The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Item - 2024-03-19 - Number 8.1 - Ordinance 2938, Annual Chapter 50 Code Amendments (LU 23-0036) 8.1 o,� E 0 COUNCIL REPORT L) o OREGO\--" Subject: Ordinance 2938 (LU 23-0036), 2023 Annual CDC Code Amendments Meeting Date: March 19, 2024 Staff Member: Ellen Davis, AICP, Senior Planner Report Date: March 13, 2024 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 ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Conduct a legislative land use public hearing and tentatively approve Ordinance 2938 (LU 23-0036), amending the Community Development Code (CDC) (LOC Chapter 50). Recommended Language for Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2938 and direct staff to return on April 2, 2024, with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 23-0036. Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question): Annual code amendments to clarify and refine LOC Chapter 50. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Should all of the 2023 annual Community Development Code (CDC) amendments proposed in Ord. 2938 be enacted? Respect. Excellence. Trust. Servi e. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are part of the City's continuous process improvement efforts to ensure the regulations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, implement City Council goals and policies, and reflect best practices in contemporary urban planning. The amendments are also intended to correct errors, eliminate text ambiguities and redundancies, and clarify the code's language. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments (Ordinance 2938) in two work sessions on October 23, 2023, and December 11, 2023, and held a public hearing on February 12, 2024. The Commission recommends (5-1-1) approval of Ordinance 2938 as reflected in the Findings, Conclusion, and Order adopted on February 26, 2024 (Exhibit B-1). Because the amendments are recommended for approval as a package, the Council is directed to the Commission deliberation on the individual items found in the Commission's February 12, 2024 draft minutes (Exhibit C-1). The proposed code text, along with explanations for each amendment and supplemental Commission findings, is presented in Attachment 2 to Exhibit B-1, dated February 12, 2024 (Exhibit B-1, pgs. 6-29). The proposed code text without commentary is contained in Attachment 2 to Ordinance 2938 (Exhibit A-1.1), dated February 20, 2024. DISCUSSION The amendments will clarify and update various provisions as summarized in the table, below. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Policies and other applicable criteria are discussed in the Planning Commission hearing staff report, Exhibit D-1. Maintenance Amendments (LOC Chapters 50.03- 50.07, and 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Remove references to parking allowances for cottage clusters of LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) more than 16 cottages. 2. Remove C Avenue from the special street setback table. LOC 50.04.002.5 Table 50.04.002-1 3. Clarify the methodology for determining the front property line LOC 50.04.003.6.c for flag lots created prior to adoption of code regulating flag lots or outside of City limits. 4. Clarify that the 75% impervious surface limit for cottage clusters LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4); supersedes certain zone and overlay district standards that also LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii; regulate impervious surfaces. LOC 50.05.001.4; LOC 50.05.003.5; LOC 50.05.012.6 5. Update text limiting certain surfaces within the Uplands Overlay LOC 50.05.012.6 district to include hardscape surfaces and roof areas rather than "impervious" surfaces. Respect, Excel'ence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 3 6. Clarify that invasive tree removal is permitted within sensitive LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) lands and that mitigation is required for such removal. 7. Clarify that interior side yard setback planes are measured from LOC 50.06.002.2.e the property line, not the setback line. 8. Clarify that townhouse minimum street frontage is 15 feet, LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i consistent with the 15-foot lot width required for townhouses, Table 50.06.003-1 and replace the term "rowhouse" with "townhouse" for consistency. 9. Update the retaining wall height exception to include middle LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) housing and access lanes. 10. Exempt lots created through Middle Housing Land Divisions LOC 50.06.007.1.b (MHLD) from the solar access standard. 11. Update practices for notice of appeal hearings to allow staff to LOC 50.07.003.7.g.i email commenters who submitted electronic comments and did not provide a mailing address. 12. Update the deadline for submittal of written testimony for LOC 50.07.003.7.k(ii) closed record appeals to City Council. 13. Clarify that screening fences for flag lots must be sight- LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii obscuring, and exempt property lines within flood management areas and along Oswego Lake or Canal from the fence installation requirement. 14. Prohibit the installation of new invasive species plantings to LOC 50.07.007.2.f.v meet flag lot landscaping requirements. 15. Clarify that construction or placement of an accessory structure LOC 50.10.003.2 is considered a minor alteration for Historic Preservation purposes. 16. Clarify that Duplexes, Triplexes, and Quadplexes must share LOC 50.10.003.2 common wall(s) or floor(s). CODE POLICY ITEMS& DISCUSSION (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.06 and 50.08) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 1. Establish cottage orientation for cottage cluster sites that abut LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii(3) an unimproved or unopened street right-of-way. 2. Allow a third (or more) garage opening to be offset two feet LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v from the previous garage plane rather than requiring the two feet to be stepped back specifically. 3. Exempt open fences around playgrounds and athletic facilities LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) such as tennis and basketball courts, baseball backstops, etc. from the evergreen hedge screening requirement. 4. Allow minor variance applications to all fence standards. LOC 50.08.002.2.e Respect, Excel'ence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT None anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 23-0036 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and direct staff to prepare a final version of Ordinance 2938, including findings and conclusions, for adoption April 2, 2024. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2938, 03/13/24 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Code Text Amendments without Commentary, 02/20/24 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions, and Order, 02/26/24, includes Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2938: Code Text Amendments with Commentary, 02/12/24 C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Minutes 02/12/24 D. Staff Memos & Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 02/01/24 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits] F. Written Materials [No current exhibits] G. Public Testimony G-1 Letter from Kevin Chavez, Hacienda CDC, 02/12/24 G-2 Email from Kate Myers, 02/12/24 G-3 Presentation by Neighborhood Chairs Committee, 02/12/24 G-4 Presentation by First Addition Neighbors-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, 02/12/24 Respect, Excel'ence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT A-1 ORDINANCE 2938 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2023); AND, ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 23-0036). 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 February 12, 2024, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 23-0036 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 23-0036 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on March 19, 2024, 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 that 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 23-0036), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikcthrough type and adding new text shown in 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 2938 (LU 23-0036) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 1 OF 2 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 19th day of March, 2024. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Joseph M. Buck, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Kari Linder, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney Ordinance 2938 (LU 23-0036) EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii Cottage Orientation iii. Cottage Orientation (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: (a)The street is an unimproved or unopened right-of-way; or (b)The cottage is required otherwise by to face the courtyard to comply with subsection 1.d.iii(2) of this section. LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) (1) Clustered Parking. Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters,subject to the following standards: (a) Cottage cluster developments with fcwcr than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five abutting spaces. (b) Cottage cluster developments with 16 cottages or more arc permitted parking clusters of not more than eight abutting spaces. (et') Parking clusters must be separated from other parking spaces by at least four ft. of landscaping. (dc) Clustered parking areas may be covered. LOC Table 50.04.002-1 Special Street Setbacks Table TABLE 50.04.002-1:SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected Streets From To Special Setback 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 Ferry Rd. Engineer,finding that the purpose is met by a lesser amount. Boones Madrona St. West Sunset Dr. 50 ft. 1 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. LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 1 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) TABLE 50.04.002-1:SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected Streets From To Special Setback Burma Rd. 25 ft. "C"Ave. State St. alley Country Club 30 ft. Carman South and west 40 ft. Drive of Kruse Way LOC 50.04.003.6.c Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements C. Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Prior to Scptcmb^" 9940ther Than Under Flag Lot Section [LOC 50.07.007.21, and Lots Accessing by Easement The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to the street providing access to a flag lot created prior to September 6, 1998 or any other lot that would qualify as a Flag Lot but for the date of creation. If this standard is not practical due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography or similar reasons,then the front yard will be that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion of the flag or easement. /// LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4) - R-6 Zone Dimensional Standards f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards /// ii. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces /// (4) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage and standards. impervious surface limitations. See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii — R-DD Zone Dimensional Standards f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards /// iii. R-DD Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 2 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) III LOC 50.05.001.4 — Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District 4. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS No more than 50%of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios, paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements, only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. (See Figure 50.05.001-B: Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for illustrations of natural-appearing constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed nonplant and plant elements.) Exception:Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// LOC 50.05.003.5 — Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District 5. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS No more than 50%of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios, paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements, only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. See Figure 50.05.001-B: Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for examples. Exception:Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// LOC 50.05.012.6 — Uplands R-10 Overlay District 6: LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE SURFACES AND STRUCTURES(INCLUDING ROOF AREAS) a. No more than 50%of the lot may be covered with impervious hardscape surfaces and structures. Exception:Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or hardscape limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 3 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION — Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest edge of the building footprint shall not be covered by more than 30%of impervious hardscape surfaces and structures. /// Figure 50.05.012-C: Limitation on Hardscape Surfaces and Structures 1 Total Hardscape and Structure Area < 50% of Lot (12,000 sq. ft. lot, 6,000 sq. ft. max. Hardscape and Structures) Hardscape Area jr i• (Patio) i `. 1 1 , 1 , 1 , I ' 1 Structure , Hardscape Area i (Driveway) i .1----...---- I i i / 30%o max ,, i 1 tHardscape ands'' 1 i i Structures f' __1 LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) Tree Removal (b) Tree Removal Tree removal within an RP district shall be subject to the following criteria: /// LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 4 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) (vi) Invasive tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(6), except that mitigation shall be required as described in LOC 55.02.084, /// Note to Codifier: Upon codification, remove the following cross reference: [Cross-Reference: Invasive Trees may be removed from RP Districts under the exemption in LOC 50.05.010.2.c.vi ("other development that does not remove any native vegetation ..." is exempt from the Sensitive Lands section).] LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks 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 offset 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. LOC 50.06.002.2.e Side Yard Setback Plane — Interior Yards e. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards Except as set forth in subsection 2.e.ii of this section,the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak as illustrated in Figure 50.06.001-G: Side Yard Setback Plane, below.The finished grade at the foundation shall be used as the grade elevation at the setback property line for purposes of measuring the setback plane. LOC 50.06.003.1.c Standards for Approval c. Standards for Approval i. Every residentially zoned lot shall abut a street for the following minimum length: LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 5 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) TABLE 50.06.003-1: MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE Residentially Zoned Lot Minimum Street Frontage Rev/Ile-use Townhouse 17 ft. 15 ft. Flag Lot LOC 50.07.007.2.c All Other 25 ft. /// LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) b. Location and Height /// x. Exceptions from Height Limitations /// (2) An open (80% open)fence which is not located in the front yard (forward of the primary structure to the front lot line) and which encloses part or all of a tennis court, swimming pool, playing field, park, commercial recreational facility, public or semi-public utility structure, or courtyards or play areas for day care and educational institutions.The evergreen hedge screening requirement in LOC 50.06.004.2.b.iv does not apply to these fences; or /// LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) Exceptions from Height Limitations /// (4) Retaining walls used to directly support a driveway,access lane, or car parking area for a single- family residence or middle housing; or /// LOC 50.06.007.1.b.9. IMPROVEMENTS AND SECURITY b. Applicability The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.c shall apply to subdivision applications (except Middle Housing Land Divisions(ORS 92.031)),that create lots intended for single-family detached or middle housing dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the reviewing authority finds that the LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 6 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) 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. LOC 50.07.003.7.g Notice of the Appeal Hearing g. Notice of the Appeal Hearing i. Written notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council shall be sent by regular electronic mail to the email address provided, or if no email address is provided then by regular mail, no later than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing to the appellant, the applicant if different from the appellant, and all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body, or,for a minor development decision of the City Engineer, submitted written testimony to the City Engineer. LOC 50.07.003.7.k Presenting Testimony k. Presenting Testimony /// ii. Written testimony may be submitted prior to or at the public h aring. Written testimony may be submitted prior to the public hearing and must be received by the City Recorder by 512:00 p.m.er the two business days of prior to the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the public h aring. Written testimony submitted at the h -aring must be filed with the recording secretary and placed before the City Council. Written comments that are merely referred to in testimony but which are not placed before the hearing body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the record of the proceedings. Written comments that attempt to present new evidence or raise new issues not presented or raised before the hearing body shall be rejected. LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation /// iii. The perimeter of the flag lot(s) shall be screened from abutting lots outside of the development site with a six-ft.