard Standards. iv. Community Buildings (1) Cottage cluster developments may include community buildings for the shared use of residents that provide space for accessory amenities such as community meeting rooms, guest housing, exercise rooms, day care, or community eating areas. Community buildings must meet the following standards: fa) Each cottage cluster is permitted one community building, which shall count towards the maximum average floor area, pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.d.iv, 2.d.iv, and 3.c.iii: and lb) A community building that meets this Code's definition of a dwelling unit must meet the maximum 900 sq. ft.footprint limitation that applies to cottages, unless a covenant is recorded against the property stating that the structure is not a dwelling unit and will not be used as a primary dwelling: v. Pedestrian Access (1) A pedestrian circulation plan is required that provides accessible paths connecting the main entrance of each cottage to the following: (a) The common courtyard: (b) Shared parking area(s): (c) Community building(s): and (d) Sidewalks or public pathways in public rights-of-way abutting the site or rights-of-way if there are no sidewalks. (2) The pedestrian path must be hard-surfaced and a minimum of four feet wide. vi. Parking Design LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 14/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.03.003-E: Cottage Cluster Parking Design Standards Alley Cottage ) PI ,04® .. x7 ri 44.,_Landscape �� Buffer Pedestrian 1-f'''`I' L. / Path a 7 Pi Carport td `` Common>—<3 Courtyard OM 7Driveway >_.<._,_. . :0. >_<7 0„dm. 20' MIN Screening Garage L---....._ ,,_ Proaertyv Line — — — — —Sidewalk --.171.-- I " 7.6—. Street Parking Public Street I ❑ ] Parking allowed in dusters of up to 5 spaces.Clusters separated by minimum 4 feet of landscaping. 0 No parking or vehicle area within 20 feet from street properly line(except alley). f (: 1 No parking within 10 feet from other property lines(except alley).Driveways and drive aisles permitted within 10 feet. 0 f 1 1 1 Screening required between clustered parking areas or parking structures and public streets or common courtyards. 0 { t 1 Garages and carports must not abut common courtyards.Garage doors for individual garages must not exceed 20 feet in width. (1) Clustered Parking LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 15/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subiect to the following standards: fa) Cottage cluster developments with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five abutting spaces: Jb) Cottage cluster developments with 16 cottages or more are permitted parking clusters of not more than eight abutting spaces. fc) Parking clusters must be separated from other parking spaces by at least four ft. of landscaping. Jd) Clustered parking areas may be covered. (2) Parking Location and Access fa) Off-street parking spaces and vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located within 20 ft. of any front or side street lot line, except for lot lines abutting alleys. ft)) Off-street parking spaces and vehicle turnaround areas shall not be located between a front or side street lot line and the front facade of cottages located closest to the front or side street lot line. fc) Off-street parking spaces shall not be located within 10 feet of any other lot line„ except for lot lines abutting alleys. Driveways and drive aisles are permitted within 10 feet of other property lines. (3) Screening Landscaping screening that consists of a minimum of 50%evergreen shrubs or trees that can obtain a minimum height of three feet within two years of planting,fencing, or walls at least three ft. tall shall separate clustered parking areas and detached garages from common courtyards and public streets. (4) Garages fa) Garages (whether shared or individual) shall not abut common courtyards: ft)) Individual detached garages must not exceed 400 sq.ft. in floor area. cc) Garage doors for attached and detached individual garages must not exceed 20 ft. in width. fd) Garages with opening(s)that face the street must comply with LOC 50.06.004.1 Garage Appearance and Location Standards. vii. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall not exceed 400 sq. ft. in gross floor area. viii. Existing Structures LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 16/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 On a lot or parcel to be used for a cottage cluster development, an existing detached single-family dwelling on the same lot at the time of proposed development of the cottage cluster may remain within the cottage cluster development area under the following standards: (1) The existing dwelling may be nonconforming with respect to the requirements of this subsection (d). (2) An existing dwelling that is less than the maximum height of the underlying zone or the maximum building footprint of 900 sq. ft. may be expanded up to the maximum height or footprint. (3) The floor area of the existing dwelling shall not count towards the maximum average floor area of a cottage cluster. (4) The existing dwelling shall be excluded from the calculation of orientation toward the common courtyard, per subsection d.ii(1). ix. Shared Facilities All shared garbage and storage facilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view so that garbage containers and equipment not visible from the street. Item 1.2 [D]:Add design standards for cottage clusters as new Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters.These standards are based directly on the DLCD Model Code design standards for cottage clusters, pursuant to the minimum compliance track under Division 46. For cottage clusters,the minimum compliance track under Division 46 allows cities to adopt the design standards for cottage clusters defined in the DLCD Model Code ("Model Code"), or a less restrictive version of those standards. See Chapter 5 of the DLCD Middle Housing Model Code for Large Cities. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most of these standards.The standards outlined above are largely intended to reflect the standards in the Model Code,though some language has been modified for consistency with the definitions of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code. e. Townhouse Proiects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, no more than four units shall be allowed in an attached townhouse structure. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 17/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 32 [D]:Add density limitations that limit townhouse projects to four attached units per townhouse project as new Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects. Though Division 46 prohibits large cities from applying maximum density standards to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters, it nonetheless allows large cities to apply a maximum density of four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. Though the City's ability to apply density standards is somewhat limited by the bill,the continued application of minimum lot area requirements will effectively control density to some degree. See Item 3.1 [D], below. 4. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS FOR GROUP AND INSTITUTIONAL HOUSING a. Residential Care Housing and Congregate Housing i. Generally Applicable Standards (1) Any site to be used for residential care housing or congregate housing shall be at least one-half acre in size.All abutting property,which is in one ownership or the subject of a joint application involving more than one ownership, shall be considered as the site. (2) All requirements of the underlying zone, such as lot coverage, height limitations, setbacks and of the Lake Oswego Code generally, shall be complied with unless modified by this section. However,there are no density limitations on the number of residential care or congregate housing living units, which may be developed, provided all the other requirements of the Code and other governmental regulatory agencies are met. (3) Within the allowed single and multi family zones, residential care housing and congregate housing shall be permitted only on those properties which abut a major or minor arterial or a major collector or neighborhood collector.Access to the development site shall be by the street with the highest classification unless prohibited by access constraints. Item 3 [G]: Modify the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing to treat single-family and middle housing equally. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// (13) Building vents and mechanical devices shall be screened from view with materials harmonious to the building. Exterior site elements such as storage,trash collection areas and noise generating equipment shall be located away from abutting property lines and sight-obscuring fencing and landscaping shall be used to screen and buffer these areas. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 18/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (14) Access to public and commercial services, parks and other recreation areas, churches, shopping, and other places frequented by the public in the course of daily life shall be made available to the residents through a transport service privately provided by the residential care housing facility. (15) Access to public sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided. Street crossings bordering on streets three lanes and larger shall be located at traffic light controlled crossings. Crossings on two lane streets classified as either collectors or arterials may occur at sign controlled intersections. All other crossings may occur at noncontrolled intersections provided that safe sight distance per the AASHTO Standards is present.When projects are located on streets greater than 10,000 ADT and it can reasonably be expected that future residents will cross these streets, a traffic study shall be required to show that safe sight distance and adequate traffic "gaps" exist to allow safe crossing. //// 5. STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES //// h. Telecommunications Facilities in Residential or Mixed Residential/Commercial Zones In addition to compliance with the approval standards in LOC 50.03.003.5.g.iv and 50.07.004.12, and the general conditional use criteria in LOC 50.07.005, Conditional Use Permits,telecommunications facilities designated as a conditional use in residential or mixed residential/commercial zones shall comply with the following standards: i. New telecommunications facilities shall not be located on a parcel containing an existing single-family dwelling;duplex, rowhousc or zero lot linear middle housing dwelling. Item 4[G]: Modify the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses to treat single-family and middle housing equally. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 19/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.04.001 DIMENSIONAL TABLE The following dimensional regulations apply to the base zones as identified in each table. These dimensions may have exceptions or modifications as identified in LOC 50.04.003.1,Additional Dimensional Exceptions. 1. RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensional Standards Development in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones shall conform to the dimensional standards in Table 50.04.001-1 except as modified below. TABLE 50.04.001-1: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY [2] 50.04.001.1.b Minimum [1] 80%of max 80% of max 80%of max Maximum (units/acre) [2] [2] [2] MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS [3] 50.04.001.1.c Single-Family, Duplex,Triplex, Quadplex, and Cottage Cluster Developments;Townhouse Projects Area (sq. ft.) 7,500 10,000 15,000 Width (ft.) 50 65 80 Except PD [3] Depth (ft.) — — — Townhouses(one per lot) Area (sq. ft.) 1,500 1,500 1,500 Width (ft.) 15 15 15 Depth (ft.) — — — MAX. FLOOR AREA[7] [81 I I 50.04.001.1.d Base Calculation: Additional floor area allowance per primary 3,000 sq.ft. + [(actual lot size— residential unit providing a garage (sq.ft.) 5,800 sq.ft.)x 0.19] 600 750 850 YARD SETBACKS 50.04.001.1.e Primary Structure Front (ft.) 25 25 25 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 20/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-1: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards Side Adjacent to Street (ft.) Arterial/Collector 20 20 20 Local 15 15 15 Interior Side (ft.) Total 15, 5 10 10 min. Rear(ft.) 30 30 30 Cottage Clusters 1 1 1 1 Front (ft.) 10 10 10 — Interior Side/Side Adiacent to 10 10 10 Street (ft.) — — — — Rear(ft.) 10 10 10 _ Accessory Structure Front (ft.) 25 25 25 Side Adjacent to Street (ft.) Arterial/Col lector 20 20 20 Local 15 15 15 Side 5 10 10 Height<_ 18 ft. Rear 10 15 15 Side 5 10 10 Height> 18 ft. Rear 15 15 15 MAX. LOT COVERAGE 50.04.001.1.f MAX. BASE HEIGHT(FT.) Primary Structure [4] [4] [4] 50.04.001.1.g Flat Lot 28 30 35 Lot with Sloping Topography 32 [5] 34 [5] 35 Sloped Lot 35 35 35 Lesser of 24 ft. Lesser of 24 ft. Lesser of 24 ft. Accessory Structure or height of or height of or height of 50.04.001.1.g [6] roof form of roof form of roof form of LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 21/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards primary primary primary structure structure structure Additional Standards and Modifications 50.04.001.1.b—g [1] When subdivisions are proposed, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. [2] Net developable area divided by the minimum lot area per unit and rounded down to the nearest whole number.The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearing body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards._ Duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects,the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [3] Up to a 25% reduction in minimum required lot area for each dwelling unit shall be allowed to permit the relocation of a designated historic landmark, when relocation has been approved by the designated hearing body. [4] Base building height of single-family and middle housing dwellings may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides. [5] Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. (R-7.5 zone) or 30 ft. (R-10 zone) above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope, except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 ft. (R-7.5 zone) or 34 ft. (R-10 zone) above the natural grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. [6] Building height exceptions shall not exceed the building height of the primary structure. 171 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor area standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.1.d.iv Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 22/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Comments/Additional Standards Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. 181 Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. See also 50.04.001.1.d.v Maximum Floor Area of Townhouses. [Cross-References: Height Limitation: see Charter Section 46A for 50 ft. Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas; Height Measure: see LOC 50.04.003.4, General Exception to Structure Height Limitations.] Item 2.1 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per equivalent lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone,within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, the City must eliminate any provisions related to maximum density for middle housing types other than townhouses in a number of residential districts—including R-15, R-10, and R-7.5. With respect to townhouses,the CDC must be amended to allow a maximum density of at least four times the density applied to single-family dwellings in that zone, or 25 units per acre—whichever is less. Though the City's ability to apply density standards is somewhat limited by the bill,the continued application of minimum lot area requirements will effectively control density to some degree. See Item 3.1 [D], below. Item 3.1 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Division 46 rules place limits on the City's ability to apply minimum lot area standards to middle housing. However, even within these limits the rules do provide the City with some flexibility to modify minimum lot area requirements as an approach to managing density for some middle housing types. The Planning Commission has recommended requiring that lots for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters generally be larger than what is required for single-family houses in the R-3, R-W, R-DD, R-5, and R-6 Districts. However, because existing minimum lot sizes in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zone districts are in excess of 7,000 sq.ft., under the Division 46 rules the minimum lot size for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters could not be increased to more than the minimum lot size for single-family dwellings in these zones. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 23/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 4.4 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 5.1 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to single-family housing and middle housing within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. Item 6.1 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing dimensional standards—including minimum setbacks—for single-family housing to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. No modifications to existing minimum setback standards are necessary to move forward on Council's guidance to apply these standards to middle housing types other than cottage clusters. Division 46 stipulates that minimum setbacks for cottage clusters must be based on the DLCD Model Code, which limits all minimum setbacks to 10 feet. Item 7.1 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. For cottage clusters,the minimum compliance track under Division 46 allows cities to adopt the design standards for cottage clusters defined in the Model Code, or a less restrictive version of those standards. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most of these standards. The exemption from maximum floor area standards for cottage clusters is intended to comply with the Model Code, which do not allow large cities to apply maximum floor area standards to cottage cluster developments. Item 10.1 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table. City Council provided staff with direction to apply bulk and scale controls to the entire townhouse project, instead of individual lots, consistent with the definition of"townhouse project" in Division 46. Because townhouses are defined as attached structures with each unit located on its own individual lot,townhouse standards are typically applied to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouse lots. In order to address this, it is necessary to distinguish that dimensional standards will apply to a townhouse project, as opposed to a townhouse (or individual townhouse lot). LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 24/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography 6-ft OALption to Bose height - zone base height dependent 4-ft. adjustment • to Bose height for topography b. Density—Additional Standards There are no additional standards for density in this section. c. Lot Dimensions—Additional Standards There are no additional standards for lot dimensions in this section. d. Floor Area—Additional Standards i. Floor Area of Garages and Accessory Structures (1) Garage and Accessory Structures Included in Calculation For purposes of calculating maximum floor area for dwellings in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones,the floor area of garages and accessory structures shall be included in the total that is subject to the maximum floor area standard of this section. (2) Exceptions Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from floor area calculations: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq.ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. ii. Maximum Floor Area of Accessory Structures An accessory structure<_ 18 ft. in height shall not exceed a total 800 sq. ft. in size, or the square footage of the footprint of the primary structure, whichever is less.An accessory structure > 18 ft. in height shall not exceed a total 600 sq. ft. in size or the square footage of the footprint of the primary structure, whichever is less. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 25/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iii. Maximum Floor Area of Nonresidential Structures Maximum floor area for uses other than residential structures and their accessory structures shall be as follows: (1) Conditional uses: Established as part of the conditional use process. (2) Other nonresidential uses: No greater than 1:1. iv. Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster development shall be as follows: R-7.5: 1.000 sq.ft. R-10 and R-15: 1,200 sq. ft. Item 8.1 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,200 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-10 and R-15 Zones. Given the direction from Council and the nature of the Division 46 rules,there is little discretion for modification of most dimensional standards. However, the rules do allow for the City to limit the overall floor area (size) of each dwelling in a cottage cluster. City Council directed staff to limit the size of units in a cottage cluster to more closely replicate the floor area permitted for single-family dwellings in a given zone.The Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,200 square feet in the R-10 and R-15 Zones. Item 8.2 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq. ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-7.5 Zone. City Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,000 square feet in the R-7.5 Zone. See Item 8.1 [D], above. v. Maximum Floor Area of Townhouses Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 10.2 [D]: Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. See Item 10.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 26/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. Zero Lot Line Units Two lots that have zero lot line units are considered a unified site for the purposes of meeting all required setbacks. ii. Planned Development Setbacks for a planned development will be determined at the time of review.The maximum setback that can be required is 35 ft. iii. Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots On steeply sloped lots the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.1 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. ,iv. Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots,the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. v. Measurement of Side Yard Setback For purposes of this section, the width of the side yard setback shall be measured from that portion of the side property line that is nearest to any portion of the structure to that portion of the structure. vi. Common Party Walls Prohibited—Accessory Structures Except for boathouses within the Oswego Lake setback, accessory structures on abutting lots may not be built with common party walls. vii. Cottage Cluster Building Separation Cottages shall be separated from each other by a minimum distance of 10 feet. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 27/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 9.1 (D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Low-Density Districts. A ten-foot separation between cottages is the maximum allowed pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. f. Lot Coverage—Standards i. Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage for the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 districts shall be as follows: TABLE 50.04.001-2: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LOT COVERAGES Height(ft.) of Maximum Lot Coverage (%) primary structure R-7.5 R-10 R-15 22 or less 35 35 35 >22 to 23 33 34 34 >23 to 24 30 32 33 >24 to 25 28 30 32 >25 to 26 25 28 30 >26 to 27 25 27 29 >27 to 28 25 25 28 >28 to 29 25 25 27 >29 to 30 25 25 25 >30 to 31 25 25 25 >31 to 32 25 25 25 >32 to 33 25 25 25 >33 to 34 25 25 25 >34 25 25 25 (1) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (4412) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse proiect. and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 28/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.1 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential Low-Density Zones. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing dimensional standards —including maximum lot coverage—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. Division 46 minimum compliance provisions also require cities to exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards. ii. Special Requirements for Schools (1) Lot coverage shall not exceed 30%for a school built to accommodate at least 100 students and that has at least two grades within the range of K-12; (2) Lot coverage shall not exceed 30%for a mixed use development that includes a school built to accommodate at least 100 students and that has at least two grades within the range of K-12; iii. Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (1) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq.ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (a) Rear-or side-loading, or (b) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line, or (c) In the case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (2) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 1.f.iii(1) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. g. Height—Additional Standards A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for: i. Single-Family Dwellings and Middle Housing Base building height may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum code standards provided in Table 50.04.001-1 above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 29/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5.2 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential Zones. See Item 5.1 [D], above. ii. Any Structure Roof forms or architectural features(such as cupolas or dormers) of any structure provided that these roof forms or features: (1) Do not extend more than six ft. above the maximum specified base height; (2) Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and (3) Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. Examples of permitted exceptions are illustrated in Figure 50.04.001-B: Height Exceptions. ///// 2. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensions Development in the R-DD, R-5, and R-6 zones shall conform to the dimensional standards in Table 50.04.001-3 except as modified below: TABLE 50.04.001-3: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY 50.04.001.2.b SF Subdivisions: 5 lots/acre; Duplex Minimum [1] 80%of max 80% of max Subdivisions: 10 units/acre; Multi-Family Subdivisions: 14 units/acre Maximum _ (units/acre) [2] [2],[3] MIN. LOT I 50.04.001.2.c LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 30/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-3: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards DIMENSIONS Single-Family, Duplex and Triplex Dwellings; Townhouse Projects SF/Duplex. 5,000- Area (sq. ft.) 6,000 per du 5,000 per du (tetaa};MD 15,000 Except PD {total) _[4] Width (ft.) 50 — I — Depth (ft.} — — — — Cottage Clusters and Quadplexes Area (sa. ft.) 7,000 7,000 7,000 Width (ft.) 50 — — Townhouses(one per lot Area (sci. ft.) 1,500 1,500 1,500 Width (ft.) 15 15 15 MAX. FLOOR AREA (61 50.04.001.2.d Lot>_5,000 sq. ft. 2,850 sq. ft. + [(actual lot size— 2,750 sq.ft. + 5,000 sq.ft.)x R-5 and R-6 districts: [(actual lot size— 0.28] +500 sq. ft.floor area allowance per primary 6,000 sq. ft.)x Lot<5,000 sq. ft. residential unit 0.19] 2,850 sq. ft. + providing a garage [(actual lot size— 5,000 sq.ft.) x 0.48] YARD SETBACKS See 50.04.001.2.e • MAX. LOT See 50.04.001.2.f LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 31/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards COVERAGE MAX. HEIGHT (FT.) 50.04.001.2.g Primary Structure 28 — 28 Flat Lot 28 28 — Sloping Lot [5] [5] — Sloped Lot 32 35 — Accessory Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Structure height of roof form height of roof form 28 of primary of primary structure structure [1] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-5 and R-6 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R5 zone, the number of lots or dwelling units required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-DD zone,the density is computed by multiplying the net developable area by either five,ten, or 14 per the applicable type of development.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5. [2] Net developable area divided by the minimum lot area per unit and rounded down to the nearest whole number.The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearing body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards._ Duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters in residential zones are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects in residential zones, the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required Per single-family dwelling in that zone. [3] R-DD zone maximum density expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable area is computed by dividing the net developable area by 2,000 sq.ft. and rounding down to the nearest whole number. Duplexes,triplexes. quadplexes. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 32/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-6 R-5 R-DD Comments/Additional Standards and cottage clusters in the R-DD zone are exempt from maximum density standards, For townhouse proiects in the R-DD zone,the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [4] Except for structures that have been determined by the State or National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance. [5] Lots with sloping topography—Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope.The base height shall not exceed 32 ft. above the natural grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. f61 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor area standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.2.d.iv Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. Item 2.2 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot,for lots that comply with minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone, within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 2.1 [D], above. Item 3.2 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 3.1 [D], above. Item 4.5 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 7.2 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 7.1 [D], above. Item 10.3 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project"within the Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 10.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 33/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 b. Density—Additional Standards In the R-5 and R-DD zones, applicants may request up to a 25%density bonus for public agency rental housing projects. In the R-5 zone this request is processed as a conditional use and may not include residential care housing or accessory dwelling units. In the R-DD zone this may not include accessory dwelling units. //// d. Floor Area—Additional Standards //// iv. R-6. R-5.and R-DD Zones (1) Maximum Average Floor Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster development shall be 1,000 sa. ft. Item 8.3 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-6, R-5, and R-DD Zones. City Council generally supported applying a maximum average floor area for each dwelling in a cottage cluster development of 1,000 square feet in the R-6, R-5, and R-DD Zones. See Item 8.1 [D], above. e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. R-5 Yard Setback Standards (1) Required Setbacks TRACK REQU Structure Type Front(ft.) Side (ft.) Rear(ft.) Attached Dwellings 10—Exterior Wall including Duplexes, Triplexes, 10 10 Cluadplexes, and 0—Attached Wall Townhouse Proiects Detached Dwelling 5—Side Yard 20 10—Street Side 20 Yard Cottage Clusters 10 10 10 Other Types of 10 10 10 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 34/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-4:YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Structure Type Front(ft.) Side(ft.) Rear(ft.) Primary Structures and All Accessory Structures Item 6.2 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-5 Yard Setback Standards. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (2) Additional Setback Standards and Modifications (a) Where a lot zoned R-5 abuts a lot zoned R-6, 7.5, 10, or 15,the building on the R-5 lot shall be set back from the common line a distance equal to the required R-5 yard setback or the height of the primary building on the R-5 lot, whichever is greater. (b) Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots. On steeply sloped lots,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.2 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones. See Item 11.1 [D], above. ii. R-6 Yard Setback Standards (1) Required Setbacks TABLE 50.04.001-5: MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS—R-6 ZONE Primary Cottage Accessory Other Accessory Garage-Vehicle Structures (ft.) Clusters Structures (ft.) [1] Structures(ft.) Opening (ft.) Front 20 [3] 10 20 [3] 20 [3] 15 [2] Side Adjacent Arterial/Collector: 10 Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: to a Street 20; Local: 7.5 20; Local: 7.5 20 Local: 7.5 20; Local: 15 Side 7.5—Exterior Wall 10 5 7.5 7.5 0—Attached Wall Rear 15 10 5 15 15 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 35/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-5: MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS—R-6 ZONE Primary Cottage Accessory Other Accessory Garage-Vehicle Structures(ft.) Clusters Structures(ft.) [1] Structures(ft.) Opening(ft.) Notes: [1] < 600 sq.ft. and with walls< 10 ft. in height below the eave. [2] Behind the front building line of the house (excluding a porch). [3] On corner lots,the front setback shall be measured on the narrow street frontage. Item 6.3 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (2) Additional Setback Standards and Modifications (a) A projecting covered front porch may extend into the front yard setback up to six ft. (b) Additions to primary and accessory structures built before July 1, 2010, are subject to the following minimum side yard setbacks: TABLE 50.04.001-6: MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS Structures<_ 18 ft. in height Structures> 18 ft. in height 5 ft. minimum width on a side, 15 ft. cumulative, except a multi-story structure may have a smaller side yard setback than required 5 ft. by this section where the ground floor is set back a minimum of 5 ft. and the remainder of the structure is stepped back from the building line by at least 4 ft. on each side. iii. R-DD Yard Setback Standards //// (3) Multi-Family Dwelling an-Bu-plex Development in R-DD LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 36/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (a) When a new multi-family development or the expansion or reconstruction of an existing multi-family development occurs in an R-DD zone subject to minor development review which abuts an existing less intensive residential use,the proposed multi-family structure shall be set back from the boundary of the less intensive use by at least the amount of feet equal to the height of the multi-family structure. (b) New duplex devvicnitytt,er UN: vgjwn ian or reconstruction of an v.; tires duplex dev .-)"\'r,n"lt in th/E Il ubject to DRC r shall he set back Fro..-, the boundary of the less intensive use by at Irei ;.G ft. when the proposed development: {i) k greatar than 28 ft. in hcibht, and (ii) AlovAwm axisting less intensive sidontjal ue1 (eb) Developments subject to subsection 2.e.iii(3)(a) or ) of this section shall provide a landscaped area at least five ft.wide within the setback area abutting the less intensive use. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plant material used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient height within three years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening. Item 6.4 [D]: Clarify that the minimum setback standards for single-family dwellings will be applied to middle housing within the R-DD Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. (4) Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. iv. Cottage Cluster Building Separation in the R-6. R-5 and R-DD Zones Cottages shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet. Item 9.2 [D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential Medium-Density Districts. See Item 9.1 [D], above. f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards i. R-5 Lot Coverage (1) Maximum Lot Coverage (a) The following maximum lot coverage percentages are applicable to townhouse projects and single-family detached, duplex, triplex, and auadr lex structures in the R-5 zone: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 37/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-7: R-5 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Height(ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage(%) 22 or less 45 >22 to 25 42 >25 to 28 38 >28 to 30 35 >30 35 (b) Cottage clusters and individual townhouse lots are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (c) The maximum lot coverage for all other structures in the R-5 zone is 50%. Item 12.2 [D]:Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-5 Lot Coverage Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. (2) Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any habitable area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (i) Rear-or side-loading; or (ii) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line; or (iii) In case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 2.f.i(2)(a) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. (3) Detached Accessory Structures Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq. ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 38/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 ii. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces (1) Lot coverage in the R-6 zone shall not exceed the following: Height of Structure Lot size in sq.ft. 20' or >20'to >21'to >22'to >23'to >24'to >25'to >26'to >27, less 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000— 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500— 35% 35% 35% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 35% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% —11,500 >11,500 35% 34% 33% 30% 28% 27% 25% 25% 25% (2) No more than 60%of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. (3) Provided it is the only garage on the site,the garage footprint, including any habitable area above or below the garage, of a detached garage area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft.for lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq.ft. in area. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft.for lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area. (4) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards. (5) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 12.3 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. iii. R-DD Lot Coverage (1) The following maximum lot coverage shall be permitted in the R-DD zone: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 39/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-9: R-DD MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Single-Family Detached 35% Duplex, Zero Lot LineMiddle 45% Housing Multi-Family Dwelling 55% Item 12.4 [D]:Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for middle housing within the R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table. See Item 12.1 [D], above. (2) Theing manim►:m/arepunts of ilmpervious surface coverage shall be permitted limited to a maximum of 60% in the R-DD zone for all structures other than cottage clusters. See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters.: 111 Maximum Impermeable Surface Dwelling—Type Allowed Single Family Detached 60% Duplex, Zero Lot Line 60% Multi Family Dwelling and 60% Rowhousc (3) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage requirements of the zone. (2414) Maximum lot coverage standards shall be applied to a townhouse project. and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 12.5 [D]: Clarify that maximum lot coverage applies to townhouse projects, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings, and that cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. See Item 12.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 40/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 13 [D]: Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. Division 46 allows cities to apply maximum impervious standards to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes.This amendment clarifies that the existing maximum impervious surface standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the R-DD Zone will also apply to duplexes,triplexes, and quadplexes.The amendment also specifies these maximum impervious surface standards will be applied to a townhouse project—as opposed to individual townhouse lots. Item 14[D]: Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply to cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. Though the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 do not allow cities to apply maximum impervious surface standards to cottage cluster developments,there are other maximum impervious surface regulations that apply to common courtyards for cottage clusters within the use-specific standards.This amendment clarifies that cottage clusters are not subject to the maximum impervious surface requirements of the base zone, and references the maximum impervious surface standards within the use-specific standards for cottage clusters. g. Height—Additional Standards i. R-5 Height Restrictions for Primary Structures (1) Projects Greater Than One-Half Acre For attached development in the R-5 zone, the primary structure height shall not exceed: No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 50 ft. Two or more: 40 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 50 ft. base building height. (2) Base Height Except as provided in subsections 2.g.i(1), 2.g.i(4) and 2.g.ii of this section, the base height of a structure in the R-5 zone shall not exceed: (a) Flat Lots—28 ft. (b) Lots with Sloping Topography—See subsection 2.g.iii of this section. (c) Sloped Lots—35 ft. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 41/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (3) In the R-5 zone, a structure shall not exceed the base height standards set forth in subsection 2.g.i(2) of this section if the structure is closer than 60 ft.to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, R-3, or R-5. (4) Exceptions to Base Building Height A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for single-family and middle housing dwellings—building height may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the underlying zone code standards provided in subsections 2.g.i(1) and (2) of this section. Item 5.3 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone. See Item 5.1 [D], above. //// iv. R-DD Additional Height Standards (1) Primary Structures Average height may increase to 40 ft. over the entire site,with no individual structure exceeding 50 ft., in the following circumstances: (a) The lot or lots developed are one-half acre or greater in area; and (b) 25%or more of the gross site area is constrained by steep slopes, floodplain, or mapped Sensitive Lands; and (c) Any portion of structures taller than 35 ft. is set back at least 50 ft. from a public street. (2) Detached Single-Family Dwelling and Middle Housing/Greater Height Due to Greater Setback In addition to the building base height exceptions in this section,the building base height for detached single-family dwellings and middle housing may be increased by one ft.for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum code standards for the zone. Item 5.4 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone. See Item 5.1 [D], above. 3. RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES a. Dimensions Development in the R-W, R-3, R-2, and R-0 zones shall conform to the development standards in Table 50.04.001-11 except as modified below: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 42/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSION R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards DENSITY 50.04.001.3.b Minimum 80% of max. [1] 80%of max. [1] 12 lots or 20 lots or units/acre [2] units/acre [2] Maximum (units/acre) [3] [3] — — MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Single-Family_ and Duplex Dwellings; Townhouse Projects; Area (sq. 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. ft.) No min. for PD Per Dwelling 3,375 3,375 Ale ri+ No min. Triplexes Area (sq. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 ft. Cottage Clusters and Quadplexes Area (sq. 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Townhouses (one per lot) Area (sq. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Multi- amily Dwellings Area (sq. ft. 3,375 — No min. Per 3,375 — No min. Dwelli ig MAX. FLOOR AREA II7l 50.04.001.3.c Residential No max. 1:1 1.2:1 1.2:1 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 43/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSION R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards Conditional Use Established as part of the conditional use process Nonresidential 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 MAX. LOT COVERAGE 50.04.001.3.d Lot Coverage 100 50 Table 55 50.04.001-12 YARD SETBACKS 50.04.001.3.e Primary Dwelling (Detached) Front (ft.) 0 20 20 Side Adjacent to Street(ft.) 0 10 Table 10 50.04.001-13 Side (ft.) 0 5 5 Rear (ft.) 0 20 20 Primary Dwelling (Attached) Front 0 10 10 Side 0 10 (exterior wall); Table 10 0 (attached wall) 50.04.001-13 Rear 0 10 10 Cotta a Clusters 1 1 l Front It.) 0 10 10 Interior Side/ Table Side Ajiacent to 0 10 10 Street (ft.) 50.04.001-13 Rear (f.) 0 10 10 Other Types of Primary Structures and All Accessory Structures Front (ft.) 0 10 Table 10 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 44/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards Side Adjacent to 0 — 50.04.001-13 — Street(ft.) Arterial/Collector 0 — — Local 0 — — Side 0 10 10 Height Rear 0 10 10 MAX. BASE HEIGHT(FT.) 50.04.001.3.f Flat Lot — 28 28 28 Lots with Sloping — [4] [4] [4] Topography Sloped Lot — 35 35 35 From Oswego Lake Surface 2425/27 [5] — — — Elevation Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Lesser of 24 ft. or Accessory height of roof height of roof height of roof Structure form of primary form of primary form of primary structure structure structure [1] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-W and R-3 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R-3 zone, the number of lots or dwelling units required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size or units required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003, Exceptions, Projections, and Encroachments. [2] When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 or R-0 zones or multi-family development is proposed in the R-0 zone, minimum density is computed by multiplying the net developable area by either 20 or 12 per the applicable zone.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5.The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003, Exceptions, Projections and Encroachments. [3] Computed by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot area per unit and rounding down to the neirest whole number. Duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters are exempt from maximum density standards. For townhouse proiects, the maximum density is four dwelling units per equivalent minimum lot area required per single-family dwelling in that zone. [4] Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope.The base height shall not exceed 32 ft. above the natural LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 45/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards grade. See Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. [5] For any portion of the lot above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation, maximum building height shall not exceed 24-125 ft. For any portion of the lot at or below the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation, maximum building height shall not exceed 27 ft. above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation.The maximum building height of 27 ft. above the Os3vego Lake Surface Elevation shall extend landward until it meets the 2425 ft. height limit for the portion of the lot above the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation. See Figure 50.04.001-11[5]. [6] Site-specific dimensional standards, see LOC 50.02.002.2.c. f71 Cottage cluster developments are exempt from maximum floor area standards, but maximum average floor arEa standards shall be applied to individual cottage cluster dwellings. See 50.04.001.2.d.iv Maximum Average Flopr Area of Units in a Cottage Cluster and 50.03.003.1.d Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. Item 2.3 [D]: Exempt duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot,for lots that comply with minimum lot area for townhouse projects,within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 2.1 [D], above. Item 3.3 [D]: Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 3.1 [D], above. Item 4.6 [D]: Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension requirements that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 4.1 [D], above. Item 6.5 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. Item 7.3 [D]: Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. See Item 7.1 [D], above. Item 10.4 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table.See Item 10.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 46/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 15.1 [D]: Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. within the Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 do not allow cities to apply lower maximum height standards than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and do not allow cities to apply a maximum height of less than 25 feet or two stories.This amendment changes the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. in order to comply with this provision. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 47/127 Attachment 2 - Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.04.001-11[5]: Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots Law I'3''Txsan 111 Weter 5w444.hebahtllinyNkMIXRMded InFO*etd A 27 et. 24 II. t4v-ithlate { swego lake -turf are El-evaNan LBn'd hei.ht Iifi� adn 'Niter Swine Nit&thAstFofi tXRMded Weigand 27ft_ 2S Pir Oswego Lake 5urfara Elevation LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 48/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 15.2 [D]: Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft.to 25 ft. within the Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. This amendment clarifies that the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation is now 25 ft. within the graphic that accompanies this provision. See Item 15.1 [D], above. ///// b. Density—Additional Standards In the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zones, applicants may request up to a 25% density bonus for public agency rental housing projects.This request is processed as a conditional use and may not include residential care housing or accessory dwelling units. c. Lot Area and Floor Area—Additional Standards i. For projects on properties with a Sensitive Lands overlay designation, lot areas and floor areas may be modified as provided in LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. ii. Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from floor area calculations up to a maximum of: (1) For lot sizes up to 10,000 sq.ft.—up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq.ft. (2) For lot sizes greater than 10,000 sq.ft.—up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. iii. Maximum average floor area for dwelling units within a cottage cluster shall be 1,000 sq. ft. Item 8.4 [D]:Apply a maximum average floor area of 1,000 sq.ft. for units within a cottage cluster development in the R-W, R-3, and R-2, and R-0 Zones. See Item 8.1 [D], above. iv. Maximum floor area standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse proiect, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. Item 10.5 [D]:Apply maximum floor area standards to the entire site, rather than to individual townhouses or townhouse lots, by applying floor area standards to a "townhouse project" within the Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 10.1 [D], above. d. Lot Coverage—Additional Standards i. R-2 Lot Coverage LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 49/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.04.001-12: R-2 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE Structure Type Max. Lot Coverage(%) Single-Family Detached 35 Single Family Attached 55 Row-Iheu+seTownhouse Proiect 55 Duplex,Triplex, and Quadplex 55 Other Structures 50 Item 12.6 [D]: Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for townhouse projects, duplexes,triplexes, and quadplexes within the R-2 Lot Coverage Table. See Item 12.1 [D], above. ii. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Exemptions (1) Garage Footprint Exemption The garage footprint, including any habitable area directly above or below the garage, shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: (a) Up to a cumulative maximum of 200 sq. ft. shall be exempt for garages that are: (i) Rear-or side-loading, or (ii) Located 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line, or (iii) In the case of corner lots, 20 ft. or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines. (b) Up to a cumulative maximum of 400 sq. ft. shall be exempt for a detached garage that meets subsection 3.d.ii(1)(a) of this section, and the lot is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. (2) Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations as follows: (a) For lots less than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. in area—up to 200 sq.ft. (b) For lots greater than 10,000 sq.ft. in area—up to 400 sq. ft. (3) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage requirements. (4) Maximum lot coverage standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse project, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 50/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 12.7 [D]: Clarify that maximum lot coverage standards for townhouses shall be applied to a townhouse project, and not to individual townhouse lots or dwellings, and that cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage standards within the R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. See Item 12.1 [D], above. e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards i. Corner Lots Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street.The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots,the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. ii. R-2 Yard Setbacks Development in the R-2 districts shall meet the following setbacks: Side (ft.) Structure Type Front (ft.) Rear(ft.) Exterior Attached Duplex 10 7 0 10 Zero Lot Line 40 7 0 4-0 RowheuseTownhouse 10 7 8 10 Project (Triplex 10 7 _ 10 Quadplex 10 7 _ 10 Cottage Cluster 10 10 = 10 Detached Dwelling 20 Single-story dwelling: 5 ft. 20 Multi-story dwelling: 15 ft. cumulative, 5 ft. minimum on a side [1] Other Primary 10 10 10 10 Structures Accessory Structures Same as for Same as for primary 10 primary structure type structure type Notes: [1] Multi-story dwelling: Cumulative yard may be reduced where ground floor is set back minimum of 5 ft. and the LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 51/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Side (ft.) Structure Type Front(ft.) Rear(ft.) Exterior Attached remainder of the dwelling is set back a minimum of 9 ft. from the side lot line. Item 6.6 [D]:Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types within the R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. See Item 6.1 [D], above. iii. Abutting Low Density Residential Where a lot zoned R-0, 2, or 3 abuts a lot zoned R-6, 7.5, 10, or 15 or abuts a lot that would be zoned R-7.5, 10 or 15 upon annexation into the City per LOC 50.01.004.5,the building on the R-0, 2, or 3 lot shall be set back from the common line a distance equal to the required yard setback for the zone in Table 50.04.001-13 or the height of the primary building on the R-0, 2, or 3 lot, whichever is greater. iv. Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots On steeply sloped lots,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings and middle housing shall be 18 ft. Item 11.3 [D]: Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings within the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 11.1 [D], above. v. Cottage Cluster Building Separation Cottages shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet. Item 9.3 [D]:Add building separation standards for cottages within a cottage cluster to the Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 9.1 [D], above. f. Height—Additional Standards i. Projects Greater Than One-Half Acre (1) On a lot or lots developed as one project of one-half acre or greater in total area for the R-0 and R-3 zones, the primary structure height shall not exceed: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 52/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 50 ft. Two or more: 40 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 50 ft. base building height. (2) On a lot or lots being developed as one project of one-half acre or greater in total area for the R-2 zone, the primary structure height shall not exceed: No. of Primary Maximum Base Height for Structures on Site Primary Structures One: 35 ft. Two or more: 32 ft. average, with no individual primary structure exceeding 35 ft. base building height. ii. Base Height Except as provided in subsections 3.f.i and 3.f.v of this section,the base height of a structure in the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zone shall not exceed: (1) Flat lots—28 ft. (2) Lots with sloping topography—Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 ft. above the highest point on the natural grade within the building envelope, except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 ft. above the natural grade. (3) Sloped lots—35 ft. iii. In the R-0 or R-3, a structure shall not exceed the base height standards set forth in subsection 3.f.ii of this section if the structure is closer than 60 ft.to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, R-3 or R-5. iv. Exceptions to Base Building Height In addition to the maximum structure height determined by subsections 3.f.i through 3.f.iii of this section, a greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed as follows: (1) Single-family and middle housing dwellings—Building height, inclusive of projections permitted by the building height exceptions under subsection 3.f.iv(2) of this section, may be increased by one ft. for every five additional ft. in yard setback on all sides, beyond the underlying zone code standards provided in subsections 3.f.i and 3.f.ii of this section; or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 53/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5.5 [D]:Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing within the Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density Zones. See Item 5.1 [D], above. (2) Any primary structure—For roof forms, or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers; provided, that these roof forms or features: (a) Do not extend more than six ft. above the maximum specified base height; (b) Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and (c) Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 54/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.04.004 SOLAR ADJUSTMENTS 1. EXEMPTIONS FROM SOLAR DESIGN STANDARD A development is exempt from the requirements of LOC 50.06.007.1.c, Solar Design Standard, if the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from LOC 50.06.007.1.c to the extent the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given development,the remainder of the development shall comply with the solar access requirements. a. Slopes The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20%or more in a direction greater than 45° east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor. b. Off-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is within the shadow pattern of off-site features, such as but not limited to structures, topography, or solar-unfriendly vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the site from which the shade is originating. i. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a single family residential zone and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site. ii. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single family residential zone is assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development thereon or the shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the closest setback on adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists. Item 16 [D]: Eliminate references to single-family zones within the solar adjustments standards related to off-site shade. Because this package of middle housing code amendments will allow for the development of middle housing in all areas that allow detached single-family dwellings,there will no longer be zoning districts that are limited to detached single-family dwellings.This requires clarification within the areas of the code that currently refer to "single-family residential zones".This amendment clarifies that the solar adjustments standards will now apply equally to all dwelling types within all residential zones. iii. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if: the trees that cause it are situated in a required setback; or they are part of a developed area, public park, or legally reserved open space; or they are in or separated from the developable remainder of a parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to a development permit issued pursuant to this Code. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 55/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iv. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast by development for which applicable development permits have been approved on the date a complete application for the development is filed. c. On-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is: i. Within the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to, structures and topography which will remain after the development occurs; or ii. Contains solar-unfriendly trees at least 30 ft.tall and more than six in. in diameter measured four ft. above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80%of the site or relevant portion.The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey or an aerial photograph. If granted,the exemption shall be approved subject to the condition that the applicant preserve at least 50%of the trees that cause the shade that warrants the exemption.The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the County Recorder binding the applicant to comply with this requirement.The City shall be made a party of any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this section.The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 56/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.001 GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT //// 5. PLANTINGS AND BUFFERING a. Applicability A Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be submitted when a building permit is required for: i. Construction of new structures; ii. Remodeling that increases the footprint of an existing structure by more than 400 sq. ft. and is not the creation of new middle housing through conversion or addition to an existing single-family dwelling; or Item 1 [0]: Exclude middle housing created through conversions or additions to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan. Division 46 does not allow for design standards to be applied to middle housing created through conversions or additions to single-family dwellings.This amendment clarifies that middle housing created through conversions or additions to an existing detached single-family dwelling will not be subject to plantings and buffering requirements within the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 57/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.004 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT ///// 13. CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Purpose By compliance with the clear and objective standards of this article, the purpose of the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard, to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a village character with a feeling of vitality and sense of place in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the village character of the City of Lake Oswego, will be met. b. Clear and Objective Track 2 Alternative Applicability A development in the Downtown Redevelopment District(shown in Figure 50.05.004-0)that involves_ new dwellings or a structure for residential mixed use, multi family residential, or attached single family (three or moro :,ni housing that cr atcs new dwolling :,nib, may comply with this article in lieu of compliance with LOC 50.05.004.1 through 50.05.004.12. Item 2 [0]: Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to new dwellings—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing design standards—including design standards within overlay districts—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects.This amendment clarifies that the clear and objective design standards within the DRD Overlay District may be applied equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, among other dwelling types. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 58/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.006 OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ///// 4. REQUIRED OLD TOWN STYLE //// b. Old Town Style Structures shall be designed in one of the three following traditional American home building styles, as described and outlined below: Early 1900 Vernacular style (gable-front or gable front-and-wing), Craftsman, or Cape Cod. i. Early 1900 Vernacular Style //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Early 1900 Vernacular style in Old Town shall provide the following design elements: //// (f) Windows: //// (iii) Single-family and middle housing structures shall provide at least 15%glazing for all street-facing building facades. Glazing may be provided in windows or primary entry doors. Item 3.1 [0]: Clarify that window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design and dimensional standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided direction to staff to apply the existing design standards—including design standards within overlay districts—for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects.This amendment clarifies that the window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style within the R-DD Overlay District may be applied equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 59/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (h) Front Entry: (i) Single-Family Residential and Middle Housing:A covered front porch measuring a minimum of six ft. deep and eight ft. wide, or one front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. For cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages that have no other structure between them and the front lot line. (ii) Multi-Family Residential_ and Townhouses: Ground floor residential entries shall provide a covered front entry measuring at least six ft. deep, or a front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. Item 3.2 [O]: Clarify that front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. Item 4.1 [01: Modify front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style not to scale by the number of dwelling units in the R-DD Overlay District. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 require that cities apply the same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone to middle housing. Design standards for middle housing may not "scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances." Division 46 further specifies that, "Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street-facing façade, height, bulk, and scale." Because the front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style currently are written to apply differently to townhouses than to detached single-family dwellings, it is necessary to first clarify that the front entry standards for detached single-family dwelling will now apply to all middle housing types. Further, it is necessary to address that the existing front entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style scale by the number of dwelling units, in that they require covering or recessing of each residential entry for townhouses.This amendment further clarifies that the standard can be met with the provision of just one recessed front entry for both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. //// ii. Cape Cod //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Cape Cod style in Old Town shall provide the following required design elements: //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 60/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (b) Massing/Composition: Single-family residential and middle housing dwellings shall have square or rectangular plan (see Figure 50.05.006-C). Multi-family and townhouse structures shall provide additional building articulation, in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i and 50.06.001.7.c.ii. Item 3.3 [O]: Clarify that massing/composition standards for the Cape Cod Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// (f) Windows: (i) Double or single-hung sash windows with multi-paned glazing on one or both sashes required on all street-facing building facades. (ii) Single-family structures and middle housing shall provide at least 15%glazing for all street-facing building facades. Glazing may be provided in windows or primary entry doors. Item 3.4 [O]: Clarify that window standards for the Cape Cod Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// iii. Craftsman //// (2) Required Design Elements Structures built according to the Craftsman style in Old Town shall provide the following required design elements: (a) Building Height: Single-family residential dwellings and middle housing shall be a maximum of two stories. Item 3.5 [O]: Clarify that building height standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. (b) Massing/Composition: Single-family residential and middle housing dwellings shall have square, rectangular, L-shaped, or T-shaped plans (see Figure 50.05.006-E). Building projections illustrated in L-shaped and T-shaped plans in Figure 50.05.006-A may extend LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 61/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 from any location along the building facade. Porch projections may be appended to any of the above plan types. Multi-family structures shall provide additional building articulation in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i and 50.06.001.7.c.ii. Item 3.6 [O]: Clarify that massing/composition standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. //// (h) Front Entry: (i) Single-Family Residential and Middle Housing:A covered front porch (full or partial width of front elevation) measuring at least six ft. deep and at least half the width of the front facade. Porch roof shall be supported by tapered square, square, clustered square, or pedestal columns, measuring at least 5.5 in. in width at the narrowest point (clustered columns shall provide a minimum overall width of eight in.). For cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages that have no other structure between them and the front lot line. (ii) Multi-Family Residential and Townhouses: Ground floor residential entries shall provide a covered front entry or a front entry(measuring at least six ft. deep) that is supported by tapered square, square, clustered square, or pedestal columns, or a front entry that is recessed at least three ft. behind the front building facade. Columns shall measure at least 5.5 in. in width at the narrowest point (clustered columns shall provide a minimum overall width of eight in.). Item 3.7 [O]: Clarify that front entry standards for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. Item 4.2 [O]: Modify front entry standards for the Craftsman Style to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 4.1 [0] above. //// (j) Multi-family and townhouse structures shall provide additional building articulation, in accordance with standards in LOC 50.06.001.6.c.i and 50.06.001.6.c.ii. Item 3.8 [0]: Clarify that building articulation standards in the required design elements for the Craftsman Style apply equally to both single-family residential and middle housing dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District. See Item 3.1 [0], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 62/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE, ROWHOUSE AND MULTI Pk -FAMILY DWELLINGS a. Purpose The following standard ensures that new townhomes, rowhouses, and multi-family structures, due to their potential size, are visually reduced in scale and relate to nearby residential structures and neighborhood scale in general. b. Townhouse, rowhoLcoyand mMulti-family structures shall be designed in one of the Old Town styles, as described and illustrated in LOC 50.05.006.4.b. In addition, multi-family structures shall also be subject to the following requirements: i. Multi-family structures shall provide articulated building facades and rooflines in accordance with requirements in LOC 50.06.001.7.c.i, Building Articulation for Multi-Family and Residential Mixed Use Structures. ti. Townhoix.oc-and rowhousoall provide articulated building facades and rooflines in accordance with LOC 50.06.001.7.c.ii, Building Articulation for Townhouse/Rowhouse Structures. All surface parking areas shall provide a landscape buffer measuring a minimum of five ft. wide between the parking area and any public right-of-way or abutting property.The buffer should provide continuous landscaping measuring a minimum of three ft. high. All multi-family and duplex development must also comply with setback and landscaping requirements in LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii. +viii. Parking spaces may not be located within the front setback or between the building and any street frontage. Item 5 [0]: Clarify that the additional design standards for multiple-family dwellings in the R-DD Overlay District are not applicable to middle housing. This amendment is necessary in order to apply design standards within the R-DD Overlay District equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. The amendment also changes the title of this code section for consistency with the term "multi-family dwelling",which is defined and used elsewhere in the code. Because the term "multiple-family dwelling" is no longer used within the code, it was necessary to clarify the applicability of this section to "multi-family dwellings." ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 63/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.007 LAKE GROVE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT ///// 3. APPLICABILITY //// c. Applicability by Type of Development i. New Construction/Redevelopment All standards of this overlay apply to new building(s) and alterations to existing buildings that do not meet the definition of"remodel" in subsection 3.c.ii of this section, and site improvements on any vacant or redeveloped site and to new building(s) and related site improvements on any partially developed or developed site. Exceptions: (1) For the construction or redevelopment of single-family and middle housing dwellings,— duplexes, and townhomcs,the pedestrian features standards of subsection 5.d of this section do not apply. //// ii. Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion,and Site Improvements The standards of this overlay apply to any remodeling, building expansion, or site improvement project on a partially developed or developed site, except as expressly provided below. For the purpose of this subsection, "remodel" means less than 50%of the exterior wall is removed or is no longer a necessary and integral structural component of the overall building. Elements of the exterior wall include columns, studs, or similar vertical load-bearing elements and associated footings. However, existing exterior walls supporting a roof that is being modified to accommodate a new floor level or roofline shall continue to be considered necessary and integral structural components, provided the existing wall elements remain in place and provide necessary structural support to the building upon completion of the roofline modifications. For buildings not principally supported by exterior bearing walls, "remodel" means less than 50%of the principal support structure, including columns, structural frames and other similar primary structural elements, is removed or no longer a necessary and integral structural component of the overall building. Alterations that are undertaken solely to bring an existing building into compliance with the Building Code are not counted towards the 50% measurement. //// (5) For remodels of single-family dwellings, duplexes and townhomcs,and middle housing, the pedestrian features standards of subsection 5.d of this section do not apply. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 64/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 6 [0]: Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO). This amendment is necessary in order to apply design standards within the LGVCO equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. (6) Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection. provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. (7) For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing. the standards of this section shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted from the standards of this section. Item 7 [0]: Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to SFR that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay(LGVCO). Clarify that,for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing,the standards apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that large cities, "must allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes,Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through additions to or conversions of existing detached single-family dwellings." Division 46 further specifies that, "additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing" must be allowed, "provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code." In order to comply with the above provisions,this amendment clarifies that remodels or conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from standards that apply to remodeled buildings, building expansion, and site improvements in the LGCVO.The amendment further specifies that existing non-conforming portions of a structure are exempted from these standards, to reach compliance with Division 46. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 65/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.05.010 SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS ///// 4. GENERALLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR LANDS WITH RP DISTRICTS, RC DISTRICTS,AND HBA PROTECTION AREAS //// c. Density Transfer Lot density transfer shall be permitted for land divisions on residentially zoned lands subject to an RP district pursuant to this section, and on lands with an HBA protection area pursuant to this section and LOC 50.05.010.7. //// iii. Applicability by Housing Type Lot density transferred pursuant to this section may not be used to develop a triplex, quadplex, townhouse, or cottage cluster. Item 8 [0]: Limits the applicability of density transfer provisions in the Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes, as allowed under Division 46. Division 46 stipulates that cities, "may regulate middle housing to comply with protective measures (including plans, policies, and regulations) adopted and acknowledged pursuant to statewide land use planning goals."This includes provisions related to Statewide Planning Goal 5—Natural Resources,with specific language in Division 46 that requires cities to, "adopt land use regulations to protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and the habitat of threatened, endangered and sensitive species."The City has already taken significant measures to adopt such regulations within the Sensitive Lands Overlay District. With respect to regulations that protect natural resources, the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that the density transfer provisions for the Sensitive Lands Overlay district will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 66/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 g. Mitigation Requirements //// ix. Bonding Period //// (4) Property owners of individual tax lots that are lots of record which are zoned for single-family residential or middle housing use, are not large enough to be further divided, and were in existence prior to the date this section becomes effective shall be exempt from these bonding requirements. Item 9 [0]: Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. This amendment is necessary in order to apply boding period standards within the Sensitive Lands Overlay District equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, per the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. ///// 6. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO RP DISTRICTS a. Resource Protection (RP) District Environmental Review Standards;Applicability and Purpose In addition to compliance with LOC 50.07.004.8.c and 50.07.004.8.d and LOC 50.05.010.4.b and 50.05.010.4.c, applicants for development that is subject to environmental review on property containing an RP district shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 50.05.010.6.b through 50.05.010.6.d, in order to: i. Prohibit new development within an RP district following delineation of the resource or resources, except as provided in this section. In the event that development is allowed within an RP district,the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of or damage to the RP resource pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g; ii. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the total land area and the functions and values of resources designated as RP; Iiii. Allow for development opportunities for at least one single-family home or duplex, pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.6.d and the applicable mitigation criteria of LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 67/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 10 [0]:Allow for duplex development opportunities within the Resource Protection (RP) District, but not opportunities for the development of other middle housing types, as permitted under Division 46. As mentioned above under Item 8 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that development opportunities within the RP District will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to these minimum compliance provisions. //// d. Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits All Reasonable Development Opportunities i. When a delineated RP district occupies most or all of a lot in any residential district,the property owner shall be permitted development on the parcel of a single-family dwelling, duplex, or the equivalent; "equivalent" shall be one or more dwellings which in total do not exceed the I maximum lot coverage and floor area allowed for one single-family or duplex dwelling based on the minimum lot area of the underlying zone. In approving more than one dwelling the reviewing body shall find that the avoid, minimize, mitigate requirements of this section are met, and the development will have no greater impact to water quality, slope stability, erosion, or wildlife habitat than would occur with one dwelling constructed with the maximum allowed floor area based on the minimum lot area of the underlying zone.All other applicable City codes and development standards shall be complied with, and the mitigation criteria of LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g shall also be applicable. Item 11 [O]:Allow for duplex development opportunities on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District, but not opportunities for the development of other middle housing types, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. As mentioned above under Item 8 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow cities to apply the same regulations to duplexes that apply to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone, and to limit the development of middle housing other than duplexes within "significant resource sites identified and protected pursuant to Goal 5." This amendment clarifies that opportunities for development on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District within the RP District will apply equally to detached single-family and duplex dwellings, but will not apply to other middle housing types, pursuant to these minimum compliance provisions. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 68/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.001 BUILDING DESIGN 1. APPLICABILITY This section is applicable as follows: TABLE 50.0. i i - • I ► ■ •DS APPLICABILITY /A/=Applicable/blank/= Not Applicable Additional Base District R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 Standards • Structure 50.05.006, Design— Residential A A A A A [1] Old Town Zones Neighborhood 50.06.001.2 Design Garage 50.05.006, Appearance Old Town and Location A A A A A Neighborhood 50.06.001.4 Design Zone Additional Standards A 50.06.001.3 (R-6) Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Not Located A [2][3] in FMU Zone Standards for Approval 50.06.001.5 Development Located in FMU Zone Standards for A [4] Approval 50.06.001.6 Notes: [1] Structure Design standards only apply to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, zcro lot line dwellings,duplexes, and structures that are accessory to these development types (see LOC 50.06.001.2.a). [2] Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 69/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 TABLE 50.06.001-1: BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABILITY /A/=Applicable/blank/= Not Applicable Additional Base District R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-6 R-5 Standards to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening). [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, townhouses attached single-family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone.This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. [4] Development involving either mechanical equipment, or development involving structures, or both, including new development and exterior modifications, in the FMU zone. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 70/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 1.1 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Building Design Standards Applicability Table. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Under the City's current system, single-family development is classified as a Ministerial decision, and the development of middle housing types other than duplexes is classified as a Minor Development decision and subject to additional staff review. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's review procedures must be amended to treat middle housing the same as single-family housing. City Council directed staff to develop code amendments that would classify the development of a single triplex, quadplex,townhouse project, and cottage cluster as a ministerial decision in order to comply with the bill. As a result of this change,the development of a triplex, quadplex, or cottage cluster will generally not require a Pre-Application Conference, neighborhood meeting, public notice, or a public hearing —as these are not required for single-family residential development.The existing ministerial procedure utilized for the review of single-family and duplex dwelling building permit applications will now be applied to triplex, quadplex, or cottage cluster applications.This review is primarily managed by the Building Department, but also includes review by staff from the Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with applicable standards. Townhouse development that requires a land division will be still considered a minor development decision (even for expedited middle housing land divisions pursuant to Senate Bill 458). However, townhouses allowed under HB 2001 will no longer be subject to the additional design review approval for compliance with the standards in LOC 50.06.001.5, as is currently required. Item 17.1 [D]: Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones within the Building Design Standards Applicability Table. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects. With respect to cottage clusters, Division 46 requires that cities apply design standards that are less restrictive than those in the Model Code, and no more restrictive than the design standards that apply to single-family detached homes. In addition to the use-specific standards for cottage clusters, which contain standards specific to parking, landscaping, orientation, and other design elements, City Council directed staff to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that the general building design standards will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 71/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 2. STRUCTURE DESIGN—RESIDENTIAL ZONES a. Applicability i. In the R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones, this subsection applies only to the following types of development: (1) Detached single-family dwellings; (2) Zero lot line dwellingsMiddle housing;, and {3) Cb:plcxcs; and(43) Structures that are accessory to these development types listed above. Item 17.2 [D]:Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones within the applicability standards for Structure Design—Residential Zones. See Item 17.1 [D], above. ii. This subsection is applicable to all structures in any other base residential districts, except R-W and R-DD. iii. Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. iv. For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, this subsection (a) shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure to remain in place are exempted from the standards of this subsection. Item 18 [D]: Clarify that remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. As mentioned above under Item 7 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that large cities, "must allow for the development of Triplexes, Quadplexes,Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters, including those created through additions to or conversions of existing detached single-family dwellings." Division 46 further specifies that, "additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing" must be allowed, "provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code." In order to comply with the above provisions,this amendment clarifies that remodels and conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from the general building design standards. The amendment further specifies that existing non-conforming portions of a structure are exempted from the design standards, in order to reach compliance with Division 46. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 72/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 3. R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS a. Roof Design i. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single-family or middle housing dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single-family or middle housing dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays, may be flat or shed roof types. See Figure 50.06.001-J: Identification of Primary and Secondary Roofs. Item 19.1 [D]: Clarify that the Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects; and to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that the roof design standards in the R-6 Zone will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 73/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-J: Identification of Primary and Secondary Roofs PRIMARY • 1 SECONDARY 4- NIS 1110 1111 4\s- .1 .411 ii. Roof pitch on an accessory structure shall either match the pitch of the primary structure or be a minimum pitch of 6:12. b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdwcllings shall include a covered front porch at an tha rrc�n entry_ When applied to cottage clusters,this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. huaThe porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots,the covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages,the front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. The covered front porch shall be open and unobstructed by structures on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street, except for porch supports and railings. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. Railings shall not exceed 44 inches in height or the minimum height required by the building code,whichever is greater. iv. A pedestrian front wiry-path shall provide direct access from the front porch to the public street/sidewalk. On corner lots,the front cntrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 74/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 20 [D]: Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units. As mentioned above under Item 4 [0],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 require that cities apply the same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone to middle housing. Design standards for middle housing may not "scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances." Division 46 further specifies that, "Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street-facing facade, height, bulk, and scale." Because the front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone currently are written to require front porches for every dwelling unit, it is necessary to modify the standard to no longer apply on a per-dwelling basis.This amendment specifies that the front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone will now require a covered front porch in front of every primary entrance into to a living area that faces a street,which is permitted under Division 46 since it does not scale the applicability of the standard by the number of dwelling units. Staff further recommends revisiting front porch standards in the R-6 Zone at a later date, including engaging in appropriate public outreach with the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association,to ensure that the standards do not result in overly long or otherwise undesirable front porch design outcomes. //// c. Alleys Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or middle housing residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. I ii. Alleys that serve commercial or;multi-family dwelling,townhouse, rowhouse, or duplex, development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. Item 21 [D]: Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that alley surfacing standards for other middle housing types are applied differently for the purposes of this standard. Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone are considered a public works standard, in this case they must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.This amendment clarifies that the alley surfacing standards for single-family dwellings apply to duplexes, and that different standards apply to other middle housing types. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 75/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// 4. GARAGE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION a. R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Residential Zones The following standards for garage appearance and location shall be applicable: i. Applicability Limited to Dwelling Type in the R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 Zones. The garage appearance and location standards of this section shall apply to the following types of development: (1) Detached single-family dwellings; and (2) Zero lot linc dwcllings Middle housing. d {3) Duplcxcsi. Item 22.1 [D]: Clarify that garage appearance and location standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. Division 46 provides cities with some flexibility to modify their design standards for middle housing, as long as the regulations are not more restrictive than those that apply to single-family detached homes. City Council provided general direction to staff to apply the existing building design standards for single-family housing to duplexes,triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects; and to apply any design standards that apply to detached single-family housing to cottage cluster dwellings as long as they do not conflict with the Model Code. This amendment clarifies that garage appearance and location standards will also apply to all middle housing types, as permitted pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions. ii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a garage has wall(s) other than the wall containing the garage opening facing a street,these wall(s) shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the garage wall. Item 33 [D]: Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not apply to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards, discussed in Item 23.2 [D], below. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 76/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iii. Garage Design Requirements Due to Location The standards in subsection 4.a.iv of this section shall not apply in any one of the following circumstances: (1) The garage is 20 ft. or more back from: (a) The point of the dwelling closest to the front lot line, and (b) If applicable,the point of the dwelling closest to the street side yard line; (2) The garage is side-loading; (3) The garage is rear-loading; (4) The lot is a steeply sloped lot; 45) The width of a parcel is Isrr than SO ft.; _or (651 The garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 ft.from the public right-of-way. Item 24 [D]:Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels less than 50 feet in width. While staff was given direction to apply the same design standards that currently apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, City Council also acknowledged that some of these standards needed to be modified to apply to middle housing in order to ensure consistency with the City's existing neighborhood character, livability, and sense of place. In particular, a concern was expressed that more visually-prominent garages could be a potential design outcome of allowing middle housing given that a triplex, quadplex, or townhome building is likely to be built with more garage stalls than a single-family house or duplex. In order to discourage overly prominent garages that are incompatible with community character, City Council directed staff to enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. The existing code exempts lots less than 50 feet in width from being subject to the garage standards. Because townhouses will commonly be permitted on lots of less than 50 feet in width, it is necessary to remove the exemption to the standards for front-facing garages for lots less than 50 feet in width to ensure they are applicable to townhouses. City Council concurred with staff's recommendation to draft code amendments that would apply standards to garages on lots that are narrower than 50 feet. Staff notes that,while this amendment is intended to address garages for middle housing dwellings, it will also apply to detached single-family dwellings. See Item 23.2 [D], below,for more on the proposed amendments to garage appearance and location standards. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 77/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-L:Garage Design Requirements . i I ,,. .,7 r) ft ink eg a II Dili ,•_ : s 0utdtor tying aria ', woad w stone $ Al operable gate Fencing I 'k-- )---1\ 1 ri t II II 1 i 1 F I outdoor living area wood or stone Fencing ILA operable gate LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 78/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 iv. Garage Location and Appearance St ndards The garage shall comply with subsections 4.a.iv(1)through (3) of this section: (1) Maximum Garage Width (a) For lots with a width of 50 ft. or more, garage openings shall not occupy more than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. (b) For lots with a width of less than 50 ft.,garage openings may occupy up to 75%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria are satisfied: (i) The total combined width of all garage openings does not exceed 36 ft.: (ii) Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade: and (iii) The garage location and appearance standards in Table 50.06.001-2, below. TABLE 50.06.001-2: GARAGE LOCATION AND APPEARANCE STANDARDS Width of Garage as Percent of Front Minimum Garage Setback Minimum Number of Garage Facade 50.06.001.4.a.iv.2 Appearance Standards 50.06.001.4.a.iv.3 Less than 30% None 2 30%to 60% 2 feet 3 60%to 75% 4 feet 4 LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 79/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 23.2 [D]: Modify garage width standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. Remove existing additional garage appearance standards for consistency with the new garage appearance section, below, where many of the same standards have been repeated. Modify Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements to reflect that an 88-foot minimum lot width is no longer required for the garage location and appearance standards to apply. While staff was given direction to apply the same design standards that currently apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, City Council also acknowledged that some of these standards needed to be modified to apply to middle housing in order to ensure consistency with the City's existing neighborhood character, livability, and sense of place. In particular, a concern was expressed that more visually-prominent garages could be a potential design outcome of allowing middle housing given that a triplex, quadplex, or townhome building is likely to be built with more garage stalls than a single-family house or duplex. In order to discourage overly prominent garages that are incompatible with community character, City Council directed staff to enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. The Planning Commission explored options available within the existing design standards to minimize the appearance of a garage; the Commission directed staff to draft code that would achieve the following: • Require garage recessing, as opposed to simply offering it as one available option for compliance; • Allow exceptions to increase the width of a garage to 75%only for lots that are narrower than 50 feet, and continue to limit the overall width of garages to less than 60%of the width of the front façade for lots wider than 50 feet; In order to further minimize the prominence of garages in the context of middle housing while balancing the need for flexibility,the Commission also directed staff to apply existing garage design standards differently based on the width of the garage as a percentage of the front façade.The proposed approach scales these standards based on the width of the garage relative to the facade; the key concept is that if the garage makes up a larger portion of the front façade,then more techniques and treatments must be used to minimize the appearance of the garage from the street. The new table above (Table 50.06.001-2) is intended to implement this concept while also incorporating other amendments to garage appearance and location standards described above. Staff notes that,while this amendment is intended to address garages for middle housing dwellings, it will also apply to detached single-family dwellings. (12) Dw^1°ng S hall Q^Clo cr to the StFeetMinimum Garage Offset from Dwelling (a) If the width of the garage is less than 30%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling,then Thethe garage shall not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. For the purpose of meeting this subsection, the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 80/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects involving homes built prior to August 2004 in the R-5, R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones, and July 1, 2010, in the R-0, R-2, and R-3 zones. (b) If the width of the garage exceeds 30%of the width of the front facade of the building, then the garage must set back further from the front lot line than the dwelling.The minimum additional garage setback is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Item 23.1 [D]: Modify garage setback standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. See Item 23.2 [D], above. _{2) Garage Width 4a) Tho garage elevati:n zhall not occupy more than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage; or (b) For duplexes and zero lot line dwrllin�, ;ar gos may occupy up to 75%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria arc satisfied: Tho lot width of the lot upon which the duplex is located or the combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwellings arc located is less than 88 ft.; and(ii) Tho total combined width of iI garage doors does not exceed 36 ft.; and Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area •rnLxt have fenestration that nat-4ccc than 20%of the facade; and _(iv) One or more of the following is provided: 1, Porgolas or trslli c o provided acre c the a'ntiro front of the garage; or 2. A covered porch occupies at least 25%of the facade; or 3. nn enclosed (.,,+door living� s located bet..wen the Front of the house,the garage, ani thi Ic.410ic right of way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block) and include an operable entryway getis shown in Figure 50.06.001 L: CLN-�u Dosign Requirements; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 81/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 23.2 [D]: Modify garage width standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment removes the existing garage width standards for consistency with the new garage appearance section, above,where many of the same garage width standards have been repeated. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (c) If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another,the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two ft. (34) Garage Appearance Standards Garages shall comply with at least two a minimum number of the following appearance standards intended to minimize the appearance of the garage. The minimum number of appearance standards that must be met is provided in Table 50.06.001-2.{e) Sot the garage an additional two ft. further from the front property line than the facade of the dwelling; (ha) Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. each,for each parking stall. (b) Provide individual garage doors that do not exceed 50%of the width of the combined facade of the dwellings and garages, or in the case of duplexes and zero lot line dwellings, 50%of the width of the combined facade of the dwellings and garages. 0 back at least two ft.further from the front property line Oar.tbtc facade of the other garage opening; (b) Provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two ft horizontally. cc) Provide windows on each garage door that make up a minimum of 15%of the area of the door. (d) Provide a decorative trellis, pergola,or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed.The feature shall be provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12 in. deep and six ft. tall. (d) Provide earace opcnincs offset from one another by at least two ft horizontal ly ter. {e) Provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25%of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. {f) Provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of 4 ft. located between the front of the house,the garage, and the public right-of-way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 82/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (excluding concrete block)and include an operable entryway gate as shown in Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements. Item 23.3 [D]: Modify garage appearance standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards, discussed in Item 23.2 [D], above. v. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks In any instance where a garage or a set of adjacent garages is designed to park three or more vehicles, only the garage openings for the first two vehicles may occupy the same building plane. Each additional building plane with a garage opening shall be set back by a minimum of two ft. from the previous garage building plane. Exceptions: (1) The lot is a steeply sloped lot; (2) The width of a parcel is less than 50 ft.; or (3) The garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 ft. from the public right-of-way. b. R-6 Residential Zones In addition to compliance with the accessory structure setback requirements in LOC 50.04.001.2, a garage shall comply with the following requirements: i. Access (1) Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. (2) If a property is located on a corner lot, garages may also be accessed from the street that abuts the side of the primary dwelling when the following criteria are met: (a) The garage is located between the primary structure and the alley, if an alley abuts the lot; (b) The garage is set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the side street property line; and (c) The garage is set back a minimum of two ft. from a line extended from the side elevation of the primary dwelling to the rear lot line, and behind the primary structure. See Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 83/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements AVENUE f 5 PLC RIp1TOFWAY 15 t s NEW lllKIil OFYNU st rn frua I 7_5'• > : mH ii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a garage has wall(s) facing a street other than the wall containing the garage opening, these wall(s) shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the garage wall. iii. LocatienGarage Width (1) For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the garage is set back a minimum of 15 ft. behind the front yard setback line of the house (excluding a porch). See Figure 50.06.001-M: Front Porch and Garage Measurements. (2) Where no alley access is available,the garage shall comply with the following stand ardscithcr: (a) For lots with a width of 50 ft. or more,the garage opening shall not°Occupy+ temore than 60%of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. (b) For lots with a width of less than 50 ft.zero lot line dwellings, garages may either comply with r' bccction 4.b.ii(1) of this section or may occupy up to 75%of the width of the combined front facade of the dwelling and garage when the following criteria are satisfied: {i) The combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwslling arc located is Lev.than F.F.ft.; and (ii) The total combined width of all garage doors does not exceed 36 ft.; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 84/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (iii) Living area is provided above the garage.The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade a+id. {iv) One or more of the following c provided: {A) Pergolas or trclli-Azc ars avidcd av eac thz ontire front of the garage, or {B) A covered porch that occupies at I ast 25% of the facade. Item 23.5 [D]: Modify garage location standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (c) If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another,the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two ft. iii. Garage Wall Facing Street When a go cs wa"(s) facing a street oth then thy, wall c7ntcinin„the garage opvnir>;, thi,4;,E wall(z) c�'� II h ve mew a than e\no plane er r,\'x-A include fenestration equal to at I ast 10%of the garage wall. iv. Garage Location and Appearance (1) Minimum Garage Offset from Dwelling (a) If the width of the garage is less than 30%of the width of the front facade of the dwelling, then the garage shall not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. For the purpose of meeting this subsection,the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling proiects involving homes built prior to [insert month and year of the effective date of this Ord.l. (b) If the width of the garage exceeds 30%of the width of the front facade of the building, then the garage must set back further from the front lot line than the dwelling. The minimum additional garage setback is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Item 23.7 [D]: Modify garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. (2) Garage Appearance Standards LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 85/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Garages shall comply with a minimum number of the following appearance standards intended to minimize the appearance of the garage.The minimum number of appearance standards that must be met is provided in Table 50.06.001-2. Ja) Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 so. ft. each,for each parking stall. Jb) Provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two ft horizontally. Jc) Provide windows on each garage door that make up a minimum of 15%of the area of the door. Jd) Provide a decorative trellis, pergola, or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed.The feature shall be Provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12 in. deep and six ft. tall. f e) Provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25%of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. Jf) Provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of 4 ft. located between the front of the house,the garage, and the public right-of-way.The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block)and include an operable entryway gate as shown in Figure 50.06.001-L: Garage Design Requirements. Item 23.8 [D]: Modify garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the applicability of the new garage appearance and location standards within the R-6 Zone. See Item 23.2 [D], above. 5. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT NOT LOCATED IN THE FMU ZONE,AND MINOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-DD ZONE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Applicability This standard is applicable in all zones except the FMU zone to: i. Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening); and ii. Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), private recreational use, multi-family residential, townhousesattachcd single family (three or more units)- LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 86/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 residcntial dcvclopmcnt, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone.This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3). //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 87/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.002 PARKING //// 2. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Vehicle Parking //// ii. Number of Required Parking Spaces The number of required parking spaces under this Article shall be determined by either the Numerical Method (subsection 2.a.ii(1) of this section) or the Parking Study Method (subsection 2.a.ii(2) of this section). (1) Numerical Method Refer to Tables 50.06.002-1, 50.06.002-3 and 50.06.002-4 to determine the number of parking spaces required.The minimum number of parking spaces specified for each type of use shall include reductions to parking requirements pursuant to subsection 2.a.v(1) of this section and Table 50.06.002-3. It-ABLE 50.06.002-1: NUMERICAL METHOD OF DETERMINING MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Determine: Method of Determining: Floor Area Amount From Table 50.06.002-3, determine if floor area is used to calculate the number of parking spaces required for the use(s). (Floor Area per Parking Space) Number of Employees Determine number of full-time,temporary, part-time and contract employees, or independent contractors, if employee count is used in Table 50.06.002-3 to calculate the number of parking spaces required. (Employee Per Space amount) Gross Parking Requirement 1. Multiply the adjusted Floor Area Amount by the Floor Area per Parking Space. 2. Multiply the Number of Employees by the Employee Per Space amount. 3.Add the results of(1) and (2) above together. Reductions 1. See Table 50.06.002-4 for possible reductions. 2.Apply reduction percentages to Gross LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 88/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 r TABLE 50.06.002-1: NUMERICAL METHOD OF DETERMINING MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED J Determine: Method of Determining: Parking Requirement. Mixed Uses The total requirements for mixed uses on a site shall be the sum for the various uses computed separately. Rounding Any fractional space amount determined following the application of Reductions and Mixed Uses above shall be rounded up to the next highest whole space. Minimum Parking Requirement The minimum parking requirement is the "rounded" number above. //// Type of Use Parking Space Required [1] //// (A) RESIDENTIAL 1. Single-family dwelling and middle housineduplcx 1 space per dwelling unit 2.Accessory dwelling unit None (ORS 197.312(5)(b)) 3. Multi-family 25%of the required parking for multi-family use shall be located to provide for common or visitor use i. Studio/efficiency 1 space per unit ii. 1 bedroom 1.25 spaces per unit iii. 2 or more bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit 4. Rooming and boarding house; bed and breakfast 1 space per each guest room plus 1 for owner //// [1] Gross floor area does not include any parking area. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 89/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 25 [D]: Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit one space per unit for middle housing. The minimum compliance provisions in Division 46 do not allow cities to require more than one parking space per dwelling unit for middle housing.This amendment clarifies that the existing off-street parking requirement for detached single-family dwellings and duplexes of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit will also apply to middle housing, in order to comply with Division 46. //// vi. Parking Dimensions //// (2) The minimum dimension to meet single-family and middle housing residential parking space requirements shall be eight ft. six in.wide and 18 ft. six in. long for each space. Item 26 [D]: Modify parking dimensions standards to apply equally to single-family and middle housing. This is required pursuant to Division 46,which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 90/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY 1. ACCESS/ACCESS LANES(FLAG LOTS) //// d. Standards for Access Lanes Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: i. Twenty-ft.-wide easement. ii. Access to two to three dwelling unitslots—12 ft. of pavement with a four-ft. shoulder on each side. Item 30.1 (D]: Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots with the Standards for Access Lanes, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code.This also entails removing the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane. Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the provision of flag lots and an access lane can be provided as an exception to street frontage requirements, which relates to a public works standard, in this case the flag lot and access lane standards must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.They do not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. This amendment removes the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that may be served by an access lane, and replaces it with a limitation of two to three lots, in order to ensure compliance with Division 46. Item 31 [D], below,further specifies that access lanes can only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. iii. One standard "on-lane" parking space shall be provided for each flag lot served by an access lane.This parking space may be used to meet minimum off-street parking requirements for detached single-family and duplex dwellings on flag lots served by the access lane. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 91/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 27 [D]: Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access lane may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for flag lots served by the access lane. The minimum compliance provisions in Division 46 do not allow cities to require more than one parking space per dwelling unit for middle housing.This amendment clarifies that any"on-lane" parking spaces required along the access lane for each flag lot served by an access lane must also be allowed to count towards the minimum parking requirements for any dwellings served by the access lane. While this amendment is necessary in order to reach compliance with Division 46, staff notes that the requirement for an "on-lane" parking space for all flag lots may be worth renewed consideration in the future. Considering that the applicability of the standard is now modified,the requirement may now provide an incentive for more cars to be parked along the access lane—as opposed to on an individual lot. iv. Access lanes shall only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. Item 31 [D]: Specify that duplexes must be permitted on flag lots served by an access lane, but not other middle housing types. As discussed above under Item 30 [D], Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the provision of flag lots and an access lane can be provided as an exception to street frontage requirements,which relates to a public works standard, in this case the flag lot and access lane standards must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.They do not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. Consistent with these minimum compliance provisions,this amendment specifies that access lanes can only serve lots improved with detached single-family or duplex dwellings. //// 2. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS a. Applicability This section is applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. Increased use shall be defined as an increase in trip generation or parking requirement. b. Standards for Approval i. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 92/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (5) The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured where the edges of the driveway meet the right-of-way, shall be governed as follows: (a) Single-family residential or middle housing dwelling with garage door(s)facing the street: 12 ft. per garage or carport stall, or surface parking space, but not to exceed 30 ft. (b) Single-family residential or middle housing dwelling with side-loading garage: 24 ft. Item 22.2 [D]: Clarify that driveway width limitations apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in applicable zones. See Item 22.1 [D], above. (c) All other uses: 24 ft. unless otherwise justified by the recommendations of a traffic study. (6) The driveway approach shall be within the right-of-way bounded by the extension of the lot's side or street side lot lines. ii. Driveway Widths Driveways shall conform to the minimum width requirements of LOC 15.06.610 (Oregon Fire Code Adopted) and LOC 50.06.002, Parking. For lots less than 50 ft. wide, driveways on the lot may be no wider than the garage opening accessed from the driveway. Item 28 [D]: Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to no wider than the associated garage opening. Applying existing driveway standards to a townhouse project could inadvertently allow driveway approaches that are wider than the width of the garage(s) for a townhouse unit.To address this issue, City Council directed staff to place a limit on the width of driveways on smaller lots; agreeing with staff's recommendation to amend the driveway standards to limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width to no wider than the associated garage opening. iii. Driveway Grades (1) The maximum grade of a driveway serving one single family structure shall be 20%. If the grade exceeds S ,Jhon the residenco mutt ao provided with alternative methods for fire suppression, i.o.,-r rinkloring.shall comply with LOC 15.06.610 (Oregon Fire Code Adopted). _(-2) Tho maximum grade of a driveway for all other 15%. (23) For all uses except single-family or middle housing dwellings structures of fc'.ir ►initc 9-p less,there shall be a landing area where a driveway used by multiple drivers meets the public street.The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 ft. long and shall have a maximum grade of 5%.The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. If a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and the development proposal is anticipated to LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 93/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 proceed prior to the improvement of the street,the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. Item 22.3 [D]: Clarify that driveway grades standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings in applicable zones. This is required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which generally requires that detached single-family and middle housing dwellings be subject to the same regulations. //// c. Standards for Construction //// vi. All driveways shall be paved with a material that does not generate dust. Hard pavement is required except in the following circumstances: (1) Low-use driveways, such as one serving a parking area for recreational vehicles, boat trailers, or access to a storage building or storage area. (2) Where a driveway grade changes less than 10%from the street to the parking area serving a single-family residence or duplex. Item 29 [D]:Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement for driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences. As discussed above under Item 30 [D], Division 46 stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the exception from the hard pavement requirement for driveways can be considered an exception from a public works standard, in this case the hard pavement requirement for driveways must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes.The requirement does not, however, need to apply to other middle housing types. Consistent with these minimum compliance provisions,this amendment specifies that the hard pavement requirement for driveways applies equally to duplexes and single-family residences //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 94/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 3. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—BIKEWAYS,WALKWAY,AND ACCESSWAYS a. Applicability This section is applicable to all subdivisions and to all minor and major development involving the construction of a new structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, duplex, middle housing dwelling„ or accessory structures.This section is also applicable to modifications which increase the square footage of commercial, industrial, public use or institutional buildings by more than 10%. For the purposes of this section, an "existing building" is a building as it exists on February 19, 1998. Item 19.2 [D]: Clarify that standards for On-Site Circulation—Bikeways, Walkway, and Accessways apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. //// 4. STREET CONNECTIVITY a. Applicability This section is applicable to: i. Any development that results in the construction of a street; or ii. A land division that: (1) Is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of 1.75 acres or more, or (2) Abuts a parcel upon which there is a street that has been "stubbed"to the proposed development site. iii. Construction of a detached single-family dwelling,duplex, middle housing dwelling, zero lot line dwelling, multi-family dwelling, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public function structure that: (1) Is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of 1.75 acres or more, or (2) Abuts a parcel upon which there is a street that has been "stubbed"to the proposed development site. This section is not applicable to development or construction in the FMU zone. Item 19.3 [D]: Clarify that standards for Street Connectivity apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 95/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// c. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street //// v. Access lanes may be used to serve up to three dwelling unitslots. Item 30.2 [D]: Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots in the Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code.This also entails removing the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane. See Item 30.1 [D], above. 5. TRANSIT SYSTEM a. Applicability This standard is applicable to all new subdivisions, planned developments, multi-family residential developments of four unit, or more, and new commercial, institutional and industrial developments, and major public facility structures located on a transit street or within one-quarter mile of a transit street. Item 19.4 [D]: Clarify that Transit System standards do not apply to either detached single-family or middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 96/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.004 SITE DESIGN //// c. Standards for Installation and Construction //// iii. Except for single-family residential dwellings and middle housing developments that require street trees, all planting shall have an irrigation system installed to meet standards of Turf Irrigation Manual, current edition, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority that such system is not necessary. Item 19.5 [D]: Clarify that standards for the installation and construction of site design elements apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 97/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.06.007 SOLAR ACCESS 1. SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT //// b. Applicability The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.c shall apply to subdivision applications that create lots intended for single-family detached dwellings or middle housing dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the reviewing authority finds that the applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in LOC 50.04.004.1, Exemptions from Solar Design Standard, and LOC 50.04.004.2,Adjustments to Solar Design Standard, exist and exemptions or adjustments provided for therein are warranted. Item 19.6 [D]: Clarify that solar access standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [D], above. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 98/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.07.003 REVIEW PROCEDURES ///// 13. MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS a. Ministerial Development Classification i. Requirements of Ministerial Decisions A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit or review from the City where the decision: (1) Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; (2) Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards; or (3) 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. ii. Ministerial Development Types (1) Exterior modification of single-family detached dwellings (including exterior modifications that reduce setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.04.003.3.c), accessory dwelling units,-a- single duplex on a lots or zero lot line dwellings, or middle housing, or modification of an accessory structure in the R-DD zone. (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, middle housing,o single duplex on a lot, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: Item 12.2 [G]: Remove code references to "dwelling, zero lot line"within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. Item 1.2 ER]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. (a) Is not processed through the residential infill design review process pursuant to LOC 50.08.003.2.e; (b) Is not located within a delineated RP resource, RC protection area, or HBA protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; (c) Does not impact a historic landmark designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.009; (d) Is not located within a Historic District; LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 99/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (e) 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; (f) 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; or (g) Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as identified in LOC 50.05.009. (h) Is not middle housing located in a Commercial, Industrial or Mixed Use Zone, as identified in LOC 50.02.002.1. Item 2.1 [R]: Specify that middle housing development in Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use Districts is not classified as ministerial development. As mentioned above under Item 1.1 [R],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Because Division 46 does not require that middle housing be allowed within commercial, industrial, or mixed-use districts, it is not necessary to process middle housing applications in those districts as ministerial development. This amendment clarifies that middle housing in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones will continue to be considered minor development. (g) Is not middle housing located in a Special Purpose Zone, as identified in LOC 50.02.002.3. Item 2.2 [R]: Specify that middle housing development in Special Purpose Districts is not classified as ministerial development. Because Division 46 does not require that middle housing be allowed within special purpose zones, it is not necessary to process middle housing applications in those zones as ministerial development. This amendment clarifies that middle housing in special purpose zones will continue to be considered minor development, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. (3) Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, duplex, zero lot line dwelling, middle housing, or structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Does not increase building footprint or height, except if the increase in building height is required to comply with Building or Fire Codes and does not substantially modify any street-facing facade, or the increase in building footprint is 100 sq.ft. or less and does not substantially modify any street-facing facade; or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 100/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (b) Does not modify, either by itself or cumulatively with prior modifications after December 1, 2011, more than 25%of the facade, as the facade existed on December 1, 2011, excluding in both cases a change of color of the facade; or (c) If the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; or (d) Does not modify any facade, including change of color of facade, for a building that was the subject of a prior development review approval ("change of color" occurs when the new color is not within the shades or tones of the approved color); or (e) Does not result in additional illumination of the facade, including accent lighting,for a building that was the subject of a prior development review approval; and (f) Complies with subsections a.ii(2)(a)through (f) of this section. Item 12.2 [G]: Remove code references to "dwelling, zero lot line"within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. Item 1.2 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Ministerial Development Classification section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. //// e. Review and Decision i. Decision-Making Authority Ministerial development applications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. ii. Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments A ministerial development shall comply with the requirements of the zone, including overlay zones, in which the subject lot or parcel is located, the Stormwater Management Code (LOC Article 38.25) and shall comply with the following sections of the development standards: (1) Parking, LOC 50.06.002. (2) Hillside Protection, LOC 50.06.006.2. (3) On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads, LOC 50.06.003.2. (4) If the ministerial development involves placement of a manufactured home, Manufactured Homes, LOC 50.03.003.1.b. (5) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening). (6) Weak Foundation Soils, LOC 50.06.006.1,for construction of structures where the requirements of LOC 50.06.006.1 have not been previously addressed for the development site. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 101/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (7) If located in the Flood Management Area, LOC 50.05.011. (8) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.2—4, for construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, a single duplex on a lot, zero lot line, middle housing- dwelling, or a structure accessory to such structures. Item 1.3 [R]: Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision within the Review Criteria for Ministerial Development section. See Item 1.1 [R], above. //// 14. MINOR DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS a. Minor Development Classification //// ii. "Minor development" under subsection 14.a.i(1) of this section includes: (1) In the R-DD zone: (a) Construction of new single-family detached dwellings,duplexesmiddle housing dwellings, multi-family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings or exterior modification of a structure containing a nonconforming use that requires a building permit. (b) Expansion or reconstruction that results in a change of use (e frem single-family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (c) Any exterior modification of a single-family detached dwelling that reduces setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.08.003.2.a, R-DD Administrative Modification. (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family structure, duplexmiddle housing dwelling, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1) or(2); or (b) Requires one or more variances. //// (5) Construction of a structure other than a detached single-family dwelling, duplex middle housing dwelling, 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 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3) or(19). LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 102/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 3 [R]: Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone. Under the City's current system, single-family development is classified as minor development in the R-DD Zone. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's review procedures must be amended to treat middle housing the same as single-family housing. This amendment clarifies that the minor development procedures that apply to detached single-family residences in the R-DD Zone will apply equally to middle housing. Item 4 [R]: Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone. Division 46 does not allow for design standards to be applied to middle housing created through conversions or additions to single-family dwellings. This amendment clarifies that middle housing created through conversions or additions to an existing detached single-family dwelling will not be subject to the minor development procedures applicable to the R-DD Zone, in order to comply with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 103/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 LOC 50.08:VARIANCES 50.08.001 INTRODUCTION 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES 50.08.004 MAJOR VARIANCES //// 50.08.002 MINOR VARIANCES //// 2. MINOR VARIANCE CLASSIFICATIONS a. A variance of 20%or less from yard setbacks or the Oswego Lake setback for a single-family dwelling, zcro lot line dwelling, middle housing dwelling, or an associated accessory structure that does not comply with LOC 50.03.004.2.b, Reduction of Side or Rear Yard Setbacks for Accessory Structures, provided: DRAFTING NOTE: This subsection is the subject of additional amendments under LU 21-0057, which is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on March 17, 2022. Following Council action,this section will be updated to conform to any amendments adopted by the Council. i. The resulting side yard setback is not less than five ft.; and ii. If located in the R-6 zone, a minor variance to front yard setbacks shall be limited to two ft. or less; or iii. If the request is necessary to preserve a tree: (1) The request is the minimum necessary to preserve the tree; and (2) The resulting yard setback is not less than 50%of the required standard; and (3) Side yards are not reduced to less than five ft., and if located in the R-6 zone,the required front yard setback is not reduced by more than two ft. b. A variance from yard setbacks for a structure other than a single-family dwelling, zero lot line` middle housing dwelling, or associated accessory structures up to: i. Side or front yards:two ft.; ii. Rear yards: five ft.; or iii. Fifty percent or less of the required setback if necessary to preserve a tree provided: (1) The request is the minimum necessary to preserve the tree; and LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 104/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 (2) The resulting yard setback is not less than 50%of the required standard; and (3) Side yards are not reduced to less than five ft., and if located in the R-6 zone,the required front yard setback is not reduced by more than two ft. //// d. A variance to the maximum floor area for single-family homes or middle housing dwellings of up to 15%; provided, that the lot in question has at least the following minimum lot area: Zone Minimum Lot Size Required R-5 10,000 sq. ft. R-6 12,000 sq. ft. R-7.5 15,000 sq. ft. R-10 15,000 sq. ft. R-15 22,500 sq. ft. e. A variance from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2. f. A variance to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. g. A variance for construction of a dormer that does not exceed the height of the roof ridge in which Ithe dormer is being constructed in an existing single-family or middle housing detached dwelling that is nonconforming relative to lot coverage or setbacks. h. A variance to distance of driveway from intersections (LOC 50.06.003.2.b). i. A variance to street frontage at the time of creation of subdivision lots (LOC 50.06.003.1.c). j. A variance to driveway and access lane width for flag lots (LOC 50.07.007.2.c). k. A variance to yard requirements for extension of existing nonconforming walls, provided: i. The square footage of any new encroachment into the setback does not exceed the square footage of the existing nonconforming, encroaching portion of the structure. ii. The resulting structure complies with the floor area, lot coverage and other setback requirements. iii. The variance shall not reduce the yard setback by more than 50% and shall not reduce any side yard setback to less than five ft. iv. No previous variance has been granted for an extension of the subject nonconforming wall. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 105/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 v. The expansion area shall be defined by the extension of two or more existing exterior walls. I. A variance to dimensional requirements that is necessary due to prior errors in land surveying. Prior errors in land surveying are errors that were made before the applicant acquired the property or gained control of the property. m. A variance to a determination of the front yard (LOC 50.07.007.2.d) and orientation of the front of the house for flag lots(LOC 50.07.007.2.e.i(1)). n. A variance to the limitation on maximum height of roof-mounted solar energy system in LOC 50.04.003.4.b.ii. o. A variance to a standard of this Code required to comply with state or federal law based on the rights of the occupant,where the application identifies the state or federal law granting the right. P. A variance to one or more of the following standards established by the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LGVCO) or a base zone district underlying the LGVCO by up to 20%or four feet, whichever is less: i. Yard setbacks in LOC 50.05.007.4.d, but not including Village Transition yard setbacks adjacent to residential zones or residential uses; ii. Build-to line (LOC 50.05.007.4.e.i); iii. Minimum street frontage (LOC 50.05.007.4.e.ii); iv. Parking facility edge landscaping requirement(LOC 50.05.007.6.e.viii(5)); or v. Buffering area and screening requirements adjacent to R-7.5 or R-10 parcels (LOC 50.05.007.6.f.i). q. A variance to the standards of LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi(1)(e)for accessory dwelling units. Item 19 [G]: Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.The City's current minor variance standards are written such that they allow single-family dwellings variances that are larger or greater than those available to other housing types. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's minor variance standards must apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally.This amendment clarifies that the minor variance standards procedures that apply to detached single-family residences will apply equally to middle housing. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 106/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.08.003 DESIGN VARIANCES //// 2. DESIGN VARIANCE CLASSIFICATIONS a. R-DD Design For exterior modifications of a single-family detached or middle housing dwelling in the R-DD zone built before 1960, minimum setbacks may be reduced between two ft. and five ft. if the modification maintains at least 50%of the exterior walls (measured by sq. ft.) and does not increase height by more than 100%. Minimum setback adjustments of two ft. or less are exceptions to the R-DD district standards pursuant to LOC 50.04.003.3.c. Item 20 [G]: Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally. As mentioned above under Item 19 [G],the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 stipulate that middle housing must be subject to the same approval processes as single-family detached dwellings in the same zone.The City's current design variance standards are written such that they allow single-family dwellings variances that are larger or greater than those available to other housing types within the R-DD Zone. In order to comply with Division 46,the City's design variance standards for the R-DD Zone must apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally.This amendment clarifies that the design variance standards that apply to detached single-family residences in the R-DD Zone will apply equally to middle housing. ///// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 107/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS // 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms shall mean: //// Access Lane The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress for two to three lots by applicable surface modes of travel. Accessory Structure (Accessory Building) Any detached structure the use of which is subordinate and consistent with that of the primary structure and which is consistent with the structures and uses allowed in the zone in which it is located. Examples: play structures, sheds, and gazebos. //// Congregate Housing Multi-unit housing that: (a) consists of self-contained apartments with cooking facilities; and (b) complies with one of the following: (i) at least 80%of the apartments are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older; or(ii)the housing supports independent lifestyles for those who have a disability as defined in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, including any amendments thereto, and who do not require residential care or skilled nursing services; and (c) provides varying levels of support services, such as meals, laundry, housekeeping, transportation, and social, recreation, cultural and education activities.The full range of services normally associated with a residential care facility are not provided in association with congregate housing. Continuing Care Retirement Community(CCRC) An age-restricted development that provides a continuum of accommodations and care, from independent living to convalescence care and long-term skilled nursing care, and enters into contracts to provide lifelong care.A CCRC typically includes a full range of living arrangements from independent living, congregate housing, residential care and skilled nursing and sometimes hospice care. CCRCs provide a range of ancillary facilities and services such as health care, meals with common dining facilities, physical therapy, education, recreation, and other social and cultural activities. //// Cottage Cluster A grouping of no fewer than five and no more than eight detached cottage cluster dwellings, which includes a common courtyard. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 108/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 5 [G]:Add a definition of"cottage cluster"that is distinct from "dwelling, cottage cluster". Division 46 defines "cottage cluster" as"a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each that includes a common courtyard."The definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition, but also allows for a distinction between a "cottage cluster" and a "cottage cluster dwelling," in order to allow code references to relate to either an entire cottage cluster development or an individual detached dwelling within a cottage cluster development. Item 6 [G]: Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units. The minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 allow the City to define the minimum number of dwellings in a cottage cluster, and to set a maximum of eight dwelling units per cottage cluster. City Council and the Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to set the minimum number of units for a cottage cluster at five as a means of differentiating requirements for cottage clusters from other forms of detached middle housing.This is consistent with previous Council direction to not permit detached quadplexes and avoids confusion with any future allowances of detached quadplexes. The amendment also clarifies that cottage clusters are subject to a maximum of eight dwelling units, in compliance with Division 46. Courtyard An open space surrounded or mostly surrounded by walls or buildings. Commercial courtyards shall consist of some textured materials or pavers and shall contain one or more of the following elements: landscaping,fountain, arbor, or outdoor furniture. Courtyard. Common A common area for use by residents of a cottage cluster. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 109/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 7 [G]:Add a definition of"common courtyard"to align with Cottage Cluster requirements. The Model Code includes the following definition of"common courtyard": "Common courtyard"means a common area for use by residents of a cottage cluster.A common courtyard may function as a community yard. Hard and soft landscape features may be included in a common courtyard, such as lawn, groundcover, trees, shrubs, patios, benches, or gazebos. Pedestrian paths must be included as part of a common courtyard. The definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition, but omits the second and third sentences.These sentences were included instead in the use-specific standards for common courtyards within a cottage cluster, as they can be more appropriately described as standards for a common courtyard than a definition. //// Detached A horizontal separation of three ft. or more, between the subject structure and nearby structures. The separation shall be from eave to eave, or where there are no eaves,the separation shall be measured between the closest elements (excluding breezeways no more than eight ft. in width measured from eave to eave, air conditioning units, heat pumps, and similar attached or connected fixtures to the structure) of the two structures. (If the distance of separation is less than three ft. between two structures,they shall be deemed to be "attached.") //// Development Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real property, including, but not limited to, construction, installation or alteration of a building or other structure, change of use, land division, establishment or termination of a right of access, storage on the land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of soil, paving, dredging, filling, excavation, drilling operations or removal of trees. Development Permit Written authorization for a development to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this Code. Development Site The total area of parcel(s) or lot(s) prior to a development action, such as a partition or subdivision, or other development activity. //// Driveway LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 110/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 A vehicular accessway that has, as its primary purpose,the provision of a driveable connection between a structure or parking area on a lot and connecting to the shared access easement, access lane, private street, or public street system. "Driveway" may include parking pads, turnaround areas, and parking lot aisles. Driveway Approach That portion of the driveway that is situated in the public right-of-way. Driveway Grade The ratio of the change in elevation to the change in horizontal distance traveled, measured along the steepest ten-ft. increment along the centerline of the traveled way. Grades are expressed in percent. //// Duplex A single detached building on its own lot designed to cc\ntn two dwelling units.Two attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 8 [G]: Modify the definition of"duplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "duplex" as "two attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel," and specifies that cities must include a similar definition. In order to comply with the minimum compliance provisions, the definition above is consistent with the Division 46 definition. Dwelling Attached Townhome Two or more attached single family dwelling vnits4 with ach unit located on its own let,thwr;ng side by side common wall(s), with no dwslRng initsth2ring common horizcnt22-surfaces. The common wall chill consist of a structural well thct k-& ed-for c le 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit. An attached townhome is also called a rowhouse, townhouse, or a common wall house. Item 9.2 [G]: Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new"townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the Definition of Terms section. See Item 9.1 [G], above. //// Dwelling, Cottage Cluster A single detached dwelling within a cottage cluster, which. may be located on a ri i Ic lot or on individual lots. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 111/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 10 [G]: Add a definition for"dwelling, cottage cluster". Division 46 defines "cottage cluster" as"a grouping of no fewer than four detached dwelling units per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each that includes a common courtyard."The addition of a new definition for a cottage cluster dwelling allows for a distinction between a "cottage cluster" and a "cottage cluster dwelling," in order to allow code references to relate to either an entire cottage cluster development or an individual detached dwelling within a cottage cluster development. Dwelling, Live-Work A building that contains one or more commercial or office spaces on the first floor connected to residential units above or behind the commercial or office space, and the ownership of the building is not divided between the residential and commercial portions of the building. Dwelling, Multi-Family A building on one or more lots designed to contain three five or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units.The land underneath the structure is not divided into separate lots. "Multi-family dwelling" includes structures commonly called garden apartments, apartments and condominiums. Item 11 [G]: Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family"to exclude middle housing. Under the existing definition of"multi-family dwelling", the City considers a "building on one or more lots designed to contain three or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units"to be a multi-family dwelling. However, with the addition of middle housing types such as triplexes and quadplexes to the code, the existing definition of multi-family dwelling could result in confusion as to whether middle housing dwellings that contain three or more units (ie: a triplex or quadplex)would also be considered multi-family dwellings. In order to provide clarity and remove overlap,this amendment changes the definition of"multi-family dwelling"to a "building on one or more lots designed to contain five or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units."This amendment is necessary in order to clarify which standards will apply to newly-permitted middle housing types that contain more than three dwelling units. Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached A detached dwelling unit designed and used for that purpose, located on its own lot,that does not share walls with any other primary dwelling. Dwelling Unit LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 112/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating. [Cross-Reference: See also "Family" definition referring to occupancy of dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit.] Dwelling Unit,Accessory An accessory dwelling unit(ADU), either internal to, attached, or separate from a detached single-family dwelling unit and on the same lot as that dwelling.The following dwelling configurations shall constitute an ADU regardless of whether the occupants of the second dwelling unit are a part of the family of the occupants of the primary dwelling unit: a. An accessory structure that contains all of the elements of a dwelling unit within the accessory structure and the accessory structure complies with LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi; or b. A portion of the primary structure that contains the elements of an ADU pursuant to LOC 50.03.004.1.b.vi, and the other portion of the primary structure meets the definition of"dwelling unit," and the two portions are physically separated from each other so that the usual and customary use of the two portions of the structure is as separate dwelling units, not as a single, interconnected housekeeping unit. OweitingZer-e-ket—Line A building r;\lviding two dwelling units on two separate lotc4 cring a common wall, and uscd for ccsidonticl p rpoc& Item 12.4 [G]: Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, zero lot line"within the Definition of Terms section. See Item 12.1 [G], above. //// Facade All the wall planes of a structure as seen from the one side or view. For example,the front facade of a building would include all of the wall area that would be shown on the front elevation of the building plans. Family An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or associated by guardianship, conservatorship or a foster care relationship, or a group of not more than five persons not so related or associated living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit. [DRAFTING NOTE:this definition is the subject of the 2021 Code Updates, to eliminate the number and relationship requirements, only requiring that the persons live together as a single housekeeping unit.] LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 113/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 //// Floor Area The gross building floor area excluding: a. Attic (the unfinished space between the ceiling joists of the top story and the roof rafters); b. Vent shafts; c. Courtyards; d. Garages, except as modified in: i. The R-5 zone (LOC 50.04.001.2.d.i(1),for residential development); ii. The R-6 zone (LOC 50.04.001.2.d.i(1),for outright permitted residential development); iii. The R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones (LOC 50.04.001.1.d.i(1),for single family dwellings); e. Allowable projections per LOC 50.04.003.8.a, Projections from Buildings; f. Decks; g. Patios; h. Uncovered exit stairs; i. Uncovered, above-grade driveways; and j. Seasonal restaurant enclosures. Item 19.7 [D]: Clarify that the floor area standards for garages in the Definition of Floor Area apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. See Item 19.1 [G], above. This amendment is also necessary in order for area within the garage of a middle housing dwelling to be considered "floor area", per Planning Commission direction. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) The ratio of the floor area to the lot size.The greater the FAR,the greater the floor area relative to the size of the lot. For example, a building occupying one-fourth of the net site areas has a FAR of 0.25:1, or 0.25; adding a complete second floor to the same building increases the FAR to 0.50:1, or 0.5. //// Footprint LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 114/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 The polygon formed by(a)the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, and (b) any structure which is over 30 in. in height with or without exterior walls, but exclusive of vent shafts and courtyards.The footprint does not include the ground area under the eaves of the building or structure. Footprint, Cottage Cluster Dwelling The horizontal area as seen in plan view, measured from the outside of all surrounding exterior walls and supporting columns of a cottage cluster dwelling. It includes cottage cluster dwellings and any attached garages, as well as cantilevered portions of the dwelling on a second floor. It does not include detached garages or carports; accessory structures; trellises; patios; up to two feet of eaves; and areas of porches, decks, and balconies less than 30 inches above finished grade. Item 13 [G]: Add a definition for"cottage cluster dwelling footprint"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The Model Code includes the following definition of"building footprint": "Building footprint"means the horizontal area as seen in plan, measured from outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns. It includes dwellings and attached garages and carports. It does not include detached garages or carports, accessory structures, trellises, patios, and areas of porch, deck, and balcony less than 30 inches from finished grade, or cantilevered covers, porches or projections which do not have a post touching the ground or ramps and stairways required for access. The definition proposed above for a cottage cluster footprint is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with some minor edits to ensure consistency with other terms and language within the development code. //// Garage Opening The garage door, or in the case of a carport, the opening from which cars enter or exit the carport. Garage, Private A structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to tenants, employees or owners of the property for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by LOC Chapter 50 and are not open for use by the general public.A carport is a garage. Garage, Public A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles, and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons or clients which are required by this Code, provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as parking space(s)for the building or use. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 115/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Garage,Side-Loading A garage that meets the definition of a private garage but is located such that the garage doors, or in the case of carports,the vehicle access openings, face a minimum of 80°away from the street as shown below. STREET , Fii 'l. ,H-;-.;- it li :;::. .:: ios Y Y . , Y h. Y Y } Y L } , Y Y 1 Y Y Front-load leg g garage Side-loading garage Side-loading garage , , Y A side-loading garage has garage doors that face a minimum of 804 away from the street_ Garage Wall Area The garage wall area includes the entire area on the specified side of a structure between the ceiling, floor, and walls of the garage, including the garage door. //// Gross Building Floor Area The combined square footage area (measured from the exterior of the surrounding exterior wall framing) of a building or portions thereof of all stories of a building. Where a square footage limitation is imposed by this Code upon a building or structure,the method of measuring the square footage shall be presumed to be by"gross building floor area" unless otherwise stated. Group Care Home LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 116/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Any dwelling licensed under the authority of ORS 443.400 which provides residential care and training to five or fewer adults who are mentally or emotionally disturbed, developmentally disabled, alcohol or drug dependent persons, elderly, or physically disabled. "Residential care" means as defined in ORS 443.400. "Group care homes" are also known as "residential treatment home" and "residential training home" under ORS 442.400.Additional "family" members related to the five or fewer adults may reside in the dwelling, as part of a single housekeeping unit, e.g., persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or associated by guardianship, conservatorship, or a foster care relationship. Guest House An accessory structure of less than 400 sq. ft. with no cooking or kitchen facilities, used for occasional temporary lodging of persons, and for which no payment or compensation is given in whole or part for lodging or use of the guest house. //// Habitable "Habitable" means the portion of any building or structure used, or intended for use on a day-to-day basis, by people for residential purposes, or for purposes of conducting a commercial or industrial business, public use, or institutional use, or for purposes of a similar nature. //// Height of Building The vertical distance above a reference point measured to the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the highest point of the gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference points are determined as follows: a. If,for purposes of construction of a structure, an artificial elevation of the ground surface results: the elevation of any ground surface prior to construction at or within the exterior wall of the building. b. If,for purposes of construction of structure,there is an alteration or artificial lowering of the ground surface: the elevation of any ground surface after construction at or within the exterior wall of the building. See figure below, Measurement of Building Height. c. On Lots within the Flood Management Area: i. The elevation of any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface, except that if the structure elevates the ground surface to the minimum required for the purpose of raising the floor level above the base flood elevation consistent with LOC 50.05.011, Flood Management Area,then the reference point shall be the elevated ground surface. ii. Residential—Waterfront Cabanas (R-W)Zone: the Oswego Lake Surface Elevation. d. On Lots within a Subdivision,with or without a Planned Development Overlay: For the purposes of determining building height, ground surface shall mean the elevation of the: LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 117/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 i. Natural ground surface; or ii. Altered ground surface, as a result of the prior subdivision approval. Exception:The ground surface of a window well shall be deemed to be the same as the adjacent ground surface when the dimensions of the window well do not exceed three ft. by six ft. and the cumulative width of the window well(s) on a building facade does not exceed 40%. Measurement of Building Becht-Reference Point ELEVATED GROUND SURFACE FLAT LOT— 1U 14 1; *— UNALTERED GROUND f NATURAL GROUND ( 1t 11 1t AE SURFACE NATURAL GROUND SURFACE SLOPED LOT _-- LOWERED GROUND UNALTERED GROUND SURFACE SURFACE }( }( }( }( }( • BUILDING HEIGHT REFERENCE POINT //// Lake Oswego Style A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials exemplify this style (see photos and descriptions in LOC 50.11.001, Appendix A: Lake Oswego Style). Adherence to the "Lake Oswego Style" is not intended to require historical replication. Modern designs interpreting, quoting or utilizing the above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within the definition. //// Lot LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 118/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 A unit of land created in compliance with all legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot Area or Lot Size a. Non-Flag Lots:the gross square footage of the lot within the lot lines. b. Flag Lots: the area of a lot, defined by the lot lines, less the area of access easement or flagpole. Lot, Corner A lot abutting two intersecting streets; provided, that the streets do not intersect on an angle greater than 135°. Lot Coverage The ratio of A to B where A is the area of all permanent structures or portions thereof over 30 in. in height, but exclusive of: a. Vent shafts; b. Portions of eaves that extend two ft. or less from exterior walls of the building; c. Open-roofed courtyards; d. Flowerboxes not exceeding two ft. in depth and 110%of the width of the adjoining window/door; e. Decorative metal balconies, i.e.,wrought iron, not exceeding two ft. in depth and 110%of the width of the adjoining window/door; f. Arbor or trellises used as a support for climbing or hanging plants.The trellis may have side(s) or a roof which do not exceed 75%opacity, except if a trellis side is also a side of a building,then that side is not subject to the 75%opacity requirement; g. Boathouses; h. Fences and retaining walls; Other structures similar to the structures above, except boathouses; and B is the lot area or lot size. [Cross-Reference: Flag Lots—the access easement is deducted from "gross acreage." LOC 50.07.007.2.e.vi.] Lot Depth The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, except for a flag lot, which shall be measured from the midpoint at the front lot line of the flag area. Lot Frontage LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 119/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 That portion of a lot nearest a street. For the purpose of determining yard requirements, all sides of a lot abutting a street shall be considered frontage. Lot, Illegal A unit of land created in violation of one or more legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot, Interior A lot other than a corner lot, with frontage on only one street. Lot Line Boundary lines of a lot. Lot Line, Front In the case of an interior lot,the lot line separating the lot from the street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iv, 50.04.001.2.e.iii(4), 50.04.001.3.e.i, and Table 50.04.001-14, Note [10]. In the case of flag lots,the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 50.07.007.2.d.i. Lot Line, Front(Solar Access) A lot line abutting a street. For corner lots the front lot line is that with the narrowest frontage. When the lot line abutting a street is curved,the front lot line is the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag lot,the front lot line is the lot line that is most parallel to and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. Lot Line, Rear A lot line which is opposite the front lot line. A triangular lot and a through lot have no rear lot line:the frontage on each street of a through lot is a front lot line. For other irregularly shaped lots,the rear lot line is all lot lines that are most nearly opposite the front lot line. Illustration of lot line measurement follows: I cvL4, Iax; Lot • Lot = Lira Lot Lot .•a Lot V a Street • Irregular Lot Triangular Lot Lot Line, Side LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 120/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Any lot line not a front or rear lot line. Lot Line, Side Street On a corner lot,the lot line(s) abutting a street that is not the front lot line. Lot of Record A lot shown as part of a recorded subdivision, partition, or any lot described by metes and bounds in a recorded deed, record of survey or other appropriate document recorded with the County; except that no lot or parcel of land created without compliance with the subdivision or partition requirements in effect and applicable at the time of the lot creation shall be considered a lot of record. Lot, Platted A lot described and identified within a recorded subdivision or partition and remaining the same in size and shape as it was when the subdivision or partition was recorded. Lot, Steeply Sloped A "steeply sloped lot" is a lot with a slope of 20%or more,when measured from the lowest or highest front lot line, whichever results in the greater difference in grade,to the most distant point of the primary building footprint. Lot,Through; Double Frontage Lot A lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one street. Lot Width The width of the lot as measured at the front setback line. Major Development Development defined as major development in LOC 50.07.003.15.a, Major Development Classification. //// Middle Housing Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes, Cottage Clusters, and Townhouses in residential zones. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 121/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 14 [G]: Add a definition for"middle housing" to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "middle housing" as, "Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes, Cottage Clusters, and Townhouses."The definition proposed above for middle housing is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the addition of"in residential zones"to clarify that middle housing is only allowed in residential zones. Minor Development Development defined as minor development in LOC 50.07.003.14.a, Minor Development Classification. //// Owner Where used in relationship to real property, "owner" means the legal owner of record or easement holder, or,where there is a recorded land sales contract in effect,the purchaser under that contract.An act or omission to act by an agent of the owner are deemed to be the act or omission by the owner. //// Partition To divide an area or tract of land into two or three lots within a calendar year when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under common ownership at the beginning of such year. "Partition" does not include adjustments of lot lines by relocation of a common boundary where no additional lots are created, and the resulting lots satisfy the minimum lot size allowed by this Code, nor foreclosure proceedings or sales exempted by the definition of"partition" in ORS Chapter 92. a. Major Partition: A partition which includes the creation of a street. b. Minor Partition:A partition that does not include the creation of a street. //// Patio An impervious surface on the ground, excluding parking areas and pathways of five ft. or less in width, used for several purposes, including leisure, social gatherings, etc. //// Primary Use The predominant use to which the lot or building is or may be devoted and to which all other uses are accessory. Generally,the primary use is the use to which the majority of the site or building area is devoted, or if no use occupies a majority of the site or building area, then the use that occupies the largest area of the building or site.Accessory uses are ones that occupy a small portion of the site or LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 122/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 building area or exist primarily to serve occupants or residents engaged in uses that occupy a larger area of the building. Quadplex Four attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 15 [G]: Add a definition for"quadplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "quadplex" as, "four attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel."The definition for a quadplex proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the removal of the language "or parcel"for consistency with terms defined in the code. //// Residence, Primary A dwelling where a person lives most of the time. At a given time, a person does not have more than one primary residence. For purposes of determining whether a dwelling is a primary residence,the City may consider whether the dwelling is the legal residence of the person for purposes of voting, motor vehicle/driver licensing, income tax calculation,the time the person spent at the residence, and other such factors. //// Residential Care Housing A "residential care housing" facility houses and provides services for six or more persons who may have a range of physical and mental health problems, including chronic and debilitating conditions requiring assistance with daily activities.This term is synonymous with other terms such as "assisted living facilities," "group care facilities," and "adult care housing" used to describe housing which provides the range of services described below. Living units within residential care housing do not have cooking facilities.A range of services is provided including staff supervised meals, housekeeping and personal care, medication supervision, recreation, cultural, social activities and transportation. Residential care housing facilities may include housing for persons needing intermediate care.These are persons who do not require around-the-clock nursing, but who do need preventative care,therapies at levels less than continuous licensed nursing care or observation. Intermediate care emphasizes personal, social and emotional/mental health care, but involves the availability of 24-hour service with physicians and nurses in supervisory roles. Skilled nursing services, including convalescent care, may be provided as an accessory and subordinate use in conjunction with residential care facilities. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 123/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 The total allowed number of persons requiring skilled nursing care may be up to 25%of a residential care facility's total occupant capacity. Residential Mixed Use Development Development containing both residential and nonresidential uses on a single parcel, or parcels developed as a unified site, where the residential units comprise at least 33%of the floor area of the overall development.Typically, residential mixed use projects include a mix of residential and commercial uses. In residential mixed use development, the residential use may be provided in a separate building on the same site as a non-residential use or in the same building as a nonresidential use, often with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses located on upper floors. //// Setback Line The innermost line of any required yard or reserved area on a lot. //// Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under-floor space is more than six ft. above grade for more than 50%of the total perimeter or is more than 12 ft. above grade at any point, such basement or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. //// Street The entire width between the right-of-way lines of a local street, collector, or arterial capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property. //// Structure That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. If the structure is located across separate parcels or lots and the portions of the structure are separately owned,the "structure" shall be considered to be only that portion of the structure that is used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy that is occurring within the boundaries of the parcel or lot. For purposes of LOC 50.05.011, Flood Management Area, a "structure" means a walled and roofed building and a gas or liquid storage tank. Structure,Viable Existing LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 124/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 a. An existing structure that complies with LOC 50.05.004, Downtown Redevelopment Design District; b. A designated historic resource; or c. A structure that is not likely to be redeveloped due to use, size, recent construction or other similar factors (e.g., City Hall, Main Fire Station, Bank Building at northeast corner of 4th and A, building at northeast corner of 2nd and B). Subdivide To divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year,when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of such year. For the purpose of computing the number of lots created, each lot created shall be counted as a separate lot notwithstanding the fact they are held in common ownership. HU Townhouse A dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached dwelling units,where each unit is located on an individual lot and shares at least one common wall with an adiacent dwelling unit, with no dwelling units sharing common horizontal surfaces.The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at least 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit. A townhouse is also called a rowhouse, attached townhome, or a common-wall house. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 125/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 16 [G]: Add a new definition of"townhouse"to replace existing definition of"attached townhome dwelling". In order to align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46,the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts. The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." Division 46 defines "townhouse" as follows: ...a dwelling unit that is part of a row of two or more attached dwelling units, where each unit is located on an individual Lot or Parcel and shares at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. The existing definition of"attached townhome dwelling" in this code is as follows: Two or more attached single-family dwelling units, with each unit located on its own lot, sharing side-by-side common wall(s), with no dwelling units sharing common horizontal surfaces. The common wall shall consist of a structural wall that is shared for at least 25%of the length of the side of each dwelling unit.An attached townhome is also called a rowhouse, townhouse, or a common-wall house. The definition for a townhouse proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the addition of other language from the existing code definition of"attached townhome dwelling" to ensure that townhouse standards are applied as consistently as possible with the City's current practice. Townhouse Project One or more townhouse structures constructed, or proposed to be constructed,together with the development site where the land has been divided, or is proposed to be divided,to reflect the Townhouse property lines and the any commonly owned property. LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 126/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Item 17 [G]: Add a definition for"townhouse project"to align with state minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. City Council provided staff with direction to apply bulk and scale controls to the entire townhouse project, instead of individual lots, consistent with the definition of"townhouse project" in Division 46. See Item 10.1 [D], above. In order to fulfill this direction and align with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, the term "attached townhouse dwelling" has been removed from the list of allowed uses within residential districts.The definitions for"townhouse" and "townhouse project" will now apply to what were formerly referred to as "attached townhouse dwellings." Division 46 defines "townhouse project" as, "one or more townhouse structures constructed, or proposed to be constructed,together with the development site where the land has been divided, or is proposed to be divided, to reflect the Townhouse property lines and the any commonly owned property."The definition for a townhouse project proposed above is entirely consistent with the Division 46 definition. Traffic Evaluation A report or analysis, conducted by a qualified professional such as an architect, landscape architect, engineer, surveyor, as applicable,to examine the impact(s)to an aspect of the transportation system, i.e., determination of the location and configuration of an access, sight distance analysis, pedestrian crossing evaluation. Traffic Impact Study A report prepared by a professional engineer that assesses the impacts that a particular development's traffic will have on the transportation system in the defined study area and provides an analysis of a proposed transportation solution, if needed. //// Triplex Three attached dwelling units on a lot. Item 18 [G]: Add a definition for"triplex"to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Division 46 defines "triplex" as, "three attached dwelling units on a Lot or Parcel."The definition for a triplex proposed above is consistent with the Division 46 definition,with the removal of the language "or parcel"for consistency with terms defined in the code. //// LU 22-0007—Middle Housing Code Amendments Page 127/127 Attachment 2 -Ord. 2892 Planning Commission Recommended Version—5/9/22 Wall A structure which stands alone and which supports no load other than its own weight.The wall may have a solid vertical surface or may have an open pattern. Walls, Exterior Any wall or element of a wall, or group of members,which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building and which has a slope of 60°or greater with the horizontal plane. Wall, Retaining A structure of masonry, wood, stonework or other building material serving to support or protect an area. For the purpose of this Code, stabilized slopes 60°or greater in inclination shall be considered retaining walls. //// Yard An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this Code, on the lot on which a building is situated. Yard, Front A yard,the front of which is the front lot line measuring at right angles toward the building the required distance or to the front exterior wall of the building. Yard, Rear A yard, measured at right angles from the rear lot line toward the building, the required distance. Yard, Required The area of land and space between a lot line (or for lots with special street setbacks,the special street setback line if outside the right-of-way) and a setback line, whether the setback line is established by the terms of this Code or by an approval granted pursuant to this Code. Yard,Side A yard, measured at right angles from the side lot line toward the building,the required distance. [Cross-References: Old Town styles: See LOC 50.05.006.2, Definitions of Old Town Styles; Village Character: See LOC 50.05.004.4, Definition of Village Character.] APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 22-0007—2024 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7 PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE MIDDLE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER 8 HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF OREGON HOUSE 9 BILL 2001 AND ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2892. 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 The City of Lake Oswego is requesting approval of legislative amendments (Ordinance 2892)to the Lake 14 Oswego Community Development Code (CDC)for the purpose of complying with Oregon House Bill 15 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow"middle housing"—including duplexes, triplexes, 16 quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family 17 dwellings. Proposed amendments are to: 18 19 LOC 50.01.006.4 Damage and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures 20 LOC 50.01.006.5 Nonconforming Lots 21 LOC 50.02.001 Residential Districts 22 Table 50.03.002-1 Residential Districts Use Table 23 LOC 50.03.003.1 Use-Specific Standards for Residential—Permitted Uses 24 LOC 50.03.003.4 Conditional Use Standards for Group and Institutional Housing 25 LOC 50.03.003.5 Standards for Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses 26 Table 50.04.001-1 Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table 27 LOC 50.04.001.1.d Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 28 LOC 50.04.001.1.e Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 29 LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Maximum Lot Coverage Standards for Residential Low-Density Zones 30 LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Additional Height Standards for Low-Density Residential Zones 31 Table 50.04.001-3 Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table 32 LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones 33 LOC 50.04.001.2.e Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential Medium-Density Zones 34 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i R-5 Lot Coverage Standards 35 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards 36 Table 50.04.001-5 R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table 37 LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards 38 LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone 39 LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone 40 LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 41 LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 42 Table 50.04.001-9 R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table 43 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii R-DD Lot Coverage Standards 44 LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3) R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions 45 LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Additional Height Standards for Residential High-Density Zones 46 Table 50.04.001-11 Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table 47 Figure 50.04.001-11[5] Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Table 50.04.001-12 R-2 Lot Coverage Table 2 Table 50.04.001-13 R-2 Yard Setbacks Table 3 LOC 50.04.004.1 Exemptions from Solar Design Standard 4 LOC 50.05.001.5 Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District Plantings and Buffering 5 LOC 50.05.004.13 Downtown Redevelopment Design District Clear and Objective Standards 6 LOC 50.05.006.4 Old Town Neighborhood Design Overlay District—Required Old Town Style 7 LOC 50.05.006.9 Old Town Neighborhood Design Overlay District—Additional Requirements for 8 Townhouse, Rowhouse, and Multiple-Family Dwellings 9 LOC 50.05.007.3 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District—Applicability 10 LOC 50.05.010.4.c Density Transfer for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 11 LOC 50.05.010.4.g Mitigation Standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 12 LOC 50.05.010.6 Standards Applicable to Resource Protection Districts 13 Table 50.06.001-1 Building Design Standards Applicability Table 14 LOC 50.06.001.2.a Applicability Standards for Structure Design—Residential Zones 15 LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i Roof Design Standards in the R-6 Zone 16 LOC 50.06.001.3.b Front Porch Standards in the R-6 Zone 17 LOC 50.06.001.3.c Alley Surfacing Standards in the R-6 Zone 18 LOC 50.06.001.4 Garage Appearance and Location 19 Table 50.06.002-3 Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements 20 LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi Parking Dimensions 21 LOC 50.06.003.1.d Standards for Access Lanes 22 LOC 50.06.003.2 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 23 LOC 50.06.003.3 On-Site Circulation—Bikeways,Walkway, and Accessways 24 LOC 50.06.003.4 Street Connectivity 25 LOC 50.06.003.5 Transit System 26 LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii Site Design—Standards for Installation and Construction 27 LOC 50.06.007.1.b Solar Access 28 LOC 50.07.003.13 Ministerial Development Decisions 29 LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 30 LOC 50.08.002.2 Minor Variance Classifications 31 LOC 50.08.003.2.a R-DD Design Variance Classifications 32 LOC 50.10.003 Definition of Terms 33 34 HEARINGS 35 36 The Planning Commission (Commission) held a public hearing and considered this application at its 37 meeting on April 11, 2022.The following information was presented to the Commission at its hearing 38 and added to the record: 39 G-001 S-Clark, dated 3/9/2022 40 G-002 R-Mullen, dated 3/28/2022 41 G-003 B-Miles, dated 4/10/2022 42 G-004 R-Ervin, dated 4/11/2022 43 G-005 S-Labhard, dated 4/11/2022 44 G-006 C-Miller, dated 4/11/2022 45 G-007 C-Ockert, First Addition Neighbors—Forest Hills, dated 4/11/2022 46 47 LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 2 3 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies: 4 Land Use Planning 5 Policies A-1, A-2,A-3,A-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, C-1, C-3, and C-5 6 7 Community Culture 8 Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 9 Historic Preservation Policy 3 10 11 Inspiring Spaces and Places 12 Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 13 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) 14 15 Complete Neighborhoods& Housing 16 Policies A-2, A-3,A-4, B-1 and C-7 17 18 Connected Community 19 Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 20 21 Community Health and Public Safety 22 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10 23 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 and 9 24 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 and 3 25 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 and 6 26 Sound Quality Policies 1 and 5 27 28 Evergreen Neighborhood Plan 29 Land Use: Residential Goal, Policies 1 and 2 30 31 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan 32 Housing, Land Use, and Neighborhood Character Goals 1 and 2, Policies 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 33 34 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan 35 Land Use Planning Policies 3, 4, and 10 36 Housing Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4 37 38 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan 39 Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 3 and 4 40 41 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan 42 Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 1, 2, 3, 6 43 44 Old Town Neighborhood Plan 45 Goals 1, 2 3 and 5; Policies 1, 3 and 8 46 47 LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Palisades Neighborhood Plan 2 Land Use Policies 2, 3 and 4 3 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan 5 Land Use Planning Policy 2 6 Housing Goals 1 and 3, Policy 4 7 8 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code [Chapter 501 9 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof 10 LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing 11 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 12 LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval 13 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 14 LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) 15 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, 16 and CDC Amendments to be processed via Major Developments 17 Procedures) 18 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 19 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 20 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 21 22 CONCLUSION 23 24 The Planning Commission concludes that the Public Hearing Review Draft of the Code Amendments in 25 Attachment 2 (dated 03/07/21) of proposed Ordinance 2892 are in compliance with all applicable 26 criteria with the exception of Design and Dimensional Standard Item#1 (cottage clusters), and Item#20 27 (front porch standards in the R-6 Zone), discussed below. 28 29 FINDINGS AND REASONS 30 31 The Planning Commission incorporates: Exhibit D-1 (Staff Report dated, 03/07/22, with all exhibits 32 attached thereto), Exhibit D-2 (Supplemental Staff Memo dated 04/01/22, with all exhibits attached 33 thereto), supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any 34 inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein and the staff reports, the matter herein 35 controls. 36 37 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 38 39 1. Design and Dimensional Standard Item#1- Maximum Number of Cottages per Lot.After the 40 date of the Public Hearing,the Commission received staff advice (based on staff communication 41 from DLCD staff) clarifying that provisions to establish a maximum number of cottages on a lot 42 would be compliant with Division 46 (Exhibit F-2): 43 A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish 44 through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard(at least 45 eight)and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively, this could result in as few 46 as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot... LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 4 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 General Item#6 included provisions stipulating that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum 2 of five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance 3 requirements. However,the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 2 (dated 4 03/07/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892 were silent on the number of cottage clusters or 5 common courtyards permitted on each lot. A limitation on the number of cottage clusters on a 6 lot is appropriate to be stated in the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1), and per 7 staff/DLCD guidance, also in the Design and Dimensional Standards Item #1,which contains use- 8 specific standards for cottage clusters, to limit the number of courtyards (and hence the number 9 of cottage clusters) per lot. 10 11 The Commission has identified that Development (Community Development Code), Policies A- 12 1(b) and A-6 are applicable to this issue: 13 14 Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to:... b. Promote compatibility 15 between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; 16 17 Policy A-6:Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake 18 Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and 19 services. 20 21 Commission Finding: Compliance with the Land Use Planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan 22 is discussed on pages 18-22 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff 23 Report that all new or modified design standards proposed in the code amendments are 24 intended to ensure middle housing will be as compatible as possible with existing neighborhood 25 character without causing unreasonable cost or delay in developing middle housing.These 26 include dimensional and design standards for cottage clusters intended to maintain consistency 27 with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. 28 29 The Commission finds that adding a maximum restriction of eight cottages, or one cottage 30 cluster, per lot would further ensure that cottage cluster developments are consistent with 31 existing neighborhood character. If the code did not specify a maximum number of cottage 32 clusters per lot, larger lots could potentially contain multiple cottage clusters. As an example, if a 33 larger acreage lot could be able to feasibly fit three cottage clusters, each centered around a 34 separate common courtyard, that could accommodate the development of 15 to 24 cottage 35 dwelling units on a single lot (depending on the size and physical constraints of the site).The 36 Commission finds that developments of this scale require more review than a typical ministerial 37 decision, as the development could begin to resemble a "miniature subdivision" without 38 requiring a land division to be approved through a minor development process. 39 40 The Commission notes that the guidance from DLCD includes language specifying that the City 41 can establish a maximum number of cottages per lot through the indirect mechanism of 42 establishing a maximum number of cottages per courtyard in combination with a maximum 43 number of common courtyards per lot (Exhibit F-2).The Commission finds it is appropriate to 44 implement a maximum number of cottages per lot through the establishment of a maximum 45 number of common courtyards per lot(in combination with the proposed maximum number of 46 eight cottages per cottage cluster).The Commission also finds that for the public's and staff's 47 awareness of the "one cottage cluster with one courtyard" maximum, and thus for proper LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 5 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 implementation the DLCD's suggested indirect mechanism,this should also be stated directly in 2 the Residential Use Table. 3 4 The Commission finds that a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot would be most responsive 5 to the Council directive to develop code amendments that comply with the minimum 6 compliance provisions of Division 46 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, 7 neighborhood character, and livability. Based on the direction from DLCD,the City could 8 accomplish such a limitation through a provision that specifies a maximum of one common 9 courtyard per lot. 10 11 Additionally,the Commission finds that establishing a maximum of one cottage cluster per lot 12 allows the City to better promote compatibility between development and existing and desired 13 neighborhood character; Policy A-1 is met. 14 15 The Commission also concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that that the amendments do 16 not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services 17 within the USB. Policy A-6 is met. 18 19 Accordingly,the Residential Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1) and the use-specific standards for 20 cottage clusters in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i(1) [Design and Dimensional Standard Item #1] are 21 modified per the Planning Commission Recommended Version of the code amendments in 22 Attachment 2 (dated 05/09/22) of proposed Ordinance 2892. 23 24 2. Design and Dimensional Standard Item#20—R-6 Zone Front Porch Standards [LOC 25 50.06.001.3.b].The Commission received oral testimony from Carole Ockert (Exhibit G-007) on 26 behalf of the First Addition Neighbors—Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FH). Ms. 27 Ockert's testimony contended that the proposed code language to modify front porch design 28 standards in the R-6 Zone to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, as required under 29 Division 46, did not maintain the original intent of those standards to prohibit large obstructions 30 from being located within the required front porch (Exhibit G-007). 31 32 Design and Dimensional Standard Item #20 includes a modification of the existing R-6 Zone 33 requirement that a covered front porch be provided at "the main entry" to a requirement that a 34 covered front porch be provided at "an entry", as it would no longer be possible to identify a 35 "main entry"for a structure with multiple dwellings and multiple entries—such as a duplex or 36 triplex. Ms. Ockert noted that, because the proposed amendment would no longer require a 37 covered front porch at the "main entry", and because it is unlikely that a "main entry"would be 38 obstructed from the street,the proposed amendment could inadvertently incentivize 39 obstructed front porches to be built along a narrow street on corner lots—where a main entry 40 could also be located along a wide avenue frontage. Ms. Ockert showed an example of a single- 41 family dwelling in the R-6 Zone with front porch containing an outdoor fireplace that obstructed 42 the main entry. The testimony did not identify any applicable Comprehensive Plan policy 43 contrary to the proposed amendment. 44 45 Ms. Ockert proposed language to address this concern that would require that front porches in 46 the R-6 Zone be unobstructed on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage, 47 with an exception provided for railings. Code amendment language proposed by FAN-FH also LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 6 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 suggested that a maximum railing height be established of, "up to 3 ft. in height... or the State 2 mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." 3 4 Commission Finding:The Commission finds that large obstructions located within the front 5 porch can have a detrimental impact on neighborhood character.The existing front porch 6 standards in the R-6 Zone were adopted to maintain First Addition's traditional streetscape by 7 requiring sheltered main entries oriented towards the narrow/ numbered streets.The 8 Commission finds that this intent can be maintained, while still complying with state 9 requirements that design standards not scale by the number of dwelling units, by adding 10 language to the standard that more directly addresses front porch structural elements. 11 12 Though the issue of front porches containing a fireplace or other structural element that 13 obstructs it from view along the narrow street frontages in the R-6 Zone was a concern when 14 the standards were originally adopted,there is no language within the existing front porch 15 standards that explicitly addresses these obstructions. While the cumulative result of the 16 existing standards may indirectly disincentivize obstructions located within the front porch, the 17 Commission finds that the code should instead include language that directly prevents front 18 porch structural elements from obstructing a dwelling's main entrance. 19 20 With respect to the issue of railing height, the Commission notes that there are minimum railing 21 (or"guardrail") heights established in the building code that may conflict with a maximum 22 railing height of 3 feet. For example, railings required under the residential building code are 23 subject to a minimum height of 36 inches; residential structures containing home-based 24 businesses that allow customers to visit are regulated under the commercial building code, 25 where required guardrails are subject to a minimum height of 42 inches.The Commission finds 26 that a maximum railing height should provide builders with some flexibility to design railings 27 without mandating a specific height, and a maximum railing height can be established that is a 28 few inches higher than the minimum 42-inch railing height required for residential structures 29 containing home-based businesses that allow customers to visit. Given that building code 30 standards are subject to change, the Commission finds that this code section should reference 31 the building code itself while establishing the maximum height for railings in the R-6 front porch 32 standards at 44 inches, or the minimum height required under the building code,whichever is 33 greater. 34 35 The Commission finds that the language in LOC 50.06.001.3.b [Design and Dimensional Standard 36 Item#20] shall be modified per Attachment 2 (dated 04/18/21) of proposed Ordinance 2892. 37 38 3. Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis(HNA)and Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) Findings. 39 In March 2013,the City Council adopted the City of Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) 40 and Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI).Those documents project the following baseline housing 41 needs through the year 2035: 42 LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 7 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Table 10. Summary of Growth Forecast 2010 2035 2010 -2035 Average Units Annual Estimate Projection Change Change Population 43,094 51,000 8,006 320 City Forecast 19,166 22,726 3,560 142 Households Metro Forecast — 19,556 23,299 3,743 150 1 Households 2 3 The projected 3,560 new net housing units breaks down by housing type as follows: 4 Table 20. Residential Dwelling Capacity and Projected Housing Demand,Lake Oswego USB,2010 to 2035 Dwelling Unit Capacity and Demand Potential Land Need in by Potential Net Buildable Land Area in Acres Forecast Year 2035 New Dwell lings Needed to Redevel- Meet Pop. Potential Potential opment: Potential Forecast& Dwelling Likely Residential Redevel- Mixed- Dwelling Attain- Unit Residential Land Part opment: Use Unit abiltiy Surplus by Land Need Surplus or Land Use Vacant Vacant R Zones Zones Total Capacity Levels 2035 by 2035 (Deficit)by Classifications (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Acres (dwellings) (dwellings) (dwellings) (acres) 2035(acres) Low Density (primarily large lot 5FD in 9-7.5, 69.2 502.7 - - 571.9 1,545 783 863 272.1 299.8 R-10,R-15 zones) Medium Density (primarily small 5.5 30.6 104.3 - 140.4 1,017 456 561 62.9 77.5 lot SID in R-3, R-5 zones) High Density (primarily MF in RO, 9-2,R-2.5, 2.6 5.6 22.6 80.9 111.9 2,400 2,321 79 108.2 3.7 GC,NC/RU, 00/R3,EC,HC, CR&D,EC/SO, DC zones) Total 77.3 538.9 127.1 80.9 824.2 5,063 3,560 1,503 443.3 380.9 5 6 7 Adoption of the proposed code amendments will simplify the process to obtain permits for 8 medium-density housing types such as triplexes, quadplexes,townhouses, and cottage clusters. 9 Currently,these housing types require a land use application and review process that entails 10 additional time and cost in order to receive permits;this process will no longer be required for 11 middle housing under the proposed ordinance.As compared to larger, multi-family residential 12 developments, which require significant capital investment and specialized financing, the 13 ordinance encourages middle housing types that in some cases can be constructed by residents 14 without specialized development experience or large capital assets, such as the conversion of a 15 single-family dwelling to a duplex.The simplified permitting process proposed in the draft code 16 amendments is expected to incentivize the development of some middle housing that may 17 otherwise not be built. LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 8 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 2 As shown in the table above,the HNA projects that, out of the projected 3,560 new net housing 3 units needed, 456 medium-density units were needed within Lake Oswego over the 2010—2035 4 analysis period; based on this figure, approximately 237 new medium-density units were 5 projected to be needed over the next 13 years(by 2035). However, because the actual number 6 of medium-density(small lot single-family, duplex, and townhome) units produced during the 7 preceding 12 years was less than projected, the code amendments could play a small but 8 important role in helping the City attain this needed housing. 9 10 Although the HNA identified surplus land zoned for low-and medium-density dwelling units 11 over the 2010—2035 planning period (with the exception of the R-3 Zone), as noted above,this 12 land was not zoned for middle housing.The proposed code amendments will enable the 13 development of middle housing on lands where they were previously prohibited, which will 14 increase the capacity of lands to accommodate identified housing needs. ORS 197.296(6)(b), as 15 amended by House Bill 2001, allows jurisdictions to assume up to a three percent increase in 16 zoned residential dwelling unit capacity as a result of implementing the bill. Using this 17 assumption, and based on a current estimated dwelling unit capacity of 529 low-density units 18 and 292 medium-density units (13 years or 37%of the forecast'), the proposed code 19 amendments are expected to result in an increase of approximately 42 dwelling units by 2035 in 20 areas currently zoned for low-and medium-density residential use. 21 Finally, given their smaller building footprints and less land-intensive requirements,the middle 22 housing types that will be permitted through this ordinance have a higher likelihood of being 23 constructed on partially developed parcels than larger and denser multi-family developments. 24 25 Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the amendments continue 26 compliance of the HNA and BLI and that the OAR 660, Division 7 Metropolitan Housing 27 requirements are met. 28 29 4. Minimum Footprint for Cottages in a Cottage Cluster.The Commission received written 30 testimony arguing that the City should set a minimum footprint size for cottages in a cottage 31 cluster in order to ensure that there is sufficient space on the ground floor of a cottage to meet 32 the needs of people with ambulatory limitations(Exhibit G-004 and G-006).The testimony noted 33 that the code currently permits accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with 800 sq. ft. of floor area 34 (not footprint), and suggests that the City establish a minimum footprint of 800 sq.ft. for 35 cottages within a cottage cluster (Exhibit G-004 and G-006). (The proposed code amendments 36 also include a maximum footprint limitation of 900 sq. ft.for cottages within a cottage cluster.) 37 The testimony did not identify any applicable Comprehensive Plan policy. 38 39 Following the date of the Hearing, staff received written confirmation from DLCD staff that the 40 City is not prohibited from applying a minimum footprint standard under Division 46 (Exhibit F- 41 2). State minimum requirements outlined in OAR 660-046-0220(4)(e) also allow cities to 42 establish a minimum floor area for cottages within a cottage cluster. 43 This is an estimate only. The City will be updating its Housing Needs Analysis as required by House Bill 2003 (2019)in the year 2023. LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 9 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 2 the testimony of persons if they do not do so and no plan policy or other basis for establishing a 3 minimum footprint size for cottages within a cottage cluster was cited to the Commission. 4 5 If any such policy were applicable, which the Commission has not been cited,the Commission 6 would find that establishing a minimum cottage footprint standard is not an appropriate 7 strategy to ensure that cottages within a cottage cluster are sufficiently accessible to people 8 with ambulatory limitations.The testimony notes that the issue of cottage size was discussed 9 during the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) process, including consideration 10 of accessibility and whether the code should specify that more square footage be located on the 11 ground floor of cottage cluster units when possible (Exhibit F-4). However, footprint is not the 12 same as floor area. Footprint includes all structures with a height of 30 inches above grade or 13 greater, including decks,where floor area is enclosed space.The Commission is not aware of 14 research or evidence identifying the optimal amount of ground-floor living space to ensure 15 accessibility of a dwelling unit, and there are a wide variety of design features to ensure that 16 residential buildings are accessible to people with ambulatory limitations or other distinct 17 needs. (The Commission notes that, while building permit applications for triplexes, quadplexes, 18 and three-to four-unit townhouse structures will be subject to Americans with Disabilities Act 19 (ADA) requirements under the building code, detached cottage cluster units and duplexes will 20 not be subject to ADA requirements.) 21 22 The Commission notes that non-land use measures may be a more effective way for the City to 23 promote the development of units that are accessible to people with disabilities or ambulatory 24 limitations, including financial incentives, as opposed to zoning regulations.This finding is also 25 consistent with the MHCAC's recommendation to provide financial incentives for middle 26 housing projects that meet certain accessibility standards. 27 28 The Commission finds that the code amendments establishing a maximum footprint size of 900 29 sq.ft. for cottages within a cottage cluster(LOC 50.03.003.1.d.i) are appropriate and does not 30 recommend that a minimum footprint regulation be established for cottages within a cottage 31 cluster. 32 33 5. Density and Neighborhood Character.The Commission received written testimony concerning 34 the potential for increased density to detract from existing neighborhood character in Lake 35 Oswego (Exhibits G-001 and G-002). Although the testimony did not cite any Comprehensive 36 Plan policy,the Commission assumes the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies that were 37 intended to be addressed were Development(Community Development Code), Policies A-1(b) 38 and A-6: 39 40 Policy A-1:Maintain land use regulations and standards to:... b. Promote compatibility 41 between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; 42 43 Policy A-6:Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake 44 Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and 45 services. 46 47 Commission Finding: Compliance with the Land Use Planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan 48 is discussed on pages 18-22 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 10 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Report that all new or modified design standards proposed in the code amendments are 2 intended to ensure middle housing will be as compatible as possible with existing neighborhood 3 character without causing unreasonable cost or delay in developing middle housing. The 4 amendments include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages that will apply to 5 both middle housing and single-family dwellings,to better address the potential increased visual 6 prominence of front-facing garages and driveways that could accompany increased density. 7 They also include dimensional and design standards for a land use not previously allowed, 8 cottage clusters,to maintain consistency with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood 9 character, and livability. Policy A-1 is met. 10 11 The Commission also concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that that the amendments do 12 not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services 13 within the USB. Policy A-6 is met. 14 15 6. Tree Removal.The Commission received written testimony regarding the potential for middle 16 housing to increase tree removal and decrease tree canopy coverage (Exhibit G-001).The 17 testimony did not cite any specific criteria or provide any facts. 18 19 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 20 the testimony of persons if they do not do so. In this case, based upon Exhibit D-1,the 21 Commission assumes that the testimony is directed to Land Use Planning- Development Review 22 Policy B-10(g) (preserve trees and plant new trees to provide summer cooling), Complete 23 Neighborhoods and Housing Policy A-3 (promote compatibility between different residential 24 densities and other land uses through tree preservation), and Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan 25 Housing/ Residential Land Use Policy 6(d) (ensure new development contributes to the positive 26 design character of the Lake Grove neighborhood through tree preservation). 27 28 Compliance with Land Use Planning- Development Review Policy B-10(g) is discussed on page 29 21 of Exhibit D-1, compliance with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policy A-3 is discussed 30 on page 28 of Exhibit D-1, and compliance with Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housing/ 31 Residential Land Use Policy 6(d) is discussed on page 40 of Exhibit D-1.The Commission concurs 32 with the findings in Exhibit D-1 and finds these policies are met. 33 34 7. Property Values.Written testimony was received regarding the potential for middle housing to 35 decrease property values (Exhibits G-002 and G-005).The testimony did not identify specific 36 criteria or provide any facts. 37 38 Commission Finding:The Commission is not required to identify the specific criteria relevant to 39 the testimony of persons if they do not do so. In this case, based upon Exhibit D-1,the 40 Commission assumes that the testimony is directed to the following policies: 41 42 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan—Housing, Land Use, 43 Neighborhood Character Policy 1: To the maximum extent feasible, single family housing 44 shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Special attention 45 should be given to insuring that adjacent higher density housing, if developed, will not 46 adversely affect neighborhood single family development. 47 LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 11 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 Compliance with First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan—Housing, Land 2 Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 1 is discussed on pages 34-35 of Exhibit D-1.The 3 Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that the proposed amendments 4 permitting middle housing outright in all residential zones may conflict with this First Addition 5 policy as it applies to the neighborhood's R-6 zone, however this policy is applied "to the 6 maximum extent feasible" and state law, including Division 46, is one of the factors determining 7 that "maximum extent feasible." Some single-family dwellings may be replaced with middle 8 housing as property values continue to increase. As allowed by Division 46,the proposed 9 amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional, parking, and building 10 design requirements,for middle housing that are consistent with the standards that apply to 11 single-family development, which ensures middle housing will not adversely affect 12 neighborhood single-family development.Therefore, this policy is met. 13 14 Old Town Neighborhood Plan—Residential Land Use Policy 15 3. Generally, and in accordance with the policies of this plan, Old Town shall become 16 higher density land use. However, existing neighborhood character shall be preserved as 17 much as possible. (a):... single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to 18 preserve its amenities and value. Where higher density land use is developed, special 19 attention should be given to insuring that it will not adversely affect neighboring single- 20 family development. 21 22 Compliance with Old Town Neighborhood Plan—Residential Land Use Policy 3(a) is discussed on 23 pages 40-41 of Exhibit D-1.The policy's preservation of existing neighborhood character is "as 24 much as possible." Similar to the above finding, the possibility of preserving neighborhood 25 character must take into account compliance with state law, including Division 46. The 26 Commission concurs with the findings in the Staff Report that the proposed amendments are 27 not contrary to the above policy. 28 29 ORDER 30 31 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 32 33 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2892, with Attachment 2, dated 34 May 9, 2022 [LU 22-0007] be approved by the City Council (which includes changes outlined in the 35 Supplemental Staff Memo and newly-proposed modifications to R-6 Zone front porch standards 36 and definition of cottage cluster). 37 38 LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 12 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 1 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 2 Lake Oswego. 3 4 DATED this 9th day of May, 2022. 5 6 7 Robert Heape 8 Robert Heape, Chair 9 Planning Commission 10 11 12 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION -April 11, 2022 13 14 AYES: Buchanan, Leek, Phillips, Stewart, Heape, Rigby 15 NOES: None 16 ABSTAIN: None 17 EXCUSED: Pape 18 19 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER- May 9, 2022 20 21 AYES: Buchanan, Leek, Pape, Stewart, Heape, Rigby 22 NOES: None 23 ABSTAIN: None 24 EXCUSED: Phillips LU 22-0007-2024 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 13 OF 13 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 { ` ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes ` maw April 11 , 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chamber, at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Robert Heape, and Commissioners Rex Buchanan, Helen Leek, Don Phillips, Miles Rigby*, and Philip Stewart. Vice Chair Christian Pape was excused. Council liaison Jackie Manz was not present. Staff present were Scot Siegel, Community Development Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Erik Olson, Senior Planner; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. Also present was Jamin Kimmel*, with Cascadia Partners. *Participated remotely 3. COUNCIL UPDATE None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Beniamin Hendricks discussed problems and solutions for creating a safe •untry Club Road. Chair Heape indicated he would forward Mr. Hendricks' concerns to th- appropriate departmental staff. Greg Aarons summarized additional thoughts over the issue '-ised by Mr. Hendricks. Chair Heape stated he would forward these concerns, as well. 5. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ( ) — GENERAL UPDATES Chair Heape made the following announce .-nts: • The Uplands Neighborhood Ass. cation General Membership meeting was scheduled for April 21, 2022 • The Glenmorrie Neighbo ood Association Annual "Ivy Pull and Cleanup" was scheduled for May 1 122. 6. FINDINGS, CONCL : ONS AND ORDER 6.1 Community Dew opment Code Amendment to Table 50.04.002-1 Special Street Setback (LU 22- 0004) On M 28, 2022, the Planning Commission made a preliminary recommendation that the City Co cil approve the proposed amendment and directed staff to return with the draft Findings, onclusions and Order. Staff coordinator was Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Commissioner Buchanan moved to approve the Findinas. Conclusions or LU 22- 0004, as written. Commissioner Leek seconded till. met ,,, dna it passed 6:0. Commissioner Stewart shared that he w, apt-iri-aliriaance during the last meeting, but he had reviewed the 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Community Development Code Amendments Related to Middle Housing (LU 22-0007) A request from the City of Lake Oswego to amend LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to comply with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing"— including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters — in areas that permit detached single-family dwellings. Staff coordinator was Erik Olson, Senior Planner. Chair Heape opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. At the time of declarations, there were no financial conflicts of interest reported. Staff Report Mr. Olson provided background and an overview of the proposed amendments: PROCESS a. Phase 1 Progress This began in late 2019 when the City Council directed staff to monitor the State's rule- making process related to Middle Housing and House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), resulting in monthly written and oral reports to the Planning Commission (Commission). Division 46 requirements were adopted by the State approximately one year later. Consultants from Cascadia Partners were then brought on board to assist with the analyses of neighborhood conditions and patterns, and to perform an audit of the Code to outline the amendments needed for compliance with the Bill. The findings and alternatives were presented in May 2021 and discussed thereafter. b. Phase 2 Progress Early in the summer of 2021, the City Council appointed an ad hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC). This committee met six times and submitted a document to the City Council, referred to as the "MHCAC Key Issues and Summary Memo," which included recommendations on a variety of topics. The City Council then directed staff to prepare code amendments based on the MHCAC recommendations which were required to be adopted by the State's June 2022 deadline. A community forum was also held in December 2021. Most recently, the Commission held four work sessions to discuss remaining policy questions related to the proposed code amendments. The recommendations received from the Commission were presented by staff to the City Council on February 15, 2022. The Code Amendments Draft was released to the public on March 7, 2022, along with a staff memo outlining new modifications. The latest community forum was held on March 22, 2022. An additional public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for May 17, 2022. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS a. Definitions • Add "Middle Housing" definition to align with Division 46 requirements. • Separate Triplexes, Quadplexes, and other middle housing types from Multi-Family housing in residential zones where Division 46 applies. • Add definitions for Cottage Clusters (new definitions of Cottage Cluster, Cottage Cluster Dwelling, Common Courtyard, and Cottage Cluster Footprint added to align with state requirements). • Add definitions for Townhouse and Townhouse Project (use these new terms to replace other similar terminology in the code, such as "Attached Townhouse Dwelling" and "Zero Lot-Line Dwelling"). b. Applicability, Uses, Locations, and Density • Allow middle housing types in all residential zones where required (all residential zones that begin with "R" not being in a mixed-use area). • Update purpose statements to include middle housing. • Remove references to single-family zones. • Covenants, conditions, and/or restrictions adopted prior to January 1, 2020 remain enforceable; however, HB 2001 prohibits Homeowners Associations (HOAs) or other parties from adopting new provisions that prohibit middle housing development on or after January 1, 2020. • Table 3. Analysis of Use Regulations modifications were described. • Duplex construction permitted on nonconforming lots, as required by Division 46 (other middle housing types must still meet underlying siting standards; i.e., minimum lot size, lot width, building setbacks, et cetera). • Lots for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters must be larger than what is required for single-family houses in the R-3, R-W, R-DD, R-5, and R-6 Districts (Triplex: 6,000 square foot minimum lot size; Quadplex: 7,000 square foot minimum lot size; Cottage Cluster: 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). • Middle housing, other than townhouses, will be exempted from maximum density provisions. • For townhouses, the maximum density is 4-times the density for single-family dwellings in that zone. • Minimum density of four (4) units per acre established for cottage clusters. • Density limitations that apply on a per-dwelling basis were removed. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 3 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 c. Review Procedures New middle housing development (in residential zones only) to be classified as a ministerial decision, except: Townhouses require a land division, which is still considered minor development, but design review of townhome buildings will no longer be required in residential zones. In the R-DD Zone, all development (including single-family and middle housing dwellings) will still be minor development; and variances will continue to require minor development review (minor variance standards, and design variance standards in the R-DD Zone, were modified to apply to single-family residences and middle housing equally). d. Conversions and Additions • Middle housing, created through the conversion of a single-family dwelling, is exempted from building design standards. • For additions to a single-family dwelling that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards "shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced portion(s) of the structure." • Regulates non-conforming development for middle housing and single-family dwellings equally. e. Design and Dimensional Standards • Existing bulk and massing standards (or"dimensional" standards) for single-family housing will be applied to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects (i.e., minimum setbacks, maximum floor area, lot coverage, height; and side and rear setback planes). • Height exceptions allowed for buildings that provide wider setbacks, and different setback standards apply to steeply-sloped lots. • Existing design standards for single-family housing will also be applied to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses (i.e., Side Yard Appearance and Screening; Long Wall Planes; Solar Access; On-Site Circulation; Street Connectivity; Transit; Overlay-specific Design Standards; and R-6 Zone-specific Design Standards). • Proposed amendments go beyond minimum compliance to enhance existing single- family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways for middle housing. • Existing driveway standards for single-family dwellings will be applied to duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. • On lots with less than 75 feet of frontage, only one driveway will be allowed for both single- family and middle housing developments: Intended to maintain consistency with single-family housing; will result in more widely spaced driveways, which may reduce paving, grading, and tree removal; reduces the number of access points to the street; and encourages more of the front yard to remain unpaved and landscaped. • Existing standards permit one driveway per lot for townhouses. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 4 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 • Staff proposed modifications to these standards intended to mitigate potential negative impacts of townhouse development: Limit the width of driveways on smaller lots to reduce excess paving that is not consistent with neighborhood character; and driveways that are wider than their associated garage opening will now be prohibited. • Existing garage appearance and location standards will apply to all middle housing. • Staff proposed the following modifications to standards intended to minimize the visual prominence of garages: require garage recessing (at least 2 feet) behind the main façade or behind a porch, for garages occupying 30% or more of the width of the façade; and allow exceptions to increase the width of the garage to 75% only for lots that are narrower than 50 feet. • Scale design standards based on the width of the garage relative to the façade. • Garages shall comply with a minimum number of the following appearance standards: provide individual garage doors for each parking stall; provide separate garage openings offset from one another by at least two feet horizontally; provide windows on each garage door; Provide a decorative trellis, pergola, or other feature giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed; provide a covered porch that occupies at least 25% of the combined façade of the dwelling and garage; and provide a patio with a surrounding screening wall at a height of four (4) feet, located between the front of the house, the garage, and the public right-of-way. • The proposal is to adopt the standards of the DLCD Model Code that apply to cottage cluster housing, which include that: a cottage cluster will have 5 to 8 cottages oriented around a common courtyard; the footprint of each cottage (the size of the first story) must be 900 square feet or less; cottage clusters are exempt from lot coverage standards; 10-foot minimum setback required on all sides and 10-foot minimum separation required between buildings; parking lots must be screened from view from the street; and the common courtyard must be landscaped and have walkways. • Proposed code amendments apply maximum floor area requirements to individual cottages within a cluster: in the R-7.5, R-6, R-5, R-DD, R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W Zones, the average floor area of individual cottages within a cottage cluster may not exceed 1,000 square feet; in the R-10 and R-15 Zones, the average floor area of individual cottages within a cottage cluster may not exceed 1,200 square feet. The intention is to replicate the maximum floor area permitted for single-family dwellings and other middle housing types, to the fullest extent possible, while still maintaining compliance with Division 46 requirements. f. Parking and Access • Per Division 46 requirements, a minimum of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit will be required for all middle housing types: there is no cap on the number of spaces that may be provided; required parking spaces do not have to be located within a garage or carport; and parking space dimensions currently required for detached single-family dwellings will also be required for middle housing. • Access lanes currently allow housing to be built in areas that do not have frontage on a public street as an exception to street frontage requirements. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 5 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 • Per Division 46, duplexes must be permitted the same exceptions to public works requirements as detached single-family residences. Therefore, duplexes must now be permitted on flag lots served by access lanes in order to comply with Division 46 requirements. • Additionally, on-lane parking spaces located on the access lane must be counted towards minimum parking requirements to comply with Division 46 maximum/minimum parking standard. g. Overlay Districts • Clarify that design standards for detached single-family dwellings in applicable overlay districts will now apply to middle housing (impervious surface limitations will remain effective, though cottage clusters will be subject to use-specific impervious surface standards that only apply impervious surface limits to the common courtyard). • Modify the following standards not to scale by the number of dwelling units, as required under Division 46: front entry design standards in the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District, and front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone. • Detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to be treated the same for the purposes of alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone. • Per Division 46, duplex development will be allowed within the Resource Protection (RP) District— because the code currently allows detached single-family development within RP Districts, duplex development must also be allowed, and triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters, not already allowed by the zone, will continue to not be permitted within RP Districts). • Duplexes will be allowed on sites otherwise encumbered by an RP District. • Density transfer provisions and mitigation planting standards within the RP District will also be extended to duplexes. RELATED POLICIES NOT WITHIN SCOPE a. Expedited Middle Housing Land Divisions • Under Senate Bill 458, the City must allow expedited land divisions for middle housing to enable each dwelling unit to be owned and sold individually (the "Parent lot" must comply with applicable middle housing land use regulations, not resulting in more than one dwelling unit per each resulting lot or parcel; structures must comply with all relevant building code requirements (i.e., firewalls); and separate utilities must be provided for each resulting middle housing unit/lot, including easements required for utilities, common areas, parking, and driveways). • There will be no reference to Senate Bill 458 or expedited land divisions for middle housing within the code itself(the City will defer to ORS 197.360197.380 directly when processing expedited middle housing land division applications). b. Public Improvement Standards • Changing the classification of certain types of housing from minor development to ministerial development impacts requirements that development provide public City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 6 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 improvements to mitigate the impacts of their approved development (there is currently no opportunity for the City to require mitigations or offsetting public improvements for ministerial development). • The City is working to develop new clear and objective public improvement standards for ministerial applications to mitigate impacts of development (will differ from the City's current minor development process, which requires a case-by-case, rough proportionality analysis, and these standards will be newly-applicable to single-family dwellings and middle housing). c. Demolitions and Non-Conforming Structures • The City Council is reviewing the definition of demolition in the Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) to better address significant structural removal. • Policies related to the continuation of non-conforming development are under review. d. Affordability and accessibility • One goal of HB 2001 is to create more housing that is affordable to families with low or moderate incomes. • Middle housing also has potential to create housing that is accessible to people with disabilities and seniors; however, new middle housing is unlikely to be affordable to lower income families in Lake Oswego or accessible without subsidy or assistance. • Programs and policies to encourage the construction of deed-restricted affordable housing and housing with accessibility features that exceed the ADA requirements will be explored in the City's upcoming work to comply with House Bill 2003 — Housing Needs Analysis update slated for 2023, and Housing Production Strategy (as required under HB 2003) slated for 2024. Questions of Staff Commissioner Rigby asked for further details regarding infrastructure development to mitigate the impacts of development into ministerial decisions, as that sounded as if a checklist would be used. Mr. Boone confirmed that a checklist would be used, following current processes, and applied by the Engineering Department, as the current Conditioning Authority; however, mitigation would be set at the time of the building permit application. Chair Heape inquired whether staff looked at a minimum footprint requirement in cottage cluster development, as was previously discussed. Mr. Olson stated that staff did look at this and was not sure if it could be included, though a minimum floor area could be set under Division 46; adding that there was no way to dictate that more floor area be provided on the ground floor per Division 46 requirements. Mr. Siegel reminded members that this topic was considered during previous work sessions by the Commission, when accessibility was being discussed. Chair Heape noted that the public raised the issue of a 900-square-foot footprint; asking that clarification be provided during public testimony. Public Testimony Carole Ockert shared a slide presentation; recommending that a revision be made regarding the covered front porch requirements in the R-6 Zone (found only in the First Addition Neighborhood). She noted that this revision would still allow for multiple entries for middle City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 7 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 housing and for covered patios with fireplaces on the side entrance, but would not require that the "main entrance" be off of the front porch. Ms. Ockert laid out the specific draft code wording as follows: "The covered front porch must be open and unobstructed/unobscured on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage. A railing may be provided up to three (3) feet in height as measured from the finished floor of the covered front porch or the State mandated railing height for that project, whichever is higher." Commissioner Leek asked about language in the code requiring that the front porch be on the long side of the lot, when on a corner. Ms. Ockert replied that the front porch must be on the narrow side of the lot, but the main entrance may be on the long side of the lot. Commissioner Leek stated that she was asking about the code outside of the First Addition Neighborhood. Mr. Olson indicated that this was inadvertently allowed for when the standards were updated; adding that staff had adjusted the language so that the side porches could no longer count toward the requirement of a front porch being on the narrow street frontage. Chair Heape summarized the concerns received in emails from various citizens as follows: the potential impacts that the denser housing would have on the tree canopy; community experience and potential lower property values; individual cottages in cottage clusters requiring a minimum footprint of 800 square feet; and insufficient space to meet the needs of persons with ambulatory limitations on the ground floor of an individual cottage in a cottage cluster. He opined that the issues over ADA compatibility were outside the scope of minimal implementation of the model code, and that there would be more work to be done when the Commission addressed HB 2003. Chair Heape closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. Deliberations Commissioner Stewart asked for confirmation that the covered front porch must face the narrow street frontage. Mr. Olson confirmed this. Chair Heape asked if staff had any feedback regarding Ms. Ockert's recommendation. Mr. Olson replied that staff did not discuss the specific language and it was not included in the supplemental staff memo because it seemed to be beyond the scope of what they were tasked with for middle housing; however, this may be a suitable time to address what was intended in the amendment from 2015. Chair Heape then asked if they were looking at the front porch standards because Division 46 had concerns about limiting the ability to scale. Mr. Olson agreed that they could not require a front porch for every single entrance because that would be scaling by the number of dwelling units; adding that staff simplified the language to comply with middle housing. Mr. Olson also agreed with Chair Heap's opinion that the wording in Ms. Ockert's proposal would be acceptable modifications. Commissioner Buchanan asked Ms. Ockert if having the fireplace off to the side on the front porch was acceptable. Ms. Ockert answered that the code allowed for as little as 50% of the front of the structure to contain the front porch and the intent was to have nothing else obstructing the front; adding that fireplaces along the sides or in the back would be acceptable. Mr. Siegel recommended taking a straw poll for adding recommended wording by Ms. Ockert, and if members were supportive, then staff would review the wording for legal sufficiency and prepare an amendment consistent with the Commission's intent. In the straw poll, all members voted to approve Ms. Ockert's recommendation to add wording for front porch standards. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 8 OF 9 APPROVED: 05/09/2022 Commissioner Stewart recommended reducing the maximum width of the garage door to 16- feet. Mr. Olson noted that the maximum width of 20-feet applied only to cottage cluster. Commissioner Stewart rescinded that recommendation. Commissioner Stewart moved to approve LU 22-0007, with an addition of accepting Carole Ockert's recommendation for changes to front porch standards in the R-6 zone, following a staff review for legal compliance. Commissioner Leek seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on April 25, 2022. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Heape asked if there were any nominees to serve on the Neighborhood • .ncement Grant Award Committee. Commissioner Leek nominated Commissioner B , anan. Commissioner Buchanan respectively declined. Chair Heape nomin. : Commissioner Phillips. Commissioner Phillips accepted the nomination. Chair Heape moved to appoint Commissioner Phillips t• _-rve on the Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Award Committee as the PlaaPtitS Commission Representative. Commissioner Buchanan seconded the mo and it passed 6:0. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW Mr. Siegel reviewed th edule forecast. Action Ite . • tour of demolition/non-conforming development sites was scheduled for May 23, 2022. All members indicated that they would be available at 2:00 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Heape adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission April 11, 2022 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 9 OF 9 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 22-0007, Ordinance 2892 LOCATION STAFF Citywide Erik Olson, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE. March 7, 2022 April 11, 2022 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Consistent with the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability," the City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of compliance with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing —including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1. The proposed amendments include provisions that: GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS(LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add middle housing development in the purpose statements located within the following sections: 1. R-7.5, R-10, R-15 (Residential High Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.a 2. R-5, R-6, R-DD (Residential Medium Density) Zones; LOC 50.02.001.b 3. R-0, [R-2], R-3, R-W (Residential High-Density) Zones. LOC 50.02.001.c 2. Allow for the development of middle housing types in Table 50.03.002-1 applicable residential districts within the Residential Districts Use Table, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 1 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify LOC 50.03.003.4.i(3) that the conditional use standards for group and institutional housing will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 4. Remove the reference to "single-family zones" and clarify LOC 50.03.003.5.h.i that the use-specific standards for public, institutional, and civic uses will apply to all zones where the uses are allowed. 5. Add a definition of"cottage cluster", to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. 6. Specify that cottage clusters are subject to a minimum of LOC 50.10.003.2 five and a maximum of eight dwelling units, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 7. Add a definition for "common courtyard" for cottage cluster LOC 50.10.003.2 developments. 8. Modify the definition of"duplex" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. (Maintains existing requirement that duplexes are two attached dwellings.) 9. Remove the existing definition of"dwelling, attached townhouse" and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions within the following sections: Table 50.03.002-1 1. Residential Districts Use Table LOC 50.10.003.2 2. Definition of Terms 10. Add a definition for "dwelling, cottage cluster". LOC 50.10.003.2 11. Revise the definition of"dwelling, multi-family" to be for LOC 50.10.003.2 developments of five or more attached dwelling units on a lot, to distinguish from middle housing. 12. Remove the existing definition and other code references to "dwelling, zero lot line", and refer instead to the new "townhouse" and "townhouse project" definitions, within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; Table 50.03.002-1 2. Ministerial Development Classification; LOC 50.07.003.13.a 3. Definition of Terms. LOC 50.10.003.2 13. Add a definition for "cottage cluster dwelling footprint" to LOC 50.10.003.2 align with state minimum compliance requirements. 14. Add a definition for "middle housing" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 2 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 GENERAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03, 50.07, 50.08, 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 15. Add a definition for "quadplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 16. Add a new definition of "townhouse" to replace existing LOC 50.10.003.2 definition of"attached townhome dwelling", in alignment with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Add a definition for "townhouse project" to align with state LOC 50.10.003.2 minimum compliance requirements, and to allow townhouse standards to be applied to the entire site prior to a land division. 18. Add a definition for "triplex" to align with state minimum LOC 50.10.003.2 compliance requirements. 19. Modify minor variance standards to apply to single-family LOC 50.08.002.2.a; residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state 50.08.002.2.b; minimum compliance requirements. 50.08.002.2.d; 50.08.002.2.g 20. Modify design variance standards in the R-DD Zone to apply LOC 50.08.003.2.a to single-family residences and middle housing equally, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 1. Residential Districts Use Table; and Table 50.03.002-1 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d 2. Exempt duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density standards, and clarify that the maximum density for townhouse projects is four dwelling units per lot, for lots that comply with minimum lot area standards for townhouse projects, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 3 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 4. Remove density limitations related to minimum lot dimension standards that apply on a per-dwelling basis from the following sections, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Residential Low Density Zones - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.1.b 2. R-5 Zone - Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.2.b.i 3. Residential High-Density Zones— Purpose; LOC 50.01.001.3.b 4. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 5. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 6. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 5. Apply height exceptions for wider setbacks equally to detached single-family dwellings and middle housing to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Height Standards for Low-Density LOC 50.04.001.1.g.i Residential Zones; 3. Additional Height Standards in the R-5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.i(4) 4. Additional Height Standards in the R-DD Zone; LOC 50.04.001.2.g.iv(2) 5. Additional Height Standards for Residential High- LOC 50.04.001.3.f.iv(1) Density Zones. 6. Add minimum setback standards for cottage clusters and clarify minimum setback standards for other middle housing types to align with state minimum compliance requirements within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. R-5 Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.i(1) 3. R-6 Zone Minimum Yard Setbacks Table; Table 50.04.001-5 4. R-DD Zone Yard Setback Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iii(3) 5. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-11 6. R-2 Yard Setbacks Table. Table 50.04.001-13 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 4 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 7. Exempt cottage clusters from maximum floor area standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Residential Medium-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 3. Residential High-Density Zones Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 8. Add maximum average floor area standards for individual units within a cottage cluster as follows: 1. 1,200 square feet per unit in the R-10 and R-15 LOC 50.04.001.1.d Zones; 2. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-7.5 Zone; LOC 50.04.001.1.d 3. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-6, R-5 and R-DD LOC 50.04.001.2.d.iv Zones; 4. 1,000 square feet per unit in the R-0, R-2 and R-3 LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iii Zones. 9. Add building separation standards for cottage clusters, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.e Low-Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Medium-Density Zones; and 3. Additional Yard Setback Standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.3.e.v High-Density Zones. 10. Apply maximum floor area standards for townhouses to the entire site as allowed by state middle housing requirements, rather than individual townhouse lots, by referencing the term "townhouse project" within the following sections: 1. Residential Low-Density Zones Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-1 2. Additional Floor Area Standards for Residential Low- LOC 50.04.001.1.d Density Districts; 3. Residential Medium-Density Dimensions Table; Table 50.04.001-3 4. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 5. Additional Lot Area and Floor Area Standards for LOC 50.04.001.3.c.iv Residential High-Density Zones. 11. Apply standards for setbacks on steeply sloped lots equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.e.iii Low-Density Zones; 2. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.2.e.iv Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 5 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) Medium-Density Zones; 3. Additional Yard Setback standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.3.e.iv High-Density Zones. 12. Clarify maximum lot coverage standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects, and exempt cottage clusters from maximum lot coverage standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in the following sections: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage standards for Residential LOC 50.04.001.1.f.i Low-Density Zones; 2. R-5 Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.i 3. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii 4. R-DD Maximum Lot Coverage Table; Table 50.04.001-9 5. R-DD Lot Coverage Standards; LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(4) 6. R-2 Lot Coverage Table; and Table 50.04.001-12 7. R-0, R-2, and R-3 Zone Exemptions. LOC 50.04.001.3.d.ii(3); 50.04.001.3.d.ii(4) 13. Clarify maximum impervious surface standards for duplexes, LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(2) triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouse projects in the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 14. Clarify which maximum impervious surface standards apply LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(3) to cottage clusters by cross-referencing the use-specific standards for cottage clusters within the R-DD Lot Coverage Standards. 15. Increase the maximum height from the Oswego Lake Surface elevation from 24 ft. to 25 ft. within the following sections to comply with state minimum requirements: 1. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table; and Table 50.04.001-11 2. Height Measurement for R-W Zoned Lots figure. Figure 50.04.001-11[5] 16. Eliminate references to single-family zones in the solar LOC 50.04.004.b adjustments standards related to off-site shade, consistent with state minimum compliance requirements. 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; and Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Applicability standards for Structure Design — LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i Residential Zones. 18. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing LOC 50.06.001.2.a single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 6 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) 19. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Roof Design standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.3.a.i 2. On-Site Circulation — Bikeways, Walkway, and LOC 50.06.003.3.a Accessways; 3. Street Connectivity; LOC 50.06.003.4.a.iii 4. Transit System; LOC 50.06.003.5.a 5. Site Design - Standards for Installation and LOC 50.06.004.1.c.iii Construction; 6. Solar Access; LOC 50.06.007.1.b 7. Definition of Floor Area. LOC 50.10.003.2 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not LOC 50.06.001.3.b scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 22. Clarify that the following standards apply equally to detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, in applicable zones: 1. Garage appearance and location standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.i 2. Driveway width limitations; LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(a); 3. Driveway grade standards. 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(b) LOC 50.06.003.2.b.iii(1); 50.06.003.2.b.iii(3) 23. Modify the following garage standards to scale based on the width of the garage relative to the facade: 1. Garage setback standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(1) 2. Garage width standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(2) 3. Garage appearance standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iv(3) 4. Garage window standards; LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii 5. Garage location standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.ii(2) 6. Garage window standards in the R-6 Zone; LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iii Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 7 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.04, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 7. Garage setback standards in the R-6 Zone; and LOC 50.06.001.4.b.iv 8. Garage appearance standards in the R-6 Zone. LOC 50.06.001.4.b.v 24. Apply garage appearance and location standards to parcels LOC 50.06.001.4.a.iii of less than 50 feet in width. 25. Modify general off-street parking requirements to permit Table 50.06.002-3 one space per unit for middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 26. Modify parking dimension standards to apply equally to LOC 50.06.002.2.a.vi(2) single-family and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 27. Specify that on-lane parking spaces located on an access LOC 50.06.003.1.d.iii lane may be used to meet minimum parking requirements for middle housing on flag lots served by the access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 28. Limit the width of driveways on lots less than 50 ft. in width LOC to no wider than the associated garage opening. 50.06.003.2.b.i(5)(d) 29. Apply the exception from the hard pavement requirement LOC 50.06.003.2.c.vi(2) for driveways equally to duplexes and single-family residences, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 30. Specify that access lanes are permitted to serve two to three lots, consistent with other definitions of"access lane" in the code, and remove the existing limitation on the number of dwelling units that can be served by an access lane, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Standards for Access Lanes; and LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii 2. Standards for Approval of Development Which LOC 50.06.003.4.c.v Requires the Construction of a Street. 31. Specify that duplexes may be permitted on flag lots served LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii by an access lane, but not other middle housing types, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. 33. Clarify that the garage wall facing street standard does not LOC 50.06.001.4.a.ii apply to garage walls containing the garage opening, as these are now addressed within the new garage appearance and location standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 8 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Exempt middle housing created through conversions or additions LOC 50.05.001.5a.ii to a single-family dwelling in the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay from the requirement to submit a Plantings and Buffering plan, in order to treat single-family and middle housing equally, as required for state minimum compliance. 2. Clarify that the Downtown Redevelopment Design (DRD) District LOC 50.05.004.13.b Clear and Objective Standards may be applied equally to any new dwelling—including detached single-family dwellings and middle housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that the following design standards within the Old Town Neighborhood Design (R-DD) Overlay District apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Window standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(f)(iii) 2. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) 3. Massing/Composition standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(b) 4. Window standards for the Cape Cod Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.ii(2)(f)(ii) 5. Building Height standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(a) 6. Massing/Composition standards for the Craftsman Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(b) 7. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style; and LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 8. Required design elements for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(j) 4. Modify the following standards within the Old Town Overlay to no longer scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 1. Front Entry standards for the Early 1900 Vernacular Style; LOC 50.05.006.4.b.i(2)(h) and 2. Front Entry standards for the Craftsman Style. LOC 50.05.006.4.b.iii(2)(h) 5. Clarify that the design standards specific to multi-family LOC 50.05.006.9; dwellings in the Old Town Overlay are not applicable to middle 50.05.006.9.a; housing, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.05.006.9.b; 6. Clarify that design standards apply to both detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.i(1); and middle housing dwellings equally in the Lake Grove Village 50.05.007.3.c.ii(5) Center Overlay (LGVCO). 7. Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single- LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. 8. Limit the applicability of density transfer provisions in the LOC 50.05.010.4.c.iii Sensitive Lands Overlay to single-family dwellings and duplexes. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 9 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 9. Modify the bonding period standards for the Sensitive Lands LOC 50.05.010.4.g.ix(4) Overlay District to apply equally to both detached single-family and middle housing dwellings. 10. Allow for duplex development within the Resource Protection LOC 50.05.010.6.a.iii (RP) District, but not other middle housing types. 11. Allow for duplex development on sites otherwise encumbered LOC 50.05.010.6.d.i by an RP District, but not other middle housing types. REVIEW PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.06 & 50.07) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; Table 50.06.001-1; 2. Ministerial Development Classification; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1); 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3); 3. Review Criteria for Ministerial Development. LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii(8) 2. Clarify that duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (middle housing) where allowed in the following districts are not classified as ministerial development: 1. Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use Districts; and LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(h) 2. Special Purpose Districts. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(g) 3. Clarify that minor development procedures will apply equally to LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(a); single-family residences and middle housing in the R-DD Zone, to 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2); align with state minimum compliance requirements. 50.07.003.14.a.ii(5); 4. Clarify that conversions from detached single-family to middle LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1)(b) housing are classified as ministerial development in the R-DD Zone, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.05, 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Specify that provisions related to the damage and reconstruction LOC 50.01.006.4 of nonconforming structures also apply to middle housing. 2. Revise provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex LOC 50.01.006.5.a construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. 3. Clarify that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 10 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 apply only to the newly-added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted, within the following sections: 1. LGVCO Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(7) Improvements standards; and 2. Residential Zones Structure Design Applicability standards. LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iv 4. Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single- LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, C-1, C-3, and C-5 Community Culture Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 Historic Preservation Policy 3 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Policies A-2, A-3, A-4, B-1 and C-7 Connected Community Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 Community Health and Public Safety Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 and 9 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 and 3 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 and 6 Sound Quality Policies 1 and 5 Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Land Use: Residential Goal, Policies 1 and 2 First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Housing, Land Use, and Neighborhood Character Goals 1 and 2, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policies 3, 4, and 10 Housing Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 11 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Housing/ Residential Land Use Policies 3 and 4 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housing/Residential Land Use Policies 1, 2, 3, 6 Old Town Neighborhood Plan Goals 1, 2 3 and 5 Policies 1, 3 and 8 Palisades Neighborhood Plan Land Use Policies 2, 3 and 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2 Housing Goals 1 and 3, Policy 4 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof LOC 50.07.003.3.c Notice of Public Hearing LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, and CDC Amendments to be processed via Major Developments Procedures) LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision C. Metro Code Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 7: Housing Choice [MC 3.07.730] D. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) OAR 660-12-0060(1) E. LCDC Administrative Rules 660-046 House Bill 2001 Rules 660-046-0030 Implementation of Middle Housing Ordinances III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2019 the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 2001 (HB 2001) , which requires cities over 25,000 in population to allow the development of"middle housing"— including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and cottage clusters—within zones that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 12 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Consistent with the City Council goal to, "Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change", and the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability," the Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to prepare amendments to the Community Development Code (code) to meet the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46). House Bill 2001 HB 2001 is a landmark legislation with significant implications for residential zoning and development in Lake Oswego. Throughout 2020, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) led three rulemaking efforts to help cities comply with the requirements of HB 2001. This work included the creation of model codes, establishing compliance standards, and a process and criteria for the evaluation of city plans to address infrastructure needs. On December 9, 2020, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the implementing rules for HB 2001 (Division 46), which outline the "minimum compliance standards" large cities—including the City of Lake Oswego—must apply to middle housing to comply with HB 2001. They also adopted a Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code to guide the development of all middle housing types in large-sized cities. Large cities may choose to regulate middle housing using the Large Cities Middle Housing Model Code, the minimum compliance standards, or a combination of the two. Under Division 46, a city may also adopt alternative siting or design standards other than those authorized by the Oregon Administrative Rules, under certain conditions. (OAR 660-046-0235). It is important to note that siting and design standards do not include minimum lot or parcel size and maximum density requirements. If a city is interested in proposing an alternative siting or design standard, they must submit to DLCD findings and analysis demonstrating that the proposed standard(s) will not, individually or cumulatively, cause unreasonable cost or delay to the development of middle housing. To so demonstrate to DLCD, a city must consider how a standard or standards, individually and cumulatively, affect the following factors in comparison to what is would otherwise be required under the Oregon Administrative Rules for siting and design standards: a. The total time and cost of construction, including design, labor, and materials; b. The total cost of land; c. The availability and acquisition of land, including areas with existing development; d. The total time and cost of permitting and fees required to make land suitable for development; e. The cumulative livable floor area that can be produced; and f. The proportionality of cumulative time and cost imposed by the proposed standard(s) in relationship to the public need or interest the standard(s) fulfill. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 13 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 The Council and Planning Commission discussed this section in regards to multiple different standards but did not support pursuing alternative siting or design standards under this option. Approach and Public Involvement In late 2019, City Council requested that staff monitor the State of Oregon's rulemaking process regarding the implementation of HB 2001. Staff went on to track numerous meetings of the Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) and other technical advisory committees established by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff provided monthly written and oral reports to the Planning Commission on the state's rulemaking progress and key issues related to the bill. On December 9, 2020, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted the implementing rules for HB 2001 (Division 46), which provide the roadmap for local governments' compliance with HB 2001. Following the adoption of these rules, the Planning Commission hosted several presentations in order to learn directly from professionals who were involved in the development of HB 2001 or have specific expertise related to middle housing. This included presentations from: • DLCD staff, on the Division 46 rules; • A representative of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon on the social dimensions of middle housing policy; • A representative of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and a local builder, on the development of duplexes and townhomes in Lake Oswego; and • City Engineer Erica Rooney, on infrastructure planning for middle housing and the state's Infrastructure-Based Time Extension Request (IBTER) process. Phase One: Information Gathering and Research During this time period, City staff and a consultant team led by Cascadia Partners engaged in the first phase of middle housing implementation work, which was primarily oriented around research and information gathering. The process was publicly initiated through a "kickoff meeting" in January 2020 to inform neighborhood association chairs of engagement opportunities available during the first phase of work. All City-recognized neighborhood associations were invited to participate. These engagement opportunities included Neighborhood Character Interviews that were coordinated with representatives from 17 different neighborhood associations, as well as a Neighborhood Character Survey that received 880 responses reflecting input from residents of all 28 Lake Oswego neighborhoods. The results of this work provided a rich source information that allowed City staff to better understand the physical characteristics that residents value the most in their respective neighborhoods. These results are summarized and reflected in the Neighborhood Character Report document produced by Cascadia Partners, which includes a qualitative analysis of the development patterns, character and architectural history of Lake Oswego neighborhoods based on extensive research and analysis. Other phase one work products by Cascadia Partners included: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 14 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 • Neighborhood Conditions Analysis—a quantitative analysis of existing neighborhood conditions in Lake Oswego; • Plan and Code Audit Memo—identification of Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code sections that must be updated for compliance with HB 2001; and • Middle Housing Opportunities Report— recommendation of concepts and alternatives for amending the Comprehensive Plan and CDC for middle housing, consistent with HB 2001. These reports and other background documents are available on the project web page referenced at the end of this Council Report. The Council and the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff and consultant Jamin Kimmel, project manager with Cascadia Partners, at their joint study session on May 18, 2021. This presentation covered the initial findings as outlined in the phase one work products, and proposed a process for using that information to develop code amendments in compliance with HB 2001 that achieve the Council goal. This presentation was followed by two Planning Commission work sessions on May 24 and June 14, 2021, where the Commission reviewed the phase one findings and refined a work plan for phase two based on Council direction. Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee At their meeting on June 15, 2021, the Council formally appointed the Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) to provide high-level policy guidance to the Planning Commission for the development of draft code amendments to comply with HB 2001. The Committee was comprised of a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests. The MHCAC conducted six meetings between July and October 2021; materials distributed in advance of each meeting were also distributed to members of the public, and are accessible on the City website. Invitations to each meeting were also made available to members of the public, and recordings of each meeting were posted to the City's YouTube page. During these meetings, MHCAC members considered code concepts related to the following key issues outlined in the MHCAC Key Issues & Work Plan: 1. Preservation of existing residential structures; 2. Scale and character of new middle housing; 3. Runoff and stormwater impacts of middle housing; and 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing. MHCAC members were provided with a series of memos— referred to as "Key Issue Memos" — which contained summaries of the above issues and lists of relevant questions for the group to consider. Polling was conducted by staff at MHCAC meetings in an attempt to reach an agreement on the questions raised in the Key Issue memos; each memo has since been updated to include polling results and a summary of the MHCAC's discussion on each question or code concept. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 15 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 At a joint study session on November 16, 2021, the Council and Planning Commission received a presentation from staff, MHCAC Chair Randy Arthur, and MHCAC Co-Chair Lisa Strader covering the MHCAC process and recommendations. At this meeting, the Council directed staff (with Planning Commission and public input) to prepare code amendments for the MHCAC code amendment recommendations that are required to be adopted by the state-mandated deadline of June 30, 2022. Phase Two: Code Development and Refinement In early December 2021, the City hosted a virtual Community Forum in order to provide information on the City's approach to middle housing and to allow for public input before drafting recommended code changes. This effort included launching an accompanying StoryMap and Survey that was made available to the public until the end of 2021. More recently, the Planning Commission held four work sessions to discuss remaining policy questions related to proposed code amendments necessary for compliance with House Bill 2001. The first of these work sessions, held on December 13, 2021, focused on an initial package of code amendments prescribed by the state where there is little to no flexibility for the adoption of other types of standards. The work session held on January 10, 2022, included a detailed discussion of the options available to the City related to the adoption of design and dimensional standards for duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses. At their work session on January 24, 2022, the Planning Commission discussed options available to the City related to design and dimensional standards for cottage clusters. The work session on February 14, 2022, was focused on development review processes for middle housing. Code amendment recommendations developed by staff under the guidance of the Planning Commission were then presented to City Council at their meeting on February 15, 2022. Per the above-stated Council initiative, the proposed middle housing code amendments have been drafted to comply with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 while maintaining consistency with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On March 30, 2022, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by changes that "amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." In addition to complying with the requirements of House Bill 2001 by Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 16 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 allowing middle housing in any zone that permits attached single-family dwellings, the proposed amendments also prohibit telecommunications facilities from being located on parcels containing existing triplexes or quadplexes (LOC 50.03.002— Standards for Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses), apply Garage Appearance and Location standards to parcels with a width of less than 50 ft. (LOC 50.06.001— Building Design), and modify garage appearance and location standards in residential zones— including window/fenestration, setbacks, and other garage appearance requirements -to apply differently based on the width of the garage relative to the facade. (LOC 50.06.001— Building Design) The notice was mailed to property owners within all of the City's residential zones. C. DLCD and Metro Notices Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and LOC 50.003.07.16.c, staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff notified Metro as required by Metro Code 3.07.820(a). V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. CLASSIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS AS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION The proposed amendments require a "legislative decision", subject to LOC 50.07.003.16, because the changes to the Community Development Code apply to a large number of properties. A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: i. Comply with any applicable state law; ii. Comply with any applicable statewide planning goal or administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197. and iii. In the case of a legislative amendment to this Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed in Applicable Regulations, above, and are addressed in Sections B-E. B. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal. Following each policy or group of policies is a response: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 17 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Land Use Planning Development (Community Development Code) Policies A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 Development Review Policies B-7, B-8 and B-10 Design Standards and Guidelines Policies C-1, C-3, and C-5 Development (Community Development Codel Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: a. Ensure the provision of park and open space lands, and protection of natural resources; b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; c. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods; d. Provide for the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans; e. Provide for necessary public facilities and services; f. Protect life and property from natural hazards; g. Promote architectural and site design quality; h. Increase opportunities for alternate means of transportation; and i. Enhance opportunities for mixed use development*in Employment Centers, Town Centers, Commercial Corners, and appropriately zoned areas within Neighborhood Villages. Findings: HB 2001 is a law passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2019 to increase housing choice and supply. The bill and the state rules implementing it (Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 46) require large cities, which the legislature defined as all cities with populations of 25,000 or larger, and all cities within the Portland metro area with populations of 1,000 or larger, including the City of Lake Oswego, to amend their land use regulations to allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas where detached single-family homes are allowed. These housing types are referred to as "middle housing" because they contain more dwelling units than a single-family house and less units than a multi-family residential building. Many of the Design and Dimensional and Overlay Items for Middle Housing apply the same dimensional and design standards that apply to single-family dwellings to middle housing, and are intended to maintain consistency with Lake Oswego's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements: the provision of park and open space lands or the protection of natural resources; adopted neighborhood plans; the provision of necessary public facilities and services; the protection of life and property from natural hazards; the provision of opportunities for alternate means of Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 18 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 transportation; or the provision of opportunities for mixed use development. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing these policies will remain in effect with no change in applicability. The amendments are not site-specific and will have no significant effect on the amount of traffic on the existing transportation system. According to a market analysis prepared by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, middle housing is expected to comprise not more than one percent of all new dwellings created on buildable lands through infill and redevelopment, and not more than three percent of new dwellings on vacant lands. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. The amendments include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages to better address the potential increased visual prominence of front-facing garages and driveways. They also include new dimensional and design standards for cottage clusters that have been drafted to maintain consistency with the City's existing sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. All new or modified design standards are intended to ensure middle housing is as attractive as feasible without unreasonable cost or delay. This policy is met. Policy A-2: Ensure that land use regulations have sufficient flexibility to allow developers and the City to propose measures to: a. Adapt development to unique and difficult site conditions; b. Preserve open space and natural resources; and, c. Avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties. Findings: Many of the proposed amendments are specifically tailored to allow flexibility and provide clarity for developers and City staff with respect to middle housing regulations. The amendments comply with HB 2001 and will offer a variety of living styles and choices and help accommodate Lake Oswego's housing needs. They allow developers to apply the City's existing land use regulations for detached single-family dwellings to middle housing, including all provisions that allow development to adapt to unique and difficult site conditions. These amendments will not substantially change how the existing Code preserves open space and natural resources, and was drafted to avoid negative impacts of development on surrounding properties to the fullest extent feasible under Division 46. This policy is met. Policy A-3: Ensure high-quality building and site design through the application of clear and objective design standards for residential development, and design review; utilize the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development to ensure high-quality building and site design and overall appearance. Findings: All amendments have specifically been drafted to be clear and objective in order to ensure high-quality middle housing building and site design. The amendments will modify the applicability of design review processes for middle housing by subjecting Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 19 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 them to the same ministerial review process that applies to single-family dwellings, as required by Division 46. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing the development review process for commercial, industrial, and institutional development will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy A-6: Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public facilities and services. Findings: The amendments will modify the residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary ("USB") by exempting duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density requirements, applying a maximum density for townhouses of four times the maximum density allowed for single family dwellings in the same zone, and allowing middle housing development in many areas where it is not currently permitted. The amendments do not permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services within the USB. This policy is met. Development Review Policy B-7:Allow development within the designated density range when the development is in compliance with code standards that ensure: a. Adequate public facilities and services can be provided; and b. Negative impacts can be resolved. Findings: The amendments do not affect any regulation intended to resolve negative impacts related to development within the designated density range. The City's acknowledged clear and objective standards intended to resolve negative impacts related to development within the designated density range will remain in effect with no change in applicability. Regarding standards to ensure that adequate public facilities and services can be provided for development within the designated density range, see responses to Policies A-1 and A-6, above. This policy is met. Policy 8-8:Allow development of permitted uses on legally created non-conforming lots subject to all applicable land use regulations. Findings: The amendments maintain existing regulations that implement the development of permitted uses on legally created non-conforming lots subject to all applicable land use regulations. The amendments will also allow for the development of duplexes on non-conforming lots, as required pursuant to Division 46, such that duplexes will be considered a permitted use on legally created non-conforming lots. The amendments do not allow other forms of middle housing on non-conforming lots. This policy is met. Policy B-10: Maintain land use regulations and development standards that require new residential subdivisions and developments of four or more units to address all of the following design criteria: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 20 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 a. Preservation of required open space and natural resources; b. Provision of a street system which provides efficient connection to higher order streets and major activity centers; c. Development of transit opportunities appropriate to the scale and character of the development; d. Development of a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation system; e. Management of surface water and storm drainage consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan; f. Assurance of privacy and quiet for future residents and abutting properties; g. Balance energy conservation measures such as energy efficient design and solar access with the preservation of trees and the planting of new trees to provide summer cooling; h. Buffering and screening from adjacent uses and streets; i. Building placement and locational relationships; j. Provision of adequate emergency vehicle access; k. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods. Findings: Under HB 2001, local jurisdictions are not permitted to apply different design standards to middle housing than are applied to detached single-family dwellings. Therefore, in order to comply with Division 46, the City will no longer require new residential developments of four dwelling units (fourplexes) that qualify as middle housing to address the same design criteria as multi-family residential developments. Triplex and fourplex proposals will be permitted to address all design criteria to the same extent that is required for detached single-family dwellings. These amendments will not substantially change how the existing Code applies design criteria to multi- family residential developments of five dwellings or more, including those listed above. Design Standards and Guidelines Policy C-1: Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design; b. Landscaping; c. Buffering and screening between differing land uses; d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment; and, e. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments either do not impact or help refine and clarify the existing code's design and dimensional regulations and standards listed under this policy. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 21 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. General Item 2 allows for the development of all required middle housing types in detached single-family residential districts; the Review Procedure Items further specify that middle housing development will no longer be subject to minor development design review procedures and will instead be a ministerial decision in these areas (with the exception of the R-DD Zone). The Design and Dimensional Standard and Overlay District Items add design and dimensional standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code, and apply the same standards that implement the size, scale, bulk, color, materials, and architectural design of single-family dwellings to other middle housing types in all applicable zones. Similarly, existing single-family regulations related to landscaping, buffering and screening between different land uses, measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment, and traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods will now apply to middle housing. These items also include enhanced design standards for driveways and garages to better address the potential increased visual prominence of front-facing garages and driveways. All new or modified design standards are intended to ensure middle housing is as attractive as feasible without unreasonable cost or delay, pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46. This policy is met. Policy C-3: Ensure through development and design standards that both public and private developments enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Findings: Staff finds that many of the proposed Design and Dimensional Items for Middle Housing will ensure that private developments enhance the aesthetic quality of the community by applying the same dimensional and design standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings to middle housing. Additionally, the aesthetic quality of developments will be further enhanced by the proposed improvements to the garage location and appearance standards that are designed to mitigate the potential negative visual impacts of large garages and driveways on narrow townhouse lots. This policy is met. Policy C-5:Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have specifically been drafted to maintain the City's existing clear and objective standards for middle housing, pursuant to state law, and to generally ensure that the same regulations that apply to single- family dwellings apply equally to middle housing. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Land Use Planning policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 22 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Community Culture Civic Engagement Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 Historic Preservation Policy 3 Civic Engagement Policy 1: Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to participate in the planning process. Policy 3: Utilize City boards and commissions, neighborhood associations, and other community groups to ensure a diverse and geographically broad range of citizen input in land use issues Policy 4: Provide opportunities for citizens to engage in land use planning and decision- making, including opportunities for individual citizens who may not otherwise participate. Policy 5: Ensure direct and ongoing two-way communications between the City and Lake Oswego citizens regarding land use issues. Policy 8: Define how the public will be engaged in each phase of the land use planning process at the beginning of the process. Policy 9: Utilize broadly representative, special citizen advisory bodies to provide input on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and other related land use planning matters. Policy 11: Design and implement the Citizen Involvement Program in ways that foster civility and respect for all who participate. Findings: The Community Development Code, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, contains requirements for a citizen involvement program that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going legislative land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become involved in the development of land use policy. The proposed code amendments were identified over the past year based on input from the community, including neighborhood representatives, builders, developers, housing advocates, architects, real estate professionals, staff, members of numerous City advisory boards, the Planning Commission, and City Council. The Commission received a total of fourteen updates from staff regarding the rulemaking process for House Bill 2001 throughout 2020 and early 2021. The Commission then held a total of nine work sessions where public input on the scope of the proposed code amendments was accepted, from March 2021 through February 2022. Additionally, the City Council appointed an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) with a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests to provide high-level policy guidance on key issues related to middle housing implementation required under HB 2001; the MHCAC conducted six Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 23 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 meetings between July and October 2021, where public input was accepted, in order to develop conceptual code amendment recommendations related to middle housing implementation. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including notice to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments complies with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed amendments that involve changes to citizen involvement include: General Item 2; Review Procedure Items 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Non-Conforming Structure Items 2, 3, and 4. General Item 2 allows for the development of all required middle housing types in detached single-family residential districts; the Review Procedure Items further specify that middle housing development will be a ministerial decision in these areas (with the exception of the R-DD Zone). Non-Conforming Lot/Structure Item 2 revises provisions for nonconforming lots to allow for duplex construction, but not to allow the construction of other middle housing types, on nonconforming lots. Non-Conforming Lot/Structure Item 3 clarifies that, for additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, building design standards may apply only to the newly- added portion(s) of the structure, and that existing non-conforming portions of the structure are exempted. Non-Conforming Structure Item 4 clarifies that remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. Staff finds that all of these items were required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, and that the amendments otherwise maintain existing regulations that implement citizen engagement within the City. The policies are met. Historic Preservation Policy 1: Preserve, enhance, and protect Lake Oswego's historic resources through procedures and standards designed to identify, restore and protect structures, sites, objects and districts of historic and cultural value within the city. Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the preservation, enhancement, or protection of Lake Oswego's historic resources, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing the preservation, enhancement, or protection of historic resources remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Conclusion: The City has provided adequate opportunities for public participation consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, and the proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the preservation, enhancement, or protection of Lake Oswego's historic resources. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Community Culture Policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 24 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 Goal 2, Policy 4 (d and e) Goal 1: Policy 1:Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure: a. New development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. b. New development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas: i. Promotes a safe and attractive pedestrian environment; ii. Reflects high-quality aesthetics, considering size, scale and bulk, color, materials, architectural style and detailing, and landscaping; and iii. Includes buffering and screening to protect residential uses and neighborhoods. Findings: All Design and Dimensional Items have specifically been drafted to ensure that new middle housing development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-3 and C-1, above. The amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas. The City's acknowledged regulations implementing development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas will remain in effect with no change in applicability. With these amendments, the Code will also continue to promote quality pedestrian environments and aesthetics while ensuring residential uses are buffered. This policy is met. Policy 2:Adopt and maintain design standards and provide incentives that encourage exceptional or high-quality design. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been drafted to encourage exceptional or high-quality middle housing design. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-3 and C-1, above. This policy is met. Policy 7: Enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts as the City grows and changes by adopting plans, codes, guidelines and other implementation measures. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been specifically drafted to enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's existing single-family neighborhoods as they transition to allowing middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to this policy include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 25 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. This policy is met. Policy 8: Protect Lake Oswego's village aesthetic by adopting and maintaining implementation measures and guidelines that preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods, safeguard places of historical significance (See also, Community Culture: Historic and Cultural Resources), and encourage urban form that results in pedestrian friendly retail districts in existing commercial areas, including buildings oriented to the street and active ground floor uses. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the above policy and have been specifically drafted to preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's existing single-family neighborhoods as they transition to allowing middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to preserve the residential character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements the safeguarding of places of historical significance or the design of existing commercial areas, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing the safeguarding of places of historical significance or the design of existing commercial areas will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy 9: Preserve the visual attractiveness of the community by limiting adverse visual impacts to the City's public spaces and streetscape. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have been drafted to limit potential adverse visual impacts of middle housing to the City's public spaces and streetscape. Specifically, Items 22 [D], 23 [D], and 24 [D] enhance existing garage appearance standards in order to mitigate adverse visual impacts that could result in the design of garages for middle housing development, which will require more parking spaces than detached single-family dwellings. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to limit adverse visual impacts to the City's public spaces and streetscape include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 26 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Goal 2: Policy 4 (d and e): Promote carefully organized patterns of growth through land use regulations, standards, and incentives that: // d. Provide design guidelines that enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts. e. Provide opportunities for local economic growth. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments have been drafted to enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's residential neighborhoods by generally applying the City's existing land use regulations for detached single-family dwellings to middle housing. Proposed amendments that involve changes to standards intended to enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's residential neighborhoods include: General Item 2; all Design and Dimensional Standard Items; all Review Procedure Items; and Overlay District Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. See responses to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2 A-3, B-10, C-1, and C-3, above. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements standards for commercial districts or opportunities for economic growth, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing standards for commercial districts and opportunities for economic growth will remain in effect with no change in applicability. By amending its code to provide for additional housing options, including smaller, more economical dwelling units, the City is also providing opportunities for workforce housing and supporting local economic growth. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Inspiring Spaces and Places policies. Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policies A-2, A-3, A-4, B-1 and C-7 Housing Location and Quality: Policy A-2: Develop and maintain regulations and standards that ensure residential densities are appropriately related to site conditions, including slopes, potential hazards, natural features, and the capacity of public facilities. Findings: The amendments will modify the residential densities allowed within the City by exempting duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters from maximum density requirements, applying a maximum density for townhouses of four times the maximum density allowed for single family dwellings in the same zone, and allowing middle housing development in many areas where it is not currently permitted. The amendments will continue not to permit development that exceeds the capacity of planned public facilities and services. Other than these changes, which are required pursuant to Division 46, staff finds that the amendments will ensure residential densities are appropriately related to site Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 27 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 conditions, including slopes, potential hazards, natural features, and the capacity of public facilities. Policy A-3: Develop and maintain land use regulations and standards that promote orderly transitions and compatibility between different residential densities and other land uses, such as measures that address traffic and circulation, building and site design, buffering, screening, tree preservation and other landscape treatments. Findings: The existing Code includes standards that address traffic and circulation, building and site design, buffering, screening, tree preservation and other landscape treatments for residential uses. Many of the proposed Design and Dimensional Items will help to regulate building and site design for newly-allowed middle housing types in order to promote their compatibility with existing detached single-family dwellings. This policy is met. Policy A-4: Maintain land use regulations and standards that provide for mitigation of adverse impacts such as noise, traffic, privacy and visual aesthetics, on differing, adjacent land uses through site and building design. Findings: The existing Code regulations include standards that mitigate adverse impacts to noise, traffic, privacy and visual aesthetics on surrounding uses from new development. Design and Dimensional Item 1 [D] adds new design standards for cottage clusters that include standards for the buffering of parking, the design of required common courtyards, and other design standards intended to mitigate the impacts of a cottage cluster development on adjacent land uses. This policy is met. Housing Choice and Affordability: Policy B-1: Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents. Findings: Many of the proposed amendments are specifically tailored to increase opportunities to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, as this was one of the fundamental objectives of House Bill 2001. The proposed amendments permit middle housing types in areas where they were previously not permitted, offering more opportunities to develop housing types containing two to eight dwelling units in areas that allow detached single-family dwellings. Staff finds that the proposed amendments will help to accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents by allowing an increased supply and variety of allowed housing types. This policy is met. Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 28 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: The existing Code includes both zone dimensional and structure design standards that ensure compatible infill development. The proposed amendments will apply these standards to new middle housing infill development to continue to ensure the compatibility of different types of infill housing within established neighborhoods. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies. Connected Community Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-8 and F-2 Transportation Choices: Policy 8-1: Provide land use patterns and promote public and private development that supports efficient transit service. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that provide land use patterns and promote public and private development that supports efficient transit service. The amendments are not site-specific and may be expected to promote development that supports efficient transit service by allowing for increased density within existing detached single-family residential neighborhoods, including areas adjacent to transit service. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy 8-2: Provide street and frontage improvements such as dedicated facilities, landscaping, and street lighting and permit amenities such as benches and shelters to encourage walking and biking as viable travel modes, particularly along corridors that serve the primary transit network and employment centers, town centers and neighborhood villages. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that provide street and frontage improvements such as dedicated facilities, landscaping, and street lighting and permit amenities such as benches and shelters to encourage walking and biking as viable travel modes. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy 8-3: Require development, redevelopment, and public transportation improvement projects to provide facilities that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, particularly in areas with identified gaps in the transportation system and in all employment centers, town centers, neighborhood villages, commercial corners, and neighborhood commons. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 29 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that require development, redevelopment, and public transportation improvement projects to provide facilities that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. In addition, according to OAR 660-046- 0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Efficiency: Policy C-1: Maintain arterial and major collector streets to planned level of service* standards, whenever practical. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards intended to maintain arterial and major collector streets to planned level of service standards, whenever practical. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Policy C-8: Plan 20 minute neighborhoods* to accommodate uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs via short trips by any mode of travel. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that promote 20-minute neighborhoods to accommodate uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs via short trips by any mode of travel. The amendments are not site-specific and may be expected to promote 20-minute neighborhoods by allowing for increased density within existing detached single- family residential neighborhoods including areas adjacent to uses that efficiently meet many daily residential needs. In addition, according to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Livability: Policy F-2: Mitigate the impacts of traffic on neighborhood collectors and higher classifications that bisect residential neighborhoods. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to mitigate the impacts of traffic on neighborhood collectors and higher classifications that bisect residential neighborhoods. According to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow middle housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 30 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Connected Communities policies. Community Health and Public Safety Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policies 1, 2, 3, & 10 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies 8 & 9 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policies 2 & 3 Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies 2 & 6 Sound Quality Policies 1 & 5 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection Policy 1: Maintain development standards and enter into agreements with other agencies when appropriate to promote efficient use of fire and police personnel,facilities, equipment and communication resources, and to allow fire and police personnel to respond to public safety needs within targeted response times. Findings: Design and Dimensional Items 30 and 31 will modify access lane regulations for flag lots in order to allow the development of duplexes on flag lots. These items are required pursuant to the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46, which require cities to grant the same street frontage exceptions to single-family dwellings as are granted to duplexes. These items will not otherwise inhibit the efficient use of fire and police personnel, facilities, equipment and communication resources, and will continue to allow fire and police personnel to respond to public safety needs within targeted response times. This policy is met. Policy 2: Require police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process. Particular attention shall be given to: a. Fire hydrant locations and sufficient fire flows; b. Street layout and site design features that ensure emergency vehicle access and building identification; and c. Exterior lighting and landscape design. Findings: The existing Code includes many standards that require police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process, per the above policy. The proposed amendments are not site-specific and will continue to allow police and fire protection to be considered in the development review process. This policy is met. Policy 3: Provide and maintain development standards and guidelines that promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.* Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development standards and guidelines that promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, such as building and site design, including lighting, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing development standards and guidelines that Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 31 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 promote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Policy 10: Update and maintain the site design and development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires and their potential for destruction. Findings: The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing development standards to decrease and minimize the possibility of wildfires will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policy 8: Provide and maintain development standards that promote Low Impact Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and preserve open space. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards that promote Low Impact Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and preserve open space. The proposed amendments will apply existing impervious surface standards that apply to detached single-family dwellings within certain Overlay Districts to middle housing. Further, Item 1 [D] adds new design standards for cottage clusters that include impervious surface limitations for common courtyards, which are required in a cottage cluster development. This will ensure that impervious surface limitations for cottage cluster common courtyards are applicable in many residential districts that do not otherwise apply impervious surface limitations to new dwellings today. This policy is met. Policy 9: Provide and maintain development standards that ensure public and private storm water systems are planned, developed, and maintained to prevent flooding, protect water quality, and preserve natural surface water systems to protect aquatic habitat. Findings: The existing Code includes a number of standards that ensure public and private storm water systems are planned, developed, and maintained to prevent flooding, protect water quality, and preserve natural surface water systems to protect aquatic habitat. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements this policy, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing this policy will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 32 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Public Facilities and Services: Water Treatment and Delivery Policy 2: Provide and maintain land use and development standards that require developers where legally permissible to: a. Modify, replace, renew, and extend the public water system as necessary to serve new development; b. Design and construct modifications, replacements, renewals, and extensions of the public water system to facilitate the orderly and efficient extension of public water service to future development; and c. Ensure access to all public water facilities as required by City codes and standards through the granting and recording of public utility easements. Policy 3: Require new development in Lake Oswego to connect to the municipal water system unless the development is within the service boundaries of another water district and that district is authorized to provide municipal water service within the City's Urban Services Boundary pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement. Findings (for 2 and 3): The existing Code includes a number of standards that require development to extend and connect to the public water system, ensuring orderly and efficient delivery of services per the above policy. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements water treatment and delivery, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing water treatment and delivery will remain in effect with no change in applicability. These policies are met. Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policy 2: Require all new development within the City to connect to the City's wastewater collection system and pay a system development charge. Policy 6: Prohibit the construction of structures that would prevent access to public sewer lines and easements. Findings (for 2 and 6): The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to implement wastewater collection and treatment per the above policy. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements wastewater collection and treatment, and the City's acknowledged regulations implementing wastewater collection and treatment will remain in effect with no change in applicability. These policies are met. Sound Quality Policy 1: Preserve and maintain the quiet character of residential neighborhoods, public open spaces, natural parks and parks with natural elements through zoning regulations and development standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 33 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Policy 5: Maintain the quiet character of residential areas through regulations that address new development, infill, the interface between different types of abutting land uses and associated mechanical equipment through such regulations as adequate setback requirements, height restrictions, buffering and performance standards. Findings (for 1 and 5): The existing Code includes a number of standards intended to implement sound quality per the above policy, including setbacks, building (garage) design, and screening requirements. The proposed code amendments do not affect any regulation that implements sound quality, except that screening requirements are proposed to be added for accessory structures in cottage cluster developments. The City's other acknowledged regulations implementing sound quality will remain in effect with no change in applicability. This policy is met. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Community Health and Public Safety policies. Neighborhood Plans Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Policy 2: Preserve the existing fabric of the neighborhood by developing incentives to remodel existing homes, where feasible, instead of tearing down and rebuilding single family, detached residential properties. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as an alternative to demolition, and as required by Division 46, are consistent with this policy. The policy is met. First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Plan Parking Policy 5: Ensure adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking is provided for all land uses in First Addition/Forest Hills. Response: The proposed code changes reducing minimum parking requirements for middle housing may conflict with this policy; however, under Division 46, the City may not require more parking than allowed under state rules, and the proposed amendments comply with the minimum requirements of Division 46. This policy is preempted by Division 46. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 1 (First Addition): To the maximum extent feasible, single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Special attention should be given to insuring that adjacent higher density housing, if developed, will not adversely affect neighborhood single family development. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting middle housing outright in all residential zones may conflict with this First Addition policy as it applies to the neighborhood's R-6 Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 34 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 zone. Some single family dwellings may be replaced with middle housing as property values continue to increase. As allowed by Division 46, the proposed amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional, parking, and building design requirements, for middle housing that are consistent with the standards that apply to single family development, which ensures middle housing will not adversely affect neighborhood single family development. Therefore, the second part of this policy is met, and the first part is not met but is preempted by Division 46. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 3 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Encourage owner-occupied housing in First Addition/Forest Hills. Findings: The proposed amendments will enable more types of owner-occupied housing, including development of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage cluster dwellings, which may be divided, per Senate Bill 458 (2021), to provide dwellings on individual lots. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 4 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Promote upgrading and remodeling of residential structures, rather than demolition and new construction. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 5 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Protect the character of the neighborhood by encouraging new residences and residential alterations to be compatible with the building size and proportion of existing dwellings. Findings: As allowed by Division 46, the proposed amendments provide siting and design standards, including dimensional and building design requirements, for new middle housing, including additions to existing dwellings, that are consistent with or (in the case of existing nonconforming dwellings) exceed the standards that apply to existing dwellings. This ensures middle housing building size and proportions will be compatible with existing dwellings. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 5 (First Addition and Forest Hills): Encourage a variety of housing types within First Addition/Forest Hills that is compatible with neighborhood character and design. Findings: The proposed amendments will enable more types of housing, including development of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage cluster dwellings, including multi-family dwellings and dwellings on individual lots subject to siting and design standards that are intended to maintain First Addition's/Forest Hills' neighborhood character and design. This policy is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 35 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 9 (First Addition and Forest Hills):Allow density within the neighborhood that is compatible with Comprehensive Plan Transportation policies, available street facilities, and actual developed densities, allows for structures that are compatible with neighborhood character, yet is supportive of local and regional transportation goals of encouraging walking, biking and transit use. Findings: The proposed amendments allow increased densities within walking distance of downtown Lake Oswego, thereby supporting local and regional transportation goals of encouraging alternatives to the automobile for short trips. The City also maintains a transportation system plan and capital improvement program which provide for sidewalk, pathway, and other street improvement projects to support increased densities and population growth. This policy is met. Housing, Land Use, Neighborhood Character Policy 10(First Addition and Forest Hills): Expansion or change of non-conforming uses in First Addition/Forest Hills residential zones is discouraged due to noise, traffic, glare and appearance of structures which may be incompatible with abutting residential uses. Replacement of non-conforming uses with permitted uses is strongly encouraged. Findings: Any expansion or change to non-conforming uses (or development) is subject to the Community Development Code, specifically LOC 50.01.006, which regulates continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development. Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2: Ensure that all new development in the Glenmorrie Neighborhood can be adequately served by the full range of public facilities and services. In particular, when evaluating development proposals recognize: a) The problems that the whole neighborhood has with surface water runoff and ensure that residential development, public facility and transportation projects do not contribute to existing, or create new surface water runoff and/or erosion problems; and b) That Glenmorrie Water Cooperative has limited water storage.* Land Use Planning Policy 3:The problems that the whole neighborhood has with surface water runoff and ensure that residential development, public facility and transportation projects do not contribute to existing, or create new surface water runoff and/or erosion problems; Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 36 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings (2 and 3): The proposed amendments do not affect compliance with policies 2 and 3, as any new development is required to comply with the City's stormwater code and connect to a public water system with capacity to serve the development. Under Division 46, where existing public infrastructure is not adequate to serve a middle housing development, the must be afforded the opportunity to correct the deficiency, and if they do not, the permit may be denied. This policy is met. Land Use Planning Policy 10: Maintain Glenmorrie Neighborhood's existing detached, single- family residential character and do not allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes as a reason for Plan and Zoning Map amendments to more intense land uses. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing Policy 1: Preserve the neighborhood's "Country Lane/Estate"setting by: a) Recognizing that the Glenmorrie Neighborhood is most appropriate for low- density, detached single-family residential uses because of its historic large-lot, single- family development pattern, topography, natural resources/constraints, locational characteristics, level of available public facilities and services; //// e) Maintaining homeowner's sense of privacy and the natural buffers between properties. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting middle housing outright in residential zones, as required by Division 46, may conflict with policy 4. However, it is anticipated that single-family dwellings will continue to be the predominate housing type in the Glenmorrie neighborhood, and because the siting and design standards that apply to single-family dwellings will also apply to middle housing, neighborhood's "country lane/estate" setting and sense of privacy can be maintained even if the letter of the policy is not met. Housing Policy 2: Preserve the existing housing stock, and encourage the upgrade and remodeling of existing residential structures rather than demolition and new construction. Findings: The proposed code changes permitting by right the conversion of single-family dwellings to middle housing as required by Division 46 are consistent with this policy as such conversions would include upgrading and remodeling of residential structures as an alternative to demolition. The policy is met. Housing Policy 3: Utilize design compatibility standards to ensure that all, new residential development, and substantial remodeling projects, contribute to the design character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 37 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: Any substantial exterior remodel would be subject to the Community Development Code, including applicable siting and design standards, and regulations for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development (LOC 50.01.006). Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 4: Maintain residential areas at existing zone and plan density designations, except where an applicant demonstrates that a proposed zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5 or R-3 complies with the Comprehensive Plan criteria for zone changes and the following additional criteria... Land Use Planning Policy 5: Develop and implement strategies to maintain the affordability of neighborhood single-family housing. Findings (4 and 5): Division 46 rules preempt above policy 4 by requiring that cities allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters (multiple detached dwellings) on residentially zoned lots subject to existing minimum lot area requirements or minimum standards under the rules. With respect to policy 5, Division 46 requires that cities subject to the rules consider strategies for increasing the supply of housing affordable to those earning less than the area median income. This requirement is addressed separately under the responses to the Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies, above. Sound Quality Policy 2: Locate, design and buffer new residential development in such a manner as to minimize the negative impacts of noise sources such as transportation facilities and active recreation uses, in accordance with existing building design and landscaping and buffering development standards. Findings: The proposed amendments do not change the locations where residential development is allowed. The same siting and design standards that apply to single-family development will also generally apply to middle housing, providing equivalent protections against the negative impacts of noise sources such as roads and parks. This policy is met. Sound Quality Policy 4: The City shall develop and consider for adoption, an ordinance requiring a noise mitigation report to be submitted as part of development applications when multi family or commercial land uses are proposed abutting single family residential land uses. The purpose of the report is to determine whether the new use will produce noise levels above the existing ambient residential noise levels. If noise levels associated with the new development will be higher than existing ambient levels, a noise mitigation plan shall be required. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 38 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Findings: Adoption of noise mitigation standards and reporting requirements is not addressed by Division 46 and was not among the recommendations of the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee. Therefore, it is not proposed as part of these amendments. However, the proposed amendments do not preclude the City from considering an ordinance requiring noise mitigation with new development in the future. Division 46 requires that design standards for middle housing must also be applicable to single-family detached dwellings. This policy is met. Housina/Residential Land Use Policy 3:Allow development of residential infill lots within the Lake Forest Neighborhood subject to specific City of Lake Oswego design and development standards which ensure compatibility of resulting development with neighborhood design character. These standards include: a) Flag lots*, excluding the access way, be the same size as required by the existing zone; b)Adequate, but not excessive, vehicular access width to ensure efficient utilization of land; c) Demonstration that infill development will not preclude future development options on the parent parcel or on adjoining lands; d) Buffering and adequate separation of new buildings from existing residences. Findings: The proposed amendments are not contrary to the existing City codes that allow residential infill development subject to siting and design standards, ensuring compatibility of future development with neighborhood design character. The standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. This policy is met. Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Housina/Residential Land Use Policy 3:Allow new development on new and existing residential lots* within the Lake Grove Neighborhood subject to specific design and development standards which ensure compatibility of resulting development with neighborhood design character. These standards shall require: a) Flag lots*, excluding the access way, be the same size as required by the existing zone; b)Adequate, but not excessive, vehicular access width to ensure efficient utilization of land; c) Building design standards and orientation, setback, lot coverage, and buffer requirements to ensure design compatibility with existing residences and other surrounding land uses; d) Demonstration that infill development will not preclude future development options on the parent parcel or on adjoining lands; e) Buffering and adequate separation of new buildings from existing residences; f) That any division of land to provide for infill development will result in 80% of the maximum allowed density*allowed on a parcel by the applicable zone designation. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 39 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Housing/Residential Land Use Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings*and homes being substantially remodeled*contributes to the positive design character and qualities of Lake Grove's existing residential neighborhoods. This shall be accomplished through the application of design compatibility standards, which include: a) Height, bulk, and lot coverage standards to ensure new residential development does not conflict with the predominant scale and design characteristics of the neighborhood. b) Minimizing the impact of the automobile on the development site through residential design and development standards, which prescribe measures such as garage location, size of paved areas, driveway size and location, etc. c)Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening between existing and proposed development; d) Preservation of existing mature canopy trees and other significant trees*and other landscape features* to the extent practicable; Findings (3 and 6): The proposed amendments are not contrary to the existing City codes allowing residential infill development subject to siting and design standards, and the tree code, ensuring compatibility of future development with neighborhood design character. The standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. This policy is met. Old Town Neighborhood Plan Residential Land Use Policy 3: Generally, and in accordance with the policies of this plan, Old Town shall become higher density land use. However, existing neighborhood character shall be preserved as much as possible. a. Single-Family Housing Single-family housing, while not exclusive of other types of housing, shall have priority. Therefore, single family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to preserve its amenities and value. Where higher density land use is developed, special attention should be given to insuring that it will not adversely affect neighboring single family development. Single-family homes and new development shall be protected from the deteriorating effects of adjacent land uses, including in particular the commercial areas, and any open space areas which may be established. Particular attention shall be given to the effects of traffic, parking, noise, glare, air pollution and appearance of structures. New single-family construction shall be permitted on the existing platted 5,000 square foot lots. b. Multi-Family Residential Multi family use shall be permitted when it can be clearly demonstrated that other Old Town policies are being met by the proposal. Duplexes shall be permitted on the existing platted 5,000 square foot lots. Innovative design shall be encouraged to create duplexes which are compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 40 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 c. Residential Design Policy New residential construction of all types shall be encouraged. As noted under the Design District policies, all new construction of single family, duplex, zero lot line, multi family dwellings, and exterior modification to a structure housing a non- conforming use that requires a building permit, shall be subject to Development Review. Care should be taken to maintain certain existing physical attributes of the neighborhood which contribute to its special character, including but not limited to, unusual or special trees, landscaping, buildings and views. Residential Land Use Policy 8: Development Review Consideration shall be given to the relationships between new construction and adjacent land uses as well as to how the proposed development incorporates the desirable "small village" or "historic town"appearance of Old Town as illustrated in its pitched roofs, wood and masonry construction materials, and building proportions and massing typical of the Vernacular, Craftsman and Cape Cod styles. Residential Land Use Policy 9: Parcel Size Residential single family construction is to be permitted on lots or parcels of 5,000 square feet or more. The Development Review process should take account of the unusually small area of the lots in providing variances which may be requested for new single family uses. Duplexes are to be permitted on lots or parcels of 5,000 square feet or more. Except for structures which have been determined by the State or the National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance, multi family construction is to be permitted on lots or parcels of a minimum of 15,000 square feet, which would allow seven units. Smaller parcels should be used for duplex or single family. The parcels should be shaped to minimize the number and length of property interfaces between adjacent uses to assure buffering landscaping can be installed. Historic structures may be converted to residential use. No minimum parcel size shall apply, but the project shall demonstrate compliance with all other applicable zoning requirements and development standards. Findings (3, 8, and 9): The proposed amendments are not contrary to the above policies, except that Division 46's minimum requirements preempt the part of policy 9 that prescribes a lot size of 15,000 square feet for multifamily developments. Further, under Division 46, there is not one type of housing that takes priority over any other. Cities must allow middle housing in the zones that allow detached single-family dwellings. The Old Town zone standards that currently apply to single-family development are being amended to also apply to middle housing. These policies are met. Palisades Neighborhood Plan Land Use Policy 3: Ensure development occurs and functions in a way that is compatible with the predominant character and conditions of the surrounding area and addresses residents' objectives as identified in the Neighborhood Character section of this plan. (See Land Use, Existing Conditions, Neighborhood Character) //// Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 41 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 b)Support ongoing observation and continued improvement to City development standards for residential infill design to ensure they have their intended effect. Land Use Policy 4: Provide for residents varied housing needs while ensuring the detached single-family character and scale of the Palisades neighborhood is not diminished. a) Be sensitive to a range of households'needs including families with school-age children, working couples and singles, seniors, people caring for aging parents and spouses, and people with disabilities. Findings (3.b and 4.a): The proposed amendments expand the range of housing that may develop consistent with identified housing needs and subject to siting and design standards that are intended to maintain existing neighborhood character. Under Division 46, there is not one type of housing that takes priority over any other. Cities must allow middle housing in the zones that allow detached single-family dwellings. These policies are met. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Land Use Planning Policy 2:As applicable by City Code, ensure that the architectural, site design and landscape character of new development and substantial remodel of structures within the Waluga Neighborhood is compatible* with the character of the existing neighborhood. Findings: Any new middle housing development or substantial exterior remodel adding middle housing would be subject to the Community Development Code, including applicable siting and design standards. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. Housing Policy 1: In accordance with the Community Development Code, do not allow the expansion or increase in non-conformance of a nonconforming use... Replacement of non- conforming uses with permitted uses is strongly encouraged. Findings: Any new middle housing development or substantial exterior remodel adding middle housing would be subject to the Community Development Code, including regulations for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses and development (LOC 50.01.006). Generally, any new construction or addition creating middle housing (or any other development) must comply with current code. Remodels that maintain existing nonconformities are permitted provided there is no increase in nonconformity. The proposed amendments do not affect these existing requirements. This policy is met. C. METRO CODE Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 7: Housing Choice[MC 3.07.730]: Requirements for Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 42 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 Cities and counties within the Metro region shall ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances: (a) Include strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries. (b) Include in their plans actions and implementation measures designed to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing as well as increase the opportunities for new dispersed affordable housing within their boundaries. (c) Include plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing. Findings: These requirements are intended to ensure that Lake Oswego's implementing ordinances include strategies to ensure the production of a diverse range of housing types and increase opportunities for new affordable housing dispersed throughout the City. The proposed amendments further the City's compliance with Title 7 by allowing middle housing types in all areas zoned for single-family detached dwellings, and by establishing design and dimensional standards that meet the criteria in OAR 660-046-0220 and -0225 for standards that do not discourage development of Middle Housing through unreasonable cost or delay. See the response to the Comprehensive Plan Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Policy B- 1, above, for more language addressing housing choice and affordability. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 7: Housing Choice. D. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (OAR 660 12-0060) The Transportation Planning Rule implements Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. If an amendment to a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the City must[either find that the land uses will be consistent with the planned function, capacity and performance of the transportation facility]or put in place measures[to improve the transportation facility], unless the amendment is allowed under section (3)(inadequate facilities but amendment does no additional harm], (9) [rezoning consistent with comprehensive plan and Transportation System Plan (TSP)], or(10) [map amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA), and other requirements]of this rule. Findings: According to OAR 660-046-0030 when a local government amends its land use regulations to allow Middle Housing, the local government is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 43 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 E. LCDC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 660-046-0030 Implementation of Middle Housing Ordinances 2. In adopting or amending regulations or amending a comprehensive plan to allow Middle Housing, a Medium or Large City must include findings demonstrating consideration, as part of the post acknowledgement plan amendment process, of methods to increase the affordability of Middle Housing through ordinances or policies that include but are not limited to: a. Waiving or deferring system development charges; Findings: Since 2018, the City of Lake Oswego has exempted system development charges (SDCs) for multi-family developments of 20 or more units where at least 10% of the units are continuously rented, leased or made available for an amount of rent plus expenses associated with occupancy, such as utilities and fees, totaling not more than 30% of the income level that is 80% of area median income according to the Clackamas County Housing Authority's income limits for affordable housing, adjusted for household size. The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 recommended extending these SDC waivers to middle housing developments as a part of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. In February of 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2885 extending the above fee exemption to all dwelling types that meet the City's affordability criteria. b. Adopting or amending criteria for property tax exemptions under ORS 307.515 to ORS 307.523, ORS 307.540 to ORS 307.548 or ORS 307.651 to ORS 307.687 or property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 to ORS 308.481; and Findings: The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 considered and ultimately recommended adopting criteria for property tax exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing development as a part of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. The City may consider this further as part of its compliance with House Bill 2003. c. Assessing a construction tax under ORS 320.192 and ORS 320.195. 3. When a Medium or Large City amends its comprehensive plan or land use regulations to allow Middle Housing, the Medium or Large City is not required to consider whether the amendments significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Findings: The Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee that convened over the summer of 2021 considered and ultimately recommended adopting a construction excise tax to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing development as a part Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 44 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 of the City's future work related to Housing Production Strategies for House Bill 2003. The City may consider this further as part of its compliance with House Bill 2003. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with applicable LCDC Administrative Rules. VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2892, draft 3/7/2022 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 3/7/2022 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 22-0007. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects (Under "Search" enter LU 22-0007, then press "Enter") Planning Commission Public Hearing Exhibit D-1/Page 45 of 45 LU 22-0007 4/11/22 of LA os MEMORANDUM v AIM EGp� TO: Planning Commission/Commission for Citizen Involvement FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Staff Proposed Modifications to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 (LU 22-0007) DATE: April 1, 2022 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED The purpose of this memo is to describe additional modifications proposed by staff to draft amendments to the Community Development Code ("development code", or "CDC") previously published on March 7, 2022. These amendments were proposed for the purpose of compliance with Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), state legislation requiring that cities allow "middle housing" —including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters—in any zone that permits detached single-family dwellings. The previously-released draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022. Since the publication of the draft code amendments, staff has identified several "follow-up" items that must be addressed for a variety of reasons, ranging from ensuring compliance with the minimum compliance provisions outlined in the administrative rules for middle housing contained within Division 46 of Chapter 660 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (Division 46) to ensuring consistency with the Council initiative to, "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." These changes are discussed in more detail below, under Proposed Changes to Draft Code Amendments. These modifications are to replace specific portions of the previously-released draft code amendments, for consideration at the Public Hearing scheduled for April 11, 2022. DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT SECTIONS BEING MODIFIED The proposed changes to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 affect the following code amendments: 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 1 OF 13 Page 2 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Add or reference design standards for cottage clusters from the DLCD Model Code within the following sections: 2. Use-specific standards for cottage clusters. LOC 50.03.003.1.d The proposed change to Item 1.2 [D] modifies the wording in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1): Clustered Parking (within the Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters) to clarify that parking in a cottage cluster development is required to be grouped in clusters. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 3. Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the following sections. to align with state minimum compliance requirements: 3. Residential High-Density Dimensions Table. Table 50.04.001-11 The proposed change to Item 3.3 [D] is intended to clarify that multi-family dwellings are not permitted in the R-W or R-2 Districts in the Residential Districts Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1). DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 17. Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones, to align with state minimum compliance requirements, within the following sections: 1. Building Design Standards Applicability Table; Table 50.06.001-1; The proposed change to Item 17.1 [D] would add "townhouses" to the list of minor development subject to building design standards in the Building Design Standards Applicability Table, to cover the circumstances when the development of three or townhouse more units could be processed as minor development (in commercial districts, industrial districts, mixed-use districts, or the R-DD Zone). The same language is also proposed to be included in the applicability statement for "Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-family Development Not Located in the FMU Zone, and Minor Development in the R-DD Zone Standards for Approval" (LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii)) for consistency. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 2 OF 13 Page 3 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 18. Clarify that internal conversions of existing single-family LOC 50.06.001.2.a dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. (Building design standards would apply to portions of dwellings that are expanded or additions.) The proposed change to Item 18 [D] would revise language in the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) to more directly align with the provisions of Division 46 that relate to middle housing conversions. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 20. Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not LOC 50.06.001.3.b scale by the number of dwelling units, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The proposed changes to Item 20 [D] are intended to clarify that the minimum porch width requirements for corner lots in the R-6 front porch standards must be met along the narrow street frontage— not along the wide street frontage. DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 21. Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply LOC 50.06.001.3.c equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard, to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The proposed change to Item 21 [D] further clarifies that all middle housing types— not just duplexes—will be allowed the same exemption from alley paving requirements in the R-6 Zone that currently exists for detached single-family dwellings. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 3 OF 13 Page 4 DESIGN & DIMENSIONAL STANDARD CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapters 50.03 and 50.06) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 32. Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached LOC 50.03.003.1.e townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use- Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section. The proposed change to Item 32 [D] revises permitted density for townhouses within the Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects (LOC 50.03.003.1.e) to ensure compliance with Division 46 requirements. OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS (LOC Chapter 50.05) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 7. Exempt conversions or additions to detached single-family LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6) dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO, as required for state minimum compliance. The proposed change to Item 7 [0] revises the language in the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements section in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6)) to more directly align with the provisions of Division 46 that relate to middle housing conversions, consistent with other changes proposed to the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) (Item 18 [D]). PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE AMEMDMENT SECTIONS Proposed modifications to Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, 03/07/2022 follow: Item 1.2[D]:Add design standards for cottage clusters as new Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters. The current draft code amendments include language in LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1): Clustered Parking (within the Use-Specific Standards for Cottage Clusters) as follows: (1) Clustered Parking Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters, subiect to the following standards: /// Staff recommended including language that stipulated that, "Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters..." in order to maintain consistency with the DLCD Model Code. However, 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 4 OF 13 Page 5 staff notes that the term "may" is relatively ambiguous and could imply that clustered parking is not directly required, but simply available as one option for consideration. Due to this ambiguity, a question was posed to representatives from DLCD to clarify the intent of the model code language related to this provision. DLCD staff responded that they believed that the wording in the Model Code was imprecise and that there would not be issues changing the "may" in this sentence to "must" or "shall" (see Exhibit F-1). The proposed change to Item 1.2 [D] would change "may" to "shall" to further clarify that this standard is not optional: (1) Clustered Parking Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subject to the following standards: /// Item 3.3[D]:Specify the minimum lot dimensions for all middle housing types within the Residential High-Density Dimensions Table to align with state minimum compliance requirements. The current draft code amendments include changes to Table 50.04.001-11: Residential High- Density Dimensions that apply a minimum lot size for multi-family dwellings within the R-W and R-2 districts, as follows: BLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIO R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Multi-family Dwellings Area (sq. ft.) 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. Per Dwelling 3,375 3,375 No min. No min. /// Because multi-family dwellings are not permitted in the R-W or R-2 Districts, as clarified in the Residential Districts Use Table (Table 50.03.002-1), it was an error to apply a minimum lot size to multi-family dwellings in this zone. In order to address this error, staff proposes the following revision: ABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 5 OF 13 Page 6 TABLE 50.04.001-11: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES DIMENS R-W R-3 R-2 R-0 [6] Comments/Additional Standards MIN. LOT DIMENSIONS 50.04.001.3.c Multi-family Dwellings Area (sq. ft.) — 3,375 — No min. Per Dwelling — 3,375 — No min. /// Item 17[DJ:Apply general building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones. The draft code amendments included changes to the Building Design Standards Applicability Table (Table 50.06.001-1) and the Applicability section for Structure Design — Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a.i) in order to apply building design standards to middle housing in all applicable zones. Specifically, the amended applicability statement in Table 50.06.001-1 (Item 17.1 [D]) proposed to remove the "attached single-family (three or more units) residential development" language, given that townhouses (or "attached single-family") are now proposed to be defined as middle housing—which is processed as ministerial development. Language in footnote three of Table 50.06.001-1 within the draft code amendments reads as follows: [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, attached single family (three or more vnit6) residential develcmcnt;and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. Because this is an applicability section, and not a statement defining what is or is not minor development, "townhouses" should be re-added to this list to cover the circumstances when the development of three or townhouse more units could be processed as minor development (in commercial districts, industrial districts, mixed-use districts, or the R-DD Zone). Staff proposes the following revision: [3] Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), multi-family residential, townhouses attached single family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 6 OF 13 Page 7 This revision would not expand the classification of minor development to include all townhouses, and would further clarify which standards apply to middle housing when allowed under a minor dev procedure. Staff notes that the language in the applicability statement for "Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-family Development Not Located in the FMU Zone, and Minor Development in the R-DD Zone Standards for Approval" (LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii)) serves a similar purpose to the language in footnote three of the Building Design Standards Applicability Table (Table 50.06.001-1). In order to ensure that this language is consistent, and to avoid confusion, staff proposes that the same exact language (as highlighted below) be included in a new amendment to LOC 50.06.001.5(a)(ii): a. Applicability This standard is applicable in all zones except the FMU zone to: i. Ministerial development: development involving mechanical equipment, limited to LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening); and ii. Minor and major development: development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, public use (including major public facilities and minor public facilities), private recreational use, multi-family residential, townhouses attached single family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the R-DD zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(3). Item 18[DJ: Clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing are exempted from general building design standards. The draft code amendments include new provisions in the Applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) intended to clarify that internal remodels and conversions of existing single-family dwellings that result in the creation of new middle housing are exempted from the general building design standards: a. Applicability /// iii. Remodels or conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition, are exempted from the standards of this subsection. iv. For additions to single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing, this subsection (a) shall apply only to the newly-added and any replaced 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 7 OF 13 Page 8 portion(s) of the structure. Existing non-conforming portions of the structure to remain in place are exempted from the standards of this subsection. In order to be as clear as possible regarding how design standards apply to a remodel project that results in the creation of new middle housing, more specificity is needed in the code. While the term "remodel" is included in the provisions above, this term is not defined elsewhere in the code and there is no language in Division 46 that stipulates that cities must reference the term "remodel" in order to comply. Here is an excerpt of the relevant language from OAR 660- 046-0230: Middle Housing Conversions (1) Additions to, or conversions of, an existing detached single-family dwelling into Middle Housing is allowed in a Large City pursuant to OAR 660-046-0205(2), provided that the addition or conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable clear and objective standards, unless increasing nonconformance is otherwise permitted by the Large City's development code. In order to ensure consistency and more directly align with the provisions of Division 46, staff proposes the following revision to LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii: iii. Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. Item 20[D]: Modify front porch design standards in the R-6 Zone to not scale by the number of dwelling units. The draft code amendments included modifications to the front porch design standards in the R- 6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.b) so that they do not scale by the number of dwelling units, in order to comply with the minimum requirements in OAR 660-046-0225: Middle Housing Design Standards in Large Cities (1)A Large City is not required to apply design standards to Middle Housing. However, if a Large City chooses to apply design standards to Middle Housing, it may only apply the following: /// (c) The same clear and objective design standards that the Large City applies to detached single-family structures in the same zone. Design standards may not scale by the number of dwelling units or other features that scale with the number of dwelling units, such as primary entrances. Design standards may scale with form-based attributes, including but not limited to floor area, street facing façade, height, bulk, and scale; or /// 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 8 OF 13 Page 9 Current standards in the R-6 Zone require a covered front porch at the "main entry" of a primary dwelling. Though the current code does not specifically prevent porches from being oriented towards a wide street / avenue frontage, under existing code the required front porch at the "main entry" must face the narrow street on corner lots. Given that there could be more than one"main entry"to a middle housing development,the front porch standards had to be modified to clarify that a front porch is not required at every entrance so that they do not scale by the number of dwelling units. The following language was proposed in the draft code amendments: b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdwellings shall include a covered front porch in front of every primary entrance into to a living area that does not face an alley. When applied to cottage clusters, this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. ii. at the main entry that has Each porch must have a minimum depth of six ft. and a cumulative minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots, the at least one covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages, the at least one front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. iv. A pedestrian front entry path shall provide direct access from the each front porch to the public street/sidewalk.On corner lots,the front entrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. The above language specifies that covered front porches would be required in front of "every primary entrance into to a living area that does not face an alley," as opposed to the "main entry" that is referenced in the existing code. Staff notes that this language is not clear enough to be administered effectively. For instance, because it is unclear what would specifically be defined as a "living area" in the code, and because it's unclear how to define a "primary" entrance to a multiple-unit dwelling, it would be unclear how staff would assess compliance with this standard. Staff recommends revisions to the draft code amendments that clarify that a porch must be provided at "an entry" along the narrow street frontage, as opposed to the "main entry" or a "primary entrance into a living area that does not face an alley." The language in the draft code amendments also modified the front porch standards specific to corner lots by stipulating that"at least one"front porch shall be provided along the narrow street frontage, instead of the current language that requires that, "the front porch and main entry" be provided on the narrow street frontage for corner lots. The draft code amendments also state 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 9 OF 13 Page 10 that front porches must have a "cumulative" minimum width of either 50%of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. When considered together, these amendments inadvertently allowed porches that face wide streets / lettered avenues to be counted towards front porch requirements when combined with other porches along narrow or numbered streets. This result was an unintended consequence of the draft code amendments, which were intended to maintain the existing R-6 front porch standards to the fullest extent possible. Given that the requirement for front porches along narrow street frontages is a critical component of the existing R-6 front porch standards, staff proposes to remove the word "cumulative" from the draft code amendments in order to clarify that the minimum width requirements for a front porch on a corner lot must be met along the narrow street frontage — not along the wide street frontage. Staff also proposes to revise the language such that corner lots are required to have "the covered front porch and entry" provided on the narrow street, instead of "at least one front porch". Staff proposes revising LOC 50.06.001.3.b as follows: b. Front Porch Required i. All new primary structuresdw shall include a covered front porch at an the main entry. When applied to cottage clusters, this standard applies to cottages for which there are no other structures between it and the front lot line. ii. t at hcc aThe porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. iii. On corner lots, the covered front porch and main entry shall be provided on the narrow street frontage. On lots with more than two street frontages, the front porch and main entry shall be provided on the front yard providing the full depth required by the zone, as determined by LOC 50.04.003.6. iv++. Porch supports shall be provided on the front porch and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. iv. A pedestrian front entry path shall provide direct access from the front porch to the public street/sidewalk. On corner lots, the front cntrypedestrian path shall connect to the public street/sidewalk on the narrow street frontage. Item 21 (DI: Clarify that alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone apply equally to single-family dwellings and duplexes, and that other middle housing types are handled differently for the purposes of this standard. The draft code amendments included changes to the alley surfacing requirements in the R-6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.c) that were intended apply the surfacing standards equally to single- 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 10 OF 13 Page 11 family dwellings and duplexes. This change is required pursuant to Division 46, which stipulates that cities that provide exceptions to public works standards to detached single-family dwellings must provide the same exceptions to duplexes. Because the alley surfacing standards in the R-6 Zone are considered a public works standard, in this case they must apply equally to single-family detached dwellings and duplexes. The draft code amendments further required alley paving for triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters, in order to be consistent with the current applicability of this provision to multifamily and townhouse developments. See below for the language included in the initial draft code amendments: c. Alleys Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or duplex residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. ii. Alleys that serve commercial, multi-family dwelling, townhouse, rowhousc, triplex, quadplex, or duplcx_cottage cluster development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. However, this language unintentionally expands the applicability of the alley paving requirement beyond the current scope of the provision. The existing language in the code requires paving for alleys that serve commercial, multifamily and townhouse developments. Because multifamily and townhouse developments are not currently allowed in R-6, this provision was really only intended to apply to a small subset of R-6 alleys that border other zoning districts that allow these uses. Given that triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters must now be allowed within the R-6 zone, the proposed amendment inadvertently expands the applicability of the alley paving requirement beyond its limited applicability today. Applying the standard as written in the draft code amendments could result in a patchwork of paved areas along the alleys in the R-6 Zone, which would be an unintended result of the amendment that does not align with existing neighborhood character. Further, introducing pavement within R-6 alleys could exacerbate stormwater issues for adjacent neighbors, as there is no public stormwater system for developments to connect to within the alley. Any approach to requiring pavement in these alleys must fully address how runoff within the alleys should be managed, as well as how to best maintain the existing character of these alleys with new development. In order to address these issues, staff proposes that the exemption from R-6 alley paving requirements be extended to all middle housing types— not just duplexes. This revision would be compliant with Division 46, which also allows cities to extend public works exceptions to other types of middle housing. Staff proposes the following revision to the alley surfacing requirements in the R-6 Zone (LOC 50.06.001.3.c): c. Alleys 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 11 OF 13 Page 12 Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: i. Alleys that serve single-family or middle housing residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. ii. Alleys that serve commercial or, multi-familyolling, townhouse, rowhousc, or duplex_development, major public facilities structures, or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. Item 32(D]: Limit the density of townhouse projects to four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. The draft code amendments included language intended to ensure consistency with the minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 by applying a maximum density of four attached townhouse units per townhouse project within a new Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects section (LOC 50.03.003.1.e), as follows: e. Townhouse Projects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, townhouse projects shall be limited to four attached townhouse units per townhouse project. However, this language is not entirely consistent with the language in OAR 660-046-205(4)(c), which allows cities to limit the number of townhouse units within a single townhouse building but does not allow cities to limit the overall number of units in a townhouse project or development. In order to ensure consistency with Division 46 requirements, staff proposes the following revision to the Use-Specific Standards for Townhouse Projects (LOC 50.03.003.1.e): e. Townhouse Projects In addition to the standards in Subsections a-c, above, no more than four units shall be allowed in an attached townhouse structure. Item 7[O]: Exempt remodels, conversions, or additions to detached single-family dwellings that create middle housing from the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards in the LGVCO. The draft code amendments also included new provisions in the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements standards for the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District. While the standards in the applicability section of the Structure Design standards for Residential Zones (LOC 50.06.001.2.a) apply broadly in most residential districts (see Item 18 [D], above), the language in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO) code section is specific to remodels and expansions within the LGVCO boundaries. For this reason, it was necessary to propose amendments to both of these sections in order to comply with the state's minimum requirements for conversions of single-family dwellings to middle housing. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 12 OF 13 Page 13 Staff proposes that the same revisions to the amendments proposed to LOC 50.06.001.2.a.iii, above (Item 18 [D]), be made to the Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion, and Site Improvements section in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii(6)), as follows: (6) Conversions of single-family dwellings that result in the creation of middle housing and are not classified as an expansion or addition are exempted from the standards of this subsection, provided that the conversion does not increase nonconformance with applicable standards. EXHIBITS F-1 Email Correspondence from DLCD Staff, 3/9/2022 To view the Staff Report, draft code amendments (dated and distributed on 3/7/2022) and other documents in the public records file, visit the Land Use Project webpage: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/boc pc/lu-22-0007-middle-housing-house-bill-2001-community- development-code-amendments 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 13 OF 13 From: STUCKMAYER Ethan*DLCD To: Jamin Kimmel) Cc: Olson.Erik; Rachel Cotton Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE:Cottage Cluster Model Code:Clustered Parking Date: Wednesday,March 09,2022 9:38:11 AM Hi Jamin, I believe this is a case of imprecise wording in the model code. The intent was that off-street parking not be required for cottage clusters under the model code. However, if the property owner wanted to provide parking it be provided subject to the clustered parking standards outlined in (6) below. The "may" should have really been a "must". I think the miswording resulted from the fact that providing off-parking is optional under the model code in the first place - they"may" provide parking, but that parking "must" be clustered. I see no issue with a city adopting code that changes the phrasing of(6) from "may" to "must" or "shall". I think this provides better clarity and certainty to the developer anyway. Thanks! Ethan Stuckmayer wolk Senior Planner of Housing Programs I Community Services Division Pronouns:he/him/his AMA Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development NW 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540 DLCD Work Phone: 503-302-0937 (Preferred) I Main DLCD Office: 503-373-0050 ethan.stuckmaveradlcd.oreaon.aov I www.oreaon.aov/LCD From:Jamin Kimmell <jamin@cascadia-partners.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:38 PM To: STUCKMAYER Ethan * DLCD<Ethan.STUCKMAYER@dlcd.oregon.gov> Cc: Olson, Erik<eolson@ci.oswego.or.us>; Rachel Cotton <rachel@cascadia-partners.com> Subject: Cottage Cluster Model Code: Clustered Parking Hi Ethan, We have a quick question on the parking design standards for cottage clusters in the model code. See language below. Are you aware if the intent of the code was to require parking in clusters or only to allow parking to be clustered at the discretion of the applicant?The use of the word "may" in the standard indicates the latter. But it seems odd to limit the number of contiguous spaces in a cluster if arranging parking in a cluster is not required in the first place. Couldn't a developer simply sidestep the requirements by claiming the parking is not arranged in clusters? Curious if this has some up before.Thanks for any insight you can offer. LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F- 1/PAGE 1 OF 2 6. Parking Design (see Figure 27). a. Clustered parking. Off-street parking may be arranged in clusters, subject to the following standards: i. Cottage cluster projects with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five (5) contiguous spaces. ii. Cottage cluster projects with 16 cottages or more are permitted parking clusters of not more than eight(8) contiguous spaces. iii. Parking clusters must be separated from other spaces by at least four(4)feet of landscaping. iv. Clustered parking areas may be covered. Jamin Kimmell, AICP Partner, Cascadia Partners iamin@cascadia-oartners.com p: 612.940.9087 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F- 1/PAGE 2 OF 2 04/14/2022 Follow-up Question#1:We received a question from a resident about the City's ability to set a maximum number of cottages on a lot. Here is the agency's response to Question#48 in last year's FAQ document: Q 48:According to OARs it seems like jurisdictions can have one unit/lot or infinite units/lot, but nothing in-between is possible. It would be helpful for a jurisdiction to know if they can limit clusters on a site.At what point is too much before becoming a small unit subdivision? A: The rule does not prohibit establishing an upper limit on the number of cottages on a lot. The requirement to allow at least eight units in a cluster means that there really is a floor to allow at least eight units within a cottage cluster, but a local jurisdiction may limit the upper threshold of how many units or clusters are allowed in a lot. Can you clarify DLCD's interpretation of OAR 660-046-0205(4)(d)(B)? If we are allowed to set a maximum limit on the number of cottages on a lot,would it not theoretically be compliant to require a maximum of eight cottages? If not,what type of limitation would be compliant? DLCD Response:A maximum number of cottages on a lot is acceptable for a large city to establish through the establishment of a maximum number of cottages per courtyard (at least eight) and maximum number of courtyards per lot. Effectively,this could result in as few as eight cottages and one courtyard per lot. Note, however,that the OARs do not permit the establishment of a number of overall cottages in a cottage cluster project, so a development consisting of several lots could potentially result in more than eight cottages. Follow-up Question#2:We also received a question from a resident about the City's ability to set a minimum footprint size for a cottage within a cottage cluster. OAR 660-046-0220(4)(e) reads as follows: (e)Dwelling Unit Size:A Large City may limit the minimum or maximum size of dwelling units in a Cottage Cluster, but must apply a maximum building footprint of less than 900 square feet per dwelling unit... While Division 46 has clear language related to the maximum building footprint that may be permitted for cottages, it's "silent" on whether cities could set a minimum building footprint. Can you clarify whether a minimum building footprint for cottages within a cluster would be compliant with Division 46? DLCD Response:A minimum cottage cluster footprint is not something that is considered in the OARs.This is mostly due to a policy direction from DLCD to allow the maximum flexibility of middle housing development.The city is not prohibited from applying a minimum footprint standard but don't feel that is best practice. We pose the rhetorical question of"what bad outcome would the city be mitigating against with that standard?" LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 03/28/2022 OREGON Department of Land Conservation & Development House Bill 2001 Guidance — Affordability and Goal 10 Findings Middle Housing Affordability Considerations House Bill 2001 requires local governments to consider ways to increase the affordability of middle housing, including considerations related to SDCs, property tax exemptions, and construction taxes. Sections 3, chapter 639, Oregon Laws 2019: (4) In adopting regulations or amending a comprehensive plan under this section, a local government shall consider ways to increase the affordability of middle housing by considering ordinances and policies that include but are not limited to: a) Waiving or deferring system development charges; b) Adopting or amending criteria for property tax exemptions under ORS 307.515 (Definitions for ORS 307.515 to 307.523) to 307.523 (Time for filing application), 307.540 (Definitions for ORS 307.540 to 307.548) to 307.548 (Termination of exemption) or 307.651 (Definitions for ORS 307.651 to 307.687) to 307.687 (Review of denial of application) or property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 (Definitions for ORS 308.450 to 308.481) to 308.481 (Extending deadline for completion of rehabilitation project); and c) Assessing a construction tax under ORS 320.192 (City or county ordinance or resolution to impose tax) and 320.195 (Deposit of revenues). Please note that this is not a requirement to adopt these measures, but to consider them and directly address them within the findings. We advise that local governments use this opportunity to consider the myriad of policies that affect middle housing development. The policies outlined within the bill are specific to the subsidization of middle housing development and affordable housing generally. We also advise the consideration of other policies that affect the feasibility and affordability of housing options, such as the provision and finance of public facilities, incentives for regulated affordable housing development, incentives for the retention or conversion of existing affordable housing supply, and incentives and barriers within the development code. Starting these conversations will be helpful for local jurisdictions as they embark on their housing production strategy, a new planning requirement for cities above 10,000 implemented by House Bill 2003 (now ORS 197.290). This document will require cities to identify and develop an implementation schedule for strategies that promote the development of housing. Rulemaking for this new requirement included the compilation of a library of potential strategies local governments could consider as part of a housing production strategy. While this list is not exhaustive, it's a good place to start the conversation. You can access this document as an attachment on the Secretary of State webpage: <httr s://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=660-008-0050> [Publish Date] Department of Land Conservation and Development www.oregon.gov/lcd LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-3/PAGE 1 OF 2 03/28/2022 OREGON Department of ►� Land Conservation ‘410, & Development Goal 10 Findings ORS 197.175(2)(a) requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with Oregon's statewide land use planning goals, including Goal 10. In any plan amendment or adoption of land use regulations, cities and counties must address via findings how the proposed plan amendments affect compliance with each applicable goal. In adopting land use regulations to comply with House Bill 2001, local jurisdictions will need to consider how these regulations will affect their compliance with Goal 10, including how it affects an adopted Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), to ensure the sufficient availability of buildable lands to accommodate needed housing types identified in the HNA. House Bill 2001 will enable to development of housing types where they were previously prohibited, increasing the capacity of lands to accommodate identified housing need. However, local jurisdictions will still need to consider how these regulations impact capacity in greater depth. ORS 197.296(6)(b), as amended by House Bill 2001, allows jurisdictions to assume up to a three percent increase in zoned capacity, unless they demonstrate a quantifiable validation that the anticipated capacity will be greater. In developing Goal 10 findings, we recommend that local jurisdictions apply this assumption to the adopted buildable lands inventory. Additionally, we recognize that adopted inventories may be dated and the true development capacity may not be known at the time of adoption. In these cases, we recommend that jurisdictions note that they will further consider the impacts of middle housing ordinances on land capacity in the next Housing Needs Analysis, as required on a regular schedule by House Bill 2003. [Publish Date] Department of Land Conservation and Development www.oregon.gov/lcd LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-3/PAGE 2 OF 2 2021 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee tiA F Key Issues Summary Memo Preliminary draft on October 7, 2021 ~' AINP�- O Final update November 3, 2021 OREGO� KEY ISSUES 1. Preservation of existing residential structures 2. Scale and character of new middle housing 3. Runoff and storm water impacts of middle housing 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing 1. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Members of the City Council and Planning Commission expressed concern that permitting middle housing in Lake Oswego could increase the rate of demolitions of existing residential structures, including existing naturally-occurring affordable (or relatively-affordable) housing. The Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (the "Committee") was provided with direction to explore potential incentives to encourage conversions or additions that create middle housing (as an alternative to demolitions) in order to promote the preservation of existing buildings. Committee discussion surrounding this topic indicated over 2/3 support'for the following code concepts: a. Revise the definition of"demolition" to include remodels that remove more than 50%of the exterior walls of the house. Members felt that this recommendation would help to prevent builders from pursuing projects that almost completely demolish an existing structure while still being considered a "remodel" under the current definition of"demolition". Under this current definition, a builder is able to demolish all but just one wall of an existing structure while not being required to classify the project as a "demolition", thus allowing builders to maintain nonconforming setbacks and lot coverage and avoid the City's recently-adopted $15,000 per dwelling-unit tax on residential demolitions. Changing the definition of"demolition" could encourage remodel projects that preserve more of the existing structure than under the current definition, while also working to disincentive demolitions of existing residences. Any revisions to the definition of demolition would 'The bylaws adopted by the MHCAC require a vote by two-thirds of the members present and eligible to vote to decide any question. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 1 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 1 OF 14 have broad applicability and would not just apply to middle housing, so further analysis would required to test the feasibility of any proposed changes. Though there was support for modifying the definition of "demolition" among many Committee members, one member expressed concern that this approach could result in adverse impacts on existing neighborhood character and recommended waiving the demolition tax for middle housing projects. Another member suggested a requirement that a reasonable opportunity be provided to a representative from the Historic Resources Advisory board to thoroughly photograph the interior and exterior of any structure that had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or local Lake Oswego historic landmark designation list prior to its demolition. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further consider concepts for how nonconforming development is defined and whether demolition tax applicability should be changed, particularly with respect to the threshold that must be reached in order for the project to qualify as a "demolition" (as compared to a remodel). Conduct feasibility testing and determine the extent of the impact this definitional change would have on existing City policies related to demolition and on development trends more broadly. b. Define duplexes, triplexes, and quad-plexes to include detached units, in addition to attached units. While some Committee members questioned the likely effectiveness of preserving existing houses by allowing for detached forms of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, members were generally supportive of detached "plexes" even in cases where an existing house is not preserved. Members stated that they supported detached "plexes" because they could allow additional flexibility for middle housing developments to better respond to topographical constraints, and because they could potentially result in more accessible dwelling units that would be more conducive to multi- generational living. There was general interest in exploring the question of detached "plexes" in further detail, particularly whether the City would only allow detached versions of certain types of "plexes" (for instance, allow detached duplexes but not detached triplexes or quadplexes). Committee members expressed particular concerns regarding the specifics of how detached duplex, triplex, and quadplex units would be regulated. Some members were concerned that it may be difficult to craft regulations for detached "plexes" that both comply with state requirements and result in a positive design outcome. For instance, one member noted that detached duplex, triplex, or quadplex developments would not be subject to the same standards that could be applied to cottage cluster developments, which are similar in concept to detached plexes but include different dimensional and design standards that are more appropriate for detached forms of middle housing. Another Committee member noted that, while the flexibility to construct detached units could produce a more positive design outcome, dimensional and design regulations should be further refined for both detached and attached middle housing developments in order to mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent neighbors— particularly those related to access lanes constructed near adjacent properties. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 2 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 2 OF 14 Following this discussion, new information was provided by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) clarifying that detached "plex" forms of middle housing must be treated similarly to other middle housing required under Division 46. This means that the City could only apply more refined siting and design standards to detached "plex" developments through an alternative track, as opposed to the minimum standards, which would require that the City conduct more extensive analysis to prove that these standards do not create "unreasonable cost or delay". Considering that cities are not required under Division 46 to allow detached "plex" developments in the first place, a representative from DLCD informally stated that it was reasonable to assume that applying different siting and design standards for detached "plexes" would not be expected to create such cost or delay. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address design and compatibility issues that may arise if detached "plexes" are permitted. See the Detached Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex discussion in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) and the Scale and Character of New Middle Housing section, below, for more discussion and next steps related to detached plex regulations. The Committee did not reach a clear consensus on other questions related to this topic, though half of the Committee did express support for a code concept that could preserve existing housing through the adoption of incentives to encourage conversions of or additions to single family dwellings (SFD) that create middle housing. The Committee also expressed 50% support for a code concept to not require that conversions of or additions to existing SFDs that create middle housing be consistent with the style and architecture of the existing structure. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#1 Memo: Preservation of Existing Homes (last updated on October 26, 2021). 2. SCALE AND CHARACTER OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING The City Council has directed staff to pursue the minimum compliance standards of Division 46, which generally require that cities apply the same or less restrictive dimensional standards (or "siting standards" in terms used in the state rules) to middle housing as apply to single-family housing. For Lake Oswego, dimensional standards include setbacks, height, setback planes, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and other requirements associated with utilities and public facilities. The Council also directed staff to apply the City's existing design standards to middle housing, with a suggestion to add new clear and objective standards that comply with state rules for middle housing in order to maintain consistency with existing homes and neighborhood character, as appropriate. In Lake Oswego, existing design standards regulate different form-based attributes of buildings, including garage appearance, long wall planes, roof projections, and in some zones, front porch, roof pitch, and other features. Under this direction, the City can regulate design features to ensure that middle housing has a scale and character that is consistent with existing homes or neighborhood character—as long as the same design standards that apply to middle housing also apply to single-family housing. These design Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 3 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 3 OF 14 standards must scale with form-based attributes of the site or building, not with the number of dwelling units. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Apply existing bulk and massing standards (or "dimensional" standards)for single-family housing to middle housing. Members generally felt that the current building envelopes in the Code were appropriate for the scale and character of the City. Some expressed concern that decreasing or "tightening" the building envelope could make it overly cumbersome to construct certain forms of middle housing (and may not comply with state regulations), while others were concerned that increasing or "loosening" the building envelope could increase the bulk or cost of single-family dwellings. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. b. Do not limit building width beyond existing setback regulations. Members expressed concern that building width limitations could produce undesirable design outcomes, with one member noting that some of the more desirable examples of middle housing would likely not comply with stringent building width limitations. One member also expressed concern that building width limitations could inadvertently encourage taller housing developments that may be less accessible to residents with a disability. Though members were clear that they did not support limiting building frontage width to a specific length or distance, some expressed support for a limitation on building width tied to a set proportion or percentage of the width of the overall lot. One member expressed concerns that, in conditions where lots are consolidated or larger than the minimum lot size, side setbacks alone may not adequately maintain building width, form, and massing patterns characteristic of that neighborhood. Members generally agreed that, though the "street side" of a development is certainly an important component of the design, it may be even more important to consider the potential impacts of middle housing development on abutting properties. Code concepts were further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 to address concerns that wide or uninterrupted building facades may negatively impact neighborhood character. However, following that discussion, the Committee did not opt to recommend any additional building width or façade articulation standards—consistent with their direction on the original question. See the discussion on Building Width and Facade Articulation in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Code concepts were also further explored at MHCAC Meeting#6 that would address the potential impact of activity in side and rear yards on neighboring residents. See the discussion on Screening and Buffering in the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 25, 2021) for more. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 4 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 4 OF 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. c. Enhance existing single-family garage appearance standards to better address the negative visual impacts of front-facing garages and driveways. Members agreed that existing garage appearance standards should be updated to address the potential implications of middle housing, a recommendation that would also address concerns that were identified more broadly by the community in the Neighborhood Character Survey results regarding front-facing garages and driveways. Members expressed differing views on the benefits or drawbacks of streets containing many garages and curb cuts, with some members concerned that more driveways and curb cuts could reduce the availability of on-street parking, and others concerned that more on-street parking could produce an unsafe pedestrian environment by limiting visibility. One member pointed out that some garage design standards may impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, and that garages and driveways when designed appropriately can help provide ADA-compliant access to the street. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. d. Apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select options that would indicate full support of the concept to apply existing single-family housing design standards for driveways and garages to townhouses, and another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns about the potential negative impacts of wide garages and driveways. Though less than 2/3 of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no caveats (64%), staff has included this recommendation because an additional 27%of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the existing single-family housing design standards could result in wider and more visually-dominant garages and driveways for townhouse developments. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee did not support applying DLCD Model Code standards for driveways and garages to townhouses or other middle housing types, as less than 10% of Committee members voted for the other polling options that would apply DLCD Model Code Standards to townhouses. During the discussion it was mentioned that, under the DLCD Model Code Standards, garages could occupy a greater percentage than currently allowed under the development code (60%) on townhouses with street frontages of less than 20 feet. Staff reminded Committee members that, while the regulations in the Model Code may be less restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of less than 20 feet, the Model Code would be more restrictive for buildings with a frontage width of over 20 feet. Some Committee members expressed concern about challenges that could emerge for those with different accessibility needs if the City were to further limit driveway and Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 5 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 5 OF 14 garage space. Other members expressed that, while they felt it was important to address concerns related to the visual impact of driveways and garages, they were concerned that these limitations could negatively impact the feasibility of developing townhouse units. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language, while also addressing the potential negative visual impacts of wide garages and driveways. e. If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include tree canopy requirements. Though the Committee was split on the question of whether landscaping should be required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, there was consensus that—if such requirements are instituted —they should take the form of requirements for a certain percentage of the lot to be covered by tree canopy. Staff notes that there was significant consensus on this issue amongst the group, as 90%of voting-eligible Committee members supported the concept of landscaping taking the form of a tree-canopy standard, if required. This option received more support than other code concepts that would define landscaping to include other elements, such as front yard or foundation landscaping. Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to regulate tree canopy under the Development Code (apart from the City's sensitive lands regulations). Subject to Council direction, work with the Planning Commission to refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. f. Limit the size of units within a cottage cluster. Although there was no clear consensus as to a specific recommended size, Committee members supported limiting the size of cottage cluster units in order to maintain consistency with existing neighborhood scale and character, and, indirectly, to promote housing affordability. Members expressed concerns that developers would be prone to maximize the square footage of individual cottage units if the City allows for those larger units. One member also expressed concerns related to accessibility, stating a preference for more square footage to be located on the ground floor of cottage cluster units when possible. Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for how to limit the size of units within a cottage cluster, and develop these concepts into recommended code language. Coordinate these code concepts with the concepts for detached forms of middle housing. g. Apply any design standard that applies to single-family housing to cottage cluster housing, as long as the standard does not conflict with the DLCD Model Code. While some members cautioned that the City should not be overly prescriptive with architectural style, form, or other design requirements, some also noted that designers are capable of responding to complex or prescriptive design standards, including specifications for modern or innovative buildings designs. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 6 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 6 OF 14 Next steps:Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. h. Regulate open space for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the same manner as for attached "plexes". Open space is assumed to be in yard setbacks. Do not specify minimum size or location of open space. The Committee was not supportive of additional open space or courtyard requirements for detached duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, which would align the requirements for detached plex developments more with the requirements for cottage cluster developments. One member expressed concerns that any requirements for the size or location of open space could work against the purpose of allowing detached plexes to begin with —which this person felt was to offer additional flexibility for property owners to add middle housing units to a given site. While there was general support to provide additional flexibility for detached plex developments, some members also felt strongly that building entrances should still be required to face either a street or open space. Staff was able to clarify that the entrance requirements for attached plex units—which include requirements that entrances face either open space or the adjacent street— could also be applied to detached units (similar to cottage clusters). Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. i. Allow smaller front or rear yard setbacks of 10-15 feet for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as is allowed for cottage cluster housing. Committee members agreed with the concept of providing more flexibility for the layout of a detached plex site by allowing for reduced front or rear yard setbacks for such developments. Members expressed support for this concept in part because the setback reduction would provide additional flexibility to facilitate the construction of detached plex units, and in part because such reduced setbacks could produce larger and more usable open spaces to accompany such units. However, other Committee members expressed concerns that allowing for reduced setbacks could produce a negative impact on neighborhood character. One member stated that— because of the results of the previous question —the reduced setbacks would not be accompanied by open space requirements, and was concerned that developers may simply choose to maximize their building envelope and not provide additional open space. Staff clarified that there are numerous other mechanisms within the code intended to control the bulk and massing of buildings, such as lot coverage and floor area, and that these would continue to apply in a way that ensures that the additional space allowed for the setback would not actually permit a larger building envelope/ mass than would be permitted for a single-family dwelling or other types of middle housing. Next steps: Work with the Planning Commission to further refine and develop this concept into recommended code language. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 7 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 7 OF 14 Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 8 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 8 OF 14 Other Concepts Considered Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus on other questions related to the scale and character of new middle housing, a majority of members expressed support for the following code concepts: • Create new standards to regulate the design and orientation of entrances for both middle housing and single-family housing, though the details require further discussion. • If landscaping is required for all new single-family and middle housing developments, include front yard landscaping requirements. • Require landscape screening when a garage or parking lot faces a side or rear lot line. • Do not require additional design standards relating to façade and entry elements for single-family and middle housing The Committee was more divided on polling questions related to landscaping requirements, with a 40% plurality of members voting for the City to institute landscaping requirements based on a percentage of lot area. Members questioned how the City would define "landscaping," pointing out that requiring more grass, for instance, might not necessarily result in positive environmental outcomes. Members were supportive of native, drought-resistant landscaping as well as a healthy tree canopy, stressing the importance of conserving water for the future through drought-tolerant plantings. Members acknowledged that some strategies intended to enhance aesthetics through landscaping may have unintended consequences for other important goals related to sustainability and resiliency in the face of climate change. One member cautioned that front-yard landscaping requirements could preclude more modern or minimalist landscape design approaches intended to highlight architectural form, and felt that it was more important for landscaping to be used to soften visual impacts on neighbors to the side of a proposed development than for curb appeal. Another stated concerns that "foundation plantings" could lead to increased risk of fire damage, as deciduous plantings located near buildings could have the unintended consequence of spreading fire adjacent to the primary structure. Staff notes there could also be administrative and enforcement challenges with implementing some of these concepts. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 1: Scale and Character of Duplexes,Triplexes, and Quadplexes (last updated on October 26, 2021), Key Issue#2 Memo, pt. 2: Scale and Character of Townhouses and Cottage Clusters (last updated on September 22, 2021), and the Remaining Issues Memo (last updated on October 26, 2021). 3. RUNOFF AND STORMWATER IMPACTS OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING As densities increase with middle housing we anticipate removal of more landscaping and trees to make way for more driveways, patios, and other features, unless the City limits development of these features. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 9 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 9 OF 14 The Committee was provided with direction to explore potential limitations on the development of impervious surfaces for middle housing and single-family homes. When considering the polling results as a whole, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring the following code concept: a. Limit the development of impervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of increased density. The polling question presented to the Committee on this subject allowed members to select an option that would indicate full support of the concept to limit the development of impervious surfaces for both single-family and middle housing development, as well as another option that would indicate support for the concept while still expressing concerns related to the impact of these requirements on development feasibility. Though just —44% of the Committee voted in support of this specific concept with no added caveats or qualifiers, staff has included this recommendation because an additional "44% of members were also tentatively in support of the concept while concurrently expressing concerns that the impervious surface limitations could make it less feasible to develop middle housing. Taken in combination, there is a clear trend that the Committee was interested in further exploring impervious surface limitations, as only—11% of Committee members voted for the other polling option not to apply limitations on impervious surfaces. The Committee also received a comment from a member of the public that supported impervious surface limitations. Despite general support for the concept, Committee members were interested in the specifics of what would be considered a pervious or impervious surface under the code, with one member stating that the use of"pervious" pavers in driveways was not desirable. Another member expressed concern that impervious surface limitations could impact accessibility for individuals with a disability, as impervious surface limitations could disincentive the use of accessible pathways, ramps, or other features that would improve accessibility. Staff responded that it would be appropriate to conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the extent to which an impervious surface requirement could impact the ability to develop accessible middle housing units, in order to better "calibrate" the proposed requirement. Another member expressed concern that percentage-based impervious surface limitations could disproportionately impact development feasibility on smaller lots, but thought that the percentage-based requirements may be more appropriate on larger lots. Staff responded that this issue could be explored when conducting a feasibility study, and that it may be appropriate to "calibrate" required impervious surface requirements based on lot size. There was also some discussion of specific site conditions that may further necessitate impervious surface limits, such as steeply-sloped sites or sites containing soils that do not drain well. While some members felt that impervious surface limitations would be most appropriate for sites with these types of conditions, others felt that such limitations are needed on a City-wide basis. Members also discussed the utility of larger trees in absorbing stormwater on-site, with one member suggesting that retaining significant trees should be a component of the City's strategy related to impervious surfaces. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 10 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 10 OF 14 Next steps:Seek City Council direction on whether to limit development of impervious surfaces to mitigate impacts of increased density. Subject to Council direction, conduct feasibility testing in order to calibrate/develop a more specific recommendation related to impervious surface limitations. As applicable, work with the Planning Commission to refine this concept into code language. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#3 Memo: Stormwater (last updated on October 26, 2021). 4. AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF NEW MIDDLE HOUSING City Council directed the Committee to recommend approaches to encourage middle housing developed under HB 2001 to meet the specific housing needs of the community. The two primary needs that have been identified are for units that are affordable to lower or moderate-income households (defined as families earning 80% or less of area median income) and for units that are accessible for people with disabilities, older individuals, or others who otherwise have needs that may not be met by current housing options. Committee discussion on this issue indicated over 2/3 support for the following code concepts: a. Provide financial incentives for middle housing projects that include a minimum number or percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members expressed support for producing affordable housing consistent with City Council goals, with some members stating that the City should also attempt to promote housing for people of color or more diverse residents in order to redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. One member noted that similar forms of discrimination continue to this day, even though they are technically illegal. Other members responded by agreeing with the sentiment that past discrimination should be addressed, but urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Several members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies that would target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring further given that other strategies to promote diversity may not have the same legal risk. Though there was general support for providing financial incentives for accessible middle housing units, some Committee members stressed the importance of determining which specific accessibility standard would be incentivized. Other members noted that there are several different standards for accessibility that the City could incentivize, noting that there is no single accessibility standard utilized by builders given their desire for flexibility. See the discussion below for more discussion on the specific types of financial incentives recommended by the Committee. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 11 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 11 OF 14 i. Revise the City's current SDC exemption policy so that it applies to middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Planning staff noted that the City's existing SDC exemption policy for ADUs has had a measurable impact on increasing their development, with the construction of ADUs doubling in volume after SDC exemptions began to be offered. While members supported the concept of SDC exemptions for affordable or accessible middle housing, they also agreed that there should be a limit to the number of units that could be exempted from SDCs or property taxes. For example, one member suggested that the first unit on a lot would be subject to full SDCs while fees for additional middle housing units might be exempt from or have reduced SDCs. Staff indicated that this approach could be similar to the existing fee waiver for ADUs, which because of their small size are assumed to have a de minimis impact on City infrastructure. Some members expressed concern about making up for any revenue lost through SDC or property exemptions, stating that City infrastructure could deteriorate without sufficient funding. Other members countered that municipalities are able to set budgetary priorities depending on policy direction and that budgetary allocation was not within the purview of the Committee. One member noted that, if the City had concerns about maintaining enough funds to offset potential SDC exemptions, SDC deferrals (require payment at time of occupancy instead of at issuance of building permit) could be another short-term option. Staff clarified that any proposal for financial incentives that would be presented to Council would need to include an assessment of the budgetary impact of the policy as well as alternative approaches, including potential offsets for any lost revenue through other budgetary sources. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for SDC exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. ii. Provide property tax exemptions for middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. Committee members asked clarifying questions about how property tax exemptions would apply to owner-occupied affordable or accessible units, with staff noting that deed restrictions related to owner-occupied housing are feasible but function differently than for rental housing. One Committee member expressed interest in potentially exploring a "community land trust" model within Lake Oswego in order to ensure the continued availability of homeownership opportunities related to affordable housing. It should be noted that the City currently does not offer property tax exemptions for affordable housing except as required by state law. Next steps:Work with the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine code concepts for property exemptions to incentivize affordable or accessible middle housing. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 12 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 12 OF 14 b. Do not provide regulatory incentives for middle housing developments that include affordable and/or accessible units. Committee members voiced concern that adjacent neighbors would bear the burden of regulatory incentives that increase bulk, add density, or eliminate parking requirements, and that loosening these zoning requirements could diminish many of the characteristics that residents stated that they valued about their neighborhood during the Neighborhood Character Survey conducted earlier this year. Members also expressed concerns that regulatory incentives could produce less- desirable housing than would be produced otherwise, with members noting that low-income residents should be offered the same quality of housing that would be offered with market-rate housing. Next steps: Convey this recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission. Though the Committee did not reach a clear 2/3 consensus, a majority of members expressed support for the City to institute a Construction Excise Tax (CET) to help fund affordable housing incentives and programs. Some members expressed concern that CETs would increase the cost of construction in Lake Oswego, with one member stating that the burden of funding affordable housing should not be placed upon homebuilders. Other members countered by stating that a CET could actually encourage builders of affordable housing to work in Lake Oswego by showing that the City values equity and inclusion, and that this added value could make this type of housing more viable or desirable from a builder's perspective. Staff notes that there will likely be another opportunity to discuss the concept of CETs when the City proceeds to update its Housing Needs Analysis and develop a Housing Production Strategy (per House Bill 2003) in coming years. For a more in-depth review of the Committee's consideration of these issues, please refer to Key Issue#4 Memo: Affordability&Accessibility (last updated on October 7, 2021). ISSUES OUTSIDE OF ORIGINAL COMMITTEE SCOPE During the course of the Committee's discussion, some comments and ideas emerged that were not able to be addressed within the scope of the Committee's work. These additional issues are documented below: • Equitable Housing and Racial Justice: One or more Committee members stated that the City should go beyond incenting affordable or accessible units by looking at strategies that would specifically redress the history of racist exclusionary housing practices in Lake Oswego. While some members posed the idea that new housing units could be targeted to people of color or more diverse residents, other members urged caution given the history of fair housing-related legal issues that have emerged when cities attempt to provide housing preference to individuals based on race or other types of legal status protected under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing statutes. Some members agreed that, even though there may be legal implications for some strategies to target more diverse residents, the concept was worth exploring Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 13 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 13 OF 14 further given that other strategies to promote diversity within the city may not have the same legal risk. • Senate Bill 458: Shortly before the Committee's first meeting, Senate Bill 458 was adopted by the Oregon Legislature. The bill requires jurisdictions subject to the requirements of HB 2001 to allow lot divisions for any type of middle housing allowed pursuant to HB 2001 through an "expedited land division process." The bill also sets forth a series of parameters on how a city must process middle housing lot division applications. Committee members posed many questions about how Senate Bill 458 would impact their decisions, and whether allowing for such expedited land divisions would make it possible not to comply with other requirements under consideration. While staff responded that, generally speaking, they did not see any provisions in SB 458 that would conflict with the direction already provided by the Committee, it will be necessary to discuss the implications of the bill more thoroughly through the public process and seek direction from City Council regarding how to respond. • Stormwater requirements: While discussing potential recommendations related to impervious surface limitations, some members expressed concern that the City's existing Stormwater Code may not be sufficient to accommodate the potential increase in runoff that could result from new middle housing development. • Access and connectivity: One Committee member expressed a desire to explore design standards that would encourage pathways, driveways, and access lanes for middle housing that connect to one another, where practicable. • Land use restrictions for garages: One Committee member expressed an interest in restricting the use of garages to parking only, thus prohibiting the use of garages for storage or other purposes that could result in the need for more on-street parking. City legal staff examined this issue and expressed concerns about the difficulty of enforcing such a restriction, as well as concerns that this restriction could conflict with previously-enacted City policies related to garages. • Garbage and recycling bins: One Committee member suggested that the City explore strategies to require or incentivize the screening of garbage, recycling, and compost bins. • Moratorium on tree removal: One member of the public suggested that, in order to improve the on-site absorption of stormwater runoff, the City should institute a moratorium on the removal of any tree above 15 inches in diameter. Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Key Issues Summary Memo Page 14 of 14 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT F-4/PAGE 14 OF 14 McCaleb, Iris From: Shannon Clark <shannon.a.clark@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:32 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] ATTN: Iris McCaleb/City of Lake Oswego Planning & Building Services Department Written Testimony for Monday,April 11, 2022. Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) Community Development Code Amendments LU 22-0007/Ordinance 2892 A thicker, denser housing canopy will take away our beautiful tree canopy&the charm & livability of our small, suburban town. The city of Lake Oswego has been extremely lenient with tree removals in the last few years (I've lived here for 30 years, so I can attest by seeing how many ridiculous permits are allowed,where 10 years ago they wouldn't have been considered). To make room for more housing density-more trees will have to be removed...that's not what I, and many others have signed up for when purchasing in our suburban Lake Oswego community. I was raised until 11 in an urban, inner city, where's there's more rooftop's than treetops(my 75 year old dad still lives in this inner city home in California, which I travel to many times a year-and grateful for when I return home to my suburban area home with its beautiful tree canopy). This is why I purchased my home in a small, suburban city& not Portland. These HB's will only push out suburban boundaries & it's residents&we're living in a time where we've learned that we need to plant more trees than to take more down. Shannon Clark 17163 Warren Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Sent from my iPad 1 of 1 PC Testimony From: rockwell mullen <mullenrockwe1190@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:23 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed "middle housing" City Council members: I am a third generation Lake Oswego resident and have lived in town for 65 years. Allowing "middle housing" in single family zones would significantly lower the community experience we cherish. It would also lower property values. R.E. Mullen 18337 Tamaway Dr. Lake Oswego, OR LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-002 /PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Brittany Miles <brittany.miles@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 2:28 PM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] LU 22-0007 SUPPORT Dear Planning Commissioners, I support LU 22-0007. I believe creating more dense housing within Lake Oswego will provide a net benefit to the community by increasing property taxes and greater income diversity. Best, Brittany Miles 3850 Lake Grove Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Brittany Miles Cell: (562)419-4416 brittanv.miles@gmail.com LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-3 /PAGE 1 OF 1 McCaleb, Iris From: Robert Ervin <bobandmignon@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:01 AM To: McCaleb, Iris Subject: [EXTERNAL] Testimony 4/11/22 to Planning Committee Chair Heape and Members of the Planning Committee, Thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you this evening. My name is Bob Ervin. I reside at 2240 Prestwick Road in the Uplands Neighborhood. I had the pleasure of serving on the Middle Housing Task Force and am the chair person of the Uplands Neighborhood Association and Vice Chair of the Neighborhood Chairs Committee. I would like to recognize the tremendous amount of good work the city's planning staff and your committee have done to review code in an effort to attain compliance with HB 2001 and also protect the character of our neighborhoods. I would particularly like to thank Erik Olson who has worked very diligently to ensure all voices have been heard and has taken appropriate steps to balance state and city priorities. The issue I would like to address is a gap that I see in the code as it pertains to Cluster Housing. While the draft code for the maximum footprint is established at 900 square feet per unit averaged over the cluster development, we also have the flexibility with HB2001 to set a minimum footprint for individual cottages. We heard a concern from the 50+ representative on the Middle Housing Taskforce that there needs to be sufficient space on the ground floor to meet the needs of people with ambulatory limitations. Our current code for ADU's already permits smaller footprints. Given our aging demographics, I suggest that for cottage clusters, the code minimum be 800 square feet. Adding this footprint minimum for a cottage will help us ensure that we can meet thisneed in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Ervin 503-803-9180 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Susan Labhard <slabhard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:59 AM To: PC Testimony Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Testimony: Middle Housing (House Bill 2001) LU 22-0007/Ordinance 2892 Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:00 AM Flag Status: Flagged Planning Commission: As a 34-year property owner in Lake Oswego, it is in our best interest to oppose the amendment of Community Development Code(LOC 50)to allow"middle housing"in any zone that permits detached sing-family dwellings. We are now retired in our"forever home" and allowing "middle housing" would greatly reduce the value of our home, which is not fair to current homeowners in our area. There are other close-by locations to allow for"middle housing" which are more appropriate.The main advantage is for developers to make a profit at our expense. R, Scan .Ca.MPiwid LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-5/PAGE 1 OF 1 PC Testimony From: Alder Miller <alderbytheriver@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:52 AM To: PC Testimony Cc: Mom Chris Miller Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for Tonight's PC Hearing Hello, I am submitting comments on behalf of my mother, Christine Ernst for April 11, 2022 Planning Committee meeting. Please see below. Thank you. Chair Heape and Members of the Planning Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. My name is Christine Miller, and my parents built a home in 1975 on Wembley Park Road in the Uplands Neighborhood. We currently have two generations of our family living there today. I'd like to first start by acknowledging all the work that has been done by the city's planning staff, and this committee to work towards compliance with HB 2001. The concern I'd like to address is regarding the Cluster Housing code. While the draft code for the maximum footprint is established at 900 square feet per unit averaged over the cluster development, we also have the flexibility with HB2001 to set a minimum footprint for individual cottages. There needs to be sufficient space on the ground floor to meet the needs of people with ambulatory limitations. Given our aging demographics, I suggest that for cottage clusters, the code minimum be 800 square feet. The current code for ADUs already permits smaller footprints. Adding this footprint minimum for cottage clusters will help us ensure that we can meet this need in our community, and provide accessibility to those that need it most. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Christine Miller 415-699-3230 LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-6/PAGE 1 OF 1 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 �1Tr 11 jl • HB2001 code language to Preserve the Streetscape in the First Addition Neighborhood - it � ; . 0)r IL: l �_ iix��pry�;, uuiuu�um �� '�mm umi11 . ` r f FAN's Streetscape Charming Front Porches 4tit N L' A `,44 Original home ►� =` New Walk along 7t" st LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 1 OF 3 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 There was a code problem • The main entrance was not required to be on the front of the lot or off the front porch • So this happened: Yf� i / ice at ,.. Main Entry on side of structure Front Porch PC and CC fixed it • Current R6 Covered Front Porch code corrected in 2015 aligns: - the Covered Front Porch -the Main Entry - the front of the lot _ - path from front porch 1t'� " "� `PA �� to the street/sidewalk mom at the front (typically 7 the numbered streets, 1st through 10th St) --IL I I ICI llllll airraU _ LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 2 OF 3 Submitted by Carole Ockert 4/11/2022 April 1st revision language does not mandate 'main' entry off front porch (per HB2001 compliance) Needs to add design standard for Front Porch/streetscape protection Updated Revision HB2001 draft code - Still allows for multiple entries for middle housing - Still does not require 'main entrance' off Front Porch - Preserves Covered Front Porch and Streetscape - Still allows covered patios - with fireplaces on side ur--_,Ini - it . Updated Revision HB2001 draft code ii. The porch shall have a minimum depth of six ft. and a minimum width of either 50% of the building width, as measured within 40 ft. of the front lot line, or 15 ft., whichever is greater. See Figure 50.06.001-K: Minimum Front Porch Width. The covered front porch must be open and unobstructed/unobscured on the side of the porch that faces the narrow street frontage. A railing may be provided up to 3 ft. in height as measured from the finished floor of the covered front porch or the State mandated railing height for that Project, whichever is higher. -d I , ' Iyui�xi,1 Ik j�, -- a LU 22-0007 EXHIBIT G-007/PAGE 3 OF 3 7.1 et'p` 4P COUNCIL REPORT // 4eo OREGOt.4 Subject: Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Project Update Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Kelli Byrd, ADA Coordinator Report Date: May 6, 2022 Department: Engineering Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑X Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: No Council action, information only. Recommended Language for Motion: No Council action, information only. Project/ Issue Relates To: Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation &Transition Plan Project Update Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Staff will be presenting an update on the City's Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan project. BACKGROUND The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.citv Page 2 origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA requires all public entities, regardless of size, to evaluate all of their programs, services, policies, and practices and to modify any that do not meet ADA requirements. In addition, public entities with 50 or more employees are required to develop a transition plan detailing any structural changes that would be undertaken to achieve program access and specify a timeframe for their completion. Public entities are also required to provide an opportunity for interested individuals to participate in the self-evaluation and transition planning processes. DISCUSSION Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (SETP) To make Lake Oswego more accessible to all, on January 7, 2020, Council approved a contract with Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to develop an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. The City of Lake Oswego initiated the ADA SETP project in spring 2020; however, as a result of the pandemic, the project had deviated from the original estimated schedule. At this time, the overall project is 90 percent complete, and there are a few remaining items to finish. This report outlines the status of the various components, and when we expect to complete the remaining tasks. The project includes four major components: • Reviewing all City programs, services, and policies; • Evaluating the accessibility of City facilities (buildings, parks, and parking lots); • Assessing facilities in the public right-of-way; and • Developing a strategic plan and tools for implementing the recommended changes to City facilities and practices. The ADA SETP project demonstrates the City's commitment to providing equal access to its public programs, services, facilities, and activities for all people with disabilities. The resulting Plan will ensure the City is meeting the requirements of the ADA legislation for Title II entities by: • Providing notice of nondiscrimination; • Establishing an ADA grievance procedure; • Designating an employee responsible for overseeing title II compliance; • Completing a self-evaluation of services, policies, and practices; • Developing a transition plan that identifies structural modifications necessary for compliance; and • Including people with disabilities in the planning process by establishing an ADA stakeholder advisory group 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 The following outlines the project tasks and describes the schedule for each. ADA Information Portal The City has established an ADA information portal on its website regarding the ADA Program, ADA grievance procedure, and notice to provide ongoing communication throughout the project. The direct URL is www.lakeoswego.city/ada. The portal serves as an information hub for the Transition Plan process, meeting summaries, the project schedule, and more generally the City's ADA Program. Community members can request an ADA accommodation or file a complaint/grievance via the information portal. An ADA Information Portal was created in early 2022. Contracts are in place with Accessibility Vendors to meet accommodation requests. Policy and Program Evaluation (Self-Evaluation) During the project's policy and program evaluation phase, a comprehensive review of the City's policies, services, and practices was conducted to ensure that they are nondiscriminatory to people with disabilities. The evaluation involved the following tasks: • Meetings with City staff to administer a questionnaire regarding City practices; • Reviewing the City's policy documents, programs, and services; • Reviewing the City's standards and specifications; • Identifying modifications to City programs, services, practices, standards, and specifications; • Developed a draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report; and a • Meeting with the ADA stakeholder advisory group to identify issues and review recommendations for modifications to City policies, services, and practices. The majority of these tasks were completed in winter 2020. Building, Parking, and Park Evaluations (Transition Plan) The facility evaluations involved assessing and inventorying barriers to accessibility within the City's buildings, parking, and parks facilities. Several items were addressed during the evaluations: • Identifying ADA barrier removal actions; • Developing ADA assessment reports for City review and comment; • Drafting barrier removal priorities and a schedule; and • Involving the ADA stakeholder advisory group in establishing the priorities for barrier removal. The building, parking, and park evaluations were completed in spring 2021, and the barrier assessments were submitted to the City in summer 2021. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 Right-of-Way Evaluations (Transition Plan) The right-of-way evaluations involved assessing and inventorying ADA barriers within the public right-of-way for adherence to standards. The assessment involved the following tasks: • Establishing the procedures for evaluating right-of-way facilities; • Conducting evaluations of sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and on-street parking; • Identifying ADA barrier removal actions; and • Drafting barrier removal priorities and a schedule; and • Involving the stakeholder advisory group in establishing the priorities for barrier removal in the public right-of-way. The right-of-way evaluations were completed in winter 2020. Stakeholder Feedback A stakeholder advisory group was formed in spring 2022, including people with disabilities or representatives of disability advocacy groups. The group provided input and feedback in spring 2022. Topics and feedback included: • Build, improve and maintain pedestrian access routes in the public right-of-way; • Improve ADA access to all parks including the Natural Parks; • Park descriptions on website should include the park address, accessible features and if there is public transit access; • Improve access to public transit within the City; • Minimize how often people with disabilities are required to ask for an accommodation by providing accessible and inclusive programs from the start; • Budget and address ADA concerns in a timely manner; and • Prioritize facilities that can be accessed via public transportation. Plan Development Based on the policy and program evaluation, the facility evaluations, the prioritization and scheduling process, and feedback from the ADA stakeholder advisory group, MIG is currently drafting a preliminary ADA Self-Evaluation &Transition Plan for public review. The Plan will be posted to the City website, promoted through the City's various communication channels, and hard copies will be available at designated locations to collect public comments. Once completed, the Plan will: • Describe the legislative requirements; • Describe the methodology employed for the Plan's development; • Provide the results and recommendations of the self-evaluation process; • Provide the results of the transition planning process and schedule for barrier removal; • Provide implementation strategies for barrier removal; • Provide the City's notice of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; • Identify the employee responsible for the implementation of the Plan; • Provide the grievance procedures; and • Provide a list of resources. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 The public comment period is anticipated in late spring/summer 2022. After the public comment period, the Plan will be presented to Council for adoption. Other Outreach • Celebrating National Disability Awareness Month in March 2022 o Council Proclamation o Posters displayed at City Hall o Digital Media Campaign (Website, Social Media, Video, E-newsletter) • ADA Videos o External: The Role of an ADA Coordinator and internal video • Farmers' Market in summer 2022 FISCAL IMPACT The overall costs to meet the ADA guidelines for accessibility both in the public Right-of-Way and in our public spaces/facilities will be significant. The final plan will provide a recommendation for implementing these improvements over time. The next Capital Improvement Plan, which will be revised for the next biennium FY 23-25, should incorporate the ADA Transition Plan timelines and costs so that funds can be dedicated to this effort on a continual basis for the foreseeable future, until such time as the barriers are removed. NEXT STEPS • Final outreach for the Transition Plan—summer 2022 • Plan completion —summer 2022 • Return to Council for final review—fall 2022 • Integrate ADA improvements into next budget cycle—fall/winter 2023 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft—Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation Summary Report, December 2020 2. Draft—Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Facility Assessment Summary Report,June 2021 3. ADA Facilities Maps, June 2021 4. Draft—Right-of-Way Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Barrier Summary Report, January 2021 5. Draft— Right-of-Way Barrier Removal Maps, January 2021 6. ADA Stakeholder Meeting#1 Summary, March 2022 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 r 11Wr G Of) 4 V Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation Summary Report City of Lake Oswego, Oregon © 0 December 2020 This page intentionally left blank. Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Contents AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT(ADA) SELF-EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT 1 Contents i 1 Self-Evaluation 1 2 Staff Questionnaire and Policy Review Summary 2 Customer Service 3 Staff Training 4 Contracting, Licensing,or Other Arrangements 5 Public Meetings 6 Program Participation 8 Transportation Services 10 Tours and Trips 10 Accessible and Adaptive Equipment 11 Printed and Online Materials 12 Website 14 Televised and Audiovisual Information 15 Telecommunications 16 Emergency Planning 17 Notice,Grievance, and Complaint Procedure 18 Facilities 21 3 Standards and Specifications Review Summary 23 City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 i Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report This page intentionally left blank. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 ii Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report 1 Self-Evaluation Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), all programs, activities, and services offered to the public by the City of Lake Oswego must be accessible for people with and without disabilities. Accessibility applies to all aspects of a program or service. Under title II, public entities are required to evaluate their programs, activities, and services periodically.'The self-evaluation process identifies barriers and makes recommendations to correct policies and practices inconsistent with title II regulations and result in limitations to access for people with disabilities. The City of Lake Oswego's evaluation included three elements: a staff questionnaire, a review of City policies, and a review of the City's standards and specifications. This report describes the staff questionnaire results, the policy review observations, and the evaluation of standards and specifications. The ADA coordinator or designee will follow-up with department managers to review the draft Self-Evaluation Report's recommendations. In those situations where a policy, program, or procedure creates a barrier to accessibility that is unique to a department or a specific program, the ADA Coordinator, or designee, will coordinate with the department head or program manager to address the removal of the barrier in the most reasonable and accommodating manner in accordance with applicable law. 1 Sec. 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L.93-112,87 Stat. 394(29 U.S.C.794) Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations. Federal Department of Transportation fund recipients and subrecipients need to establish a system for periodically reviewing and updating the evaluation per 49 CFR§27.11(c)(2)(i-v)). City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 1 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report 2 Staff Questionnaire and Policy Review Summary A program accessibility questionnaire was administered to City staff in the fall of 2020, with 28 total respondents. The questionnaire highlighted areas where the City and its Departments are effectively meeting the needs of people with disabilities while also identifying gaps in department practices. A complimentary evaluation of the City's services, policies, and practices was also undertaken during the same period. The review includes policies and administrative rules, public documents, forms, applications, and the City's code. The findings will be integrated into the City's ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. They will serve as a basis for implementing improved access to the City's programs as required by the ADA. This section is organized into the following categories based on the requirements of title II of the ADA and through the organization of the questionnaire: • Customer Service; • Printed and Online Materials; • Staff Training; • Website; • Contracting, Licensing, or Other • Televised and Audiovisual Arrangements; Information; • Public Meetings; • Telecommunications; • Program Participation; • Emergency Planning; • Transportation Services; • Notice, Grievance, and Complaint • Tours and Trips; Procedure; and • Accessible and Adaptive Equipment; • Facilities. The questionnaire summaries are based on the number of individuals who answered each question — rather than all 28 respondents—since some questions were inapplicable for some respondents. The policy summaries are derived from a review of the City's policies and programs. The required and recommended actions that follow are derived from the assessment of the questionnaire responses, the policy review process, or both. Required actions are based on the ADA's legislative requirements or other best practice guidelines for accessibility. Some actions are always required, such as posting a notice of nondiscrimination, while other actions are only required when requested, such as providing alternative formats (for example, large print, braille). In many cases, the City has multiple options for providing accessible programs, activities, and services. This section also includes implementation strategies and links to the federal government's online best practices tool kit.2 The reviewed services, policies, and practices are incorporated into an ADA Self-Evaluation Workbook in an MS Excel format, which documents existing conditions and suggests barrier removal actions for providing access to City programs. The Self-Evaluation Workbook is 2"The Tool Kit should be considered a helpful supplement to—not a replacement for—the regulations and technical assistance materials that provide more extensive discussions of ADA requirements. For the full "Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments," refer to the ADA.gov toolkit:www.ada.aov. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 2 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report intended to be the working document for implementing improvements and should be maintained by the City's ADA Coordinator or designee. Customer Service In-person interaction with the public is one of the primary functions of most City departments. To meet ADA standards for in-person interactions, staff should be aware of the formal and informal procedures for accommodating people with disabilities, including appropriate responses to requests for program modifications and guidelines for accommodating service animals.3 Questionnaire Summary Many respondents report that their department makes changes to standard operating procedures to include people with disabilities, with some of these indicating there are formal policies and procedures for making these changes. Few respondents reported tracking accessibility requests. Respondents indicated that people with disabilities are not charged additional fees for program modifications. Several respondents indicated that their department consults with outside organizations or individuals that assist people with disabilities. Responses indicated that departments allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all places where people without service animals are permitted. However, staff generally are not aware of the two questions they may ask regarding service animals. Policy Review Summary The City's code, Comprehensive Plan, and various City web pages use terms such as "handicapped facilities," "the disabled," "emotionally disturbed," "physically impaired person," and similarly outdated language. A customer service approach to verbal and written communication uses appropriate and respectful vocabulary, emphasizing the person first, rather than the disability (for example,people with disabilities instead of the disabled). Definitions and terminology used by the City should conform with the ADA wherever possible (for example, use service animal instead of seeing-eye dog). The Parks and Recreation Department also has a policy prohibiting off-leash dogs from City parks except where otherwise designated, which could discriminate against people with disabilities who rely on service animals. Required Actions 1. Continue to make appropriate modifications to regular practices to accommodate individuals with disabilities' needs when providing customer service.4 2. Continue to ensure an additional fee is not charged to people requesting a program modification due to their disability.4 3 Only dogs are recognized as service animals under title II of the ADA. In limited cases, miniature horses that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities may also qualify to provide services. Emotional support,therapy,comfort,or companion animals are not considered service animals under the ADA. 4 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 3 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report 3. Ensure that service animals are allowed in City facilities.5 4. Make reasonable modifications for people with disabilities who rely on a miniature horse that is individually trained to assist them.6 Implementation Strategies • Ensure that staff members are aware of the City's policy regarding service animals and are trained to implement this policy appropriately. • Develop a process for determining reasonable modifications as people with disabilities request them. The process should address the following considerations: o Ensure the public has easy access to information about requesting modifications and understanding who to contact. o Ensure all staff can direct a person requesting the modification to the appropriate staff member. o Ensure requests can be accepted from someone on behalf of the person with a disability and are not be required to be in writing. o Ensure that requests and outcomes are tracked. Staff Training As a part of the City's ongoing staff development and training, the incorporation of disabilities awareness, standards, and resources is encouraged for all staff interfacing with the public or who maintain the facilities used by the public. Questionnaire Summary Respondents widely reported that they or the staff in the department have contact with the public. While staff meetings, trainings, policy manuals, and plan review were mentioned as ways staff are informed of the City's obligations and policies to enable people with disabilities to participate in programs or activities, some respondents are unsure if or how staff is informed. While some respondents indicated that staff in their department are provided with training on interacting with people with disabilities, others expressed uncertainty, and most indicate that staff does not receive this type of training. Policy Review Summary The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. MIG reviewed the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department's (LOPR) Inclusive Recreation Handbook and Police Department Policy 370: Communications with Persons with Disabilities and found these to contain excellent examples of staff training materials for interaction with people with disabilities. S DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.136 Service animals 6 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.136(i) Miniature horses City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 4 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Required Actions 1. Ensure that city staff is knowledgeable about obligations, policies, and procedures for providing accessible services, programs, and activities to the public' 2. Ensure that city staff is knowledgeable about procedures for responding to requests for modifications.' 3. Ensure that city staff is knowledgeable about construction and maintenance of accessible facilities.' Implementation Strategies • Develop and disseminate best practice resources for staff, similar to LOPR's Inclusive Recreation Handbook or Police Department Policy 370: Communications with Persons with Disabilities, to formalize the City's approach to addressing accessibility concerns. • Provide all city staff with ongoing awareness and sensitivity training. • Develop a comprehensive disability access training program. Educate city staff about their responsibilities under the ADA. The City's ADA coordinator or city supervisors should be responsible for ensuring that staff members receive training. Staff members who have contact with the public should receive additional training about the process of providing modifications and assistive devices to make their programs, activities, and services accessible. Ensure that training also includes information about responding to a variety of disabilities and the availability of program-specific adaptations, assistive devices, and modifications. • Develop standard guidelines for training materials. These guidelines should include standard language that appropriately describes the city's policy on inclusion and nondiscrimination. Staff members should receive training in using the guidelines effectively. • Offer training to staff members that have contact with the public and wish to learn basic ASL communication skills. Training should emphasize basic communication and should not be viewed as a substitute for utilizing qualified ASL interpreters when requested. • Train maintenance staff regarding accessibility compliance and building codes to maintain facilities in an accessible condition. • Incorporate assistance for people with disabilities into training for building evacuation procedures. Contracting, Licensing, or Other Arrangements All events on public property should be accessible to people with disabilities. Many public agencies rely on contractors, licensees, consultants, and other entities to deliver City services. These entities are considered an extension of the City's services and must adhere to the same ADA regulations as the City. DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E §35.160 General;Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination s DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.133 Maintenance of accessible features City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 5 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Questionnaire Summary Most respondents reported that their department uses contractors or consultants to conduct programs, activities, or services on behalf of the City. Several indicated that their department organizes special events or helps facilitate private events at City facilities. While a few respondents reported that they ensure that contractors, consultants, event organizers, and others are aware of their obligation to facilitate the participation of individuals with disabilities, most are unsure if this is done. Policy Review Summary The City website contains a Special Events Permit Application for events held on city property. This process asks applicants if they have a "traffic control plan" for impacted right-of-way but does not explicitly address the accessibility obligations for groups hosting public events on public properties. Required Actions • Ensure that contractors, licensees, consultants, and other entities providing or delivering services for the city adhere to the same ADA regulations as the city.9 • Ensure the city selects procurement contractors using criteria that does not discriminate on the basis of disability.9 • Maintain City facilities in an accessible order to help ensure the accessibility of events held by public and private organizations.10 Implementation Strategies • Ensure contractors, licensees, and other entities providing services to the public are aware of their obligation to make City programs and activities accessible. Provide checklists, resources, contractual language, or other means to help them understand and meet their obligations. • Monitor public programs and activities provided by contractors, licensees, and other entities to ensure continued accessibility. Provide staff with resources for conducting this review. • Inform organizations that coordinate or sponsor events at City facilities about applicable ADA requirements. Public Meetings Public meetings are a regularly occurring activity for public agencies. Any public meeting's main objective is to impart and solicit information on issues of importance to the local government. Where these meetings are held is one of the essential considerations for meetings under the ADA requirements. 9 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination io DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.133 Maintenance of accessible features City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 6 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Questionnaire Summary Respondents mostly indicated that their department holds public meetings, with most reporting that they require these gatherings to be held at accessible locations. Some respondents reported that adaptive equipment, assistive listening devices, or American Sign Language interpreters are available upon request and that individuals with hearing disabilities can effectively participate in public meetings, though others were doubtful this was true for their department. Responses varied for how much advanced notice is required to provide accommodations. Respondents expressed uncertainty about whether staff who coordinate or facilitate public meetings are provided with resources for ensuring the accessibility of meetings. Policy Review Summary Information about public meetings is made available on the City's website. Policy for public comment at City Council meetings limits speaking time and does not address exceptions for people with disabilities that impact speech. Additionally, to speak at a City Council meeting, citizens must "...complete a Citizen Comment card on the table outside the chamber and give it to the City Recorder prior to the start of the meeting". Protocol for public meeting engagement should allow for modifications to the standard procedures to ensure that people with disabilities are able to participate at the same level as others. According to the City Council Rules of Procedures, one can submit written comments "...through the online agenda system," but MIG could not identify this system on the Council webpages or agenda page. Required Actions • Continue to ensure that public meetings are held in accessible facilities. " • Provide agendas and other meeting materials in alternative formats upon request." • Provide flexibility in the time limit on speaking for individuals with communication difficulties." • Ensure that assistive listening devices are available for public meetings where the sound at the meeting is amplified.' Implementation Strategies • Ensure a consistent advanced notice requirement and communicate this to both staff and the general public. Questionnaire respondents were often unfamiliar with the City's standard for advanced notice. • Display a notice on meeting agendas and web pages providing agendas and other meeting materials, indicating the availability of alternative formats of meeting materials and other elements of meeting participation. • Prepare a list of accessible meeting spaces to facilitate the scheduling of meetings or the relocation of meetings as needed upon request. 11 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General 12 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General; 2010 Standards 219.2 Required Systems City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 7 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report • Move disability-related agenda items to the beginning of agendas when possible. Some people with disabilities are unable to stay late at meeting because they use transit, have fixed schedules, or rely on personal care attendants. • Maintain a list of on-call ASL interpreters who can attend meetings upon request to assist individuals who are deaf or have hearing loss. • Develop a checklist and provide instruction to staff on ensuring the accessibility of meetings. Guidelines should include examples of the types of modification requests that may be made by people with different types of disabilities, including assistive listening systems, sign language interpreters, readers, descriptive services, and other assistive technologies like real-time captioning. Other considerations include the layout of the room and the locations of the sign-in and refreshments tables, bathrooms, and other elements to ensure these features are accessible. • Assign a member of staff as a greeter at public meetings and events. Identify this person as a resource for people who may require assistance. Program Participation The public must be able to access all programs, services, and activities, regardless of disability, unless a modification would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of a service, program, or activity or impose undue financial and administrative burdens.13 Admission criteria, ability to complete forms, and participation in interviews must be available to all public members by providing reasonable modifications. Questionnaire Summary Many respondents indicated that their department provides programs for public participation, none of which indicated program eligibility requirements such as physical fitness, mental fitness, or performance requisites. Respondents reported that there are no limitations or ratios for the number of people with disabilities who may participate in their respective programs. A few reported that their department applies criteria or tests (skills assessment, letters of recommendation, residency requirements) when admitting participants into programs or selecting volunteers. Some respondents indicated the use of forms and interviews for admission or selection to programs, with mostly uncertainty as to whether the forms contain a notice that the City does not discriminate against people with disabilities. A minority of respondents said their department requires interviews before the acceptance of participants into programs. Respondents widely indicated that their department's programs are offered to people with disabilities with other participants in the most integrated setting possible. Policy Review Summary The various departments' programs include permitting, utilities, and infrastructure, social services, library services and events, a wide range of recreational activities, and park facilities. Possible barriers to participation have been identified in some City programs, including the police department's Ride-Along Program Application; this application form requires a driver's 13 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.164 Duties City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 8 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report license, which may be discriminatory for people with certain disabilities who are otherwise qualified to engage in the activity. The Luscher Farm Volunteer Registration Form asks applicants about "any physical/medical limitations that should be considered." The use of this information should not inappropriately exclude people with disabilities from programs, and privacy should be retained to the greatest extent possible. Required Actions • Provide reasonable modifications to program participants with disabilities to include them in regular programs to the maximum extent possible. Do not require the use of different or separate aids, benefits, or services, even if they are as effective as those provided to other individuals.l4 • Modify standard policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, result in an undue financial or administrative burden, or create a hazardous situation for the participant or others.15 • Ensure that if the City determines it is necessary to exclude or limit the participation of people with disabilities to ensure the safe operation of programs or services, it bases those determinations on real risks, not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations.15 • Ensure that when interviews are required for program participation, they are held in an accessible location and that alternative formats or auxiliary aids are provided upon request.16 • Ensure that surcharges are not placed on people with disabilities to cover the costs of aids, modifications, or program accessibility.17 Implementation Strategies • Increase outreach to people with disabilities and the organizations that serve them to ensure program accessibility. The City should also inform the public of the possible modifications that can be provided to make programs, services, and activities accessible. • Include a nondiscrimination statement and a notice of alternative formats on application or registration forms. • Periodically review program eligibility requirements to ensure accessibility proactively. Develop strategies for modifications as appropriate. • Review requirements of City volunteer programs to ensure that people with disabilities are included to the maximum extent possible. 14 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination 15 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination 16 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination;Subpart E§35.160 General 17 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 9 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Transportation Services Many public agencies provide public transportation services. The public accommodation standards for these services are set forth by the Federal Transit Administration.18 Questionnaire Summary Most respondents indicated that their department does not provide transportation services such as buses or shuttles for the public. Those who noted that transportation is provided indicated that transportation is provided for specific programs. Respondents indicated that there are procedures and vehicles for making transportation accessible to people with visual, hearing, mobility, cognitive, or other disabilities. Policy Review Summary The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. Required Actions • Continue to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures for transportation programs when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability or to provide program accessibility to services.19 Implementation Strategies • Periodically review transportation programs to proactively ensure accessibility. Develop strategies for modifications as appropriate. Tours and Trips Many public agencies provide or facilitate tours and trips as part of their service. These tours and trips are subject to title II regulations. The City is responsible for ensuring that people with disabilities can experience the tour by making modifications upon request. Questionnaire Summary Most respondents reported that their department does not provide transportation to volunteers, program participants, visitors, and others who participate in the department programs. Several respondents reported that their department does provide facility tours or trips for members of the public. Respondents expressed doubt about having procedures to make tours and trips accessible to people with disabilities, with some reporting that they do not have these procedures. Policy Review Summary The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. 18 Title 49,Subtitle A, Part 38-Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles. Refer to specifications for transportation vehicles at the ECFR.gov website:www.ecfr.gov. 19 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination;Title 49,Subtitle A, § 38.1 Purpose City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 10 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Required Actions • Modify tours and trips upon request to enable people with disabilities to participate.20 Implementation Strategies • Incorporate opportunities to request accessibility modifications in registration materials for tours or trips. • Provide information to participants in advance of a tour or trip regarding the destination, transportation method, and other characteristics of the activity so that informed requests for modifications can be made. • Evaluate the destination of tours or trips and the means of transportation to determine accessibility and any modifications that may be required. If a tour route or a portion of a route is inaccessible and modifications are requested, reroute the tour or provide program modifications that will allow the tour to be experienced (for example, photographs, videos with closed captioning). Accessible and Adaptive Equipment Adaptive aids are devices, controls, appliances, or items that make it possible for people with disabilities to improve their ability to function independently and participate in programs, services, and activities offered by the City.21 For example, a pen, note pad, and clipboard provided to a person with a speech disability to write notes for brief communication or electronic equipment such as an accessible computer station are considered adaptive equipment. Questionnaire Summary Questionnaire results indicated that several departments allow the public to use electronic equipment such as computers, copy machines and printers, phones, laptops, and electronic kiosks. Most respondents reported that the electronic equipment is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, though some expressed uncertainty. Respondents noted that departments provide modifications upon request, including adjustable workstations, movable light sources, captioning of videos, paper and pen, mobility devices for program participation, and vision devices such as magnifiers and screen readers. No formal procedures for making and fulfilling requests for accessible equipment were noted. Policy Review Summary The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. Required Actions • Provide and maintain, in working order, accessible equipment for people with disabilities when equipment is provided to the public.22 20 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination 21 Refer to Chapter 1 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.aov. 22 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.133 Maintenance of accessible features City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 11 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report • Make reasonable modifications to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability unless the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.23 • Provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services in a timely manner, giving primary consideration to the request of the individual with the disability.24 Implementation Strategies • Include accessibility as a criterion for purchasing equipment such as furniture, site furnishings, and office systems. Whenever possible, evaluate furniture and building material purchases for compatibility with a wide range of disabilities and sensitivities. • Review equipment provided by the city for use by the public, such as computers, copy machines, telephones, etc., to identify potential barriers to accessibility and corresponding solutions. • Collaborate with community organizations that serve people with disabilities to develop and maintain a resource list of assistive technology and accessible equipment. • Establish and maintain a toolkit of adaptive aids and resources for staff who interact with the public. Include information about both onsite and contracted services. Printed and Online Materials Many public agencies develop and distribute a wide range of materials in printed and online formats. To meet the ADA's effective communication standards25, the City must be able to provide alternative formats such as easy-to-understand language, braille, large print, audiotape or CD, computer media, or other formats, when requested.26 This responsibility extends to outside contractors and vendors who develop materials on behalf of the City. Questionnaire Summary Almost all respondents reported that their department produces printed or online materials made available to the public. A few respondents indicated that staff and external contractors are already aware of the City's responsibility to produce accessible documents, but most expressed doubt. Respondents reported making documents available to individuals with visual disabilities through large print, braille, audio recordings, and digital copies for screen readers. However, about half of the respondents were not sure how this is done. A plurality of respondents indicated that simple, easy-to-understand language is used in their publications, with others expressing uncertainty. Few respondents reported that their department includes images of people with disabilities in printed or online materials. Policy Review Summary The City provides permit and license applications, request forms, maps, and general project information, on the City's website. Some documents available for download do not read 23 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination 24 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General 25 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160-35.164, refer also to the DOJ Technical Assistance Manual 11-7.1000 available at www.ada.gov/taman2.html. 26 Refer to Chapter 3 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 12 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report properly using read-aloud software functions. Inaccessible document elements can include fonts, styles, images, maps, reading order, tables, and color contrast. Other components, such as maps and complicated language, can be inaccessible for people with certain disabilities. Additionally, some forms provided on the City's website are not produced in a fillable format and may also be inaccessible. Public record requests are charged on a per-page basis. This could inappropriately result in an increased charge for people with disabilities who request an accessible, potentially lengthier format. Additionally, the website does not provide information about assistance for people with disabilities when making a public records request. Required Actions • Ensure alternative formats to printed and online information is made available upon request, addressing each request on an individual basis.27 • Ensure assistance is provided upon request in filling out forms when alternative formats are unavailable or infeasible.28 • Ensure that costs for alternative formats and modifications are not assigned to a person with a disability making the request.28 Implementation Strategies • Include a notice on public materials printed by the City, similar to the following: This publication can be made available in alternative formats, such as large print, braille, or electronic format. Requests can be made by calling the ADA Coordinator at [telephone] (voice) or by using the 711 Telecommunications Relay Service, or email at [ADACoordinator @ci.oswego.or.us. Please allow 72 hours for your request to be processed. • Develop a formal standard for the accessibility of printed and online materials and create or identify resources for achieving this standard across all departments. Ensure that this standard includes oversight for externally created materials and strategies for making existing online materials accessible. • Develop and implement standard templates for producing accessible City materials that are consistent with City branding and style. • Train staff to provide printed and online information in alternative formats for people with various disabilities to ensure that requests are handled in a uniform and consistent manner. Incorporate strategies for materials with complex language or other elements such as charts, graphs, maps, and other images. • Include images of people with disabilities when images of people are included in City printed materials. 27 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General 28 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 13 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Website As people turn to the internet as their primary source of information regarding services, programs, activities, and facilities, the City's website takes on increased importance as a communications tool. Providing public access to City publications online is an effective means of reaching people with disabilities.29 Accessibility standards for electronic and information technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 have set forth the technical and functional performance criteria necessary for such technology to be accessible.30 As of 2018, the technical requirements of Section 508 incorporate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), including WCAG 2.0 A and AA. The WCAG guidelines are considered the best practice for web accessibility and provide the industry standards for accessible web content.31 Questionnaire Summary Almost all respondents indicated that their department has a website and that they or their staff, in conjunction with staff from other departments, are responsible for managing the webpage and developing content. Websites for various departments contain basic information about the departments and the City, including contact details, operational hours and event calendars, descriptions of programs and services, plans and policies, applications and forms, and information about projects and upcoming meetings. Most respondents expressed uncertainty about whether their webpage is usable by individuals with disabilities, including those who use speaking browsers. Policy Review Summary A preliminary assessment of the department's webpage using WAVE (WebAIM's Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool) indicated that images on the page do not always include alternative text. Parts of the site also have poor color contrast. Color contrast is important for individuals with various visual disabilities. Additionally, web formatting errors were also identified, including inaccessible webpage menus and extraneous link header text. Required Actions • Take appropriate steps to ensure that the city's online communication with people with disabilities is as effective as other communications with the public.32 • Ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from participating in or benefitting from the City's online services, programs, or activities.33 29 Refer to the ada.gov website guidelines:www.ada.gov and Chapter 5 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 3°Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that Federal agencies' electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public. Many state and local public agencies have adopted these standards as best practices. Refer to Title 29,Chapter 16, §794d Electronic and information technology. 31 Refer to WCAG guidelines on the w3.org website:www.w3.orR. 32 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General 33 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 14 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Implementation Strategies • Publish the Policy of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability on the city website. • Provide information on the city website about the accessibility of facilities. • Acquire the technological resources or staffing expertise to create accessible digital documents for posting on the city website. • Develop a formal standard for website accessibility and create or identify resources for achieving this standard across all departments. Ensure that this standard includes oversight for externally created web pages and incorporates strategies for making accessibility updates to existing web pages. • Periodically conduct web accessibility analyses to measure the accessibility of the city's websites periodically. Consider adopting standards that meet or exceed WCAG 2.0 A and AA for the accessibility of electronic information. Televised and Audiovisual Information Televised and audiovisual information is a means for disseminating public information through presentations produced by the City. All televised and audiovisual information, including PowerPoint presentations, must be accessible to people with disabilities. As more communication is done remotely through the internet, it is increasingly important that all communication tools maintain accessibility as technology changes.34 Questionnaire Summary Most respondents reported that their department prepares audiovisual or televised presentations for the public, including City Council and other public meetings, informational presentations and videos, workshops, trainings, streamed fitness classes, and various cultural presentations, and events put on by the library. Some respondents who reported preparing audiovisual or televised information indicated using captioning and transcription as methods used to make audiovisual or televised presentations accessible, while others expressed uncertainty as to how these presentations are made available in an accessible format. Policy Review Summary The City streams City Council meetings on its website and during the COVID 19 pandemic holds Planning Commission meetings via Zoom. The City also posts videos, including live and archived recordings of meetings, on its YouTube page, and additional videos to its Facebook page. While these platforms contain some built-in services such as captioning, communications with people with disabilities may not be as effective as with others. Content presented in these videos should also be made available in alternative accessible formats. Required Actions • Provide alternative formats upon request to audiovisual presentations produced by the City or its contractors or vendors.35 34 Refer to Chapter 3 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 35 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.160 General City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 15 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report • Ensure that televised and audiovisual communications with people with disabilities is as effective as televised and audiovisual communications with others.35 Implementation Strategies • Review City presentations, videos, and recordings of meetings to identify potential barriers to accessibility and corresponding solutions. • Encourage presenters to read the slides and describe the graphic content when presenting PowerPoint or other visual presentations. Telecommunications Technological advances such as cell phones, texting, and instant messaging are changing the tools that many people use to communicate. However, provision of alternative communication technologies such as teletypewriters (TTY), telecommunication display devices (TDDs), or relay services (TRS) is still required under the ADA for communicating with the public.36 Questionnaire Summary Respondents widely reported that they or others in their department communicate by telephone with members of the public. Responses suggest that staff generally do not use TTY or the Telecommunications Relay Service (711) to communicate with people with hearing or speech disabilities, and that these numbers may not be published in all materials where a phone number is listed. Of the respondents who indicated that their department provides telephones to the public for making outgoing calls, most expressed doubt that TTYs are available for people with hearing and speech disabilities. Policy Review Summary Phone contact information for various departments and staff members is located in multiple places on the website. Contact information does not include TTY or other similarly accessible telecommunications methods. Required Actions • Ensure that staff is proficient in the use of alternative communication technologies such as TTY, TDDs, or TRS, or are able to direct the public to knowledgeable staff.37 • Ensure that city publications that list phone numbers also include information on how people who are deaf or who have hearing loss or speech disorders can communicate with the city by phone.38 • Ensure that telecommunications with people with disabilities is as effective as communications with others.37 • Ensure that responses to calls from a telecommunications relay service are handled in the same manner as responding to other telephone calls.37 36 Refer to Chapter 3 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 37 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.161 Telecommunications 38 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.161 Telecommunications; §35.163 Information and signage City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 16 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Implementation Strategies • Train staff on the use of alternative communication technologies. • Explore options for Video Remote Interpreting Services (VRI) for communicating with people who are deaf, have hearing loss, or speech disorders. There are many situations where a live interpreter is required, such as in medical situations, but VRI can be a convenient, flexible, lower-cost alternative to live interpreters. Emergency Planning Life and safety protocols and procedures are required to include plans for people with disabilities.39 The City is responsible for ensuring that staff are aware of these procedures and are trained to implement them during an emergency. Issues that have the greatest impact on people with disabilities include: • Notification; • Evacuation; • Emergency transportation; • Access to medications, refrigeration, and back-up power; • Access to their mobility devices or service animals while in transit; and • Access to information. In planning for emergency services, the City is required to develop strategies for notifying and assisting people with the widest range of disabilities. The City is responsible for ensuring that staff are aware of these procedures and are trained to implement them during an emergency.39 Questionnaire Summary Most respondents indicated that their department is responsible for planning, coordinating, or assisting in the City's response to emergency or disaster situations. A few reported that staff receive training on notifying and assisting people with disabilities in these situations, but most respondents expressed doubt that receive such training. Policy Review Summary Information about emergency planning is contained in the 2017 City of Lake Oswego Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses the needs of residents with disabilities. The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. Required Actions • Include strategies for people with disabilities in various types of emergency situations when developing guidelines and a plan for emergency evacuations.40 • Train staff to safely evacuate people with disabilities in various types of emergency situations when developing guidelines and a plan for emergency evacuations.40 39 Refer to Chapter 7 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 40 42 U.S.C. § 12132; refer to generally, DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130,Subpart D§35.149 City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 17 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report • Provide direct access to telephone emergency services, including 911 services, for people who use TDD's and computer modems.41 • If the City becomes involved in providing emergency shelters, provide emergency sheltering programs that are accessible to people with disabilities.4z Implementation Strategies • Incorporate the following elements into emergency planning: o Address what to do when an alarm is triggered; o Establish meeting places for assistance and evacuation chairs; o Provide direction on what to do if assistance is not available; and o Establish floor captains. • Test the City's emergency plan and evacuation procedures with periodic drills, both announced and unannounced. Enlist people with different disabilities to role-play during emergency simulations. • Review existing procedures dealing with emergencies to ensure that people with disabilities can be alerted and that they can alert emergency service providers. • Work with disability organizations to explore the use of technologies such as audible exit signs for orientation and direction or vibrating paging systems. • Develop plans that consider the needs of people using mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, canes, crutches, or other power-driven mobility devices, or those with limited stamina. Plans should also address those who use oxygen or respirators, those who are blind or have low vision, people who are deaf or have hearing loss, people who have a cognitive disability, people with mental illness, and those with other types of disabilities. Notice, Grievance, and Complaint Procedure Title II of the ADA requires a state or local government agency that employs 50 or more people to designate at least one employee, often referred to as the ADA Coordinator, to coordinate the City's efforts to implement the plan and provide the name, office address, and telephone number to staff and the publicc43 give notice of the ADA's requirements, and establish a grievance procedure. Title II regulations require the City to inform the public of the rights and protections provided by the ADA for access to public programs, services, and activities. It is the obligation of the head of the public entity to determine the most effective way of providing notice to the public about their rights and the public entity's responsibilities under the ADA. Publishing and publicizing the 41 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.162 Telephone emergency services 42 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination;Subpart D§35.149 Discrimination prohibited 43 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart A§35.107 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 18 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report ADA notice is not a one-time requirement. Public agencies should provide the information on an ongoing basis and update the information whenever necessary. 44 The ADA Coordinator is responsible for organizing and communicating the City's efforts to comply with and fulfill its responsibilities under title II of the ADA, as well as all other applicable state and federal laws. The ADA Coordinator's responsibilities include investigating complaints that the City has engaged in any action prohibited by title II. as Questionnaire Summary Half of respondents indicated that the City has a nondiscrimination statement that includes people with disabilities, with the other half unsure if that is the case. A few methods were noted among departments, but many respondents reported that they did not know the procedure for filing a discrimination complaint. Policy Review Summary Pages on the City website that contain forms, applications, and other documents do not provide information for people with disabilities who may need assistance or alternative formats. Additionally, the website does not contain information about the City's ADA Coordinator or grievance procedure, and a notice of nondiscrimination that includes people with disabilities is not made publicly available on the website. The Notice under the Americans with Disabilities Act is required to include relevant information regarding title II of the ADA and how it applies to the City's programs, activities, and services. An effective notice includes brief statements about employment, effective communication; making reasonable modifications to policies and programs; the availability of modifications or auxiliary aids and services without charge; how to file a complaint; and contact information for the ADA Coordinator.46 Required Actions • Provide the name and contact information for the City's employee responsible for ensuring the City meets its ADA obligations under title II to staff and the public.47 • Provide a public notice of the City's commitment to providing accessible services.48 • Provide information about the existence and location of accessible services, programs, activities, and facilities.49 • Develop and publish a grievance procedure to provide fair and prompt resolution of accessibility-related complaints.5o 44 Refer to Chapter 2 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 45 Department of Transportation fund recipients and subrecipients need to keep the complaints on file for one year and maintain a record,which may be in summary form,for five years per 49 CFR§27.121 (b)Compliance reports. 46 Refer to Chapter 2 of the ada.gov toolkit:www.ada.gov. 47 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart A§35.107 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures 48 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart A§35.106 Notice 49 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.163 Information and signage s°DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart A§35.107 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 19 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report • Ensure that people claiming a violation of title II are not retaliated against or discriminated against for making such a claim.51 Implementation Strategies • Provide notice of the availability of program modifications, alternative formats of materials, and auxiliary aids. Include contact information for staff who can provide assistance. Establish a standardized advanced notice requirement and publicize. • Include a nondiscrimination notice in city publications, similar to the following: The City of Lake Oswego does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admissions or access to its programs or activities. An ADA Coordinator has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Department of Justice regulations implementing Subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12134), which prohibits discrimination on the basis on disability by public agencies. [Name of Employee], ADA Coordinator, [other title] City of Lake Oswego, [Location], Lake Oswego, OR 97034 phone [telephone], [TTY], or email: [ADACoordinator]@ci.oswego.or.us • Republish and rebroadcast radio, newspaper, television, or mailings of the notice periodically, as applicable. • Increase outreach to people with disabilities and the organizations that serve them to provide information about possible modifications and the accessibility of services, programs, and activities. • Ensure staff is aware of the public locations of the nondiscrimination statement and the procedure for filing a disability discrimination or grievance complaint. sl DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.134 Retaliation or coercion City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 20 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Facilities City facilities should be accessible to people with different types of disabilities. A public entity is not necessarily required to make each of its existing facilities accessible, where other methods are effective in achieving program access. However, they must ensure that each service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety5', is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The identification of structural barriers in facilities such as buildings, parks, and the public rights-of-way are a required element of an ADA Transition Plan. Questionnaire Summary Respondents expressed uncertainty about whether their department website includes information about the accessibility of facilities where programs or services are offered, and many indicated that this information is not provided. Several respondents reported that they have received requests for improving the accessibility of facilities, while more were unsure whether their department had received such requests. Policy Review Summary The evaluation did not identify any additional barrier removal actions for this category. Required Actions • Ensure that the public can obtain information regarding the existence and location of accessible facilities, entrances, and elements within facilities.53 • Provide and maintain, in working order, features of facilities required to be accessible and usable for people with disabilities.54 • Ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from programs due to the inaccessibility of City facilities.55 • Prioritize methods of achieving facility accessibility that offer the most integrated setting appropriate for people with disabilities.52 • Design and construct new facilities or new parts of facilities to meet accessibility requirements.56 • Ensure that alterations to facilities meet accessibility requirements to the maximum extent feasible.57 • Make reasonable modifications to permit the use of mobility devices, including other power-driven mobility devices, unless they cannot be operated in accordance with the City's adopted safety requirements for pedestrian facilities.58 52 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart D§35.150 Existing facilities 53 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart E§35.163 Information and signage 54 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.133 Maintenance of accessible features 55 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart D§35.149 Discrimination prohibited 56 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart D§35.151(a) Design and construction 5'DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart D§35.151(b)Alterations S8 DOJ,Title II Regulations Subpart B§35.137(b)(1) Use of other power-driven mobility devices City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 21 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report Implementation Strategies • Provide information about the accessibility of City-owned and operated facilities on city publications, including city websites. This can include details about accessible entrances, bathrooms, and other elements. • Provide information about the accessibility of non-City facilities hosting City programs and services and City-owned facilities that are leased to other entities. • Record and monitor requests relating to facility access. The ADA Coordinator can analyze accessibility requests periodically to look for global issues that can be addressed and problems than can be solved proactively. • Develop formal standards for integrating ADA requirements into the design, construction, maintenance, and inspection of all Lake Oswego facilities. As part of this effort, develop and implement standards for enforcing accessibility provisions for contractors, consultants, vendors, etc. who design, construct, maintain, and inspect Lake Oswego facilities. • Identify or hire staff members tasked with accessibility plan review. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 22 Draft ADA Self-Evaluation Report 3 Standards and Specifications Review Summary A review was undertaken of the City of Lake Oswego details to assess the City's compliance with right-of-way standards for accessibility. As a result, the City has been provided markups of the Engineering Design Standards and Standard Details with comments identifying recommended revisions. The markups are available under separate cover from the City's ADA Coordinator. Recommendations include: • Adding definitions for "crosswalk" and "multi-use/shared-use pathway" • Reducing maximum design cross slope to 1.5%to allow for construction tolerance. • Requiring ADA certification for contractors per 2021 ODOT specification section 00759.03. • If design includes capital improvements, requiring with plan submittal a signed survey that meets a list of minimum requirements to show there is adequate survey for design of all right-of-way improvements including curb ramps. • Requiring ODOT's curb ramp design exception request form or similar form to track and document proposed curb ramps that cannot meet minimum design requirements. • Requiring inspection of installed curb ramp using ODOT's ADA curb ramp inspection forms or similar form before city accepts right-of-way improvements. • Renaming "Traffic control plan" to "Traffic and pedestrian control plan" to emphasize to designers and contractors that these plans must include accessible pedestrian access routes through or around construction in the right-of-way. • Adding a policy addressing citizen requested accessible parking stalls in residential areas. • Adding a policy on providing accessible parking stalls in non-residential areas including but not limited to downtown and commercial areas as recommended in 2011 PROWAG R214. • For consistency of pedestrian improvements, providing or referencing standard details for some features that are not currently provided, including pedestrian refuge islands, marked crosswalks, high visibility crossings, curb extensions, or tree grates. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon I December 2020 23 ATTACHMENT 2 1<*t. r 1 0 ) G��R \ EG1 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Facility Assessment Summary Report June 2021 This page intentionally left blank. City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report 1.0 ADA BARRIERS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 3 1.1 Accessibility Standards 3 1.2 Facility Assessments 3 2.0 BUILDINGS, PARKING FACILITIES,AND PARKS BARRIER SUMMARY 4 2.1 Buildings 4 2.2 Public Parking Lots 11 2.3 Parks 13 2.4 Buildings,Parking Lots,and Park Draft Facility Barrier Categories 20 i City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report This page intentionally left blank. ii City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report 1.0 ADA Barriers in the Built Environment The process of developing an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan includes identifying access barriers within the built environment. The City of Lake Oswego evaluated the buildings, parking facilities, and parks where City programs, activities, and services are provided' in late 2020 and early 2021.2 Accessibility Standards At the time of the facility evaluations, the 2010 ADA Standards, 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) Chapter 11 Accessibility, and the 2015 Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards for Outdoor Developed Areas were used to identify barriers at City facilities. Building codes and standards are revised every few years. The barrier evaluations conducted provide an assessment of current conditions as viewed by the current code and provide a baseline for future barrier removal. 1.2 Facility Assessments The barrier assessments for buildings, parking facilities, and parks included all public interior and exterior elements of a site. The assessments identified physical barriers in each facility that limit accessibility and compared each facility to the 2010 ADA, 2019 OSSC, and the 2015 ABA. Evaluations were undertaken using a consultant team equipped with measuring devices, City facility data, and evaluation checklists. Diagrams and maps of each site were annotated during the evaluation process and were included with the ADA Facility Assessment Report, available from the City. The elements included in the evaluations are as follows: • Assembly Areas • Boating Facilities • Built-in Elements • Corridors/Aisles • Curb Ramps • Doors/Gates • Drinking Fountains • Eating Areas • Elevators • Fishing Piers and Platforms • Golf Course • Hazards 1 The evaluation included locations not owned by City but where programs,activities, and services a provided. 2 For new City facilities in the process of construction, MIG conducted plan reviews instead of physical evaluations, with recommendations submitted separately to the City.These sites include the new Adult Community Center,City Hall, and the Tennis Center. 3 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report • Lavatory/Sink • Libraries • Other Features • Outdoor Constructed Features • Outdoor Recreation Access Routes • Outdoor Recreation Trails • Parking Areas • Passenger Loading Zones • Picnic Areas • Play Equipment Areas • Programmatic Elements • Ramps • Restrooms • Rooms • Signs • Stairways • View Areas • Walks A summary of the barriers identified within the City's buildings, parking facilities, and parks is included in the next section of this report. Identifying a feature that does not comply with the current access codes and standards does not automatically mean that the feature must be modified. Factors such as whether the feature complied with the standard at the time of its construction and/or the availability of similar programs, services, or activities provided at the same or other facilities must be considered to determine the approach to removing accessibility barriers. 2.0 Buildings, Parking Facilities, and Parks Barrier Summary The ADA evaluation included 20 buildings, three public parking lots, and 26 parks. This section describes each site with a summary of barriers to accessibility. Maps later in this section illustrate the location of the facilities. 2.1 Buildings The evaluation included the following locations: • Academy of Ballet & Dance Arts • Christ Church Parish Additional 4 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report • Forest Hills Elementary • Greentree Art Studio • Iron Workers Museum • Jean Road Fire Station • Lake Oswego Junior High • Lake Oswego Public Golf Course & Club House • Lakeview Parking Garage • Lakewood Center for the Arts • Library • Main Fire Station • Oswego Heritage House • Public Works/Maintenance Building • South Shore Fire Station • Teen Lounge • Trolley Station • Water Treatment Plant • Westlake Fire Station • Windward Parking Garage June 2021 I pg. 5 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Academy of Ballet & Dance Arts This facility is located at 311 B Avenue. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, ramps, stairways, doors/gates, elevators, drinking fountains, corridors/aisles, and restrooms. Christ Church Parish Additional This facility is located at 1060 Chandler Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, ramps stairways, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, elevators, corridors/aisles, restrooms, and eating areas. Forest Hills Elementary This facility is located at 1133 Andrews Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, and doors/gates. Greentree Art Studio This facility is located at 2766 Greentree Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, doors/gates, and rooms. Iron Workers Museum This facility is located at 40 Wilbur Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, doors/gates, and restrooms. Jean Road Fire Station This facility is located at 4555 Jean Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, hazards, doors/gates, built-in elements, and restrooms. Lake Oswego Junior High This facility is located at 2500 Country Club Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, passenger loading zones, curb ramps, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, corridors/aisles, rooms, and restrooms. Lakeview Parking Garage This parking facility has 365 total spaces with eight accessible parking spaces. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, hazards, ramps, doors/gates, and elevators. June 2021 I pg. 6 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Lakewood Center for the Arts This facility is located at 368 S State Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, ramps, hazards, doors/gates, elevators, walks, stairways, drinking fountains, and restrooms. Library This facility is located at 706 4th Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, ramps, stairways, doors/gates, hazards, drinking fountains, elevators, restrooms, and library elements. Main Fire Station This facility is located at 300 B Avenue. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, stairways, walks, hazards, doors/gates, restrooms, outdoor constructed features, and programmatic elements. Oswego Heritage House This facility is located at 398 10th Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, doors/gates, and restrooms. Public Golf Course & Clubhouse This facility is located at 17525 SW Stafford Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, built-in elements, restrooms, eating areas, outdoor constructed features, golf course elements, and other features. Public Works/Maintenance Building This facility is located at 17601 Pilkington Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, hazards, doors/gates, built-in elements, rooms, and restrooms. South Shore Fire Station This facility is located at 1880 South Shore Boulevard. • Barriers identified include the following features: doors/gates and restrooms. Teen Lounge This facility is located at Christ Church Episcopal Parish at 1060 Chandler Road. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, rooms, restrooms, and eating areas. June 2021 I pg. 7 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Trolley Station This facility is located at 311 N State Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, hazards, doors/gates, built-in elements, restrooms, and outdoor constructed features. Water Treatment Plant This facility is located at 4260 Kenthorpe Way in West Lynn. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, stairways, doors/gates, elevators, corridors/aisles, restrooms, and programmatic elements. Westlake Fire Station This facility is located at 4900 Melrose Street. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, stairways, doors/gates, built-in elements, restrooms, and rooms. Windward Parking Garage This parking facility has 147 total spaces with six accessible parking spaces. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, hazards, and doors/gates. June 2021 I pg. 8 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 1: ADA Accessibility Barrier Types at City Buildings Table 1 Note: Accessible routes encompass corridors/aisles, curb ramps, ramps, stairways, walks, etc. Program specific barriers include features that are typically unique to certain facilities, such as eating areas, outdoor constructed features, or library elements. Room elements include built-in elements. Facility Barrier Type Academy of Ballet and Dance Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Elevators, Parking, Arts Accessible Routes, Restrooms Christ Church Parish Additional Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Elevators, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Restrooms Forest Hills Elementary Doors/Gates, Parking, Accessible Routes Greentree Art Studio Doors/Gates, Accessible Routes, Room Elements Iron Workers Museum Doors/Gates, Parking, Accessible Routes, Restrooms Jean Road Fire Station Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking, Room Elements Lake Oswego Junior High Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Restrooms, Room Elements Lakeview Parking Garage Doors/Gates, Elevators, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes Lakewood Center for the Arts Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Elevators, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Restrooms Library Doors/Gates, Elevators, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms Main Fire Station Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms Oswego Heritage House Doors/Gates, Parking, Restrooms Public Golf Course and Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Hazards, Parking, Clubhouse Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms, Room Elements, Other Public Works/ Maintenance Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Building Restrooms, Room Elements South Shore Fire Station Doors/Gates, Restrooms Teen Lounge Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms, Room Elements Trolley Station Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms June 2021 I pg. 9 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Water Treatment Plant Doors/Gates, Elevators, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms Westlake Fire Station Doors/Gates, Parking, Accessible Routes, Program Specific, Restrooms, Room Elements Windward Parking Garage Doors/Gates, Hazards, Parking June 2021 I pg. 10 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report 2.2 Public Parking Lots The evaluations included the following public parking facilities:3 • Parking Lot - 11 Foothills Road • Parking Lot - 1st Ave & B Avenue • Parking Lot -442 N State St 1st/B Ave Parking Lot This parking facility has 25 total spaces with one accessible parking space. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking and walks. 442 N State Street Parking Lot This parking facility has 16 spaces and does not provide an accessible parking space. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking. 11 Foothills Road Parking Lot This parking facility has 43 spaces and does not provide an accessible parking space. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking and curb ramps. 3Downtown on-street parking will be addressed in the right-of-way summary report. June 2021 I pg. 11 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 2: ADA Accessibility Barrier Types at Public Parking Lots Table 2 Note: Accessible routes encompass curb ramps, ramps, hazards, stairways, walks, etc. Facility Barrier Type 1st/B Ave Parking Lot Parking, Accessible Routes 442 N State Street Parking Lot Parking 11 Foothills Road Parking Lot Parking, Accessible Routes June 2021 I pg. 12 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report 2.3 Parks The evaluations included the following locations: • Bryant Woods Nature Park • Mary S. Young Park4 • Charlie S. Brown Water Sports • McNary Park Center • Millenium Plaza Park • Foothills Park • Pilkington Park • Freepons Park • Pine Cone Park • George Rogers Park • Roehr Park • Glenmorrie Park • Rossman Park • Greentree Park • Stafford Basin/Rosemont Trail • Hazelia Field • Sundeleaf Plaza • Hide-A-Way Park • Tryon Cove Park • Lake Grove Elementary Athletic Field • Waluga Park East • Lake Oswego Swim Park • Waluga Park West • Luscher Farm • Westlake Park • Westridge Park The barrier assessment process did not include the evaluation of soft surface outdoor recreation trails and pathways, and the following park sites have no other developed public facilities: • Canal Acres Park • Cooks Butte Park • River Run Park • South Shore Natural Area • Southwood Park • Stevens Meadow Bryant Woods Nature Park Amenities at this park include a parking area and soft surface trails. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking. Charlie S. Brown Water Sports Center Amenities at this park include a gangway and floating boat dock. 4 Features of West Linn park site used for Lake Oswego recreation programs. June 2021 I pg. 13 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, outdoor constructed features, and boating facilities. Foothills Park Amenities at this park include river access for hand carry and larger boats, sweeping views of the Willamette River, a grass amphitheater, accessible restrooms, and a covered picnic area with a grill and fireplace. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, passenger loading zones, walks, doors/gates, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, lavatory/sinks, and other features. Freepons Park Amenities at this community park include pathways, playground equipment, and picnic tables. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. George Rogers Park Amenities at this community park include athletic fields, tennis/pickleball courts, a large playground, picnic shelters, river views and beach access, and restrooms. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, ramps, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, built-in elements, restrooms, game and sports areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, outdoor recreation access routes, play equipment areas, and other features. Glenmorrie Park Amenities at this small neighborhood park include a pathway and playground. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, play equipment areas, and other features. Greentree Park Amenities at this mini park include a play area and half-court basketball court. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, game and sports areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. Hazelia Field Amenities at this park include two fenced dog parks, a large turf athletic field, a play area, and restrooms. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, doors/gates, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. June 2021 I pg. 14 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Hide-A-Way Park Amenities at this small neighborhood park include a pathway and playground. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, outdoor constructed features, and play equipment areas. Lake Grove Elementary Athletic Field Amenities at this school facility include a softball field and parking area. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, and game and sports areas. Lake Oswego Swim Park Amenities at this park a lake swimming area accessed via steep hill. • Barriers identified include the following features: programmatic elements. Luscher Farm Amenities at this facility include community gardens, a gravel parking area, barn and garage areas used for camp programming, picnic tables, and a clematis garden walking area. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, doors/gates, restrooms, picnic areas, programmatic elements, and other features. Mary S. Young Park Amenities at this West Linn facility include a covered picnic shelter, restrooms, pathways, and trails leading to river access. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, doors/gates, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, trails, and other elements. McNary Park Amenities at this community park include a playground, pathways, and an off-leash dog area. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. Millenium Plaza Park Amenities at this downtown park include a paved plaza, tables, and restrooms. • Barriers identified include the following features: ramps, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, built-in elements, and restrooms. Pilkington Park Amenities at this neighborhood park include a playground, picnic tables, and an off-leash dog area. June 2021 I pg. 15 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, drinking fountains, and picnic areas. Pine Cone Park Amenities at this small neighborhood park include a playground, pathway, and benches. • Barriers identified include the following features: curb ramps, walks, outdoor constructed features, and play equipment areas. Roehr Park Amenities at this riverfront park include viewing decks, lighted pathways, benches, restrooms, an amphitheater, and access to the Charlie S. Brown Water Sports Center. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, ramps, doors/gates, drinking fountains, restrooms, assembly areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, view areas, play equipment areas, fishing piers and platforms, and other features. Rossman Park Amenities at this downtown neighborhood park include a covered picnic area, playground, pathways, and cornhole court. • Barriers identified include the following features: curb ramps, walks, drinking fountains, game and sports areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. Stafford Basin/Rosemont Trail Amenities at this facility include a paved trail, interpretive feaures, and parking area. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, picnic areas, trails, and other features. Sundeleaf Plaza Amenities at this urban park include restrooms, benches, and lake views. • Barriers identified include the following features: hazards, doors/gates, and restrooms. Tryon Cove Park Amenities at this small riverfront park include picnic tables, a dock, and beach area. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, picnic areas, outdoor recreation access routes, and boating facilities. Waluga Park East Amenities at this park include baseball fields, a playground, picnic shelter, and restrooms. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, ramps, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, built-in elements, rooms, restrooms, game and June 2021 I pg. 16 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report sports areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. Waluga Park West Amenities at this park include a walking path, fenced dog park, playground, fitness equipment, and covered picnic shelter. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, walks, doors/gates, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic areas, play equipment areas, and other features. Westlake Park Amenities at this large athletic park include baseball/softball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, full court basketball, a covered playground, covered picnic shelter, and restrooms. • Barriers identified include the following features: parking, curb ramps, walks, ramps, stairways, hazards, doors/gates, drinking fountains, built-in elements, restrooms, game and sports areas, picnic areas, outdoor constructed features, play equipment areas, and other features. Westridge Park Amenities at this neighborhood park include pathways, a playground, and picnic table. • Barriers identified include the following features: walks, drinking fountains, picnic areas, play equipment areas, and other features. June 2021 I pg. 17 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Map: Evaluated Buildings and Parking Lots. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page one of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_Facility Maps. Map Image Description: this map illustrates the location of buildings and parking lots in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. Buildings and parking lot structures are marked by solid black dots and labelled by name with black text. For context, parks are filled in solid light green, streets are marked with light gray solid lines, water features are marked in a solid light blue, and the city limits are outlined in a dark green dash-and-dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG in June 2021. Refer to tables 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the ADA Barrier Summary Report for the list of buildings and parking lots labeled in this map and corresponding data. June 2021 I pg. 18 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Map: Evaluated Parks. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page two of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_Facility Maps. Map Image Description: this map illustrates the location of parks in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. Evaluated parks are marked by solid black dots and labelled by name with black text; they are also filled in a darker solid green. For context, trails are marked in a black dashed line, streets are marked with light gray solid lines, other unevaluated parks are filled in solid light green, water features are marked in a solid light blue, and the city limits are outlined in a dark green dash-and- dotted line. The legend also includes a note that "park features where Lake Oswego provides programs were evaluated at Mary S. Young Park located in West Linn." The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG in June 2021. Refer to tables 3 and 6 in the ADA Barrier Summary Report for the list of parks labeled in this map and corresponding data. June 2021 I pg. 19 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 3: ADA Accessibility Barrier Types at City Parks Table 3 Note: Paths of travel encompass curb ramps, ramps, stairways, walks, hazards, etc. Program specific barriers include features that are typically unique to certain facilities, such as built-in elements, assembly areas, fishing or boating facilities, trails, and other programmatic elements. Facility Barrier Type Bryant Woods Nature Park Parking Charlie S. Brown Water Sports Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Program Center Specific Foothills Park Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Restrooms, Other Freepons Park Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Play Equipment Areas, Other George Rogers Park Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Game and Sports Areas, Program Specific, Restrooms, Other Glenmorrie Park Paths of Travel, Play Equipment Areas, Other Greentree Park Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Game and Sports Areas, Other Hazelia Field Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Restrooms, Other Hide-A-Way Park Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Play Equipment Areas Lake Grove Elementary Parking, Paths of Travel, Game and Sports Areas Athletic Field Lake Oswego Swim Park Program Specific Luscher Farm Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Program Specific, Restrooms, Other Mary S. Young Park Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Program Specific, Other McNary Park Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Play Equipment Areas, Other June 2021 I pg. 20 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Millennium Park Plaza Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Paths of Travel, Program Specific, Restrooms Pilkington Park Drinking Fountains, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Pine Cone Park Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Play Equipment Areas Roehr Park Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Program Specific, Restrooms, Other Rossman Park Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Game and Sports Areas, Other Stafford Basin/Rosemont Trail Parking, Paths of Travel, Program Specific, Other Sundeleaf Plaza Doors/gates, Paths of Travel, Restrooms Tryon Cove Park Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Program Specific Waluga Park East Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Game and Sports Areas, Program Specific, Other Waluga Park West Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Restrooms, Other Westlake Park Doors/Gates, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Constructed Features, Parking, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Game and Sports Areas, Program Specific, Restrooms, Other Westridge Park Drinking Fountains, Paths of Travel, Picnic/Eating Areas, Play Equipment Areas, Other June 2021 I pg. 21 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report 2.4 Buildings, Parking Lots, and Park Draft Facility Barrier Categories Accessibility barriers are prioritized in a process referenced in the ADA regulations. The principle is to ensure that basic access is provided, access to activities is provided, amenities are accessible, and alternatives to architectural modifications are allowed when appropriate. Translating these categories into action plans must be accomplished using a programmatic approach. The site priorities are divided into four categories: • Category One: The highest category is placed on those barrier removal items that provide accessibility at the main entrance of a facility or improve an accessible route to the portion of the facility where program activities take place (e.g., parking, walks, ramps, doors, etc.). • Category Two: A second category is placed on those barrier removal items that improve or enhance access to program use areas (e.g., transaction counters, conference rooms, public offices, restrooms, etc.). • Category Three: A third category is placed on those barrier removal items that improve access to amenities serving program areas (e.g., drinking fountains, telephones, site furnishings). • Category Four: A fourth category identifies areas or features not required to be modified for accessibility (no public programs located in the area or a duplicate feature). This categorization was applied to each identified barrier at Lake Oswego buildings, parking facilities, and parks. Some barriers will require further evaluation by City staff for programmatic solutions. These barriers have been assigned two category values (i.e. "2 or 4"), indicating the barrier will need to be assigned one of the values but not both. The categories by site are summarized in the tables on the pages that follow. The percentages in the tables refer to the total number of barriers at each individual site. June 2021 I pg. 22 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 4:Total Percentage of Building Barriers by Category (C) Table 4 Note: Categories 1 through 4 are listed as C1, C2, C3, and C4. Facility Cl C2 C3 C4 Cl or Cl or C2 or C2 C4 C4 Academy of Ballet and 31% 51% 2% 0% 16% 0% 0% Dance Arts Christ Church Parish 36% 39% 3% 0% 11% 0% 11% Additional Forest Hills Elementary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Greentree Art Studio 63% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Iron Workers Museum 52% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jean Road Fire Station 17% 83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lake Oswego Junior High 14% 36% 7% 0% 0% 0% 43% Lakeview Parking Garage 94% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Lakewood Center for the 14% 52% 4% 0% 0% 23% 7% Arts Library 17% 73% 4% 2% 0% 0% 4% Main Fire Station 10% 80% 0% 0% 4% 0% 6% Oswego Heritage House 48% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lake Oswego Public Golf 28% 57% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12% Course and Club House Public Works/ 11% 85% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% Maintenance Building South Shore Fire Station 27% 73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Teen Lounge 32% 59% 2% 0% 7% 0% 0% Trolley Station 36% 64% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Water Treatment Plant 29% 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Westlake Fire Station 15% 62% 0% 0% 12% 0% 12% Windward Parking Garage 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% June 2021 I pg. 23 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 5:Total Percentage of Public Parking Lot Barriers by Category (C) Table 5 Note: Categories 1 through 4 are listed as C1, C2, C3, and C4. Facility Cl C2 C3 C4 1st/B Ave Parking Lot 100% 0% 0% 0% 442 N State Street Parking Lot 100% 0% 0% 0% 11 Foothills Road Parking Lot 100% 0% 0% 0% June 2021 I pg. 24 City of Lake Oswego I Facility Assessment Summary Report Table 6:Total Percentage of Parks Barriers by Category (C) Table 6 Note: Categories 1 through 4 are listed as C1, C2, C3, and C4. Facility Cl C2 C3 C4 C2 or 4 Bryant Woods Nature Park 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Charlie S. Brown Water Sports Center 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% Foothills Park 24% 64% 12% 0% 0% Freepons Park 5% 95% 0% 0% 0% George Rogers Park 14% 71% 7% 0% 8% Glenmorrie Park 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Greentree Park 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Hazelia Field 11% 76% 8% 0% 6% Hide-A-Way Park 14% 86% 0% 0% 0% Lake Grove Elementary Athletic Field 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% Lake Oswego Swim Park 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Luscher Farm 4% 96% 0% 0% 0% Mary S. Young Park 19% 76% 5% 0% 0% McNary Park 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Millennium Plaza Park 0% 92% 8% 0% 0% Pilkington Park 35% 52% 13% 0% 0% Pine Cone Park 7% 93% 0% 0% 0% Roehr Park 0% 94% 6% 0% 0% Rossman Park 29% 53% 18% 0% 0% Stafford Basin/Rosemont Trail 17% 83% 0% 0% 0% Sundeleaf Plaza 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Tryon Cove Park 30% 70% 0% 0% 0% Waluga Park East 9% 84% 5% 0% 0% Waluga Park West 11% 84% 5% 0% 0% Westlake Park 12% 59% 9% 0% 20% Westridge Park 0% 82% 18% 0% 0% June 2021 I pg. 25 I _ __/ f1 ATTACHMENT 3CDlli\, i() A 4—k _41' iiii 1 I• I NO I i iI ICI _,..19 11101111111,.......