-tall solid, sight-obscuring fence, except: (1) Where a four-ft.fence is required by LOC 50.06.004.2.b.i, Fences, or where such screening would conflict with standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, Flood Management Areas,or where the property line abuts Oswego Lake or Oswego Canal; or /// LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 7 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation //// v. Plant materials listed as nuisance or invasive in LOC 50.11.004,Appendix D, and the Invasive Tree Species List on file at the Planning Department are prohibited in landscaping required by this section. /// LOC 50.08.002.2 Minor Variance Classifications 2. Minor Variance Classifications //// e.A variance to standards in LOC 50.06.004.2 for a maximum fence,wall, retaining wall, or a combination thereof, height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2. /// LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions —Alteration (Historic Preservation); Alteration, Minor (Historic Preservation) Alteration (Historic Preservation) Alteration:An addition to, or removal of a portion of, or reconfiguration of a landmark that changes an elevation of a landmark or contributing resources (not applicable to National Register properties; see "Demolition.-"). Construction or placement of an accessory structure on a property that contains a historic landmark, except on sites over one acre in size or placement of an accessory structure more than 300 feet from the landmark structure or resource, is an "alteration"of the Landmark. Alteration, Minor(Historic Preservation) An alteration (historic preservation)that does not: a. Change the height of the building; b. Make a substantial change to an elevation visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake; c. Increase the floor area more than 20% provided the building addition or accessory structure is not visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake; and LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 8 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION— Feb. 26, 2024 (without commentary and reorganized numerically) d. Reduce the square footage of the original structure other than removing previous additions or treatments that did not contribute to the historical or architectural significance of the landmark as stated in the findings of fact for the landmark designation. LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions Duplex Two attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit. 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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. Quadplex Four attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit.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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. Triplex Three attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit. 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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. LU 23-0036 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT B-1 APPROVED: 02/26/2024 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 23-0036 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7 PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8 VARIOUS PROVISIONS AND ) 9 ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2938. ) 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 The City of Lake Oswego is requesting approval of legislative amendments (Ordinance 2938) to 14 the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) for the purpose of clarifying and 15 updating various provisions. Proposed amendments are to: 16 17 18 CODE MAINTENANCE ITEMS(LOC Chapters 50.03-50.07, and 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Remove references to parking allowances for cottage LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) clusters of more than 16 cottages because the maximum number of cottages allowed in the code is eight. 2. Remove C Avenue from the special street setback table LOC 50.04.002.5 because this right-of-way width already meets the 60-foot Table 50.04.002-1 width established in the table. 3. Clarify the methodology for determining the front property LOC 50.04.003.6.c line for flag lots created prior to adoption of code regulating flag lots or outside of City limits. 4. Clarify that the 75% impervious surface limit for cottage LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4); LOC clusters supersedes certain zone and overly district 50.04.001.2.f.iii; LOC 50.05.001.4; standards that also regulate impervious surfaces. LOC 50.05.003.5; LOC 50.05.012.6 5. Update text limiting certain surfaces within the Uplands LOC 50.05.012.6 Overlay district to include hardscape surfaces and roof areas rather than "impervious" surfaces,to be consistent with legislative history and current practice. 6. Clarify that invasive tree removal is permitted within LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) sensitive lands and that mitigation is required for such removal. 7. Clarify that interior side yard setback planes are measured LOC 50.06.002.2.e from the property line, not the setback line. 8. Clarify that townhouse minimum street frontage is 15 feet, LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i consistent with the 15-foot lot width required for Table 50.06.003-1 townhouses, and replace the term "rowhouse"with "townhouse"for consistency. LU 23-0036 Page 1 of 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 OF 5 APPROVED: 02/26/2024 9. Update the retaining wall height exception that currently LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) applies only to walls supporting driveway or parking areas for single-family residences to include middle housing and access lanes. 10. Exempt lots created through Middle Housing Land Divisions LOC 50.06.007.1.b (MHLD)from the solar access standard. MHLD lot creation is solely for ownership purposes, not zoning or building design standards. Partitions are already exempt from this standard. 11. Update practices for notice of appeal hearings to allow staff LOC 50.07.003.7.g.i to email commenters who submitted electronic comments and did not provide a mailing address. 12. Update the deadline for submittal of written testimony for LOC 50.07.003.7.k(ii) closed record appeals to City Council to review for new materials and distribution to members of the hearing body. 13. Clarify that screening fences must be sight-obscuring, and LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii exempt property lines within flood management areas and along Oswego Lake or Canal from the fence installation requirement. 14. Prohibit the installation of new invasive species plantings to LOC 50.07.007.2.f.v comply with flag lot landscaping requirements. 15. Clarify that construction or placement of an accessory LOC 50.10.003.2 structure is considered a minor alteration for Historic Preservation purposes. 16. Clarify that Duplexes,Triplexes, and Quadplexes must share LOC 50.10.003.2 common wall(s) or floor(s).1 CODE POLICY ITEMS& DISCUSSION (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.06,and 50.08) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTIONS) 1. Establish cottage orientation for cottage cluster sites that LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii(3) abut an unimproved or unopened street right-of-way. 2. Determine whether to allow a third (or more)garage LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v opening to be offset two feet from the previous garage plane rather than requiring the two feet to be stepped back specifically. 3. Exempt open fences around athletic facilities such as tennis LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) and basketball courts, baseball backstops, etc. from the evergreen hedge screening requirement. 4. Determine whether to allow minor variance applications to LOC 50.08.002.2.e all fence standards. Increases in fence/wall/retaining wall height are already considered minor variances. 1 2 HEARINGS 3 1 Maintenance Item#16 was added after the second work session held on December 11, 2023. It was included in all materials for the Public Hearing held on February 12, 2024. LU 23-0036 Page 2 of 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 OF 5 APPROVED: 02/26/2024 1 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting 2 on February 12, 2024. 3 4 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 5 6 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 7 Land Use Planning - Policies A-1, A-2, C-1, C-3 and D-1 8 Inspiring Spaces and Places - Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 3, and 8; Goal 2, Policy 4 (d and e) 9 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing - Policies A-4, B-1 and C-7 10 Economic Vitality- Policy B-1 (b, c, and d) 11 Community Health and Public Safety- Sound Quality- Policy 1 12 13 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 14 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 15 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined 16 LOC 50.07.003.16.b Criteria for Legislative Decision 17 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 18 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 19 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 20 21 CONCLUSION 22 23 The Planning Commission concludes that the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 24 2 (dated 2/13/24) of proposed Ordinance 2938 are in compliance with all applicable criteria. 25 26 FINDINGS AND REASONS 27 28 The Planning Commission (Commission) incorporates the Staff Memos (dated October 13, 29 2023, December 11, 2023) and the Staff Report, dated February 1, 2024 (with all exhibits 30 attached thereto), on LU 23-0036 as support for its decision, supplemented by the further 31 findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the 32 supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. 33 34 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 35 36 1. Maintenance Item #12: Change Deadline for Written Testimony for City Council Appeals. 37 The Commission considered whether to change the deadline for written testimony prior to 38 closed-record City Council appeal hearings to one or two business days before the appeal 39 hearing. Staff recommended two business days. No public testimony on this item was received. 40 The Commission found that staff's recommendation of two business days was appropriate, in 41 order to adequately review submissions and resolve evidentiary issues with submitters. 42 LU 23-0036 Page 3 of 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 OF 5 APPROVED: 02/26/2024 1 2 2. Maintenance Item #16: Definition of Duplex, Triplex, and Quadplex. The Commission 3 received public testimony from Carole Okert, speaking on behalf of the Lake Oswego 4 Neighborhood Chairs Committee and as a representative for the First Addition Neighbors— 5 Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, regarding the proposal to specify that-plexes must share 6 common walls or floors/ceilings. Ms. Ockert supported staff's reading of the legislative history 7 for the Middle Housing Code Amendments that the common dictionary definition of the term 8 "attached" was intended when these -plex housing types were added to the code, rather than 9 the LOC Chapter 50 definition of"detached" as a 3 foot or great horizontal separation. Ms. Okert 10 requested that the Commission require 100% of wall or floor/ceiling plans be shared between 11 plex units. 12 13 The Commission finds that the proposed amendment to require at least 25% of wall or 14 floor/ceiling areas between plex units as shared planes mirrors the current definition of 15 "Townhouse" and provides greater design flexibility. The Commission finds that definitions for 16 duplex, triplex, and quadplex as proposed sufficiently enact the legislative intent for these 17 dwelling types. 18 19 3. Policy Item #1: Cottage Orientation Abutting Unimproved and Unopened Rights-of-Way. 20 The Commission considered whether to exempt cottages within a cottage cluster that do not 21 face a common courtyard from the requirement to face the public right-of-way when said 22 public right-of-way is unimproved and/or unopened. Staff recommended exemptions for both 23 unimproved and unopened rights-of-way. No public testimony on this item was received. The 24 Commission found that staff's recommendation that the exemption include both unimproved 25 and unopened rights-of-way was appropriate. 26 27 ORDER 28 29 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 30 31 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2938, with Exhibit A 32 (based on Attachment 2, dated February 13, 2024) [LU 23-0036] be approved by the City 33 Council. 34 35 // 36 37 // 38 39 [Signatures on Next Page] 40 41 // 42 43 44 LU 23-0036 Page 4 of 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 4 OF 5 APPROVED: 02/26/2024 1 II 2 3 4 5 // 6 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of 7 the City of Lake Oswego. 8 9 DATED this 26 day of February, 2024. 10 11 12 /s/ Diana Moreno, Chair 13 Diana Moreno, Chair 14 Planning Commission 15 16 17 18 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION - February 12, 2024 19 20 AYES: Mitchell, Naujock, Schenone, Stewart, Thwing 21 NOES: Rigby 22 ABSTAIN: None 23 EXCUSED: Moreno 24 25 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - February 26, 2024 26 27 AYES: Naujock, Schenone, Stewart, Thwing 28 NOES: Rigby 29 ABSTAIN: None 30 EXCUSED: Mitchell LU 23-0036 Page 5 of 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 5 OF 5 2023 ANNUAL CODE AMENDMENTS (LU 23-0036) Table of Contents MAINTENACE (M)AND POLICY(P) ITEMS ITEM 1 (M) 2 ITEM 2 (M) 3 ITEM 3 (M) 4 ITEM 4 (M) 5 ITEM 5 (M) 7 ITEM 6 (M) 9 ITEM 7 (M) 10 ITEM 8 (M) 11 ITEM 9 (M) 12 ITEM 10 (M) 13 ITEM 11 (M) 14 ITEM 12 (M) 15 ITEM 13 (M) 16 ITEM 14 (M) 17 ITEM 15 (M) 18 ITEM 16 (M) 19 ITEM 1 (P) 21 ITEM 2 (P) 22 ITEM 3 (P) 23 ITEM 4 (P) 24 LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 1 of 24 MAINTENANCE ITEM 1 (M): LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1)/Use Specific Cottage Cluster— Clustered Parking LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) (1) Clustered Parking. Off-street parking shall be arranged in clusters, subject to the following standards: (a) Cottage cluster developments with fewer than 16 cottages are permitted parking clusters of not more than five abutting spaces. (b) Cottage cluster developments with 16 cottages or more arc permitted parking clusters of not more than eight abutting spaces. (eb) Parking clusters must be separated from other parking spaces by at least four ft. of landscaping. (4c) Clustered parking areas may be covered. Item 1 (M): No more than eight cottages are allowed within a cottage cluster development. Staff recommends removing references to "developments of 16 cottages or more"to prevent confusion regarding the maximum number of cottages permitted. This amendment modifies the language of the parking requirement to remove references to larger clusters than allowed elsewhere in the Code. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 2 of 24 ITEM 2 (M): LOC Table 50.04.002-1; LOC 50.04.002.5; Special Street Setbacks LOC Table 50.04.002-1 Special Street Setbacks Table TABLE 50.04.002-1:SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS Affected Streets From To Special Setback 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 Ferry Rd. Engineer,finding that the purpose is met by a lesser amount. 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. Statc St. alley Country Club 30 ft. Carman South and west 40 ft. Drive of Kruse Way ITEM 2 (M):The C Avenue right-of-way width is already sufficient; no special street setback falls on private property as the full length of the ROW described in the code is already 60 feet wide.The City's Traffic Engineer supports this proposed amendment removing C Avenue from the Special Street Setback table. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 3 of 24 ITEM 3 (M): LOC 50.04.003.6.c/Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Outside City Limits and/or before Enactment of LOC 50.07.007.2 LOC 50.04.003.6.c Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements C. Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Prior to Septcmbcr 6, 19980ther Than Under Flag Lot Section [LOC 50.07.007.21, and Lots Accessing by Easement The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to the street providing access to a flag lot created prior to September 6, 1998 or any other lot that would qualify as a Flag Lot but for the date of creation. If this standard is not practical due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography or similar reasons,then the front yard will be that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion of the flag or easement. /// ITEM 3 (M):This amendment clarifies the method of determining the front lot line for flag lots created outside of City limits, or any other flag lot created before or outside of the City's established flag lot code (LOC 50.07.007.2).This amendment is necessary because the current code requires City Staff to obtain copies of old versions of the County Code in place at various times of lot creation to determine what the County then designated as the front lot line,for property now within City Limits.This can result in inconsistent structure orientation and yard setback depths. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 4 of 24 ITEM 4 (M): LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4); LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii; LOC 50.05.001.4; LOC 50.05.003.5; LOC 50.05.012.6/Impervious Surface Limitations Not Applicable to Cottage Clusters R-6 Zone Dimensional Standards—LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4) f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards /// ii. R-6 Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces /// (4) Cottage clusters are exempt from maximum lot coverage and standards. impervious surface limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// R-DD Zone Dimensional Standards—LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii f. Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces—Additional Standards /// iii. R-DD Lot Coverage/Impervious Surfaces /// Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District—LOC 50.05.001.4 4. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS No more than 50%of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios, paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements, only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. (See Figure 50.05.001-B: Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for illustrations of natural-appearing constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed nonplant and plant elements.) Exception:Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District—LOC 50.05.003.5 LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 5 of 24 5. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS No more than 50%of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios, paving or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed nonplant and plant elements, only the nonplant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. See Figure 50.05.001-B: Illustrative Mixed Paved Areas and Natural-Appearing Ponds for examples. Exception:Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or certain element limitations.See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// Uplands R-10 Overlay District- LOC 50.05.012.6 6. LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACES a. No more than 50%of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. Exception: Cottage clusters are exempt from impervious surface or hardscape limitations. See LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)for maximum impervious surface coverage standards applicable to cottage clusters. /// ITEM 4(M): Cottage cluster development is subject to use-specific standards, which include a 75% impervious surface area limitation within the required courtyards [LOC 50.03.003.1.d.ii(1)(e)]. Numerous overlays, plus the R-6 zone standards, also regulate impervious surfaces, but only the R-DD code section specifies that cottage clusters are exempt [LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii(2)].The intent of the cottage cluster use-specific standards is to supersede zone and/or overlay standards that regulate the same matter in compliance with State Law. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 6 of 24 ITEM 5 (M): LOC 50.05.012.6/Clarify Uplands Overlay Limitation on "Impervious"Surfaces 6: LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE SURFACES AND STRUCTURES(INCLUDING ROOF AREAS) a. No more than 50%of the lot may be covered with impervious hardscape surfaces and structures. b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest edge of the building footprint shall not be covered by more than 30%of impervious hardscape surfaces and structures. /// Figure 50.05.012-C: Limitation on Hardscape Surfaces and Structures Total Hardscape and Structure Area < 50% of Lot (12,000 sq. ft. lot, 6,000 sq. ft. max. Hardscape and Structures) Hardscape Area A/ (Patio) i i ,__ i 1 , i i Structure -_, , 1r , , , 1 Hardscape Area i i (Driveway) I i 1 • I I -' - I ' I .-" "' I 1 _.-' / 1 `; 30% max ,, I I Hardscape ands, I I Structures`' __I 1 _L- LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 7 of 24 ITEM 5 (M):The code language currently limits "impervious" surfaces, which is not defined in LOC Chapter 50.This has led to confusion by homeowners and developers within the Overlay. Researching the legislative history in LU 17-0001 shows that the Overlay's intent was to limit "hardscape"that would include permeable pavers, permeable asphalt, etc.: "Commentary:The proposal to limit the impervious area between the building and front property line is intended to prevent hardscape (primarily driveways)from being the predominant surface treatment in the front yard.This is intended to support the existing and desired neighborhood character of generous open space on lots, lush landscaping and an abundance of trees, rather than an abundance of hardscape as viewed from the street." Changing the term "impervious surfaces"to "hardscape and roof areas" should decrease confusion and clarify that the intent of the regulation is not linked to stormwater pervious/impervious surface standards. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 8 of 24 ITEM 6 (M): LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) Invasive Tree Removal in RP Districts LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b)Tree Removal (b) Tree Removal Tree removal within an RP district shall be subject to the following criteria: III (vi) Invasive tree removal permit,in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(6),except that mitigation shall be required as described in LOC 55.02.084, /// ITEM 6(M):The Sensitive Lands Overlay, LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b), lists allowed tree removal but does not specifically list the Invasive Tree removal permit.The code only notes the removal of invasive trees by including an editor's cross-reference to the Sensitive Lands exception for development that does "not remove native vegetation" (Subsection 2.c.vi).This amendment lists an Invasive Tree removal permit in the same manner that other permit types are listed,for consistency and reader's ease. Note to Codifier: Upon codification, remove the following cross reference: [Cross-Reference: Invasive Trees may be removed from RP Districts under the exemption in LOC 50.05.010.2.c.vi ("other development that does not remove any native vegetation ..." is exempt from the Sensitive Lands section).] LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 9 of 24 ITEM 7 (M): LOC 50.06.002.2.e,/Correct Error in Side Yard Setback Plane Descriptions LOC 50.06.002.2.e Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards e. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards Except as set forth in subsection 2.e.ii of this section,the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak as illustrated in Figure 50.06.001-G: Side Yard Setback Plane, below.The finished grade at the foundation shall be used as the grade elevation at the setback property line for purposes of measuring the setback plane. ITEM 7(M):The side yard setback plane for interior side yards, rather than street side yards, is measured from the side property line.This amendment replaces the erroneous reference to the setback line with the correct reference to the property line. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 10 of 24 ITEM 8 (M): LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i; Table 50.06.003-1/Townhouse Lot Width vs. Lot Frontage LOC 50.06.003.1.c Standards for Approval c. Standards for Approval i. Every residentially zoned lot shall abut a street for the following minimum length: pTABLE 50.06.003-1: MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE Residentially Zoned Lot Minimum Street Frontage °^• se Townhouse 17 ft. 15 ft. Flag Lot LOC 50.07.007.2.c All Other 25 ft. /// ITEM 8(M): (1)A Townhouse has a minimum lot width of 15 feet(LOC 50.04.001.1 and .2), but a minimum street frontage requirement of 17 feet (LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i). While lot width is measured at the front setback line and frontage is measured at the front property line,they would likely be equal and the difference is an unintentional one.Typically, townhouse lots are rectangular with the same width at the front property line and front setback line. (2)Though the terms "rowhouse" and "townhouse" are interchangeable, "townhouse" is used in this context for consistency with the term used in the dimensional standards tables in LOC 50.04.001.1 and .2. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 11 of 24 ITEM 9 (M): LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4)/Retaining Wall Height Exceptions LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x Exceptions from Height Limitations III (4) Retaining walls used to directly support a driveway,access lane, or car parking area for a single- family residence or middle housing; or /// ITEM 9 (M):This exception allows up to 10-foot tall retaining walls that support a driveway or car parking area for a single-family residence.This proposal amends the code section to include both middle housing and access lanes. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 12 of 24 ITEM 10 (M): LOC 50.06.007.1.b/Solar Access Design Standards for Middle Housing Land Divisions 9. IMPROVEMENTS AND SECURITY b. Applicability The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.c shall apply to subdivision applications (except Middle Housing Land Divisions(ORS 92.031)),that create lots intended for single-family detached 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 10(M):Solar Access Design requirements per LOC 50.06.007.1.b apply to lots created via a Middle Housing Land Division (MHLD) of more than three lots. This creates potential conflicts if the new lots are equal to the dwelling unit footprints or are less than the minimum lot size for the zone, which is the entire purpose of the ownership of an MHLD. The internal lot lines created by a MHLD are not used to implement zone/building design standards;the MHLD is solely for ownership purposes. Solar Access Design requirements do not apply to partitions (three or fewer lots); Solar Balance Point requirements apply to all structures in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones and to single-family detached structures in all zones regardless if the lot was created through a partition, subdivision, or MHLD.This proposal exempts MHLD from the Solar Access Design requirements. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 13 of 24 ITEM 11 (M): LOC 50.07.003.7.g.i/Notice of Appeal Hearings LOC 50.07.003.7.g Notice of the Appeal Hearing g. Notice of the Appeal Hearing i. Written notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council shall be sent by regular electronic mail to the email address provided,or if no email address is provided then by regular mail, no later than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing to the appellant, the applicant if different from the appellant, and all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body, or,for a minor development decision of the City Engineer, submitted written testimony to the City Engineer. /// ITEM 11 (M): Most comments are submitted via email or through the City's website directly and commenters often do not include their mailing address.This proposal would allow staff to email notice of the hearing to commenters who submitted comments via email,while still mailing notice to commenters who do not provide an email address and do provide a postal mailing address. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 14 of 24 ITEM 12 (M): LOC 50.07.003.7.k(ii)/Testimony Deadline for Closed Record City Council Appeals LOC 50.07.003.7.k Presenting Testimony k. Presenting Testimony /// ii. Written testimony may be submitted prior to or at the public h aring. Written testimony may be submitted prior to the public hearing and must be received by the City Recorder by 5.12:00 p.m.er the two business days of prior to the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the public hearing. Written testimony submitted at the hearing must be filed with the recording secretary and placed before the City Council. Written comments that are merely referred to in testimony but which are not placed before the hearing body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the record of the proceedings. Written comments that attempt to present new evidence or raise new issues not presented or raised before the hearing body shall be rejected. For appeals to the City Council, the code states that written testimony can be submitted until 5pm on the day of the hearing or at the hearing. In a somewhat similar"written testimony deadline" provision for the DRC,the submission deadline was changed to noon on the day of the hearing for DRC meetings and that no written testimony will be allowed at the hearing, in order to facilitate access to the written materials by persons testifying virtually. However, a different issue is presented with CC appeals that is not present for DRC evidentiary hearings: any material submitted to the CC cannot contain "new evidence," resulting in the need for staff to review the submittals to see if the materials are contained within the Record before the DRC, which takes time when the record is large and staff needs to communicate to the commenter when they have submitted new evidence to give them an opportunity to show in the record where the evidence is that staff has flagged. For CC appeals, consider moving the deadline for written testimony to close of business two business days prior to the hearing. Additionally, some Council meetings begin at 3pm, which conflicts with the 5pm deadline. Supplemental Commission Finding: The Commission found that staff's recommendation of two business days was appropriate, in order to adequately review submissions and resolve evidentiary issues with submitters. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 15 of 24 ITEM 13 (M): LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii; LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii(1)/Flag Lot Screening Requirements LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation /// iii. The perimeter of the flag lot(s) shall be screened from abutting lots outside of the development site with a six-ft.-tall solid, sight-obscuring fence, except: (1) Where a four-ft.fence is required by LOC 50.06.004.2.b.i, Fences, or where such screening would conflict with standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, Flood Management Areas,or where the property line abuts Oswego Lake or Oswego Canal; or /// ITEM 13 (M): (1)This amendment clarifies that a sight-obscuring fence is required for flag lot screening; currently the nature of the required fence is not explicitly stated in the current code. (2)This amendment also allows an outright exception where a flag lot fence is required along the perimeter or rear of a flag lot that is within the Flood Management Area Overlay or where the fence abuts Oswego Lake or Oswego Canal. If there is no exception, a major variance to the Flag Lot standard is required, which may not be obtainable based on the applicable criteria and, if obtainable, is an unnecessary burden. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 16 of 24 ITEM 14 (M): LOC 50.07.007.2.f.v/Flag Lot Screening Species Requirements LOC 50.07.007.2.f Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation //// v. Plant materials listed as nuisance or invasive in LOC 50.11.004,Appendix D, and the Invasive Tree Species List on file at the Planning Department are prohibited in landscaping required by this section. /// ITEM 14 (M): In the Landscape standard (LOC 50.06.004.1.c) plants that are on the City's Invasive Species List in LOC Appendix D [LOC 50.11.004] are prohibited in required landscaping; however, that same prohibition is not found in the Flag Lot landscaping and screening requirements. In a recent partition application, an applicant planted Portuguese Laurel as screening along an access lane. In general, invasive species should not be permitted in required landscaping.This amendment prohibits planting of invasive species as required landscape screening for flag lots. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 17 of 24 ITEM 15 (M): LOC 50.10.003.2/Definitions—Alteration (Historic Preservation); Alteration, Minor(Historic Preservation) LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions—Alteration (Historic Preservation);Alteration, Minor(Historic Preservation) Alteration (Historic Preservation) Alteration:An addition to, or removal of a portion of, or reconfiguration of a landmark that changes an elevation of a landmark or contributing resources (not applicable to National Register properties; see "Demolition.-"). Construction or placement of an accessory structure on a property that contains a historic landmark, except on sites over one acre in size or placement of an accessory structure more than 300 feet from the landmark structure or resource, is an "alteration"of the Landmark. Alteration, Minor(Historic Preservation) An alteration (historic preservation)that does not: a. Change the height of the building; b. Make a substantial change to an elevation visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake; c. Increase the floor area more than 20% provided the building addition or accessory structure is not visible from the public right-of-way, a public open space, or Oswego Lake; and d. Reduce the square footage of the original structure other than removing previous additions or treatments that did not contribute to the historical or architectural significance of the landmark as stated in the findings of fact for the landmark designation. ITEM 15 (M):This amendment clarifies in the definition of Historic Alteration that construction or placement of an accessory structure qualifies as an alteration of the historic resource ("landmark" means "the structure and the property surrounding it") and clarifies that the alteration criteria for review of an addition also applies to an accessory structure within "the property surrounding it." However, as some sites containing resources are quite large, such as the 28-acre Lakeridge Middle School property, this amendment legislatively exempts accessory structures that are clearly outside of the landmark's "property surrounding it" scope, e.g., more than 300 feet from the landmark or resource on large properties.This legislative-specific distance exemption does not mean that"the property surrounding it" necessarily includes the area within 300 ft. of a landmark structure when the site is greater than 1 acre; it only means that no determination is needed beyond 300 ft. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 18 of 24 ITEM 16 (M): LOC 50.10.003.2/Definitions—Duplex; Quadplex; Triplex LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions Duplex Two attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit. 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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. Quadplex Four attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit. 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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. Triplex Three attached dwelling units on a lot where each unit shares at least one common wall or floor/ceiling with an adjacent dwelling unit.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 or the common floor/ceiling shall consist of at least 25%of the floor area of each dwelling unit. ITEM 16(M):The current definition of duplex,triplex and quadplex were established as part of the Middle Housing Code Amendments approved in 2022 and requires that the units be "attached."There is no definition of"attached" in LOC Chapter 50, but there is a definition of"detached",which is defined as "A horizontal separation of three ft. or more, between the subject structure and nearby structures" and notes that"if the distance of separation is less than three ft. between two structures, they shall be deemed to be 'attached."This means that under the existing code a duplex,triplex, or quadplex may have individual units that are separated by less than 3 feet and are still considered to be attached. This issue was raised by a neighborhood association representative at a recent pre-application conference. In response, staff reviewed the legislative history for the Middle Housing code amendments and found that in an early work session,the Commission and City Council did discuss whether to allow both attached and detached plexes, because the State Model Code allowed both options.The Commission and Council directed staff to only allow attached plexes, but it was unclear in the legislative history whether or not the Commission and Council were aware that the definition of "detached" specifically noted that a separation of less than 3 feet between structures was still considered to be attached.The pertinent discussion of whether to allow detached plexes in the record of Planning Project 19-0008 is highlighted in yellow in Exhibit F-1, pages 5, 14-15, and 21 of the PDF document. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 19 of 24 The draft text amendments, above, would specify that duplexes,triplexes, and quadplexes must share a common wall or floor(i.e., side by side units, stacked units, or both)for a minimum of 25%of the length of wall for side by side units or 25%of the floor area for stacked units.The amended definition is derived from existing text in the definitions of"Dwelling, Multi-Family", and "Townhouse", both of which applied prior to the adoption of Middle Housing Code Amendments (triplexes and quadplexes were previously classified as multi-family dwellings and would not have been allowed to be separated by less than 3 feet and still be considered attached).The above amendments would assure that duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes are required to be physically attached, consistent with the Commission and Council direction per the legislative history in Exhibit D-1, Attachment F-1, pages 39- 63. Supplemental Commission Finding:The proposed amendment to require at least 25%of wall or floor/ceiling areas between plex units as shared planes mirrors the current definition of"Townhouse" and provides greater design flexibility.The Commission finds that definitions for duplex,triplex, and quadplex as proposed sufficiently enact the legislative intent for these dwelling types. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 20 of 24 POLICY AMENDMENTS ITEM 1 (P): LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii(3)/Cottage Orientation Abutting Unopened or Unimproved Rights-of-Way LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii Cottage Orientation iii. Cottage Orientation (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: (a)The street is an unimproved or unopened right-of-way; or (b)The cottage is required otherwise by to face the courtyard to comply with subsection 1.d.iii(2) of this section. ITEM 1 (P):There are developable sites within the City that abut one or more public rights-of-way that have not been constructed with a paved street. When a cottage cluster development is sited on such a lot, any unit that does not face the courtyard must face the right-of-way, even if it is unopened or unimproved and unlikely to be developed. There are no design or minor variances available to this cottage orientation standard, only a Major Variance with difficult, if not impossible criteria for a proposed middle housing development to meet and an expensive and time-consuming public hearing process required.This amendment would allow greater flexibility in cottage orientation on lots abutting an unimproved and/or unopened right-of-way. Unopened: An unopened right-of-way is a public right-of-way that the City does not maintain for either pedestrian or vehicular use at this time. Though it could be opened and maintained by the City at some time in the future, often unopened rights-of-way are located in areas of steep topography or similar physical feature. As an unopened public right-of-way, abutting owners and the public may make use of the right-of-way area at their own risk. Unimproved:An unimproved right-of-way has been opened for pedestrian or vehicle travel but does not have pavement or any street infrastructure or improvements.An example would be a dirt road. Supplemental Commission Finding: The Commission found that staff's recommendation that the exemption include both unimproved and unopened rights-of-way was appropriate. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 21 of 24 ITEM 2 (P): LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v/Multiple Garage Openings LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks 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 offset 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. Item 2 (P): Many design standards regulate the appearance and location of garage openings for residential uses. When more than two garage openings are provided,the code requires the third (or more) garage opening to be stepped back at least two feet from the first garage plane. Several times applicants have proposed to project the third opening in front of the 2-car opening.The text of the current code is clear that all openings beyond the first two must be set back.This amendment would allow the third opening to project in front or be set back from the wall plane of the first two garage openings if adopted. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 22 of 24 ITEM 3 (P): LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2)/Athletic Fence Screening Requirements LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) b. Location and Height /// x. Exceptions from Height Limitations /// (2) An open (80% open)fence which is not located in the front yard (forward of the primary structure to the front lot line) and which encloses part or all of a tennis court, swimming pool, playing field, park, commercial recreational facility, public or semi-public utility structure, or courtyards or play areas for day care and educational institutions.The evergreen hedge screening requirement in LOC 50.06.004.2.b.iv does not apply to these fences; or /// ITEM 3 (P): (1)This amendment exempts fences around athletic fields, play areas and courtyards for day cares and schools from the screening requirement, which would otherwise prevent spectators from viewing events (i.e. tennis matches, baseball games) or teachers from ensuring student safety(day care and school play areas or courtyards). (2) Clarifies that"recreation facility" is now defined as a "commercial recreational facility." LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 23 of 24 ITEM 4 (P): LOC 50.08.002.2.e/Minor Variance to Fence Screening Standards or all Fence Standards LOC 50.08.002.2 Minor Variance Classifications 2. Minor Variance Classifications //// e.A variance to standards in LOC 50.06.004.2 for a maximum fence, wall, retaining wall, or a combination thereof, height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2. /// ITEM 4(P):The minor variance classifications [LOC 50.08.002.2.e] currently allow minor variances only to the maximum height of fences, retaining walls or combinations thereof. Currently, applicants must request a major variance to any other fence or wall standard, which is an expensive and time-consuming application process requiring a public hearing.This amendment broadens minor variance applicability to allow minor variances to any fence standard, such as screening requirements, as little or no impact on surrounding properties is expected from this type of variance request.The minor variance process does not require demonstration of hardship and the staff-level review of minor variances, unless appealed, are most appropriate to variances to fence/wall/retaining screening or appearance standards. LU 23-0036 (PC Public Hearing 02/12/24) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2938)/Page 24 of 24 EXHIBIT C-1 DRAFT: 03/05/2024 PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION. J -mowC CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2024 1 2 3 1. CALL TO ORDER 4 Vice Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A 5 Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. 6 7 2. ROLL CALL 8 Members present were Vice Chair Don Mitchell, and Commissioners Philip Stewart, Dave Schenone, 9 Miles Rigby, Rachel Naujock, and Jim Thwing. Chair Diana Moreno was absent. Council Liaison, Massene 10 Mboup was also present. 11 12 Staff present were Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Erik Olson, Long Range 13 Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Ellen Davis, Senior Planner; and Cristina Siquina 14 Calderon, Administrative Support. 15 16 3. COUNCIL UPDATE 17 Councilor Mboup provided a brief update on recent City Council activities (the partnership with EPCOR 18 was dissolved). 19 20 4. MINUTES 21 4.1 January 22, 2024 22 Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the Minutes of January 22, 2024, as written. Commissioner 23 Schenone seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:1. Commissioner Naujock abstained. 24 25 5. PUBLIC COMMENT- Regarding issues not on the agenda 26 None. 27 28 6. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 29 The following announcements were made: 30 • The Westridge Neighborhood Association general meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 31 15, 2024. 32 • The proposed Mary's Landing Neighborhood Association held a meeting on Saturday, February 33 10, 2024, to vote on submitting their application to the City for recognition by the City Council. 