•,/) ____ , i Nip iw I. i 1 eisik-ir/-- __,., i -- ..../ , 41 - _ 1\ / : _.4 1 ,N.---- ` , 1-- 7-H-. -,;,t)./Aith'r N'Li %10 rid ). \ \\\"-------%4C) ° REGC) r - 1 r ,_; ---:- -'.— - vx 4/- Westlake { 1 t..., ) 7 it?? ,___— ,-, ''(-,7_--L___ air7 It i i ,, _ —I ' _ _ , J - _ Forest •Hills I; -- Mic ' 3€-s=FirStation -- ` Elementary /� — . I i,�'•, Lake Oswego ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan , ` Lake Oswego 1 _ ,\ zn ♦ dtk \- ' , junior High ' L. _� � Library •�-N i%f'r = i / ! Academy of i _,.er" COUNTRY CLUB RD Ballet&•Dance Arts _,- - 47,,, lst/B Avenue Parking Lot ." _ r Oswego Heritage House , e° 442 N State Street Parking Lot P. Christ Church Parish ) i Lakeview Parkin i r I i Main Fire —i — i - I,I41 ,`,5 &Teen Lounge Station g Garage Evaluated Buildings t� ! 1—�'''!� m i �,�P�FilA 1 1 k � V 1\ Windward Trolley Station - Parking Garage 11 Foothills Road Parking Lot and ParkingLots ;T1 a` .;c• Lake Grove_,Eleme rtary- __N -, � \ Athleticfield• i` ill .' 4 �� ) Lakewood Center • � �' i I - for the Arts Iron Workers ,� _i ;_‘, ..--,..is,...-.-- 1` Museum r_ L �� e jF 1 — r�,1 f ':1� _., 0�V0 S��TH'. ORE BLVD 1 I I-- — 1 `_J,,s- ( i i, South Shore i / i`y ! i` 6. �j� / Greentree Fire Station Art Studio ��`. °oo�Public Works/ P Jo' / 1 ) 1 /_ , _° _—_,�__ r,,,ki, �� `. ds —Maintenance iPu6liclGolf I;urfN e �o�° ! 41.C.54'41K(1 Buil ding / jS�P� 1 I-- Ili III) • Lbean Road di & Club House 1 , 1 ii �- .1EaN iD :ireLStation ' __ 1 ii ce,_A'A 4 Context i ,1 IT i I 19 , i / r �: ' i�1 �� `� * Park Wir® - -. /• Jin 7 ) i�' i I .'', I 7 cr i s._,, Street / / -, s, �- Water Feature `,T -! I J----�' L "—' 1 I i A �✓ City Limits IL '�J r ' I r 1_ 1 •fr I --- , ) 4M-E.171 ( C7PS RD) rkoiiiik. . -_,._,— . � / June 2021 i -j i 0<,- Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1/ i--- . c5<cV A- E qp4 . Willi-1\ i (cnarY-Prk i -I ' i I..� aIIIIIIIIP ii --7----_,-irz- vir 1. - ___°'N''''t& -,,,.„ ____, i i , — � ( s/ _�,, _ . _ -- ----I lor .Hide-A-Way i `�'\ � ° R E G \�" ,( li 7, : ---Pine_Cone Park �� - 7 .1'7_t_L J ■ i i� . I .i- • Park_ ` >'�'_ v/-�/` -3r• i—� • fillillifilij i'yonCLake Oswego ADASetf-Evaluation & Transition Plan ® j Westlake"Park V �. �, enlillillial t11� '\ i;- - d� 4adv ', - '\ i%-' i co � '` 1►► 1►� Tryon Cove Park COUNTRY CLUB RD Ro�ssma Park flirt • •l • - ►►►►1 ,_, »�,. , 11111�11 -- — f• �� 1111 III►c Foothills Park i I � j i ,�� vo Millennium_P_Iaza�Park Evaluated Parks -I I • •c\ 41 � P\�� . 'rT" �_" Roehr Park u _ lir 4o�`� �Sundeleaf Plaza �� !, s _ � ,, •i k West • J 411.....m Water Sports Center y Lake Grove ES • _ � "' '-' - Ili. Athletic Field Lake Oswego . ' ,Swim Parks " George r_ L. ,- ,,.°� Rogers Park 'CU_- I i_ L\ _ i • �� \o- i ,L 0- �) Freepons Park Greentree _ I`I j31! ��` jJk' Ø?j'4 J� Context,, - 1 ono I ( 1 - Trail . I -; . Glenmorrie Parkill Street INRD A I I �`- / - 1111 Hazelia Field l , Park (Evaluated*) /4 i Li I �; I Westtidge r, �i� �. i , I �_ ; ._1 L. i I Park` - i. j '- \!`i i \ Park (Other)-I l ■ ,, I -� _.i J ) Luscher Farm _ ' ) J Stafford Basin/ Water Feature ,� j1 _ .J,P i - Rosemont Trail /'� 1 -�—� _.iPilkingto . - � I , � � ----- � �-_- � � ��'!, City Limits L. Park tJ-----H'L'J L------) • ,� ,sR, ,--� Park features where Lake Oswego provides programs were '• -� i / _'`- evaluated at Mary S. Young Park located in West Linn. 7 Bryant Woods - i - Nature Park;--r' t I ` 't �� — �r - } --- f f t © Q June 2021 e Miles 0 0.25 0.5 ATTACHMENT 4 f\- -k j- . WAPI1 t C ' ,DIR.. EGo\-_._ -\_} Right-of-Way Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Barrier Summary Report Draft January 2021 This page intentionally left blank. City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Contents Right-of-Way Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Barrier Summary Report 1 Contents i List of Tables ii List of Maps ii 1.0 ADA Facility Evaluations of the Public Right-of-Way 3 1.1 Accessibility Standards 3 1.2 Public Right-of-Way Prioritization 3 Draft January 2021 i City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report List of Tables Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix Table 1.2: Curb Ramp Category 1 Descriptions Table 1.3: Curb Ramp Category 2 Descriptions Table 1.4: Curb Ramp Category 3 Descriptions Table 1.5: Curb Ramp Category 4 Descriptions Table 1.6: Curb Ramp Category 5 Descriptions Table 1.7: Curb Ramp Barrier Summary by Rank Table 1.8: Curb Ramp Barrier Summary by Rank and Category Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix Table 1.10: Pedestrian Access Route Category 1 Descriptions Table 1.11: Pedestrian Access Route Category 2 Descriptions Table 1.12: Pedestrian Access Route Category 3 Descriptions Table 1.13: Pedestrian Access Route Category 4 Descriptions Table 1.14: Pedestrian Access Route Category 5 Descriptions Table 1.15: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank- Sidewalks Table 1.16: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category- Sidewalks Table 1.17: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank- Crosswalks Table 1.18: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category- Crosswalks Table 1.19: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank— Railroad Crossings Table 1.20: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category- Railroad Crossings Table 1.21: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Table 1.22: Pedestrian Signal and Pushbutton Barrier Descriptions Table 1.23: Pedestrian Signal Barrier Summary Table 1.24: Pedestrian Pushbutton Barrier Summary Table 1.25: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Summary of Categories List of Maps Map 1: Curb Ramp Barrier Removal Projects Map 2: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Sidewalks Map 3: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Crosswalks Map 4: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Railroad Crossings Map 5: Pedestrian Signal Barrier Removal Projects Map 6: Pedestrian Pushbutton Barrier Removal Projects Draft January 2021 ii City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report 1.0 ADA Facility Evaluations of the Public Right-of-Way The process of developing an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan includes the identification of access barriers within the built environment. The City of Lake Oswego evaluated city maintained pedestrian access routes in the public right-of-way for ADA barriers in the summer and fall of 2020. The evaluation included the assessment of curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and hazards' and were completed using a consultant team equipped with measuring devices, City facility data, and evaluation checklists, and the field observations were collected into a GIS database. This report summarizes each of the types of facilities evaluated and summarizes the information collected. 1.1 Accessibility Standards At the time of the facilities evaluations, the 2010 ADA Standards, 2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), and the 2009 r1 and r2 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)were used to identify barriers at right- of-way facilities under the City's responsibility. Codes and standards are revised every few years and the barrier evaluations conducted provide an assessment of existing conditions as viewed by current code and provide a baseline for future barrier removal. 1.2 Public Right-of-Way Prioritization Draft prioritization criteria for assigning the barrier removal phasing schedule were developed using title II regulation § 35.150(d)(2). "If a public entity has responsibility or authority over streets, roads, or walkways, its transition plan shall include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walks cross curbs, giving priority to walkways serving entities covered by the Act, including State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas." The draft prioritization criteria include the following: • Locations serving government offices and public facilities; • Locations serving transportation; • Locations serving commercial districts and employers; and • Locations serving other areas. Priorities for Barrier Removal Matrices on the following pages illustrate the prioritization criteria for curb ramps, pedestrian access routes2, and pedestrian signals and pushbutton barrier removal projects in the City's public right-of-way. Each facility evaluated was assigned a rank based on its barrier priority and i Hazards include changes of level,driveway cross slopes greater than two percent overhanging and protruding objects,opens greater than one-half inch and/or parallel to the direction of travel,obstacles that narrow the width of the accessible route,and surfaces that are not firm,stable,and slip resistant. 2 Pedestrian access route information includes identified barriers along the sidewalks,crosswalks,and includes the identifications of hazards along the pedestrian route. January 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 3 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report category. The priority assigned is based on the aforementioned criteria and the barrier category is based on the condition of the facility. The descriptions for each category are provided after each matrix. The highest ranked facilities are shaded in dark grey, medium ranked in a lighter shade of grey, and lower ranked in the lightest shade of grey. The facilities with no assigned rank have no access deficiencies identified have no assigned color. The columns in the matrix indicate the assigned priority and are in order of importance from left to right, with the left column having the highest importance. The rows indicate the category of condition assigned to each facility during the evaluation process, with the top row having the highest importance. Note that categories are hierarchical: higher level categories (i.e., one and two) may include lower-level category conditions (i.e., three and four), but lower-level categories cannot include higher level category conditions. The categories of barriers for curb ramps and pedestrian access routes have been organized by identified ADA barrier and by road classification. There are three road classifications within Lake Oswego and included arterial, collector, and local streets. Arterial streets have a higher volume and speed of vehicular traffic when compared to local streets. The pedestrian signals and pushbuttons categories are organized by ADA barrier and MUTCD standard and guidance. A standard in the MUTCD is required or mandatory to be followed and guidance in the MUTCD is recommended but not mandatory'. Each matrix is followed by a description of the barrier categories; maps illustrating the locations of identified barriers by priority; and summary tables of the barrier removal priorities. 3 2009 Edition, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Including Revision 1,and Revision 2 dated May 2012, Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings,Words,and Phrases in this Manual January 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 4 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix ADA 35.150(d) Geospatial Proximity Priorities4 A B C D E Location of Location Serving Location Serving Location Priorities Priority Citizen ADA Government Location Serving Commercial Serving Other (Category) Description Complaint Offices and Transportation Districts, Areas and/or Request Public Facilities Employers Refer to Category El: Medium 1 Al: High Priority B1: High Priority Cl: High Priority Dl: High Priority 1 Description Priority Refer to Category C2: Medium D2: Medium E2: Low 2 A2: High Priority B2: High Priority 2 Description Priority Priority Priority Refer to Category B3: Medium C3: Medium D3: Medium E3: Low 3 A3: High Priority 3 Description Priority Priority Priority Priority Refer to Category E4: Low 4 A4: High Priority B4: Low Priority C4: Low Priority D4: Low Priority 4 Description Priority No Deficiencies 5 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 Identified 4 The priorities listed under columns B, C, D, and E are specified under title II 28 CFR §35.150 (d). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 5 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.2: Curb Ramp Category 1 Descriptions Note on Table 1.2: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category(Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street The curb ramp is built-up in the travel lane. Category 1 Category 1 Category 2 The curb ramp is significantly damaged or Category 1 Category 1 Category 2 deteriorated and is unsafe. There is a sidewalk with no curb ramp access Category 1 Category 1 Category 2 or there is an obstruction to accessing the curb ramp. The curb ramp has no detectable warning. Category 1 Category 1 Category 2 Non-standard ramp type with non-compliant Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 cross slope and/or ramp slope. The width and length of the pedestrian Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 refuge island does not meet any standard. The curb ramp has no receiving ramp. Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 6 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.3: Curb Ramp Category 2 Descriptions Note on Table 1.3: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category(Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street The curb ramp does not have a firm, stable, Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 and slip resistant surface and/or has openings greater than a half-inch or parallel with the direction of travel. The curb ramp is not located within marked Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 crossings (when present). Cross slope of ramp exceeds two percent. Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 Running slope of ramp exceeds 8.33 percent. Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 There is a grade break on the ramp surface. Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 Cross slope of ramp exceeds two percent and Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 grade of road when located midblock or at an intersection without yield or stop control. Slope of ramp flared sides (if applicable) Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 exceeds 10 percent and is part of the circulation path Width of ramp is less than 48 inches. Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 A three-by-four foot clear space at the Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 bottom of the ramp outside of the travel lane is not provided. Curb ramp has turning space that does not Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 7 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report meet any existing standards. The curb ramp has a lip or vertical Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 discontinuity greater than a half-inch. The detectable warning provided meets no Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 existing standard or is damaged. The length of the surface between detectable Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 warnings on a pedestrian refuge island is less than 24 inches. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 8 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.4: Curb Ramp Category 3 Descriptions Note on Table 1.4: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street Counter slope of the curb ramp is greater Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 than five percent. Curb ramp with constrained turning space is Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 less than four-by-five feet. Turning space is less than four-by-four feet. Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 A four-by-four-foot clear space at the bottom Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 of the ramp outside of the travel lane is not provided. The detectable warning provided does not Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 meet PROWAG standard. Slope of ramp flared sides (if applicable) Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 exceeds 8.33 percent and is less than or equal to 10 percent and is part of the circulation path. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 9 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.5: Curb Ramp Category 4 Descriptions Note on Table 1.5: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street The width and length of the pedestrian Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 refuge island does not meet PROWAG standard. End of walk due to road terminating with no Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 exit ramp. End of walk midblock with no exit ramp. Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 The curb ramp has a lip or vertical Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 discontinuity less than a half-inch. Turning space is not designed to prevent the Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 accumulation of water. Slope of ramp flared sides (if applicable) Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 exceeds 10 percent and is not a part of the circulation path. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 10 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.6: Curb Ramp Category 5 Descriptions Note on Table 1.6: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street No deficiencies identified. Category 5 Category 5 Category 5 Shared diagonal perpendicular or shared Category 5 Category 5 Category 5 parallel curb ramp design without existing physical constraints. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 11 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 12 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 1: Curb Ramp Barrier Removal Projects. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page one of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 1 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of curb ramp barrier removal projects in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of curb ramp barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, ranging from low priority to high priority, and including curb ramps with no deficiencies identified. High priority curb ramps are marked with an orange dot, medium priority curb ramps are marked with a yellow dot, low priority curb ramps are marked with a light blue dot, and curb ramps with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.1 through 1.8 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 13 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.7: Curb Ramp Barrier Summary by Rank Note on Table 1.7: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of curb ramps ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Curb Ramps Percent of Total High 323 14.7% Medium 735 33.4% Low 1054 47.9% No Deficiency 88 4.0% Total 2,200 100% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 14 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.8: Curb Ramp Barrier Summary by Rank and Category Note on Table 1.8: This table expands upon Table 1.1: Curb Ramp Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of curb ramps ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. It also includes categories ranked 1 through 5, with 1 being the highest priority, and the priority matrix ranking system ranging from Al to E5. Rank Category Priority Total Curb Ramps Percent of Total High 1 B1 43 2.0% High 1 Cl 192 8.7% High 1 D1 9 0.4% High 1 B2 79 3.6% Medium 1 El 95 4.3% Medium 2 C2 324 14.7% Medium 2 D2 19 0.9% Medium 2 B3 58 2.6% Medium 2 C3 234 10.6% Medium 2 D3 5 0.2% Low 2 E2 511 23.2% Low 3 E3 170 7.7% Low 4 B4 46 2.1% Low 4 C4 143 6.5% Low 4 D4 13 0.6% Low 4 E4 171 7.8% No Deficiencies 5 B5 19 0.9% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 15 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report No Deficiencies 5 C5 54 2.5% No Deficiencies 5 D5 1 0.0% No Deficiencies 5 E5 14 0.6% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 16 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix ADA 35.150(d) Geospatial Proximity Prioritiess A B C D E Location of Location Serving Location Serving Location Priorities Priority Citizen ADA Government Location Serving Commercial Serving Other (Category) Description Complaint Offices and Transportation Districts, Areas and/or Request Public Facilities Employers Refer to Category El: Medium 1 Al: High Priority B1: High Priority Cl: High Priority Dl: High Priority 1 Description Priority Refer to Category C2: Medium D2: Medium E2: Low 2 A2: High Priority B2: High Priority 2 Description Priority Priority Priority Refer to Category B3: Medium C3: Medium D3: Medium E3: Low 3 A3: High Priority 3 Description Priority Priority Priority Priority Refer to Category E4: Low 4 A4: High Priority B4: Low Priority C4: Low Priority D4: Low Priority 4 Description Priority No Deficiencies 5 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 Identified 5 The priorities listed under columns B, C, D, and E are specified under title II 28 CFR §35.150(d). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 17 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.10: Pedestrian Access Route Category 1 Descriptions Note on Table 1.10: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category(Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street A detectable warning surface is not provided Category 1 Category 1 Category 1 at the railroad crossing. Railroad flangeway gap is greater than three Category 1 Category 1 Category 1 inches for freight rail or two and a half for non-freight rail. The sidewalk condition is poor with cracking, Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 spalling, heaving, or other condition. The constructed width of the sidewalk width Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 is less than 36 inches. The sidewalk cross slope is below two Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 percent for less than one-quarter of its length. Running slope of crosswalk is greater than Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 five percent. Cross slope of crosswalk with yield or stop Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 control is greater than two percent. Cross slope of crosswalk with no yield or stop Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 control is greater than five percent. Crosswalk surface is not firm, stable, and slip Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 resistant. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 18 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report The sidewalk surface is firm, stable, and slip- Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 resistant for less than one-quarter of its length. The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 vertical changes that exceed a quarter inch and openings greater than a half inch or are parallel to direction of travel (more than three per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 overhanging and protruding objects (more than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 driveway entries where cross slope exceeds two percent (more than two per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 obstacles that narrow the width of the walk to less than four feet (more than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number utility Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 lids that are not slip-resistant (more than one per 100 feet). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 19 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.11: Pedestrian Access Route Category 2 Descriptions Note on Table 1.11: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category(Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street Detectable warning surface placement at rail Category 2 Category 2 Category 2 crossing is less than six feet or greater than 15 feet. The constructed width of the sidewalk width Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 is less than 48 inches but greater than 36 inches. The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 instances where running slope exceeds grade of road and is >5.0% (more than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk cross slope is below two Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 percent for one-quarter to one-half of its length. The sidewalk surface is firm, stable, and slip- Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 resistant for one-quarter to one-half of its length. The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 vertical changes that exceed a quarter inch or openings greater than a half inch or are parallel to direction of travel (more than three per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 20 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report overhanging or protruding objects (more than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 driveway entries where cross slope exceeds two percent (more than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has an obstacle that narrow the Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 width of the walk to less than four feet (fewer than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has utility lids that are not slip- Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 resistant (fewer than one per 100 feet). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 21 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.12: Pedestrian Access Route Category 3 Descriptions Note on Table 1.12: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street The sidewalk width is less than five feet Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 without a passing space. The sidewalk has a number of instances Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 where running slope exceeds grade of road and is >5.0% (fewer than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk cross slope is below two Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 percent for one-half to three-quarters of its length. The sidewalk surface is firm, stable, and slip- Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 resistant for one-half to three-quarters of its length. The sidewalk has vertical changes that Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 exceed a quarter inch —or—openings greater than a half inch or are parallel to direction of travel (fewer than three per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 overhanging—or— protruding objects (fewer than one per 100 feet). The sidewalk has a significant number of Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 driveway entries where cross slope exceeds two percent (fewer than one per 100 feet). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 22 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.13: Pedestrian Access Route Category 4 Descriptions Note on Table 1.13: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street The sidewalk cross slope is below two Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 percent for three-quarters to its length. The sidewalk surface is firm, stable, and slip- Category 4 Category 4 Category 4 resistant for three-quarters to its length. Table 1.14: Pedestrian Access Route Category 5 Descriptions Note on Table 1.14: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify each ADA Barrier, corresponding road classification, and category within the priority matrix. Road Classification and Category (Y-Axis) Identified ADA Barrier Arterial Street Collector Street Local Street No deficiencies identified. Category 5 Category 5 Category 5 July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 23 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 24 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 2: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Sidewalks. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page two of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 2 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of pedestrian access route barrier removal projects at sidewalks in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of sidewalk barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, ranging from low priority to high priority, and including access routes at sidewalks with no deficiencies identified. High priority sidewalks are marked with an orange dot, medium priority sidewalks are marked with a yellow dot, low priority sidewalks are marked with a light blue dot, and sidewalks with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.9 through 1.16 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 25 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 3: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Crosswalks. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page three of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 3 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of pedestrian access route barrier removal projects at crosswalks in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of crosswalk barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, ranging from medium priority to high priority, and including access routes at crosswalks with no deficiencies identified. High priority crosswalks are marked with an orange dot, medium priority crosswalks are marked with a yellow dot, and crosswalks with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.17 and 1.18 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 26 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 4: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Removal Projects: Railroad Crossings. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page four of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 4 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of pedestrian access route barrier removal projects at railroad crossings in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of railroad crossing barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, which are high priority or with no deficiencies identified. High priority railroad crossings are marked with an orange dot and railroad crossings with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.19 and 1.20 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 27 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.15: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank- Sidewalks Note on Table 1.15: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of sidewalk segments ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Sidewalk Segments Percent of Total High 109 7.2% Medium 510 33.8% Low 851 56.5% No Deficiency 37 2.5% Total 1,507 100% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 28 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.16: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category—Sidewalks Note on Table 1.16: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of sidewalk miles ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. It also includes categories ranked 1 through 5, with 1 being the highest priority, and the priority matrix ranking system ranging from Al to E5. Rank Category Priority Total Sidewalk Miles Percent of Total High 1 B1 15 1.0% High 1 Cl 48 3.2% High 2 B2 46 3.1% Medium 1 El 2 0.1% Medium 2 C2 270 17.9% Medium 2 D2 13 0.9% Medium 3 B3 45 3.0% Medium 3 C3 176 11.7% Medium 3 D3 4 0.3% Low 2 E2 312 20.7% Low 3 E3 277 18.4% Low 4 B4 30 2.0% Low 4 C4 101 6.7% Low 4 D4 7 0.5% Low 4 E4 124 8.2% No Deficiencies 5 B5 1 0.1% No Deficiencies 5 C5 18 1.2% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 29 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report No Deficiencies 5 E5 18 1.2% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 30 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.17: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank—Crosswalks Note on Table 1.17: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of crosswalks ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Crosswalks Percent of Total High 102 9.2% Medium 211 19.1% Low 237 21.5% No Deficiency 553 50.1% Total 1,103 100% Table 1.18: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category—Crosswalks Note on Table 1.18: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of crosswalks ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. It also includes categories ranked 1 through 5, with 1 being the highest priority, and the priority matrix ranking system ranging from Al to E5. Rank Category Priority Total Crosswalks Percent of Total High 1 B1 18 1.6% High 1 Cl 46 4.2% High 2 B2 38 3.4% Medium 1 El 3 0.3% Medium 2 C2 202 18.3% Medium 2 D2 6 0.5% Low 2 E2 237 21.5% No Deficiencies 5 B5 57 5.2% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 31 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report No Deficiencies 5 C5 234 21.2% No Deficiencies 5 D5 12 1.1% No Deficiencies 5 E5 250 22.7% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 32 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.19: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank— Railroad Crossings Note on Table 1.19: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of railroad crossings ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Railroad Crossings Percent of Total High 9 90.0% No Deficiency 1 10.0% Total 10 100% Table 1.20: Pedestrian Access Route Barrier Summary by Rank and Category- Railroad Crossings Note on Table 1.20: This table expands upon Table 1.9: Pedestrian Access Route Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of railroad crossings ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. It also includes categories ranked 1 through 5, with 1 being the highest priority, and the priority matrix ranking system ranging from Al to E5. Rank Category Priority Total Railroad Percent of Total Crossings High 1 B1 2 20.0% High 1 Cl 7 70.0% No Deficiencies 5 C5 1 10.0% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 33 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.21: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Priority Matrix ADA 35.150(d) Geospatial Proximity Priorities' A B C D E Location of Location Serving Location Serving Location Priorities Priority Citizen ADA Government Location Serving Commercial Serving Other (Category) Description Complaint Offices and Transportation Districts, Areas and/or Request Public Facilities Employers Refer to Category Dl: Medium El: Medium 1 Al: High Priority B1: High Priority Cl: High Priority 1 Description Priority Priority Refer to Category B2: Medium C2: Medium D2: Medium E2: Low 2 A2: High Priority 2 Description Priority Priority Priority Priority Refer to Category B3: Medium C3: Medium E3: Low 3 A3: High Priority D3: Low Priority 3 Description Priority Priority Priority 4 No Deficiencies A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 Identified 6 The priorities listed under columns B, C, D, and E are specified under title II 28 CFR §35.150(d). July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 34 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.22: Pedestrian Signal and Pushbutton Barrier Descriptions Category 1: • Accessible pedestrian signal is not provided. ' • Pedestrian crossing time is insufficient. Category 2:8 • Level clear space at push button not provided. • Reach to push button from clear space is obstructed. • Operating force of pushbutton exceeds five pounds of force. • The pushbutton does not have a sign adjacent to or integral with the pushbutton. • Pushbutton sign does not clearly indicate which crosswalk signal is actuated. • Pushbutton pilot light (if applicable) does not activate. • A locator tone is not provided. • A tactile arrow is not provided. • Pushbutton locator tone activates or deactivates at incorrect time. • Pushbutton locator tone duration and intensity needs adjustment. • Audible features of accessible pedestrian signal needs adjustment. • Speech walk message of accessible pedestrian signal needs adjustment. • Extended pushbutton feature needs adjustment. Category 3:9 • Pushbutton is located more than 10 feet from curb, shoulder, or pavement. • Pushbutton is farther than five feet from the crosswalk line farthest from the intersection (when applicable). • Pushbutton height is not within 42 to 48 inches above the ground. • Pushbutton and arrow are not parallel with the direction of travel. PROWAG R209.2 Alterations. Existing pedestrian signals shall comply with R209.1 when the signal controller and software are altered,or the signal head is replaced. 8 2009 MUTCD Standard 9 2009 MUTCD Guidance July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 35 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report • Distance between two pushbuttons on the same corner is less than 10 feet. Category 4: • No deficiencies identified. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 36 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 5: Pedestrian Signal Barrier Removal Projects. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page five of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 5 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of barrier removal projects at pedestrian signals in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of pedestrian signal barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, ranging from medium priority to high priority, and including pedestrian signals with no deficiencies identified. High priority pedestrian signals are marked with an orange dot, medium priority pedestrian signals are marked with a yellow dot, and pedestrian signals with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.21 through 1.25 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 37 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Map 6: Pedestrian Pushbutton Barrier Removal Projects. Please refer to the map image description below and/or to page six of the PDF addendum named LO_SR_ADA_ROW_Maps. Map 6 Image Description: This map illustrates the location of barrier removal projects at pedestrian pushbuttons in Lake Oswego, assessed in the SETP. A series of colored dots mark the location of pushbutton barriers that are the responsibility of the City of Lake Oswego to remove, ranging from low priority to high priority, and including pushbuttons with no deficiencies identified. High priority pushbuttons are marked with an orange dot, medium priority pushbuttons are marked with a yellow dot, low priority pushbuttons are marked with a light blue dot, and pushbuttons with no deficiencies are marked with a purple dot. For context, streets are marked in solid gray lines, parks are filled in solid light green, water features are filled in solid light blue, and the city limits are marked with a dark green dashed and dotted line. The north arrow points upwards and the scale is one inch equals half a mile. The maps were made by MIG on January 8, 2021. Refer to Tables 1.21 through 1.25 in the main Lake Oswego ADA ROW Barrier Summary Report document for corresponding data and matrices. July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 38 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.23: Pedestrian Signal Barrier Summary Note on Table 1.23: This table expands upon Table 1.21: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of pedestrian signals ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Pedestrian Signals Percent of Total High 106 75.7% Medium 5 3.6% Low 0 0.0% No Deficiency 29 20.7% Total 140 100% Table 1.24: Pedestrian Pushbutton Barrier Summary Note on Table 1.24: This table expands upon Table 1.21: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of pedestrian pushbuttons ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. Rank Total Pedestrian Pushbuttons Percent of Total High 189 66.5% Medium 76 26.8% Low 1 0.4% No Deficiency 18 6.3% Total 284 100% July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 39 City of Lake Oswego I Right-of-Way ADA Barrier Summary Report Table 1.25: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Summary of Categories Note on Table 1.25: This table expands upon Table 1.21: Pedestrian Signals and Pushbuttons Priority Matrix to further identify the number and percentage of pushbuttons and pedestrian signals ranking from high to low in priority, and those with no deficiencies. It also includes categories ranked 1 through 4, with 1 being the highest priority, and the priority matrix ranking system ranging from Al to E5. Additionally, the number of crosswalks with insufficient pedestrian crossing time, issues with MUTCD Standards, and issues with MUTCD Guidance are identified. Rank Category Priority Total Percent of Pedestrian Identified Identified Pushbuttons Total Crossing Issue with Issue with and Time is MUTCD MUTCD Pedestrian Insufficient Standard Guidance Signals High 1 B1 61 14.4% 29 28 4 High 1 Cl 234 55.2% 77 133 52 Medium 1 D1 13 3.1% 11 5 0 Medium 1 El 7 1.7% 4 0 2 Medium 2 B2 17 4.0% 0 17 4 Medium 2 C2 32 7.5% 0 32 7 Medium 3 B3 3 0.7% 0 0 3 Medium 3 C3 9 2.1% 0 0 9 Low 2 E2 1 0.2% 0 1 0 No Deficiencies 4 B4 12 2.8% 9 0 0 No Deficiencies 4 C4 35 8.3% 9 0 0 July 2021 I ADA Right-of-Way Barrier Analysis Summary I DRAFT 40 i ATTACHMENT 5 Vs.- ,--) \ !IV P kA Q � i _I yy,,,,`al L i J �� Rip i r f _/„.1 eanalls., -_____,,,,„..,__,,ii•/7_,..\_,,,.-.""Nej;•_?1,110 ce:10.,,,.. -/"....'--------.. .."-.1_,..: ._.1 I I / (0ti 2.111111r--IN - Ito 0 . / . w .1 to G:c_____-)\-:\......) __ o°i � " go O `/' 41404 .41, W I I -..-: II \i; > !sue• — r ! ,: MBLR9� '[i0 f r� ��"— . `� c- f '"-- y , 1 0 ` -Iii •844 . -- *;0) ,/,..*:::';, Lake Oswego ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan 11111 hall , • ..,0,.,,,,-O-••-..1),,:I...si1 i,e,, .40 0(6 — •� .hl.1LI��ll►•e;i Map 1 : Curb Ramp Barrier I iG „•/f • f. `�••h• p • •� : COUNTRY CLUB RD w''' �. . thifh •• 1 N r, ,�,� 11,_►,11; ,yt �N, Removal Projects •sr. . - irk` y • �. • • co/,- MMite mi. j 31- 1 ••• . f - • • �• [ •� it •� • - •• �• � ; i �O� •�• • �� / ,g1 ►, •, NW, .+ • � ,,, ••��' ; / Barrier Removal Rank • ••� �..• �, • �► kill.. ,�., f ° High _ a •• •c�, ,•••a, .2 •fIvey �� • �• ` 4 i Medium • f 1 •r_III � •� f• . • 0 •' • ` MI_ . . � • • OT• • I Low ,, 1 . , • � C L • •,� :Vic• a•^ • f� �5.� .� , 1 • �� No deficiencies identified /iRc!) ice / ��• r •.� l d• •, . % ..,` O ►E ,, /I' .> cf r•c s. 90f> .>•, f -• '`f, fad 1. •f, ' c\s\'�.•. ��go, ••�• % •• a tU " '04 0 ;` ,iI -�---1 1 i • '. cf _ Iiii __ • '� ' . ' SAP I (�, ' . 71 ii ' •• • t#b / . •, r. f°�_-O' i `� �, Context ,.l 'i 1 �� :.� s>• �� ® 0 ° � I�� / i�� Street / L. Iu re ! I . fits ��• • . ° /l — = / 04)0 . 1 / I_ .®. 7 _ — —� Park i / C5" ® fir • i •� . elk l ��q� �� j, •s•. i ., 9 �. %.iihrf _ _ _- - Water Feature �,\,\ 1 IaJ`T7 f• •i f *et .� ---- _✓ — — —i -I - I-s rl j • �J.__ i L — — City Limits // T L� 1 i C R 1 / I ' 1 i_I'; DRAFT M I G 01.08.2021 f i Miles / 1, 0 0.25 0.5 71--(:)7—. 9I o f " j] iiimilij ai ~I oj .0 I r1/4), , - Fp3-6-0- &J cj 11 .;: -------:,---\'‘: IAN./Ara%j‘'7: 1---6.6:1: .1 ._._. -''"Iii----±-,_g-- i-Q - 5,...? • — r o o •> MELR�-�L,•, • ••r• • • ••�i7 �"_� • :. _ ''�'_'_- r, l ' jl; /- 4 • \L ., I • ; Lake Oswego ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan I o o ., •'• •, ••.• • • • •^.1 • • • I A. ,�-4.• ! •,� r d OS s • 11,1'1`�1• 1\ ® •• • • • • L- • L. �� • , /f._-mil • o •• • '• �yl'�l'11'1C�'r�r�i�••:.`�. Map 2: Pedestrian Access Route j • •• O ° bO • • r COUNTRY CLUB RD • • •� \ ® �• Q •�: • l ��` �• '- Barrier Removal Projects: I.4➢ �� FUSE WAY • .;• f L.- • `� • •••• •••••i:�e� ?N"e \ • • • • j �� o., 1•• Sidewalks d • • I �(ti" , 14• • ° , ; Barrier Removal Rank �Y� ••y •� -0- r • • ?gip 4TT1L3: + .. J • • . ` �� . . �.••'g :: 'To • • a C�" • • �,r �� Medium LOP• • `• • • r� • •• •• 4.: iP • '♦ Low --,__ S �_,.:I_ ** • V� • ��• • 0�T•� ORE: p ti •�s�iN�� •�i• 4 1 . ,. .. • IIrr \ s\\ re `� •' . • ` 1_ i •,•`• No deficiencies identified 'S' et...2. ••-, W , 941114 i ''Ag*a-r• .9 e* 111104.1p • trio ~.. 410411 p ; UM= -) II 411C\ „‘ 111 419,, 011111M•4916 O • 4.0 •/,.• . , '0 • • • -,,,,_•. � o- • • .0 4 4, IP, • t0 IL O • • • • t •s �o j • d. • • • liqi 41111111111. 1111111.... 8 • • ••• • �• ® • v •.�� I j ,\� � • 1 i Context • a I • •'; �> •• --Co-- `A i ,I , i . . • . •, i i �\ �' I Street ....,\ © / / L. . .{1:5iL • 7/ / • Park (Or, / • 0 • ilj1 1 IJ.V/ • . . r M Water Feature % ram-- -I --�6�,owition. •• •_ _ •� • •Olt •• -- — — 1 • •• •. ._._ ! 7 , City Limits 1 �� ,-'O J--I I I L - - � L 1 C So 0 1 j__ _ ,— o DRAFT / r .I j M I G 01.08.2021 r } � 0 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 i f ., ir 40) [.._ (.„ ra.,--71 I *•• • ;i 1 I Ii , LP. ,4 : 1.* 44/ ! i -! • I,-----t i , I i1111111i1111117) r ''''---(-NIIIII --.1n111 eis, , -.1. •I-. -'I"1 1 \04,444.4446......._,..,,,,,0 R E G 0.\--\ .0 Nc-cc.0 cl 0 I/ !* a . .1/41; .._( if II , . \ , r • r' MFLRi -, rc; % �. "�._° L. i. •7 � • • .i.: - =-- ! !/ ;', Lake Oswego ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition;s ;;IPlan fiTili Idkr- . iimil,• . 1 _ ess ilitai dio© C• ir ilL 101 COUNTRY CLUB RD •�''' , v •/ . I • � jetbilt e lip ♦, •/ ffret e. . t , Barrier Removal Projects: � i-� 44 ,; ...rya, e° I� Mitico• l • j �� ►009j ilip• i/ S tot „ _ .nlo_ ; Crosswalks 4 0 r1 t,^, �, .7., , 4,• I•• #� • Barrier Removal Rank 4111 ` .o4.L.04 �,- _ Miami I J • t High .; :7,i ._ N....„,„. ,_ ZINN. c - Medium r • i I ••� • �R3, / •'1 • �r. % v Low II 1_ I gir /��' i ' A lip or If-�� ,-..-- , N • IrI identified : .40,41, /ic!) I 1 fl _!"4.k. t/ 4 copLer#40.11111110014141 ~IP, IMMO 0 .41;{: comirt 10 iii ---./ ‘N. * 1014 W hVibillir 1111111111 / / • • _; I • mo., Wil•,, II / Context� • �� It: / •r 1-1, 1 % • •• a• I I 1 I-- ` Park _ I�� Ft r :In = �i1 I ::: •• -• 2tiiiiiiiiiiii%iosehmiiir 11i _-_ - j _I /r M I G DRAFT 01.08.2021 } � 0 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 ..1 ) ri—/-- \ , <c -vis,tii r � � 4.,_ ,, 1 r Q ! Fo' i--- -1 J I I .Z. N ......41 , i-irAll ....--4.01 ----. 1 is //, Iiii,,..,:, ,,..-=:,, ,"?.:16-1:-..1.. ' -- -:-----1 / , C.)..,:s7v E G P....) la // -' / I 1 / r -;_:' __:- - — -----------i -- ' N, Ilit ) ( r"—I F.--T---1 .- ,, \ - T _ y ' ��' Lake OswegoADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan v 14"1"41,11° � 111111 t re..1 1 ii L• L. 1i1, •\ �� ® 1 � r _ �111111111111��1111111 11111 .\u'lIll 11111/1111111 Map 4: Pedestrian Access Route Mr% COUNTRY CLUB RD 11111 1 10 0 11111111► 1�'Pill• o 111 �W Barrier Removal Pro ects: _ 1461111��►�11 C 1f 11114j 111 mmt BY/�P NI Railroad Crossings • 1 ►, k. PI ; Barrier Removal Rank 4 — �'• �0 11 High �t - �0 Op" I` • No deficiencies identified i i - i it. - if& in ' -1/11.14°1 • ,`� � IJ- .:! \ lir\ - r): � 00 BLVD ` � r6flT ;I = I,11Airl kl i i" A _,--, t•-,11-.• a mi I 1111 0.4..._ Allelpipp, =NM / - '--_, sc, ri dia•doo - 00--; ii *ok-- le irg°11r, �� I c`• I. 110 ' Ilk • -1E N 'D -fill F4111111.111r1f0b - I , 7 �., 4 / Context �� i ,I ' �- I I tor: i / � i1 <` Street L. i! Li,. Park Ø1',_ _ 1__ '___' ! 4:::. Mi. Water Feature / L r i.J r i J----• -- A --- _ , L- — —, City Limits / -11 ^•J•I CfIILDSRO ! / , 10 -, -,-- �• DRAFT ' � e— —•---r /7 / M I G 01.08.2021 0 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 iJf- 4 V' o \ \‘.1 Ir1---,1 if"i riT! '4-:------:.) dilli4.ACD /kW N a ii Hi — L , k- /NW ;,______ ---- --r M Ri —�`I �� t — — — t, /01 , - r• J 1 11 i sDA Self-Evaluation & Trasition Plan J 111111111►I ' ''� ./II/11111111111111�111/111111►/11111111destrian Signal4111 --'''-'------- 10 ----7.---- ---1 . _ il To if- ,--- kii. v.;-3141,1 %, ,.,, n- . -1 I COUNTRY CLUB RD pjj 1111�1111 Il!l�►ll► y�/ ��uIIIINjIIliltilh° 0 . 4/TW_Aii/wm 410--A„, ' • • . ,,, . r **Pt ,, °° + Fri) ; �;� Barrier Removal Rank ��TI r, � , I '`~ killffillan■ t _ �' ', :, 0 High I.� �' Medium - - WOMB :LI .i .r 4p. :solT - �. , '\� • No deficiencies identified if �— VO H. ORE BLVD j I` ',_ mooF "2* 4k L /i' MU - y d Afimmv AWN.a0.7310 - an , II . 4, , - MI :*41011fr: �°y,' 0 WI �pr �0' V 11.°1: 7-- 1 10111 / -I i , ,`. �,, / Context .. _ lJ�N 'D , - I' - i I ;9 J % i�i �� i— j �, _�IJ I �� ri `, Street i - i i , .• h iI.— _ ‘- / Park r . j r � '• Mi. Water Feature '-- r(( �1 I .�--- _--' i �✓ I I City Limits 0 . i DRAFT - - —e— - — .r j M I G 01.08.2021 0 Miles - 0 0.25 0.5 ___L-- 1 ccr-vis,, E riii , k L r6 I IQI I 7f j I I I' I i 0-1 /Nip ,* L__, i . ___ i-Firtak 4 „.. ,____,,_ ...,,..* -.... i i ,, '• /7 4411/,.c i (....-.;i..1. .7.1_71.. _.-.7 /-) 'it \ 1 Li Yitu-simelear: - I /'��;� Lake Oswego ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan ® �- L �11111111 �,� i �111111111► ; \� t J, �41ill/ 111111111111 COUNTRY CLUB'Ro' 11111111 J Map 6: Pedestrian Pushbutton I � 1111111111 , 111 � Cil\ 1 f 4_, 1 , -..._., '13."7 'llIl -..••• r" '_.:1 --------Ir �111 111�1�lll y•.. ��11111* ' Barrier Removal Projects . i ---- likh' ,.:.''o' 111k1111 0 ) 4211**11111111"1 OF- r, f- ar ditilleiiiiiii'"I' ' a.t_ -if , 1 ; Barrier Removal Rank t .�� \ \ — WA • J 41410600,.._ �:� �e ' 0 High 1 _ Medium IPri '� Low -.. _�.',;qv r•`• ''� ��O�VO / Sd/TH. ORE BLVD ■I�`�� 1 . I ? ! ` `•/��` ,, W41 earn , al • No deficiencies identified ow11, , -... _71- , .. _ ___, i <,,, I fuo Affro —jult" I draf, 4, . IIIIII ii ^ sue 1 Q 1 /ISA ' / ( glik**610r- ii , r ; �� f Context _ JE N ',� - , 1 r1 1 fir II f� A'J �� <� Street / .1L, ,i ; / I - ! `�,�=� Park --•' ,� 1 /--- Water Feature f z . `� I �.f. ___, �✓ I i City Limits / r . Ir_ - ! / L. ^_i•1 J CFIILDSRD �- � DRAFT /-___-.---r M I G 01.08.2021 S f J� `. Miles 0 0 0.25 0.5 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Lake Oswego ADA Stakeholder Group Meeting: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 3/15/2022 - 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM Attendees Stakeholders Georgena Moran, Cynthia Johnson, Jan Steinbock, Karen Logsdon, Lisa Strader, City staff Kelli Byrd (ADA Coordinator), Erica Rooney, Jan Wirtz, Jeff Munro, Stefan Broadus, Katy Kerklaan, Guilain del Rio, MIG consultants Heather Buczek, Alexa Vaughn, Hayden Agnew- Wieland, Vanessa Hostetter Location Online meeting venue using Zoom Agenda The following summary is organized by the agenda topics provided for the meeting. • No new items were added to the agenda. Welcome and Introductions Meeting participants introduced themselves to the group. Kelli Byrd introduced herself as the ADA Coordinator for the City. Americans with Disabilities Act MIG provided an overview of the ADA and the City's obligations under Title II, which prohibits discrimination in the provision of programs, services, and activities by local governments. The City of Lake Oswego is committed to providing equal access to citizens with disabilities. To make Lake Oswego more accessible to all, the City is developing an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (SETP). The project involves four main components: • Reviewing all City programs, services, and policies; • Evaluating the accessibility of City facilities (buildings, parks, and parking lots); • Assessing facilities in the public right-of-way; and • Developing a strategic plan and tools for implementing the recommended changes to City facilities and practices. Project Overview MIG and the City gave a brief update of the project to date. The City has established a public information portal on the website regarding their ADA title II program, ADA grievance procedure, and notice to provide ongoing communication throughout the project. Throughout 2020, the City completed a self-evaluation assessment of its services, policies, and practices. This included a staff questionnaire administered by MIG and a concurrent review of policy 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary documents and City communications. City staff provided comments and edits on the draft self- evaluation report, which will be incorporated into the draft transition plan. The City evaluated City-maintained pedestrian access routes in the public right-of-way for ADA barriers in the summer and fall of 2020. The right-of-way evaluation identified barriers to accessibility and included curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian hazards, crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and on-street parking. The City evaluated the buildings, parking facilities, and parks where City programs, activities, and services are provided in late 2020 and early 2021. Needs, Challenges, and Opportunities MIG asked the group a series of questions about the current state of accessibility in Lake Oswego. This discussion was tracked on-screen during the meeting and is reprinted here. What's working well? Stakeholder comments: • The City has listened to community input and added important staff positions for addressing ADA and Diversity/Equity/Inclusion concerns. • 50+ advisory board and other local committees in the City are more often focusing on accessibility goals and concerns. Staff comments: • The City is learning to recognize and proactively address accessibility issues in existing infrastructure when improvements are required based on an increased awareness of accessibility issues. • The new Adult Community Center provides a much more accessible facility than the one it replaced. o The new Indoor Tennis Center does as well; this facility resulted from needs observed during Special Olympics. What are the biggest needs? • To focus on more than just physical accessibility and beyond minimum legal requirements. o Bigger picture things like being able to fully participate in meetings remotely and to fully and effectively participate in City programs/activities/services • To minimize how often people are required to ask for accommodation by providing accessible and inclusive programs from the start. o Generally providing more flexible options upfront • Better information about who to contact regarding accessibility issues or accommodations o "Virtual Accommodation Coordinator" as a possible dedicated staff position (focusing on the technology side of accommodations) 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary V o Better customer service (staff training) surrounding accommodations and requests • It's draining for people to always have to explain why they need an accommodation. • Better maintenance of accessible features after construction to keep them accessible o Including sidewalks with accumulated gravel or moss or protruding vegetation What are the biggest challenges? • A lack of available outlets in public places for people that need to power their devices. • Sidewalk maintenance and effectively sharing that responsibility between the City and private property owners. o Need for effective communication about existing policies for sidewalk maintenance. • Lack of curb cuts/curb ramps at some intersections • Lack of information on public websites about public transportation to parks/facilities • Lyft doesn't drop off anywhere that does not have a hard address, which includes many parks. Can addresses be assigned to all parks? • Lack of accessible parking at some facilities; Stevens Meadow noted as an example. • Availability of accessible housing • Lack of information about who to contact about the sidewalk and curb ramp barriers in the right-of-way. o City staff offered a phone number (503-635-0208) to call for maintenance issues in the right-of-way. However, while this number is dedicated to the right-of-way, staff noted that they would be happy to forward non-right-of-way concerns to the appropriate department. Summary of Analysis Results MIG provided an overview of the Self-Evaluation Report, Right-of-Way Barrier Summary Report, and Facility Barrier Analysis Summary Report, which were included in the meeting materials and distributed to participants prior to the meeting. Self-Evaluation Report The City of Lake Oswego's evaluation included three elements: a staff questionnaire, a review of City policies, and a review of the City's standards and specifications. This report describes the staff questionnaire results, the policy review observations, and the evaluation of standards and specifications. • MIG requested public participants to review and send comments on the self-evaluation report to the ADA Coordinator. 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary Right-of-Way Barrier Summary Report The evaluation of pedestrian access routes in the public right-of-way included the assessment of curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and hazards. The 2010 ADA Standards, 2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way (PROWAG), and the 2009 r1 and r2 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used to identify barriers at right-of-way facilities under the City's responsibility. This report summarizes each of the types of facilities evaluated and the information collected. Facility Assessment Summary Report: The barrier assessments for buildings, parking facilities, and parks included all public interior and exterior elements of a site. The assessments identified physical barriers in each facility that limit accessibility and compared each facility to the 2010 ADA Standards, 2019 OSSC, and the 2015 ABA. A summary of the barriers identified within City facilities is included in this report. • For more detailed information about the barriers at a specific site, people are welcome to reach out to the ADA Coordinator to get a copy of the ADA Facility Assessment Summary Report. • It was noted that the number of barriers to be removed was quite high and asked if the staff anticipate how long it will take to remove these barriers and if it is funded. o Staff responded that identifying funding for projects is an ongoing process and accessibility projects are a focus. • The question was asked if additional barriers are identified will they be addressed in a timely manner. o Accessibility barrier complaints are handled on a case-by-case basis, but this lead to a discussion of how barrier removal projects are prioritized. Planning Priorities Prioritizing the removal of barriers at City facilities is an essential component of developing and implementing an ADA transition plan. MIG discussed draft criteria to consider for determining the schedule for removing barriers when looking at the City's programs in their entirety. • MIG asked the group if there are any unique or inherent elements to Lake Oswego that should affect the priority categories. Prioritization for Facilities: • Stakeholders noted that there are a high number of seniors in Lake Oswego, with that percentage likely to increase due to the trend of aging in place. • Stakeholders expressed their desire to prioritize facilities that can be accessed via transit. 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary Prioritization in the ROW: • Can "Danger" be prioritized - is the barrier putting someone in a potentially dangerous situation? o It was noted that street classifications based on traffic volume are incorporated in draft criteria to reflect safety concerns should someone find themselves in the roadway due to a barrier. General Discussion Comments: • There was a question of whether seniors and elders can provide input if they are not technically savvy o City staff noted that they are planning additional outreach efforts and making the materials available in multiple formats. • The complaint process was discussed and the means for contacting City staff. The ADA Coordinator's role and contact information was shared and reinforced. Next Steps MIG asked stakeholders to send any other questions or comments that they did not get addressed during the meeting, including feedback on the draft self-evaluation report, prioritization for barrier removal in the ROW and at building and park facilities, or any other general concerns about accessibility to the City's ADA Coordinator. Based on the policy and program evaluation, the facility evaluations, the prioritization and scheduling process, and feedback from this group, MIG will develop a draft of the self- evaluation and transition plan. City staff and stakeholders will have a chance to review and provide edits before the draft plan is released to the public for comment. Review of Staff Facility Prioritization Exercise It was shared with the group during the Planning Priorities discussion that City staff met to discuss the draft prioritization criteria provided in the meeting materials. If stakeholder participants have comments on the draft ranking of facilities, please share your comments with the ADA Coordinator. The following are the resulting City ranked facilities taking into consideration the criteria described in the materials: • identified complaints or requests; • level-of-use by the public; • program uniqueness; • citizen rights and responsibilities; • diversity, equity, and inclusion plan; • geographic distribution; • recognized user groups; and • planned obsolescence. 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary The following list did not take into consideration access to transit, which was discussed during the meeting. Additionally, the list does not include the parking structures and facilities as the staff responsible for these facilities was not in attendance on the day of the meeting. The City intends to have a meeting to set the draft priorities for parking structures and facilities before the draft plan is presented to the public. Highest Priority Facilities • Parks: Foothills Park, George Rogers Park, Millennium Plaza Park, Hazelia Field, Luscher Farm, Waluga Park East, Westlake Park, Sundeleaf Plaza • Buildings: Public Golf Course & Clubhouse, Library, Main Fire Station • Leased Facilities: Teen Lounge Middle Priority Facilities • Parks: Charlie S. Brown Water Sports Center, Roehr Park, Waluga Park West, Stafford Basin/Rosement Trail, Bryant Woods Nature Park, Pilkington Park • Buildings: Iron Workers Museum, Westlake Fire Station • Leased Facilities: Greentree Art Studio, Mary S. Young Park Lower Priority Facilities • Parks: Lake Oswego Swim Park, Rossman Park, McNary Park, Westridge Park, Freepons Park, Greentree Park, Tryon Cove Park, Pine Cone Park, Hide-A-Way Park, Glenmorrie Park • Buildings: Public Works/Maintenance Building, Water Treatment Plant, Jean Road Fire Station, South Shore Fire Station • Leased Facilities: (all programs moving to new Recreation Center upon completion): Christ Church Parish Additional, Oswego Heritage House, Forest Hills Elementary, Lake Grove Elementary Athletic Field, Lake Oswego Junior High, Lakewood Center for the Arts, Academy of Ballet & Dance Arts 03/15/2022 ADA Stakeholder Meeting Summary 7.2 COUNCIL REPORT ___ o QREGoNI' Subject: Study Session to Discuss Two Funding Options for Pathway Projects Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Erica Rooney, City Engineer & Public Works Director Report Date: May 6, 2022 Shawn Cross, Finance Director Department: Public Works Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑X Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Not applicable— Council discussion, staff seeking direction Recommended Language for Motion: Not applicable—Council discussion Project/ Issue Relates To: Pathway Funding 2022 City Council Goal Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑X Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable BACKGOUND Throughout Lake Oswego, the City has rural transportation infrastructure with suburban and urban densities. Much of the roadway infrastructure was constructed under historical county and low-density standards, which did not require any pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. For several decades, the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) has highlighted the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a priority to meet the growing needs of the community, both in density and travel options, as well as to meet the current design standards for transportation 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 infrastructure. The current TSP (finished in 2014) identifies over 120 pedestrian and bicycle facility needs, estimated at over$125 Million potential costs. See attached Exhibit A, which shows the Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects from the TSP In 2019, the Transportation Advisory Board was tasked with identifying the top school-related pathway projects from the TSP that would specifically benefit schools and provide better access for their students. The TAB the prioritized the projects and identified the first round of school- related projects for the City Engineering department to work on. Attached Exhibit B shows the top priority school related projects that are a subset of the overall TSP projects shown in the previous exhibit. For the past two years, the City Council has identified pathway installation as a Council priority and goal. The 2020 goal was "continue focus on pavement quality and pathways...". Then in 2021, the goal became more specific, "increase funding for pedestrian facility, beginning with safe routes to school". In June of 2021, during the budgeting process for FY 21-23, the City Council made a one-time approval for an extra $2 Million in general funds specifically for the school-related pathway project. That project is currently underway in the early information gathering and design phase, and includes five locations from the School Priority listing that TAB has provided. In September 2021, the Council held a study session on funding options. Council directed staff to return to Council for a study session to explore modifications to the Street Maintenance Fee and a General Obligation Bond alternative. Most recently in January 2022, the City Council's Goals included "adopt a funding strategy for pedestrian safety capital projects". This report will delve into the specific options, details, and impacts of these two funding alternatives. Pathway Project Costs Given Lake Oswego's current roadway system, pathway projects are not simple, nor inexpensive. In total, the TSP identified pathway projects equal $4,945,000 funded projects and $94,525,000 unfunded projects in the current Capital Improvement Plan FY2021/22-2026/27. All pathway projects that had scopes limited to the pathway itself and minor infrastructure updates have been completed. Since the TSP was implemented in 2014, the City has completed or is in process 12 project locations. Of the remaining TSP pathways projects, the vast majority will require extensive infrastructure updates, including stormwater facilities and conveyance systems, curb and gutter, and road construction. Almost all of the projects in the TSP listed are in places that require significant engineering or design. Many locations lack adequate right-of- way. Each project in the TSP is an individual site that will require public engagement with each of the projects to clearly identify needs, impacts, and potential mitigation. For efficiency purposes, the Engineering staff is trying to bundle several projects into one major effort, tackling 3-4 locations with a single design team designated to coordinate and compile the plans for construction. This allows for staff efficiencies, as well as projects being more cost effective and competitive for contractor bidding. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 For the purposes of this study, we are proposing that funding increase alternatives look for ways to increase the overall funding by$500,000.00 to $1.5 Million to provide alternatives that would allow several projects to be combined and moving forward each year. Similarly, for the bonding alternative, this report will consider a one-time $20 Million bond to cover the costs of specific projects that are a high priority. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER The two funding alternatives being explored are very different based on impact to the community, timeline for using the funds, and how they are enacted. • The Street Maintenance Fee has a monthly impact on the utility bill. This approach takes several years for funding to accumulate in order to accomplish a project. City Council has the authority to change the Street Maintenance Fee rate through a Council vote. • In contrast, a General Obligation (GO) bond specifically impacts the annual property tax billing and can provide more immediate funding for projects. GO bonds must be voter approved by a ballot election. Both of these are explored in more detail for further consideration. Street Maintenance Fee Option The Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) is just one part of the overall enterprise fund, known as the Street Fund. The Street Fund pays for a myriad of assets—everything from street landscaping in the median, street lighting, traffic signals, signs, striping, new curb ramps, pavement replacement, trash receptacle installation, trash disposal, and so much more. Basically, everything in the public right-of-way that is above ground or visual is funded, maintained, and operated using the Street Fund. As discussed in the September study session, the SMF provides about 1/3 of the total revenue for the entire Street Fund. The Street Maintenance Fee is a part of the monthly utility bill sent to property owners, both residential and commercial. It was established by Ordinance 2373 in 2003, clearly defined in LOC 37.02.015, and is "...based upon the relative direct and indirect use of, or benefit from the City street system that results from activities within the City..." Each year, the Master Fees and Charges updates include modifications to the Street Maintenance Fee, and is indexed using a national, standard from the Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20-city Average. This annual adjustment factors the raising costs of materials, labor, and inflation per the average costs of construction projects nationwide. There is an annual minimum 2% and maximum 7% increase limit set, per Resolution 10-20. Master Fees and Charges are updated and adopted for each calendar year. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 Table 1 - Current July 1, 2021 Street Maintenance Fees Single Family $9.95 Multi-family (per unit) $7.11 Non-Residential Group I $6.08 Group II $13.69 Group III $50.12 For comparative purposes, the current Master Fees and Charges (page 6) indicted that other local agencies that have SMFs charges between $4.66 to $14.52 per month for single family residential customers. Oregon City and West Linn are both in the $14 category. Currently, the single-family rate of$9.95 per month brings in 45% of the total annual revenue, while the multi-family and Non-Residential bring in 17% and 38%, respectively, for a total of just over $3,000,000 per year. Table 2: SMF Historical Revenue Fiscal Year SMF Income 2018-19 $ 2,844,032 2019-20 $ 2,938988 2020-21 $ 3,025,367 2021-22 (est) $ 3,086,000 Community Financial Impact: As mentioned before, there are several increased funding scenarios to consider: from $500,000 per year to as much as $1,500,000 per year. In order to raise more funds at various levels for increased funding, here would be the monthly impact to each category per scenario: Table 3: Rate Impact with Increased Funding Scenarios To obtain Additional Funding in FY 22-23 July 1,2021 July 1,2022 Category Rate Rate $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 Single Family 9.95 10.65 I 12.21 13.87 15.49 Multi-Family 7.11 7.61 8.76 9.91 11.67 Non-Residential Group I 6.08 6.51 7.49 8.48 9.46 Group II 13.69 14.65 16.87 19.09 21.3 Group III 51.12 54.70 62.98 71.26 79.54 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 On an annual basis, the SMF would impact a single-family household utility bill by$18.72 per year for the $500,000 revenue increase option, up to $58.08 per year for the upper end scenario that could bring in $1,500,000 more per year. These scenarios equate to 16-48% increases over today's monthly rate. The greatest impact for increased SMF would be towards Non-Residential. For any of increased amount scenarios, staff recommends a public education campaign to raise awareness of the funding gap for pathways and how the increased SMF will be used, as well as direct outreach to users who will experience the greatest impact. General Obligation Bond Option At the September 2021 Council Study Session, staff was asked to further explore bonding options as a potential one-time source for funds. A General Obligation (GO) bond would allow Council to raise money for pathway projects that do not generate a revenue stream directly through the Street Fund. The GO bond option would need to be authorized by voters through a ballot election before bonds could be issued. This would be a one-time package of projects that the bond would complete during a specified timeline. This is a different strategy than previously explored with raising the Street Maintenance Fee, which would be a sustained source of revenue over time. To put this in context, the current list of high-priority safe routes to school projects from the TSP, as organized by the Transportation Advisory Board, has 41 remaining projects that are unfunded, totaling $42 million. There are two top-ranked projects that equate to more than $27 million of the total, which may be better candidates for regional funding opportunities. Removing them from consideration, leaves $15 million needed to address the priority safe routes to school. For the purposes of this exploration, we are considering a $20 Million bond to account inflation and other costs, which is similar to the recent Parks Bond measure that was passed in May 2019. Community Financial Impact Table 4—General Obligation Bond Scenario Estimates Amount $20,000,000 Interest Rate 5 % Duration 20 year Annual Debt Service $1,600,000 per year Impact $0.20/$1,000 Assessed Value Average Single-Family Dwelling $550,000 Extra Tax Per Year $110 extra tax per year 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 It is important to note the current state of the Parks Bond Debt. The final $6 Million is projected to be issued in the next fiscal year, which will equate to about $0.06/$1,000 of assessed value. This will be on top of the current $26.6 Million already on the books, $3.9 million for the Boones Ferry Road project and $22.7 million for the Parks bonds. The current Parks Bonds won't roll-off the tax roll until 2039. Therefore, adding another$20 million GO Bond specifically for Pathways will almost double our current millage rate for bond. To prepare for a voter approved GO bond, staff will need to determine the projects for the bond, the total dollar amount needed, and timeline for getting on the ballot. Before the ballot, there will need to be extensive public outreach to explain the gap of funding, bond proposed, and outcomes if the bond passes or fails. NEXT STEPS Following the September Council discussion, staff included a question in the Fall 2021 Community Survey measuring the community's support of an increase funding for pedestrian safety facilities through an additional fee or bond. 60% of residents surveyed were 'very supportive' or 'somewhat supportive' of the increased funding. When asked what "infrastructure services" should receive the most emphasis over the next two years, respondents' rankings were: 1) maintenance of neighborhood City streets, 2) availability of pedestrian pathways in the neighborhood, and 3) availability of pedestrian pathways on major streets/ routes. This community priority, coupled with the Council goal to adopt a funding strategy specifically for pathway improvements, leads to making a choice on how best to acquire funds for new work. The two options presented have different outcomes and impacts: Increasing the Street Maintenance Fee • Affects monthly utility rates • Reliable source of revenue for the Street Fund • Variable options in the future, should priorities change General Obligations Bond • Provides significant one-time funding upfront • Affects annual property tax rates • Sunsets after 20 years, and rolls off the tax calculation • Requires voter approval, preferably on a November ballot • Specifically define use or projects Staff recommends that Council determine the preferred option, and direct staff to develop a public outreach campaign prior to any formal implementation, and consider setting a goal for implementation in 2023. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city dv(vo L , Stephenson St r m m , ---) .) 1 . 417,Iir Da,imouti S� . m o I9 : n u G 1 H / °ii7. 'm ii d A Timtjedine Ot �eDr m 'Fyy c �•C/` Park Av.. Melrose St Bott1°ept ' m a °� l u —� II � ,,,, , V`'�> ((( � count � �� .. ct Pa ry Club Rd -per VIIIL,. ri �� C:•urtney Av. F ` Chandler R 2°a Kruse Way Qa 6 d A Ave a Meadows Rd oo� Fir Ridge Rd� ° D Mountainit Bonita d Biky .S N.g � �� e O k Grove Blvd m Twin F oa ' L_Lrif ,V6ij '''' u IN -' Lake 1 1.Lake Grove Ave m T / 5k °^es UPpet 0,0 OSke9°cse �� M. -�I 9 f NI vat South Shore e�' — O Washingt. ct we:ceay / Ra .. Greentree Rd of West bay O T /J L— c�°�\e Qa o �c O� 41111 °ap .° to/o nes Fe 3 Jean Rd o O er\°°K J Bergis Rd Skyland ° ° a10i yl y �i Dr O` O. y aAeQ°��a ,/ Ll R° �oaoe Way I y �_ _ m 3 �-- °'f The City of Lake Oswego Childs �" Planned Pathway Improvements N Planned Pathways berg St ✓° 0 0.5 1 \s co' h s°' Ra ildE Mile / D 5/10/2022 a COMBINED PROJECTS 2019 Tor ' 1 7.3 ��c E 4... COUNCIL REPORT NC ___ o QREGoNI' Subject: Boones Ferry Road Property- Development Solicitation for Affordable Housing Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Scot Siegel, FAICP, LEED AP, Director Report Date: May 3, 2022 Department: Community Development Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑X Council Direction The Study Session is to review a draft ❑ Consent Agenda intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for the development solicitation process only. No action is being taken this evening. Staff Recommendation: Conduct a study session and direct staff to prepare a final draft Development Process IGA for City Council consideration on June 21, 2022. Recommended Language for Motion: Move to direct staff to prepare a final draft Development Process IGA for City Council consideration on June 21, 2022. Project/ Issue Relates To: Affordable housing and future disposition of the Boones Ferry Road construction staging property. Issue before Council: Whether to move forward with the next step in planning for development of affordable housing on the Boones Ferry Road construction staging property. Goal: Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for growth and change. Initiative: Complete work on key housing initiatives, including ... decision-making on a possible project on the Boones Ferry Road Staging area, and support for other non-profit led housing projects. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Whether to move forward with the next step in planning for development of affordable housing on the Boones Ferry Road construction staging property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, Metro, and the Housing Authority of Clackamas County (HACC) for development of the subject property (City Council Resolution 21-05 (Attachment 1)), Metro has prepared the attached draft Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for a developer solicitation and selection process for the property (Attachment 2). This process would begin with stakeholder engagement led by Metro and assisted by City and HACC during the pre-closing period, and it would continue after Metro has acquired the Property, to culminate in the selection of a mutually agreed upon developer for an approximately fifty (50) unit income restricted affordable housing project. Coinciding with and conditioned upon entry into this IGA, the City and Metro would enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Purchase and Sale of the Property (the "Purchase IGA"), providing for the sale of the property to the Metro Housing Bond program. (The City Council has previously discussed valuation of the property in Executive Session.) Closing would not occur until after the three parties have agreed on the content of the developer solicitation. The City Council will need to conduct a public hearing for the property sale under ORS 221.725. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of 1.38-acres at the southwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive. The City purchased the property in 2018 for$2.25 million for use as a construction staging site for the Boones Ferry Road Improvement Project. In April 2021, the City entered into an MOU with Metro and HACC to explore potential development of affordable housing on the property after completion of the road project. With the approval of zoning changes to allow multifamily housing on the full extent of the property (Ordinance 2872/LU 21-0019), and with the road project substantially completed, it is timely for the City to plan for the future disposition and sale of the property, including reimbursing the Lake Grove Urban Renewal District for site acquisition costs, and future development of affordable housing, consistent with City Council goals. Because the staging site was acquired with Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) funds ($2.25 million), proceeds from its sale must be returned to LORA and used for planned projects within the Lake Grove Urban Renewal District. The only Lake Grove urban renewal projects that remain are unfunded. These are Phase 2 of Boones Ferry Road Improvements and development of one or more public parking facilities pursuant to the Lake Grove Village Center Parking Management Plan (adopted in 2016, per City Council Resolution 16-05). Due to lack of funding, and existing staff workload, the City has not started planning or design work for either project. Sale of the Property would provide funding that could be used to begin this work. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 DISCUSSION The City Council has at least three options for development of the property: 1. Metro Acquisition and Development Solicitation. Under this approach (the current path), the City, Metro, and HACC enter into an IGA for a developer solicitation and selection process (the "Development Solicitation IGA") for the property. The process would begin with stakeholder engagement led by Metro and assisted by the City and HACC during the pre-closing period. The parties would continue to work together after Metro has acquired the property, culminating in the selection of a mutually agreed upon developer. Closing would not occur until after the three parties have agreed on the content of the developer solicitation. Part 2 of the attached draft IGA lists the project objectives, including the prospective development of approximately 50 income restricted affordable housing units on the property ("Acknowledged Requirements and Priorities"). See Attachment 2. Purchase and Sale Process Coinciding with and conditioned upon entry into the above described IGA,the City and Metro would enter into a separate IGA for Purchase and Sale of the Property (the "Purchase IGA"), providing for the sale of the property to the Metro Housing Bond program, for fair market value. (The City Council has previously discussed valuation of the property in Executive Session.) The City Council would need to conduct a public hearing concerning sale of the property under ORS 221.725. This follows the path previously laid out in Council Resolution 21-05: "Upon completion of the zone change, [Metro will] negotiate in good faith with the intent of entering into an IGA with the City providing for the acquisition of the Property by Metro from the City, subject to Metro's ordinary and customary due diligence standards, for appraised fair market value. Upon entry into the IGA, perform due diligence and acquire Property from the City upon satisfaction of conditions precedent set forth in the IGA." (MOU, Section 4.1, "Metro Role and Responsibilities") Metro has informed the City that they have completed their diligence for acquisition of the property. If City Council wants to continue on the present path, staff will work with Metro to present a Purchase IGA along with a final version of the attached Development Process IGA for City Council's approval in a public hearing June 21, 2022. Upon approval of both IGAs, the City would work collaboratively with Metro and HACC to begin a stakeholder engagement process to help inform the solicitation for development proposals consistent with the IGA. Metro would lead stakeholder outreach in coordination with City staff and HACC, to help inform the solicitation. The parties' responsibilities are enumerated in Part 3 of the attached agreement. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 City Role and Responsibilities (IGA Part 3): 3.1 Enter into the Purchase IGA with Metro. 3.2 Provide input and recommendations for the developer solicitation document and representatives for the developer selection committee and collaborate with Metro and HACC in good faith to develop a mutually agreeable solicitation document and process as set forth in Section 6. 3.3 Use reasonable best efforts to identify and provide City incentives, including in-kind staff assistance and City Council-adopted financial incentives for the Project, to be identified in the solicitation document. 3.4 Participate together with Metro and HACC in good faith in the Developer Solicitation and Selection process as set forth in Section 6. 3.5 Review and approve the Project through its typical land use and development approval processes. Once Metro, the City, and HACC have agreed on the contents of the solicitation, HACC would issue a Request for Proposals, or Request for Qualifications. HACC anticipates issuing a solicitation specifically for the Boones Ferry Road property as opposed to combining the property with others as part of a general, countywide solicitation. The target for releasing a Boones Ferry Site RFP/RFQ is late-Summer/ Fall 2022. The City would contribute to the Developer Solicitation, as follows. Preparation for Developer Solicitation and Selection (IGA Section 6) 6.1 The developer solicitation will be by Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals ("RFQ/P")process. The Parties will cooperate and negotiate in good faith to reach consensus approval of the RFQ/P criteria and selection timelines and process. The RFQ/P will be released following Metro's acquisition of the Property. 6.2 Shared Contributions: 6.2.1 Each party will review, provide input, and approve the RFQ/P prior to release. 6.2.2 Each party will contribute staff to a technical review of received submissions. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 6.2.3 Each party will work together to seat a developer selection committee which will recommend a developer team and concept for endorsement by the Parties. 6.3 City's Contributions: The City will provide the following in preparation for the RFQ/P: 6.3.1 Summary of City incentives and resources available for the Project, if any. 6.3.2 Existing due diligence materials on the property including, if any: • Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental studies; • Soil reports; • Surveys; • Title Insurance Policy. Option 1 Pros: • High probability of success in selling the property for fair market value. • Metro has $12 million for affordable housing property acquisitions like this. • Leverages Metro's and HACC's skills and experience in affordable housing development—City does not have similar in-house expertise. • Consistent with City's longstanding goal of producing affordable family housing. • Collaborative process with stakeholder engagement and input by the City prior to developer solicitation. Option 1 Cons: • Requires some staff resources. 2. City-lead developer solicitation. Under this approach, the City solicits affordable housing development proposals independently. The approach is similar to the process used for the North Anchor development but would prioritize affordable housing. Option 2 Pros: • Simpler process that does not directly involve other agencies. • The City retains sole discretion over developer selection. Option 2 Cons: • Foregoes Metro site acquisition funding, which could make it difficult to leverage other capital for an affordable housing development. • Requires more staff resources than Option 1 for planning/project management. • Less certainty for producing same quantity of affordable housing units. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 3. Dispose of the property with no stipulation for development of affordable housing. This option should only be selected if the City Council no longer intends for the property to be developed with affordable housing. Under this approach the City would solicit offers following the legal requirements for disposal of public property. Similar to Options 1 and 2, it is presumed the City would accept fair market value or better. Option 3 Pros: • Does not require staff resources for any project other than property disposal. Option 3 Cons: • Does not address the community's housing needs (Council Goal). Foregoes Metro funds for affordable housing. • The City does not own other properties for housing. • City does not control future development of the property. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a final draft Development Process IGA under Option 1, for City Council consideration on June 21, 2022. A public hearing on the Purchase IGA would be held at the same meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Resolution 21-05 2. Draft Development Process IGA, 04/21/2022 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 21-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN METRO,THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego seeks to promote the creation of new multi-family affordable housing options within the City; WHEREAS,the voters of the Metro region approved Ballot Measure 26-199 (2018), providing$652.8 million dollars in funding to build new affordable housing in the region (the "Metro Housing Bond"), of which the Housing Authority of Clackamas County(HACC) has been allocated $116,188,094 to build new affordable housing in Clackamas County,via an Intergovernmental Agreement between HACC and Metro; WHEREAS, HACC has created a Local Implementation Strategy(LIS) outlining approaches for achieving its share of affordable housing unit production targets required by the Metro Housing Bond, and the LIS supports the creation of affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS,the City owns approximately 1.4 acres at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive ("the Site") currently being used as a staging area for the Boones Ferry Road project that may be suitable for affordable housing, subject to meeting the criteria for a rezone; and WHEREAS, Metro, HACC and the City now wish to enter into a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to set forth the expectations governing their cooperative pursuit of intersecting processes, including amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, Property acquisition and disposition, and multi-family affordable housing project developer selection. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with Metro and the Housing Authority of Clackamas County in substantially the form attached as Exhibit 1. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 16th day of March, 2021. AYES: Mayor Buck, Verdick, Mboup, Manz, Nguyen, Wendland NOES: Rapf EXCUSED: NONE Resolution 21-05 Page 1 of 2 ABSTAIN: NONE J eph M. buck, Mayor ATTEST: Kari Linder, City ecorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Evan Boone, City Attorney Pro Tern Resolution 21-05 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Housing Authority of Clackamas County City of Lake Oswego, and Metro This Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") is entered into by and between Metro, a municipal corporation established pursuant to Oregon law and the Metro Charter("Metro"),the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and the Housing Authority of Clackamas County ("HACC"), (collectively, "the Parties").This MOU is effective as of the last date of execution set forth below(the "Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City of Lake Oswego seeks to promote the creation of new multi-family affordable housing options within the City.The City owns and is currently using for construction staging six tax lots at the intersection of Boone's Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property").The Property is roughly 1.4 acres in area and its zoning is predominantly WLG-OC, with portions zoned WLG-R.25 and WLM-RMU.The City is exploring the possibility of amending its comprehensive plan to change the zoning of the Property to support multi- family housing(the "Zone Change").The City purchased the Property with Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency(LORA)funds. If the Property is sold and developed for housing,the City will use the sale proceeds to repay LORA. B. At the general election on November 6, 2018,the voters of the Metro region approved Ballot Measure 26-199, providing$652.8 million dollars in funding to build new affordable housing in the region (the "Metro Housing Bond"), of which the HACC has been allocated $116,188,094 to build new affordable housing in Clackamas County,via an Intergovernmental Agreement between HACC and Metro effective December 10, 2019 (the "LIP IGA"). Pursuant to the LIP IGA, HACC has created a Local Implementation Strategy outlining approaches for achieving its share of affordable housing unit production targets required by the Metro Housing Bond. HACC supports the creation of affordable housing opportunities in the City, consistent with its Local Implementation Strategy(the "LIS")for the Metro Housing Bond program. HACC expects to commit of a portion of its Metro Housing Bond allocation to development of affordable housing at the Property. C. In support of HAAC's unit production targets, Metro's Affordable Housing Bond Regional Property Acquisition Program (the "Regional Program") acquires real property for future affordable housing in areas of Clackamas County with access to high quality schools, grocery shopping, and transit, and provides gap funding to support the private creation of affordable housing on Metro properties. Under the LIP IGA, Metro must make good faith efforts to coordinate and consult with HACC to ensure Metro's acquisition decisions support HACC in reaching its production targets. Metro's property acquisition and gap financing funds are only available to properties acquired by Metro. D. The Parties now wish to enter into this non-binding MOU to set forth the expectations governing their cooperative pursuit of intersecting processes, including amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, Property acquisition and disposition, and multi-family affordable housing project developer selection. The Parties anticipate that this MOU will result in a Zone Change to the Property supporting multi-family affordable housing, a binding agreement between Metro and the City governing Metro's acquisition of the Property from the City, a jointly conducted mutually City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 1 approved developer solicitation, and an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between Metro and the selected developer, leading to a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between Metro and the selected developer governing the sale of the Property and requiring that a satisfactory affordable housing project be built upon it (the "Project"). 1. Primary Objective of MOU. The primary objective of this MOU is to provide a process for the Parties to jointly conduct developer solicitation and selection (the "Developer Solicitation and Selection"),for the purposes of identifying an affordable housing developer with which Metro will commit to negotiate the disposition of the Property.The Developer Solicitation and Selection will be preceded by the City's Zone Change and entry into an intergovernmental agreement("IGA") between Metro and City for the acquisition of the Property, followed by acquisition due diligence and the conveyance of the Property to Metro. 2. Acknowledged Requirements and Priorities: 2.1 HACC requires a Project that proportionately contributes to its unit production goals for 30%AMI units and family sized units. On a portfolio basis, approximately 40%of units supported with bond funds will need to house households earning 30%of AMI or less and half of bond supported units will be two-bedrooms or larger. 2.2 HACC will advocate for a Project of a scale consistent with efficiency in financing, construction, and operations. To this end, it is expected that the anticipated Zone Change will allow for the construction of an affordable housing building or buildings containing approximately 50 units and not exceeding three stories. 2.3 HACC will advocate for the selection of a Project developer committed to the racial equity benchmarks set forth in its Local Implementation Strategy for construction contracting and property management. 2.4 Metro may only contribute Regional Program funds to Properties purchased by Metro. 2.5 The level of Metro's Regional Program gap funding for a Project on the Property will be determined based on unit production and level of affordability, in alignment with and supporting HACC's LIS unit production targets. 2.6 The City requires a Project designed and built to a standard of construction and quality of materials consistent with its local policies and community values. 2.7 The City may identify, through its outreach processes, other community priorities which it wants to include during the process of preparing the developer solicitation. 2.8 Developer selection criteria will be determined by mutual consent of Metro, HAAC and the City. 3. City Role and Responsibilities. With the approval of its governing body,the City will: 3.1 Seek to amend the zoning of the property to permit multifamily housing under clear and objective code requirements. Conceptual timeline: 3.1.1 Neighborhood outreach (April) 3.1.2 City applies for rezoning/code change (May) 3.1.3 Planning Commission public hearing (June) 3.1.4 City Council public hearing (Sept) City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 2 3.1.5 City Council final decision on zoning (Sept) 3.2 Negotiate in good faith with the intent of entering into an IGA with Metro governing the sale of the Property to Metro for appraised fair market value upon completion of the Zone Change. 3.3 After the conveyance of the Property to Metro, provide input and recommendations for the developer solicitation document and staff for the developer selection committee and cooperate with Metro and HACC in good faith to develop a mutually agreeable solicitation document and process as set forth in Section 7. 3.4 Participate together with Metro and HACC in good faith in the Developer Solicitation and Selection process as set forth in Section 8. 3.5 The City anticipates that it may elect to contribute financial support to the Project, subject to City Council approval, and will use best efforts to identify and provide City incentives, resources, and sources of support and financial subsidy for the Project. 4. Metro Role and Responsibilities. With the approval of its governing body, Metro will: Provide input and support the City in amending its comprehensive plan and zoning to allow multifamily housing on the Property. 4.1 Upon completion of the Zone Change, negotiate in good faith with the intent of entering into an IGA with the City providing for the acquisition of the Property by Metro from the City, subject to Metro's ordinary and customary due diligence standards, for appraised fair market value. Upon entry into the IGA, perform due diligence and acquire Property from the City upon satisfaction of conditions precedent set forth in the IGA. 4.2 Draft and issue the developer solicitation. Metro will collaborate with the City and HACC to ensure the solicitation reflects the needs and priorities of the Parties and to jointly establish a mutually agreeable timeline and process for the developer solicitation. 4.3 Release a developer solicitation only with the agreement and support of the City and HACC MOU representatives. 4.4 Convene the developer selection committee, which shall provide for balanced representation between HACC, Metro, and the City. 4.5 Select a developer and Project concept only with the concurrence and support of the City and HACC MOU representatives. 4.6 Following selection of a developer, Metro anticipates entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer,which shall provide a period of time during which the developer will design the Project and secure financing. Upon further refinement of the Project, Metro anticipates entering into a DDA with the developer. 4.7 Metro anticipates committing Metro Affordable Housing Regional Property Acquisition Program gap funds to the Project in coordination with HACC and may transfer these gap funds to HACC so that they may be loaned to the developer via a single loan instrument. City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 3 4.8 Metro anticipates that it may elect to contribute further gap funding to the Project, in the form of Metro Transit Oriented Development program funds, subject to Project's satisfaction of Metro Transit Oriented Development program requirements and governing body approval. 5. Housing Authority of Clackamas County Role and Responsibilities. 5.1 Provide input and support the City in amending its comprehensive plan and zoning to allow multifamily housing on the Property. 5.2 Prior to Metro's issuance of the developer solicitation, HACC will communicate to Metro and the City the amount of its allocation of Regional Affordable Housing Bond program funds it intends to make available to support affordable housing on the Property and will share its funding criteria and Project requirements consistent with its Local Implementation Strategy for inclusion in the development solicitation. 5.3 HACC will contribute staff to the developer selection committee and support the preparation of the developer solicitation. 5.4 HACC will be responsible for applying to Metro for a Conceptual and Final funding commitment for the selected Project as further described in the existing IGA between Metro and HACC governing the use of Regional Affordable Housing Bond funds. 5.5 HACC will be responsible for negotiating and entering into a funding agreement with selected developer, committing its Regional Bond funds, as necessary,to the Project. 5.6 Provide input and recommendations for the developer solicitation document and staff for the developer selection committee. 5.7 Cooperate with Metro and the City in good faith to develop a mutually agreeable solicitation document and process as set forth in Section 7. 5.8 Participate together with Metro and the City in good faith in the developer solicitation and selection process as set forth in Section 8. 6. Metro Purchase of City Property. Subject to appropriate and necessary governing body approvals,which approvals may be withheld at each governing body's sole discretion, Metro and the City anticipate negotiating and entering into an IGA providing for the purchase of the City Property by Metro for a price not to exceed its appraised fair market value, subject to Metro's ordinary and customary due diligence standards, with the closing of the purchase to occur after the date that the City's Zone Change becomes final and all applicable appeal periods have expired, and after a developer has been selected. 7. Preparation for Developer Solicitation and Selection. 7.1 The Parties will cooperate and negotiate in good faith to reach unanimous approval of the selection of Project concept and developer.To that end: 7.1.1 Each party will review provide input and approve the Developer Solicitation prior to release. 7.1.2 Each party will contribute staff to the developer selection committee. City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 4 7.1.3 Each party will agree to consensus decision making in establishing selection criteria and selecting the developer and development concept (if one party does not support the developer or concept selection,the selection will not move forward). 7.2 The City will provide the following in preparation for the Request for Qualifications ("RFQ")/Request for Proposals ("RFP"): 7.2.1 Statement of City's vision and aspirations for the Property 7.2.2 Aspirational standard of design and construction and quality of materials consistent with its local policies and community values. 7.2.3 Summary of incentives and resources available for the Project, if any. 7.2.4 Existing due diligence materials on the property including, if any: • Phase I Environmental studies • Soil reports • surveys • Preliminary Title reports 7.3 Metro will provide the following in preparation for the RFQ/P: 7.3.1 Metro Affordable Housing Bond Regional Acquisition Program goals and requirements for the Project. 7.4 HACC will provide the following in preparation for the RFQ/P: 7.4.1 HACC will identify the amount of its allocation of Regional Affordable Housing Bond program funds it intends to make available to support affordable housing on the Property and will share its funding criteria and Project requirements consistent with its Local Implementation Strategy for inclusion in the development solicitation. 8. Developer Solicitation and Selection. The Developer Solicitation and Selection will be conducted by the Parties in cooperation with a Review Committee, using a RFQ/P process. 8.1 RFQ/P. Metro will establish the RFQ/P criteria, allocation of scoring, process,terms and conditions, with input, review, and approval by the City and HACC, based on the Parties' expected contributions set forth herein and the parameters set forth below. Metro will be responsible for administering the RFQ/P process and will pay for the administrative costs of developer solicitation. 8.2 Review Committee. The Parties will appoint a Review Committee (the "Committee") by the mutual agreement,to provide equal representation to each party.The Committee will review responses to the RFQ/P and provide developer selection recommendations. 8.3 Base RFQ/P Criteria. In addition to meeting any applicable Metro Affordable Housing Regional Acquisition Program criteria, HACC's LIS the City Zoning and Development Code, and all applicable provisions of ORS 279A-C,the RFQ/P may, for example, include the following base criteria for evaluating proposals: City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 5 8.3.1 Experience. Proven, extensive, successful experience in designing, financing, constructing, and operating projects of similar type and scale. 8.3.2 Concept Design.The respondents shall provide the following information: 8.3.2.1 Program narrative describing the vision for the Property including anticipated approaches to identified Property opportunities and challenges including: parking, access, pedestrian right-of-ways, and neighboring uses. 8.3.2.2 Concept drawing on 11" by 17" sheet or smaller showing Property configuration (layout) and scale including: building programming, height, any outdoor spaces, publicly accessible plazas (if applicable), pedestrian pathways, and parking. 8.3.2.3 Program summary including: envisioned residential unit count and approximate building square feet, envisioned square feet of retail and/or commercial space, and envisioned number of regulated affordable units with income level and duration of income restrictions. 8.3.2.4 Oregon Housing and Community Services Preliminary Proforma 8.3.2.5 Feasibility. Proof of financial feasibility.The respondents shall provide the following information: preliminary sources and uses, 5- year operating proforma, development timeline, a one page narrative describing the basis for assumptions regarding rents, costs (including assumptions regarding exterior materials and interior levels of finish), and available sources, particularly bank loans, developer or investor equity,tax credits, or other grants and incentives. 8.4 Committee Recommendation Scoring. The Committee will score responses for each Property based on the criteria and scoring allocation described in the Request for Qualifications and Proposals, and the highest scoring developer for each Property shall receive the Committee's recommendation.-The Committee shall also provide a yes/no indication as to whether, regardless of score, it recommends going forward with any or none of the submitted responses. 9. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. Upon the selection of a successful developer as set forth in Section 8, Metro anticipates entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer. Elements to be addressed by Metro and the developer in the ENA include: 9.1 Exclusive right to negotiate for a DDA with Metro 9.2 Construction and permanent financing 9.3 Metro Affordable Housing Bond Regional Property Acquisition Program provided incentives 9.4 Other state and local affordable housing project financing and incentives 9.5 Description of development program 9.6 Submission of permit application permit plan set, sources and uses,financing City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 6 commitments and other due diligence 9.7 Predevelopment Schedule and performance deadlines 9.8 Community outreach process requirements 9.9 Term and expiration/termination provisions During the term of the ENA, Metro will negotiate diligently and in good faith with the selected developer to reach agreement on the terms of the DDA. Metro will continue to consult with HACC and the City during the negotiation,to promote consistency with HACC's and the City's goals and priorities for the Project. 10. Disposition and Development Agreement. At the conclusion of the ENA process, Metro anticipates entering into the DDA to formalize Metro's commitment to convey the Property to the developer and provide support for the Project, including financial and other incentives. Metro anticipates that the terms of the DDA with developer will be consistent with the Metro Affordable Housing Regional Property Acquisition program parameters and Metro's ordinary and customary predevelopment property disposition parameters. 11. Term. This MOU will be effective for a period of three(3)years from the date of final signature, or until Metro enters into a DDA with the selected developer, whichever occurs first. 12. Modification and Termination. This MOU is a non-binding expressing of the parties intent to work together towards the successful completion of the Project.As such, any Party may terminate their participation in this MOU by providing the other parties with thirty(30) days advance written notice.With notice of intention to terminate,the parties will meet promptly to discuss the reasons for the notice and to try to resolve their differences.The parties will attempt to settle differences informally and acknowledge a willingness to meet to resolve any new or ongoing differences, and to refer such differences to higher level management as appropriate. 13. Project Staff. The Parties will each designate a Project Manager to be primarily responsible for fulfilling the purposes of this MOU. Said Project Manager may be replaced by any party with written notice.The initial Project Management Committee shall be composed of the following: 13.1 Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services, City of Lake Oswego 13.2 Devin Ellin, Interim Director of Housing Development, Housing Authority of Clackamas County 11.3 Jonathan Williams, Metro TOD Program Staff The Parties may assign other staff or consultants as needed. 14. Non-Binding Expression of Intent. THIS MOU IS A STATEMENT OF THE CURRENT INTENT OF THE PARTIES, DOES NOT CREATE A BINDING AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE, SALE OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL PROPERTY, AND MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A BASIS FOR A CONTRACT BY ESTOPPEL OR SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR A CLAIM BASED ON DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE OR ANY OTHER THEORY. TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS MOU ANTICIPATES THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS, OR SERVICES,THE PARTIES WILL ENTER INTO THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL INSTRUMENT TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH TRANSFER. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NO PARTY SHALL BE COMMITTED TO PURCHASE, CONVEY OR DEVELOP PROPERTY UNTIL AN IGA HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED, EXECUTED, DELIVERED,AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODIES OF THE PARTIES. City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 7 15. No Other Arrangements. The parties agree that this MOU supersedes all prior arrangements between the Parties and contains the entire understanding between the parties on its subject matter. The parties agree this MOU may only be modified in writing signed by all parties and that no verbal statements or conversations between the parties or their representatives, occurring either before or after the entry into this MOU, have any effect upon this MOU. 16. Public Communications. The parties will submit to each other for review and approval prior to distribution all public communications concerning the actions contemplated by this MOU, e.g., press releases or information provided to the media.All substantive discussions with public agencies having jurisdiction over the Property will be undertaken jointly by the parties and shall be subject to their mutual prior approval. 17. Notices. All notices required by or relating to this MOU or the Property will be in writing, and sent by email, personal delivery, by mail addressed to: For City of Lake Oswego: Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services Address: P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 503-635-0290 Email: ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us For HACC: Jill C. Smith, Director of Housing and Housing Services Clackamas County Health, Housing and Human Services, (H3S) Address: P.O. Box 1510 Phone: 503 742-5336 Email: JSmith6@clackamas.us For Metro: Megan Gibb, Manager Metro Development Center 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232 Phone: (503) 797-1753 Email: megan.gibb@oregonmetro.gov 18. Counterparts and Electronic Signature. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts all of which shall be considered one and the same instrument.An MOU executed and transferred by electronic signature shall be deemed duly executed. 19. No ORS 190 Entity or Business Partnership. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to create an intergovernmental entity under ORS 190 nor any of the attributes or incidents of a partnership or joint venture under common law or ORS Chapters 67 and 70. No officer or employee of any party hereto has authority to act as an agent for any other party, nor make representations on its behalf 20. DISCLAIMER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY HERETO FOR ANY LOST OR PROSPECTIVE PROFITS OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL,PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR INDIRECT LOSSES OR DAMAGES (IN TORT, CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE) UNDER OR IN RESPECT OF THIS MOU OR FOR ANY ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT RELATED HERETO HOWSOEVER CAUSED, WHETHER OR NOT ARISING FROM SUCH PARTY'S SOLE, JOINT OR CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE. City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have set their hands on the day and year set forth below. METRO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Elissa Gertler Name Metro Planning Director Title Date: Date: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY Name Title Date: Exhibits: Exhibit A- Legal Description of Metro Property Exhibit B— Plans and Elevations City of Lake Oswego, HACC and Metro MOU Page 9 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Description ATTACHMENT 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION("Agreement"or"IGA")is entered into by and between Metro, a municipal corporation established pursuant to ORS Chapter 268 and the Metro Charter("Metro"),the Housing Authority of Clackamas County("HACC"),and the City of Lake Oswego(the"City"), an Oregon municipal corporation(each a"Party"; collectively,"the Parties"). This Agreement is effective as of , 2022(the"Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City of Lake Oswego seeks to promote the creation of new multi-family affordable housing options within the City. The City owns and is currently using for construction staging six undeveloped tax lots at the intersection of Boone's Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto(the"Property"). The City has identified the roughly 1.4 acre Property as a suitable location for multi-family affordable housing. B. At the general election on November 6,2018,the voters of the Metro region approved Ballot Measure 26-199,providing$652.8 million dollars in funding to build new affordable housing in the region(the"Metro Housing Bond"), of which HACC has been allocated $116,188,094 to build new affordable housing in Clackamas County,via an Intergovernmental Agreement between HACC and Metro effective December 10,2019 (the"LIP IGA"). Pursuant to the LIP IGA,HACC has created a Local Implementation Strategy("LIS") outlining approaches for achieving its share of affordable housing unit production targets required by the Metro Housing Bond. HACC supports the creation of affordable housing opportunities in the City, consistent with its LIS for the Metro Housing Bond program. C. Metro's Affordable Housing Bond Regional Property Acquisition Program(the "Regional Program") acquires land for future affordable housing in areas of Clackamas County with access to high quality schools, grocery shopping, and transit, and provides gap funding to support the private creation of affordable housing on Metro properties. Metro wishes to acquire the Property from the City for said purposes.Metro's Housing Bond property acquisition and gap financing funds are only available to properties acquired and owned by Metro. D. HACC expects to commit a portion of its Metro Housing Bond allocation to development of affordable housing on the Property as well. Under the LIP IGA with HACC, Metro must make good faith efforts to coordinate and consult with HACC to ensure Metro's acquisition of the Property supports HACC in reaching its Metro Affordable Housing Bond unit production targets. E. On June 3,2021 Metro,the City and HACC entered into a non-binding MOU setting forth the expectations governing their cooperative pursuit of the intersecting processes required to generate affordable housing for approximately fifty(50) families on the Property, including amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning,Property acquisition and disposition, and multi-family affordable housing project developer selection. The Lake Oswego City Council completed the first step of this process on October 5, 2021,by adoption of Ordinance 2872, approving an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan,changing the zoning designation of the Property to WLG-OC and making multi-family affordable housing an allowed use subject to conditions. All applicable local and state land use law appeal periods have expired, no appeals have been filed, and the decision of the Lake Oswego City Council applying the new Page 1 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION zoning to the Property is final. The next steps in the process are acquisition and developer solicitation and selection. F. Coinciding with and conditioned upon entry into this IGA,the City and Metro will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Purchase and Sale of the Property(the "Purchase IGA"),providing for the sale of the Property to the Metro Housing Bond program, for a purchase price equivalent to the appraised fair market value, subject to commercially reasonable conditions precedent to closing. G. As set forth in more detail in this IGA,the Parties wish to agree to cooperate with each other in a developer solicitation and selection process for the Property,beginning during the pre-closing period and continuing after Metro has acquired the Property,to culminate in the selection of a mutually agreed upon developer for an approximately fifty(50)unit income restricted affordable housing project to be built upon the Property(the"Project"). H. On, , 2022,the Lake Oswego City Council adopted authorizing the city manager to enter into this Agreement with Metro and HACC. AGREEMENT NOW,THEREFORE,in reliance on the above recitals and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein,and for other valuable consideration,the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged,the Parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to determine a process,timelines and criteria for the Parties to conduct solicitation and selection of an affordable housing developer with which Metro will commit to negotiate the disposition and development of the Property. The developer selection process,timelines and criteria will be established by mutual consent of Metro,HACC and the City. The developer solicitation and selection will be followed by Metro's entry into Exclusive Negotiating Agreements and Disposition and Development Agreements with the selected developer, leading to construction of a Project consistent with the selection criteria. 2. Acknowledged Requirements and Priorities: 2.1 The Project must proportionately contribute to HACC's Metro Affordable Housing Bond unit production goals for 30%Area Median Income("AMI")units and family sized units. Approximately 40% of units supported with bond funds must house households earning 30%of AMI or less and half of Metro Affordable Housing Bond supported units must be two-bedroom units or larger. All Affordable Housing Bond supported housing units must be restricted at 80% of AMI or less and no more than 10%may be between 60%and 80%of AMI. 2.2 The Project must be developed at a scale consistent with efficiency in affordable housing financing, construction,and operations,yielding at least approximately fifty(50) regulated affordable units. 2.3 The selected developer must commit to the racial equity benchmarks set forth in HACC's Local Implementation Strategy for Project construction subcontracting and property management. 2.4 The amount of Metro's Regional Program gap funding for the Project on the Property will be determined based on unit production and level of affordability, in alignment with and supporting HACC's LIS unit production targets. Page 2 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 2.5 The Project proposed must comport with standards of construction and quality of materials consistent with the City's adopted policies and community development code as provided by the City for inclusion into the solicitation. 2.6 The City may identify,through its outreach processes,other reasonably consistent community priorities which it may include during the process of preparing the developer solicitation. 2.7 The Property will be acquired with Metro Regional Program bond funds,which obligate Metro to develop the site for affordable housing. 3. City Role and Responsibilities. With the approval of its governing body,the City will: 3.1 Enter into the Purchase IGA with Metro. 3.2 Provide input and recommendations for the developer solicitation document and representatives for the developer selection committee and collaborate with Metro and HACC in good faith to develop a mutually agreeable solicitation document and process as set forth in Section 6. 3.3 Use reasonable best efforts to identify and provide City incentives, including in-kind staff assistance and City Council-adopted financial incentives for the Project,to be identified in the solicitation document. 3.4 Participate together with Metro and HACC in good faith in the Developer Solicitation and Selection process as set forth in Section 6. 3.5 Review and approve the Project through its typical land use and development approval processes. 4. Metro Role and Responsibilities. With the approval of its governing body,Metro will: 4.1 Enter into the Purchase IGA with the City providing for the acquisition of the Property by Metro from the City, subject to Metro's ordinary and customary due diligence preconditions. Upon entry into the Purchase IGA,perform due diligence and acquire the Property from the City upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in the Purchase IGA. 4.2 Lead a stakeholder panel to identify stakeholder priorities for the development of the site. This panel will be seated in collaboration with the City and HACC and will prepare a Statement of Values which will be incorporated into the developer solicitation. 4.3 Establish the developer solicitation document and process.Metro will collaborate in good faith with the City and HACC to ensure the solicitation document reflects the needs and priorities of Metro,the City and HACC and to establish a mutually agreeable timeline and process for the developer solicitation as set forth in Section 5. 4.4 Release a developer solicitation and convene the developer selection committee,which shall provide for balanced representation between HACC,Metro, and the City and select a developer and project concept with the concurrence and support of the City and HACC MOU representatives as set forth in Section 6. 4.5 Following selection of a developer,negotiate in good faith to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer, as set forth in Section 7. 4.6 Negotiate in good faith with the selected developer the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement("DDA")between Metro and the developer. Enter into a DDA if mutually satisfactory between Metro and developer, as set forth in Section 8. Page 3 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 5. HACC Role and Responsibilities. With the approval of its governing body,HACC will: 5.1 Provide input and recommendations for the developer solicitation document and staff for the developer selection committee and collaborate with Metro and the City in good faith to develop a mutually agreeable solicitation document and process as set forth in Section 6. 5.2 Participate together with Metro and the City in good faith in the Developer Solicitation and Selection process as set forth in Section 6. 5.3 HACC will be responsible for applying to Metro's Affordable Housing Bond Program for a Conceptual and Final funding commitment for the selected Project as further described in the existing LIP IGA between Metro and HACC governing the use of Regional Affordable Housing Bond funds. 5.4 HACC will be responsible for negotiating and entering into a funding agreement with selected developer and committing its Regional Bond funds, as promised below,to the Project. 6. Preparation for Developer Solicitation and Selection. 6.1 The developer solicitation will be by Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals ("RFQ/P")process. The Parties will cooperate and negotiate in good faith to reach consensus approval of the RFQ/P criteria and selection timelines and process. The RFQ/P will be released following Metro's acquisition of the Property. 6.2 Shared Contributions: 6.2.1 Each party will review,provide input, and approve the RFQ/P prior to release. 6.2.2 Each party will contribute staff to a technical review of received submissions. 6.2.3 Each party will work together to seat a developer selection committee which will recommend a developer team and concept for endorsement by the Parties. 6.3 Citv's Contributions: The City will provide the following in preparation for the RFQ/P: 6.3.1 Summary of City incentives and resources available for the Project,if any. 6.3.2 Existing due diligence materials on the property including, if any: • Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental studies; • Soil reports; • Surveys; • Title Insurance Policy. 6.4 Metro's Contributions: Metro will provide the following in preparation for the RFQ/P: 6.4.1 Metro Affordable Housing Bond Regional Acquisition Program goals and requirements for the Project. 6.4.2 Due diligence materials on the property, if any, obtained by Metro for its acquisition: • Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental studies; • Surveys; • Geotechnical investigation reports; • Architectural and civil engineering analysis. Page 4 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 6.4.3 An all-in contribution of seven million one hundred fifty thousand and 00/100 dollars($7,150,000.00). This contribution will be inclusive of Metro's acquisition and due diligence expenses for the site. 6.5 HACC's Contributions: In preparation for the RFQ/P,HACC will establish the amount of its allocation of Regional Affordable Housing Bond program funds it will make available to support affordable housing on the Property and will share its funding criteria and Project requirements consistent with its Local Implementation Strategy for inclusion in the development solicitation. 6.6 RFO/P Selection Criteria. Metro will establish the RFQ/P selection criteria,allocation of scoring,process,terms and conditions,with input,review, and approval by the City and HACC,based on the Parties'expected contributions set forth herein. Proposals must satisfy the requirements and priorities set forth in Section 2 above, all applicable Metro Affordable Housing Regional Acquisition Program criteria,HACC's LIS,the City Zoning and Development Code, and all applicable provisions of ORS 279A-C. 7. Developer Solicitation and Selection. The Developer solicitation and selection will be conducted by the Parties in cooperation with a Review Committee. 7.1 Costs. Metro will release the RFQ/P with the consensus support of Metro,the City and HACC. Metro will be responsible for administering the RFQ/P process and will pay for Metro's administrative costs of developer solicitation. 7.2 Review Committee. The Parties, in cooperation with HACC,will appoint a Review Committee (the "Committee")by the mutual agreement,to provide equal representation to each party. The Committee will review responses to the RFQ/P and provide developer selection recommendations. 7.3 Committee Recommendation Scoring. The Committee will score responses for each Property based on the criteria and scoring allocation described in the Request for Qualifications and Proposals, and the highest scoring developer for each Property shall receive the Committee's recommendation. The Committee shall also provide a yes/no indication as to whether,regardless of score,it recommends going forward with any or none of the submitted responses. 7.4 Approval by Parties. The Review Committee's recommendation will be advisory to HACC. In the event that the HACC does not agree with the Review Committee's recommendation,the Parties will work together to either select a mutually agreeable Team from among the submitted proposals or to re-open the solicitation for an additional ninety(90)days. In the event that after an extended solicitation,no mutually agreeable team is selected,Metro will continue to independently pursue an affordable housing development for the site. 8. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. Upon the selection of a developer,Metro will enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the selected developer which will provide developer with site control for a period of time during which the developer will begin to design the Project and secure financing. 9. Disposition and Development Agreement. Metro will negotiate the terms of a disposition and development agreement("DDA")with the selected developer,providing for the conveyance of the property to the selected developer at a reduced price, in return for, among other things,the construction of an approximately fifty(50)unit multi-family income restricted affordable housing Project on the Property. Metro will have sole authority to negotiate the terms of the DDA with the selected developer. Page 5 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 10. Term. This Agreement will expire on the earlier of: four(4)years from the Effective Date; the date Metro executes a DDA with a developer selected as set forth in this IGA; or the date the Parties determine they are unable to agree upon the selection of a developer after an extended solicitation. 11. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated for cause or mutual convenience, subject to the requirements set forth in this section.Notices of termination must be issued in one of the two forms set forth below: 11.1 Termination for Cause. The Parties will negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. However,any Party to this Agreement may declare a default before the date of expiration, if that Party determines in its sole discretion that a material breach of the terms of this Agreement has occurred. If any Party so determines,the aggrieved Party shall promptly document the breach and state a demand that the breach be cured. The breaching Party must thereafter cure said breach within thirty(30)days of receipt of said notice. If the breaching Party fails to so cure, or under circumstances where the breach cannot reasonably be cured within a 30-day period, fails to begin curing such violation within the 30-day period,or after thirty(30) days has expired fails to continue diligently to cure the breach until finally cured,the aggrieved Party may, at its sole discretion,immediately terminate this Agreement. The exercise of this termination right will not extinguish or prejudice the terminating Party's right to seek damages and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to any breach that has not been cured. 11.2 Termination for Convenience. The Parties may terminate this Agreement for convenience based on mutual written agreement. 12. Property Management. Metro will manage the Property as set forth in this section after the closing of the Metro conveyance. 13. Covenant to Provide Further Assurances. The Parties acknowledge that they are entering into a long-term arrangement in which their cooperation is required. At any time and from time to time during the Term of this Agreement,the Parties will cooperate with each other and promptly upon request and without further consideration, execute or deliver any other documents, instruments,files,books,materials and records,and do all further acts and things as may be reasonably necessary or desirable to carry out the intent of the Parties under this Agreement.No Party may unreasonably withhold conditions or delay its compliance with any reasonable request made pursuant to this Section. 14. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given must be in writing to the address set forth below and will be deemed given upon(a)personal service, (b)deposit in the United States Mail,postage prepaid, (c) deposit with a nationally recognized overnight courier service, or(d) by email delivery. All such notices will be deemed received(e)upon personal service, (f)three (3)days after deposit in the United States Mail,postage prepaid, (g)one(1) day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight courier service, or(h) if by email delivery, (i) on the date of delivery,provided that the email is sent on a business day during the hours stated above, or(j)on the next business day if the email is sent outside of the hours state above). Page 6 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION To Metro: Metro Elissa Gertler,Planning Director 600 N.E. Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 Email: Elissa.Gertler@oregonmetro.gov Phone: 503-797-1752 To City: City of Lake Oswego Scot Siegel, Community Development Director P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Email: ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-699-7474 To HACC: Devin Ellin Director of Housing Development Housing Authority of Clackamas County P.O. Box 1510 Oregon City, OR 97045 Email: dellin@clackamas.us Phone: 971-227-0472 The foregoing addresses may be changed by written notice,given in the same manner.Notice given in any manner other than the manners set forth above will be effective when received by the party for whom it is intended. Telephone number and email addresses are for information only. 15. Insurance; Indemnification;Limitation on Liability. 15.1 The Parties will self-insure or maintain general liability insurance and workers compensation insurance coverage.Each party is responsible for the wages and benefits of its respective employees performing any work or services related to this Agreement. 15.2 Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Article XI, Sections 7 and 11 of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act,ORS 30.260-300, each party will indemnify, defend,and hold harmless the other Party,its elected officers and employees,from and against any and all liabilities,claims,demands,damages,actions,costs,penalties,losses and expenses suffered or incurred as a result of third-party claims arising out of a Party's performance of this Agreement or resulting in whole or in part from any act,omission,negligence,fault or violation of law by a Party,its officers,employees,agents,and contractors.This indemnity provision does not apply to third-party claims resulting from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of a Party. 15.3 In no event will the Parties be liable to each other for,and each Party releases the other from,any liability for special,punitive,exemplary,consequential,incidental or indirect losses or damages(in tort,contract or otherwise)under or in respect of this Agreement,however caused, whether or not arising from a Party's sole,joint or concurrent negligence. 16. Assignment. No Party may assign any of its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement without prior written consent from the other Party, except the Parties may subcontract for performance of any of their responsibilities under this Agreement. Page 7 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 17. Severability. If any covenant or provision in this Agreement shall be adjudged void, such adjudication shall not affect the validity, obligation, or performance of any other covenant or provision which in itself is valid, if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this Agreement. 18. No Partnership. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any acts of the Parties hereby shall be deemed or construed by the Parties, or by any third person,to create the relationship of principal and agent,or of partnership, or of joint venture,or any association between the Parties. 19. Non-Waiver of Government Rights. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, by making this Agreement the City is specifically not obligating itself with respect to any discretionary action relating to development approvals or the operation of the improvements to be constructed on the Property, except as expressly set forth herein. 20. Conflict of Interests. No officer, director or employee of the Parties shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement,nor shall any such elected official, director,or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interests of any corporation,partnership, or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested. 21. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The City,Metro and HACC are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms and the sole beneficiaries hereof. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or will be construed to give or provide any benefit or right,whether directly, indirectly, or otherwise,to third persons any greater than the right and benefits enjoyed by the general public. 22. Oregon Law,Dispute Resolution,and Forum. This Agreement is to be construed according to the laws of the State of Oregon.Any litigation between the Parties arising under this Agreement will occur,if in the state courts,in the Multnomah County Circuit Court,and if in the Federal courts,in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon located in Portland,Oregon. 23. Compliance with Law. No recipient or proposed recipient of any services or other assistance under the provisions of this Agreement or any program related to this Agreement may be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with the funds made available through this Agreement on the grounds of race,color,or national origin,42 U.S.C. §2000d(Title VI),or on the grounds of religion, sex,ancestry,age, or disability as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.For purposes of this section,"program or activity"is defined as any function conducted by an identifiable administrative unit of government receiving funds pursuant to this Agreement. Page 8 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION 24. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth herein in writing,this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, agreements or representations relating to this Property.No course of dealing between the Parties and no usage of trade shall be relevant to supplement any term used in this Agreement.No waiver,consent,modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind any Party unless in writing and signed by all Parties. The failure of a Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by any Party of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have set their hands on the day and year set forth below. Housing Authority of Clackamas County By: Tootie Smith Title: Chair Date: City of Lake Oswego By: Martha Bennett Title: City Manager Date: Metro By: Marissa Madrigal Title: Chief Operating Officer Date: Exhibits: Exhibit A—Legal Description of the Property Page 9 IGA—DEVELOPER SOLICITATION AND SELECTION Exhibit A Property Legal Description PARCEL I: Part of Lot 180,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas, and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the East line of said Lot 180 with the South boundary of West Sunset Drive;thence South 0° 10'East 135 feet,more or less,along the East line of said lot to the Northeast corner of that certain tract of land reserved by the grantors in Deed to William J. Cooley and Milton M.Wolsborn,recorded June 20, 1950, in Deed Book 432,Page 500;thence South 89° 50'West 66 feet;thence North 0° 10'West 135 feet,more or less,to the South boundary of West Sunset Drive;thence East along said South boundary of West Sunset Drive, 66 feet to the place of beginning. PARCEL II: Part of Lot 181,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot;thence South 89° 35'East,288.9 feet to the most Easterly corner of said Lot;thence South 45°08-1/2'West 252.55 feet; thence North 50° 55'West 160.42 feet to a point in the West line of Lot 181;thence North 0° 10'West 64.42 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion described in Warranty Deed to The City of Lake Oswego, Oregon,a municipal corporation,recorded January 21, 1993 as Fee No. 93004379. PARCEL III: Part of Lot 180,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the West line of Lot 180 and the South line of W. Sunset Drive; thence South 89° 35'East along said South line 66 feet to the Northwest corner of that tract conveyed to Stephen S. Hazzard, et ux,by Deed recorded April 8, 1974, as Recorder's Fee No. 74 8577, Clackamas County Records;thence South 0° 10'East along the West line of said Hazzard Tract 137.59 feet to the Southwest corner thereof, said point also being the Northeast corner of that tract conveyed to Robert E. Reynolds, et ux,by Deed recorded July 8, 1974, as Recorder's Fee No. 74 18864, Clackamas County Records;thence South 89° 50'West along the North line of said Reynolds Tract 66 feet to the Northwest corner thereof,being a point on the West line of Lot 180; thence North 0° 10'West along said West line, 138.18 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL IV: Part of Lot 180,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot 180 at the intersection with the Northwest boundary line of Boones Ferry Road;thence North and following the West line of said Lot 180, a distance of 209.15 feet to an iron pipe;thence North 89° 50'East 66.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 0° 10'East 150.81 feet to an iron pipe set in the Northwesterly line of Boones Ferry Page 1 —Property Legal Description Road;thence South 48°24'30" West and following the Northwesterly line of Boones Ferry Road, 88.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the City of Lake Oswego,by deed recorded January 14, 1993,as Recorder's Fee No. 93-02628. PARCEL V: Part of Lot 180,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3, in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe set in the point of intersection of the East line of Lot 180 with the Northwesterly boundary line of Lower Boones Ferry Road;thence North 0° 10'West 92.48 feet along the Easterly line of Lot 180 to an iron pipe; thence South 89° 50 West 66.00 feet to an iron pipe;thence South 0° 10'East, 150.81 feet to an iron pipe set in the said Northwesterly line of Lower Boones Ferry Road;thence North 48°24'30" East 88.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the City of Lake Oswego by Deed recorded November 24, 1992,as Document No. 92-75195. PARCEL VI: A tract of land situated in the most Southerly part of Lot 181,BRYANT ACRES PLAT 3,in the City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas and State of Oregon,more particularly described as follows,to wit: Beginning at an iron pipe set in the most Southerly corner of said Lot 181, said corner being in the center of Lower Boones Ferry Road in said Plat 3, from said beginning point;thence North 0° 10'West,219.98 feet along the Westerly boundary line of said lot to an iron pipe;thence South 50° 55'East, 160.42 feet to an iron pipe set in the Southeasterly boundary line of said lot,last said boundary line being the said center line of Lower Boones Ferry Road;thence South 45° 08'30" West 117.65 feet along the said Southeasterly boundary line to an iron pipe set in the angle of said line;thence South 48°24'30" West, 53.30 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that portion of property deeded by the State of Oregon to Steven R. Hambleton and Bonnie L. Hambleton,Recording Certificate No. 93-02191, and subsequently recorded in favor of the City of Lake Oswego by Deed recorded January 12, 1993, as Document No. 93-02192. Page 2—Property Legal Description 8.1 COUNCIL REPORT ___ o QREGoNI' Subject: Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with City of Milwaukie for Public Safety Communication Services provided by Lake Oswego Communications Center (LOCOM) for another four years. Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Susan Scobert Department: Police Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement Recommended Language for Motion: Move to Authorize the City Manager to sign the 2022- 2026 Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Milwaukie for public safety communication services by the LOCOM Center. Project/ Issue Relates To: LOCOM services Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): ❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable BACKGROUND Lake Oswego Communications Center (LOCOM) has provided 911 call answering and dispatching for the City of Milwaukie since 2003. This relationship has been mutually beneficial to both communities by providing the City of Milwaukie with the service they desire and allowing the City of Lake Oswego to benefit from a larger, more efficiently utilized staff and 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 seamless interoperability. In addition, it solidifies Lake Oswego's position as one of two Public Safety Answering Points in Clackamas County by providing service to three of the largest municipalities in Clackamas County. This agreement fits with LOCOM's mission to provide the highest level of customer service, provide mission critical public safety information to first responders, and to be fiscally responsible for the City of Lake Oswego. DISCUSSION The current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) covered the contract period from 2018-2022. The new agreement continues the existing relationship for another four years, 2022—2026, with updates on some minor contract language and changes to the cost formula in Years 1 and 2 to assist with improvements in technology and replacement of dispatch equipment. In Years 1 and 2 the increase is six percent: four percent for wages and two percent for CAD maintenance. In Years 3 and 4 the increase is four percent for wages. ATTACHMENTS 1. IGA with Milwaukie 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,an Oregon municipal corporation(hereinafter"Lake Oswego");and the CITY OF MILWAUKIE,an Oregon municipal corporation(hereinafter"Milwaukie") WITNESSETH: RECITALS. 1. Lake Oswego operates through its Police Department,Communications Division,a public safety dispatching facility(hereinafter"LOCOM Center")to provide public safety dispatching services to fire and police departments of Lake Oswego and,by this agreement, Milwaukie. 2. The parties acknowledge that they have authority to execute this cooperative intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the terms of their respective municipal charters and pursuant to ORS 190.010. NOW THEREFORE,it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Descrintion of Services to be Provided. Lake Oswego.through LOCOM Center, shall provide public safety dispatching services for Milwaukie's Police Department for the period of July 1,2022,through June 30,2026.The dispatching services include,but are not limited to: • 24-hour-per-day answering of emergency telephone lines(including 9-1-1 calls)for fire,police,and emergency medical service requests; • radio communications with police personnel regarding emergency and routine police matters; • Dispatching and other services for law enforcement purposes as set forth in Exhibit "A;"and • Coordination of Clackamas County Emergency Notification System,administration of users,activation for life-safety situations. 2. Control. The manner of LOCOM Center's performance of dispatch services, including but not limited to the establishment of standards of personnel performance,the hiring, supervision and discipline of LOCOM Center employees,and all other matters incident to LOCOM Center's performance of such services shall be under the exclusive authority of Lake Oswego. 3. Obligation of Lake Oswego to Provide Labor and Equipment. Lake Oswego shall supply all necessary labor,supervision,equipment and supplies necessary to maintain the services to be rendered hereunder as long as Milwaukie's obligations under Section 7,and elsewhere under this Agreement,are met. 4. Obligation of Milwaukie for MSAG and GIS. Milwaukie shall continue to provide MSAG(Master Street Address Guide)and GIS information for Milwaukie's street system to Clackamas County. 5. Consideration. A. Annual Contract Amount. On or before January 1 of each fiscal year, Milwaukie shall pay to Lake Oswego the Base Annual Contract Amount set forth below for that fiscal year,less a sum equal to Milwaukie's total 9-1-1 tax distribution from the State for the previous fiscal year("Previous Year Tax Receipts"). Fiscal Year Base Annual Contract Amount' for Fiscal Year New Year 1 2022-2023 $675,500.00 Year 2 2023-2024 $716,000.00 Year 3 2024-2025 $744,600.00 Year 4 2025-2026 $774,300.00 The amount paid to Lake Oswego directly by Milwaukie each fiscal year pursuant to this Section 5A shall be further adjusted as described in Section 5C below to ensure that it is ultimately reduced by a sum equaling Milwaukie's actual 9-1-1 tax distribution from the State for that fiscal year("Actual Current Year Tax Receipts"),which have been assigned to Lake Oswego pursuant to Section 5B below. B. Assignment of 9-1-1 Tax Receipts. Milwaukie hereby assigns its 9-1-1 tax disbursements directly to Lake Oswego for the duration of this Agreement,and shall direct the State 9-1-1 Office to pay all of Milwaukie's 9-1-1 tax disbursements directly to Lake Oswego for the duration of this agreement. C. Payment of Difference of Previous v. Current 9-1-1 Tax Receipts. Not later than 30 days following payment by the State to Lake Oswego of the final installment of Milwaukie's 9-1-1 Tax receipts for each fiscal year: i. Milwaukie shall pay Lake Oswego a sum equaling the amount, if any, by which the Previous Year Tax Receipts exceed the Actual Current Year Tax Receipts for that fiscal year; ii. Lake Oswego shall pay Milwaukie a sum equaling the amount,if any,by which the Actual Current Year Tax Receipts for that fiscal year exceed the Previous Year Tax Receipts. 6. Adjustment of Base Annual Contract Amount. In the event Milwaukie's calls for service in any fiscal year exceed 15%over the previous fiscal year,Lake Oswego shall notify Milwaukie in writing within 30 days following the expiration of that fiscal year,or,at Lake Oswego's option,such earlier time as it appears to Lake Oswego likely that the calls for service for that fiscal year will exceed 15%from the prior fiscal year. ' The Base Annual Contract Amount includes funding to assist with improvements in technology and replacement of dispatch equipment. Within 15 days following notification under this section,the parties shall meet in good faith to discuss the financial impact to Lake Oswego to respond to the anticipated additional calls for service for the next fiscal year(the fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the calls for service exceeded 15%). The parties shall endeavor to reach agreement upon an adjustment amount to the Base Annual Contract Amount in Section 5(A)above for that next fiscal year(the fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the calls for service exceeded 15%),and the listed subsequent fiscal years,to provide fair compensation to Lake Oswego for the additional costs incurred in responding to the calls for service and dispatch. If the parties are unable to agree upon an adjustment to the Base Annual Contract Amount within 30 days following the notification described above,either: a. The parties may mutually agree to arbitration,in such manner as they agree,to establish the amounts of adjustment;or b. Either party may unilaterally terminate this Agreement effective 180 days following written notice of the decision to terminate. If either party elects this option,the amounts due for the applicable year pursuant to Sections 5 above shall be paid,pro rata,to the termination date. 7. Use of Compatible Ectuinment. For the duration of this Agreement: Milwaukie shall operate on the 800 MHz digital radio system and remain a partner with the C800 radio group. Lake Oswego will accept responsibility for connectivity to C800 and general repair issues. In the event Milwaukie choses to utilize a disparate system,Milwaukie will be responsible for all costs associated with procuring a dispatch console,connectivity,warranty, and software licensing and support. Lake Oswego shall provide the information technology support services identified in Exhibit B. Milwaukie shall be responsible for its own purchases of mobile data computer (MDC)approved hardware, installation,and ongoing data connection costs. Milwaukie shall work with Lake Oswego IT prior to adding any additional software to their MDC to ensure compatibility with the MDC interface and software. 8. LOCOM Center User Board. For the duration of this Agreement,Milwaukee shall participate as a member of the LOCOM Center User Board. 9. Limitation of Liability. Subject to the limitations of the Oregon Tort Claims Act ORS 30.260 et. seq.,and the Oregon Constitution,Lake Oswego hereby covenants and agrees to hold and save Milwaukie and all of its officers,agents,and employees harmless from all claims whatsoever that might arise against Milwaukie,its officers,agents,or employees as a result of the performance of the duties to be performed by Lake Oswego by the terms of this agreement. By so doing, Lake Oswego, its officers and employees, shall not be deemed to have assumed any liability for acts of Milwaukie or of any officer,agent,or employee thereof,and Milwaukie hereby covenants and agrees to hold and save Lake Oswego and all of its officers and employees harmless from all claims whatsoever that might arise against Lake Oswego,its officers or employees,by reason of any act of Milwaukie,its agents,officers,and employees. For this purpose,employees of the LOCOM Center shall be deemed to be employees of Lake Oswego not as agents or employees of Milwaukie. 10. Provision of Information. Milwaukie shall provide the LOCOM Center with,and will update as necessary,maps of Milwaukie with addresses,a 24-hour emergency telephone number list for on-call city personnel,known residential and business emergency contact numbers,current building and development site information,a copy of the City of Milwaukie's City ordinances,emergency information for emergency operations center(EOC)personnel,bi- annual radio assignments including radio identification number for mobile and portable radios, bi-annual cell phone assignment with current carrier and any other pertinent information deemed necessary by Lake Oswego to effectively perform dispatching duties. 11. Termination of Agreement. Lake Oswego may terminate this Agreement at any time for non-payment of any sum when due as required by Section 5 of this Agreement. Otherwise, either party may terminate this agreement effective July 1 of any fiscal year,provided written notice is given to the other party by January 1 of the preceding fiscal year. 12. Non-appropriation. Lake Oswego may terminate this Agreement,in whole or in part, upon thirty(30)days written notice to Milwaukie,in the event that Lake Oswego fails to receive funding,appropriations or other expenditure authority at levels sufficient to perform the services set forth in this Agreement. 13. Amendment Provisions. The terms of this agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Any amendment shall be in writing,shall refer specifically to this agreement,and shall be executed by the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice under this agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when actually delivered or when deposited in the mail,registered or certified,addressed to the parties as follows: Lake Oswego: City Manager City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Milwaukie City Manager City of Milwaukie 10722 SE Main Street Milwaukie,OR 97222 // /I [Signatures on Next Page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties by execution of this Agreement hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement,understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. CITY OF MILWAUKIE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Name Title Name Title S/W /ZoZ� Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Digitally signed by Evan P.Boone DN:cn=Evan P.Boone,odity of Lake Oswego. nudity Attorney's Office, ' r`—' `- 1. - mug •boone@ci.oswego.or.us.c=U5 Date:2022.04.1816:37.15-07'00' Milwaukie City Attorney Lake Oswego Deputy City Attorney EXHIBIT A LAW ENFORCMENT DISPATCH ACTIVITIES LOCOM Center provides for each member department a full public safety call answering and dispatching service by dual certified dispatchers who: 1. Answer,screen,transfer,and call take 9-1-1 calls. 2. Answer police department non-emergency telephone calls 24 hours a day. 3. Screen telephone calls to determine: the nature of the call, location of the incident, pertinent information. 4. Provide dispatching of appropriate resources. 5. Provide dispatching of additional cover units and other needed resources for field units. 6. Keep the officers' status and document all officers' activities. Monitor officers' safety by checking their status,using department directed pre-set time guidelines. 7. Provide on-site department access to all activities and documentation maintained on the computer aided dispatch system. 8. Work with Milwaukie PD to provide an activity bulletin within the confines of the MAJCS CAD system. 9. Provide all authorized field unit's direct availability into the Milwaukie,Clackamas County,state,and national computer systems(Mark 43,CLASS-Clackamas Law Enforcement Support System, LEDS-Oregon Law Enforcement Data System, DMV- Department of Motor Vehicles, NCIC-National Crime Information Center, AND CCH- Computerized Criminal History.)Milwaukie PD agrees to provide adequate licensing to LOCOM Center for any additional records management systems the department is utilizing and requesting database searches by LOCOM staff. 10. Verify and confirm all warrants,stolen and other"hits"by telephone and teletype. 11. Compose and send all time critical teletype messages using the state and national computerized files. 12. Make telephone calls for field units as required. 13. Act as an interface between field units and other public safety agencies. 14. Maintain after hours numbers for emergencies and other call outs for agency employees. 15. Provide dispatching for community service officers and other support functions. 16. Maintain the warrant file for municipal court service. 17. Provide dispatching for animal control officers if requested by a member department. 18. Provide dispatching for Public Works employees after hours as needed. EXHIBIT B INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES Lake Oswego shall provide the following services in support of Milwaukie's MDC program: 1. Provide MDC computer specifications and vendor ordering information on request. 2. Pick up MDC from Milwaukie's Information Technology(IT)staff once tagged and return to Milwaukie IT when removed from service for final disposition. 3. Define,configure, install and maintain computer image(s)that support Lake Oswego's MDC operations. 4. Name MDC with City of Milwaukie asset tag ID(e.g., MDXXX.) 5. Configure and install Lake Oswego supported anti-virus software. 6. Configure and install any special hardware or software applications desired by Milwaukie that support police operations and are also approved by Lake Oswego.Connecting significant hardware capability to the MDC may result in additional support cost to be negotiated separately. Support for the MK43 RMS is limited to determining connectivity to the MK43 website. 7. Coordinate installation of MDC into police vehicles. 8. Install and support MDC connectivity to CAD as needed. 9. Provide updated listing of MDC placement by vehicle to Milwaukie IT staff to include software license assignment for Milwaukie specific applications. 10. Provide MDC configuration and support in compliance with Criminal Justice Information Services and LEDS standards. 1 1. Provide all MDC and user support including connectivity troubleshooting during normal business hours and provide after-hours trouble reporting procedures. 12. Coordinate hardware repair with vendor for Panasonic MDCs.Out of warranty repairs will be the financial responsibility of Milwaukie. Milwaukie shall provide the following services in support of the MDC program: 1. Order,purchase and track all MDC hardware;record serial numbers and affix City of Milwaukie asset tag 2. Order,purchase and provide software licenses and volume license keys not provided by the Lake Oswego 3. Properly dispose of decommissioned MDC hardware 8.2 erCOUNCIL REPORT 0 OREGOt.4 Subject: Ordinance 2893, Special Street Setback Code Amendment- LU 22-0004 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner Report Date: May 11, 2022 Department: Planning & Building Services Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑X Planning Commission Recommends Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑X Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Enact Ordinance 2893— including Findings and Conclusions Recommended Language for Motion: Move to Enact Ordinance 2893 Project/ Issue Relates To: Support continuous improvement, outstanding customer service, infrastructure investments, and fiscal policies that increase public trust in the City. Improve transportation connections, mobility and safety for all travelers and for all types of trips in Lake Oswego. Conserve the community's quality of life by planning for change and growth. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑X Comprehensive Plan ❑Not Applicable Reduce unnecessary regulations ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL On May 3, 2022, following a public hearing, the City Council tentatively approved LU 22-0004 to amend the Community Development Code in order to remove the Special Street Setback requirement from a section of public right-of-way on South Shore Boulevard. Attached Ordinance 2893 finalizes this tentative decision and adopts Findings and Conclusions. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1 Draft Ordinance 2893, 3/18/22 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.citv Page 2 Attachment 1: City Council Findings Attachment 2: Special Street Setback Code Amendment, 2/11/22 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 22-0004 then press "Enter": https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-proiects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT A-1 ORDINANCE 2893 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL STREET SETBACK ALONG A SECTION OF SOUTH SHORE ROAD; AND, ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 22-0004). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on March 18, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 22-0004 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 22-0004 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on May 3, 2022, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, these amendments to the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) are intended to remove ambiguous and conflicting language, correct the text, and add clarifying text which is consistent with past interpretations; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 22-0004), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) is hereby amended by adding new text shown in double underlined type, in Attachment 2. (Sections or subsections within LOC Chapter 50 that are omitted in Attachment 2, and not marked for deletion or addition, are neither amended nor deleted by this Ordinance.) Section 3. 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. // Ordinance 2893 (LU 22-0004) PAGE 1 Section 4. Effective Date. As provided in Section 35C of Chapter VII of the Lake Oswego Charter,this ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth day following enactment. Enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 17th day of May 2022. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jason Loos, City Attorney Ordinance 2893 (LU 22-0004) PAGE 2 ATTACHMENT 1 LU 22-0004 (Ordinance 2893) 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST TO AMEND TO THE COMMUNITY LU 22-0004 DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 STREET SETBACK FROM A SECTION OF SOUTH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SHORE BLVD., AND ADOPTING FINDINGS. 5 6 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 7 This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on the recommendation of the 8 Planning Commission for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) 9 for the purpose of removing the Special Street Setback of 40 feet from a section of public right- 10 of-way on South Shore Boulevard between Lakeview Boulevard and Blue Heron Road because it 11 is not necessary for future street improvements. The proposed amendment is to: 12 LOC Table 50.04.002-1 —Special Street Setbacks 13 14 HEARINGS 15 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 16 meeting on March 28, 2022. The Commission adopted its Findings, Conclusion and Order 17 recommending approval of LU 22-0004 on April 11, 2022. 18 The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Commission's 19 recommendation on May 3, 2022. 20 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 22 A. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) 23 B. Regional Transportation Functional Plan-Metro Code 24 Title 1: Transportation System Design, Street System Design, Metro Code 25 Section 3.08.110 Title 6: Exception from Compliance, Metro Code Section 3.08.630 26 C. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1.e; A-2.c ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 1— FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 22-0004) Community Culture 1 Citizen Involvement Section, Policy 1 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing 2 Housing Location and Quality, Policy A-5 Connected Community 3 Policies: Safety A-1; Transportation Choices B-3; Efficiency C-7; Accessibility D-5; Connectivity E-1 4 D. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 6 LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision 7 LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation 8 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 9 FINDINGS AND REASONS 10 The City Council incorporates the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 18, 11 2022 (Exhibit D-1) for LU 22-0004, with all exhibits, and the Findings and Conclusions in the 12 Commission's April 11, 2022 Findings, Conclusions and Order, and the staff Council Report 13 dated April 22, 2022, as support for the Council's decision. 14 15 CONCLUSION 16 The City Council concludes that LU 22-0004, as recommended by the Planning 17 Commission, complies with all applicable criteria and should be approved. The Council also 18 concludes that proposed Ordinance 2893, which implements LU 22-0004, should be enacted. 19 20 AYES: 21 NOES: 22 ABSENT: 23 ABSTAIN: 24 EXCUSED: 25 26 DATED this 17th day of May, 2022. ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 2— FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 22-0004) 1 2 Joseph M. Buck, Mayor 3 4 ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 <)iiiiiiiiie, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 3— FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 22-0004) ATTACHMENT 2 LU 22-0004 SPECIAL STREET SETBACK CODE AMENDMENT 50.04.002 SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS 1. PURPOSE To assure an adequate front yard setback is available in the event of possible future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and street landscaping. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL STREET SETBACK REFERENCE LINE The City Engineer establishes the centerline from which the special street setback reference line is measured, pursuant to LOC 50.04.002.3. 3. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT The special street setback (SSS) shall be measured from the SSS reference line (as established pursuant to LOC 42.03.135), the prescribed special setback distance in LOC 50.04.002.5. On these streets, the front yard begins at either the front lot line or the SSS, whichever is furthest from the reference line. 4. PRIORITY OF OTHER PLANS Special street setbacks are minimums. If a greater amount of additional right-of-way is warranted by improvements identified in a traffic impact study, corridor study, or transportation system plan, then the greater amount shall prevail. 5. SPECIAL STREET SETBACK LIST The special street setbacks set forth in Table 50.04.002-1 shall not be reduced, except as provided in the table. TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected From To Special Setback Streets Bangy Rd. South of Alyssa 30 ft. Terrace Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Stafford Rd. 30 ft. Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Skylands Rd. 25 ft. Boones Mercantile Dr. Madrona St. 50 ft., unless reduced by the City Engineer, finding Ferry Rd. that the purpose is met by a lesser amount. Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2893/Page 1 of 4 LU 22-0004 TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected From To Special Setback Streets Boones Madrona St. West Sunset Dr. 50 ft. Ferry Rd. Bonita Rd. 30 ft. Bryant Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Lake View Blvd. 40 ft. Bryant Rd. Lake View Blvd. Childs Rd. 30 ft. Burma Rd. 25 ft. "C"Ave. State St. alley Country Club 30 ft. Rd. Carman South and west 40 ft. Drive of Kruse Way Cornell St. Larch St. Bergis Rd. 30 ft. Egan Way East/west leg only 20 ft. Fielding Rd. 20 ft. Firwood 30 ft. between Boones Ferry Rd. and Waluga Dr.; Road 20 ft.west of Waluga Dr. Gassner Ln. 20 ft. Inverurie North of 20 ft. Rd. Washington Ct. Knaus Rd. 30 ft. Lake Grove 20 ft. Ave. Lake View Bryant Rd. Iron Mt. Blvd. 25 ft., except between South Shore Blvd. and Blvd. Summit Ct. Lamont 20 ft. Way Lanewood Through south 20 ft. St. leg of Douglas Circle Laurel St. Dyer St. Hallinan St. 30 ft. Lower Dr. 25 ft. Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2893/Page 2 of 4 LU 22-0004 TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected From To Special Setback Streets McVey Ave. State St. South Shore 40 ft. Blvd. Madrona St. 25 ft. North Shore Abutting the 30 ft. measured from the south line of the railroad Rd. railroad right-of- right-of-way way Oakridge Quarry Rd. Bonaire Ave. 25 ft. Rd. Oakridge Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry 30 ft. Rd. Rd. Overlook 30 ft. Dr. Pilkington South of Special street setback line shall be measured 30 ft. Road Rosewood St. from the east line of Rosewood Plat. Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Galewood St. 30 ft. and extension to Carman Dr. Reese Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Dr. 30 ft. Rosewood Pilkington Rd. Tualatin St. 25 ft. St. South Shore 40 ft., except between Lakeview Blvd. and Blue Blvd. Heron Road. Stafford Rd. 40 ft. State Street 50 ft., unless reduced by the City Engineer through the minor development procedure,finding that applicable ODOT standards and the purpose in LOC 50.04.002.1 are met by a lesser amount. Summit Dr. Lake View Blvd. Ridgewood Rd. 20 ft. Sunset Dr. 20 ft. Tualatin St. 20 ft. Twin Fir Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Dr. 30 ft. Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2893/Page 3 of 4 LU 22-0004 TABLE 50.04.002-1: SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected From To Special Setback Streets Upper Dr. 25 ft. Waluga Dr. South of Oakridge North of 20 ft. Rd. Madrona St. West West of West 20 ft. Sunset Dr. Lake Grove Design District Boundary Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2893/Page 4 of 4 8.3 COUNCIL REPORT ___ o QREGoNI' Subject: 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Work Order 321 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022 Staff Member: Stefan Broadus, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Department: Engineering Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑X Motion ❑ Approval ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial ❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑X Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Award a Public Improvement Contract Recommended Language for Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a Public Improvement Contract with Knife River Corporation - Northwest for the construction of the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Work Order 321, in the amount of$ 5,464,863.32. Project/ Issue Relates To: ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable BACKGROUND On October 17, 2017, City Council approved a contract with Murraysmith to provide program management, construction management and inspection services relating to the City's ongoing efforts to improve the pavement condition of its street network. The award of that contract initiated a programmatic approach to the planned delivery of a significant investment in the City's street network. This program includes the reconstruction of a few major roadways in the City and rehabilitation of thousands of feet of collector and local streets. Also included is the preventative maintenance of mostly local roads to be achieved through crack sealing and slurry seal which will extend the useful life of the existing pavement. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 DISCUSSION The 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project is shown in the Capital Improvement Plan dated June 1, 2021. The major road segments included in this year's scope of work are: - Boones Ferry Road from Kruse Way to Country Club Road - About 500' of Boones Ferry Road northeast of Pilkington Road - Kruse Way from Boones Ferry Road to Mercantile Drive - Fosberg Road from Carman Drive to Melrose Street - Northern half of Douglas Circle - Bryant Road from Lakeview Blvd to Upper Drive - Green Bluff from Wayside Lane to about 300' south of Eastview Court Structural patching is also proposed for spot repairs on Lakeview Blvd, Lower Drive, and Cumberland Road. This contract also includes the pavement repairs necessary in advance of this summer's Slurry Seal effort (Work Order 325). Construction is expected to begin this June and to be completed in Fall 2022. This project was advertised on April 15, 2022. Bids were opened on May 5th with two proposals submitted as listed in the table below. This procurement included the City's Good Faith Effort (GFE) Program encouraging participation from disadvantaged businesses. The City's program is closely connected to the State Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID) whose goal is to "level the playing field by providing certified firms a fair opportunity to compete for government contracts regardless of owner ethnicity, gender, disability, or firm size". Knife River Brix Paving Contractor Corporation NW Northwest, Inc. Bid $ 5,464,863.32 $ 6,262,765.00 Bid Points 90.00 78.53 GFE Points 0 4 Total Points 90.00 82.53 Rank 1 2 FISCAL NOTE There are sufficient funds available to award this contract. This project is budgeted 100%from the Street fund, which was outlined in the Capital Improvement Plan and Adopted Budget, as follows: Fund FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Total Street $2,400,000 $3,100,000 $5,500,000 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to sign a Public Improvement Contract with Knife River Corporation - Northwest for the construction of the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Work Order 321, in the amount of$ 5,464,863.32. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city