34 35 - Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY EXHIBIT C-1/Page 1of 6 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING 2 7.1 Community Development Code 2023 Annual Amendments- (LU 23-0036) 3 The Commission held a hearing to consider proposed text amendments to the Community Development 4 Code (CDC)which included Maintenance Amendments (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.04, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, 5 and 50.10), and Policy Amendments (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.06, and 50.08).Staff coordinator was Ellen 6 Davis, Senior Planner. 7 8 Vice Chair Mitchell opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and 9 procedures.At the time of declarations, Commissioner Naujock reported that she worked at Hacienda 10 Community Development, who would be submitting public testimony through her colleague Kevin 11 Chavez; however, she stated that she did not feel there would be any material financial benefit to her 12 company. 13 14 Staff Report 15 Ms. Davis detailed aspects of the following outline as part of their presentation of the staff report. 16 Overview 17 1. Project Schedule (in process) 18 • February 12, 2024: Planning Commission (Commission) Public Hearing 19 • February 26, 2024: Findings Adopted 20 • March 19, 2024: City Council Public Hearing 21 2. Brief Discussion of Comments Received 22 • Exhibit G-1: Proposed adding a property-specific Code Amendment to the West Lake Overlay 23 District(LOC 50.05.005). Staff relayed that a new state-wide notice would need to be sent 24 out if the Commission decided to address this request, and that they recommended creating 25 a Variance process for this Overlay District (as they did not currently have one in place). 26 • Exhibit G-2: Concerns expressed regarding Maintenance Item#16. 27 3. Maintenance Amendments 28 • #12 Options: Change deadline for written testimony for closed City Council appeal hearings 29 to noon, 2 business days before the hearing, or 1 business day before the hearing. Staff 30 recommended 2 business days, as written. 31 • #16 Options: Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes to share a common wall or floor, or to allow 32 up to a 2.99-foot separation (added since the last work session, with "detached" meaning 33 "separated by more than 3 feet, eve-to-eve, horizontally").The proposed definition would 34 further the legislative intent of having at least 25%shared walls/floors (staff's 35 recommendation); however, this could be counter-productive to alternative housing 36 strategies being researched. Ms. Numanoglu added that before the Middle Housing Code 37 was adopted,triplexes and quadplexes were considered multifamily, and the definition 38 showed today continues to match the existing definition of multifamily. 39 4. Policy Amendments 40 • #1 Options: Exempt cottages facing both unimproved and unopened Right-of-Way (ROW), or 41 choose to exempt only cottages facing unopened ROW or only those facing unimproved 42 ROW, from cottage cluster orientation standards that require the primary entrance of the 43 cottage face a public street.The current code required that any cottage not facing(the front 44 door)the courtyard but, was within 20 feet of a public ROW, within a cottage cluster, must 45 face that ROW. Staff recommended either adopting both unopened and unimproved, or at 46 least allowing unopened ROWs to be exempted from this standard. 47 48 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2024 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 6 1 Questions of Staff 2 Commissioner Schenone asked who owned the common courtyard of a cottage cluster. Ms. Davis 3 replied that it could be owned by individual lots within a middle housing land division (with an easement 4 over the courtyard) or it could be owned by a separate owner. Mr. Boone explained that there could be 5 an easement in favor of all of the cottage owners,which would have the use and enjoyment of and 6 obligation to maintain the common courtyard, or the courtyard could be set as a separate open-spaced 7 tract, with the same enjoyment and obligations to maintain. 8 9 Vice Chair Mitchell inquired whether the first option for Policy#1 would provide the greatest flexibility 10 for cottage cluster development. Ms. Davis affirmed,adding that prior discussion found it more likely 11 that unimproved ROWs could see future development over unopened ROWs. 12 13 Commissioner Naujock requested further clarification regarding the pros versus the cons of allowing 14 space between triplex and quadplexes. Ms. Davis shared that Oregon City specifically allows detached 15 units, with the idea that this may allow more flexibility to site new units on a property without affecting 16 any existing units. Mr. Olson noted that City Council's direction initially dealt with aesthetic concerns 17 (looking more like single family homes). 18 19 Public Testimony 20 Carole Ockert, on behalf of the Neighborhood Chairs Committee, Lake Oswego, 97034(appeared 21 remotely), shared a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit G-3), and expressed the committee's concerns 22 regarding limited ownership of a cottage cluster courtyard and multifamily structures not sharing 23 common walls. 24 25 Carole Ockert, on behalf of the First Addition Neighbors-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FH 26 NA), Lake Oswego, 97034 (appeared remotely), shared a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit G-4), and the 27 association's recommendations regarding the Code amendments. 28 29 Mr. Boone expounded on his earlier description of cottage cluster courtyard ownership by relaying that 30 the City did not require that a homeowner's association (HOA) be put in place to manage it, rather, 31 easement or covenant conditions would directly bind the property owner(meeting as they chose). 32 33 Kevin Chavez, Project Manager for Hacienda Community Development Corporation (HCDC), Portland, 34 97218, requested that the recommendations laid out in his submitted letter(Exhibit G-1) now be 35 considered during the Code Amendment process for FY 2025, as he understood their request was mis- 36 timed. 37 38 Commissioner Stewart requested confirmation that the shared parking in question was concerning the 39 property to the west. Mr. Chavez affirmed. 40 41 Ken Allen, Lake Oswego, 97034 (appeared remotely), stated that he was the developer for the project on 42 Stafford Road, and that they were contemplating middle housing for those properties. He relayed that 43 he was looking for maximum flexibility to achieve economic viability, especially concerning cottage 44 clusters. He indicated that he agreed that "attached" needed to be defined, and that the common wall 45 should be connected at 25% minimum and up to 50% maximum. 46 47 Vice Chair Mitchell closed the public hearing. 48 49 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2024 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 6 1 Questions of Staff(Continued) 2 Vice Chair Mitchell asked if the common courtyard ownership issue, raised that evening, was part of the 3 packet provided to the Commission. Ms. Davis replied that it was not. Ms. Numanoglu informed members 4 that if they wished to consider that item, staff would need to re-notice the public. 5 6 Deliberations 7 Ms. Davis reviewed the options under consideration. Mr. Boone outlined the next steps to be taken during 8 deliberations. Ms. Numanoglu requested that members decide whether to consider the additional public 9 requests brought forward this evening. Commissioners Schenone and Stewart both indicated that they 10 would like to see the courtyard ownership issue addressed in the near time rather than a year from now. 11 Mr. Olson reminded members that there were very prescriptive common courtyard requirements within 12 the cottage cluster regulations (adopted by the State of Oregon under Division 46), and that easements 13 are required in order to address any concerns regarding common ownership. Mr. Boone noted that the 14 owners of the abutting courtyard properties would own the underlying land; however, there would be an 15 undivided, non-exclusive easement of use, benefit, and obligation. He then acknowledged that property 16 lines can make a difference regarding the perceptions of ownership and common access, but on paper,the 17 easement would require that common access be maintained, whether the courtyard was owned 18 individually or jointly. Ms. Davis relayed that cottage clusters were not required to go through a middle 19 housing land division, rather,they could be located on a singular lot that was not divided for ownership 20 purposes. 21 22 A straw poll had the majority of members (Vice Chair Mitchell, Commissioners Stewart, and Thwing) 23 agreeing to consider the cottage cluster ownership issue at a later date,two being undecided 24 (Commissioners Naujock and Rigby), and Commissioner Schenone voting to continue this hearing to 25 receive more information (per his comments in the preceding paragraph). 26 27 Vice Chair Mitchell reopened the public hearing to hear again from Ken Allen and Carole Ockert. 28 29 Public Testimony(Reopened) 30 Ken Allen, Lake Oswego, 97034 (appeared remotely), asked what the timing would be if the hearing were 31 re-noticed, and what might the ramification be if addressed later(unintentional consequences when 32 dealing with this unknown issue for the cottage clusters). Ms. Davis replied that re-noticing would require 33 approximately 40 days. 34 35 Mr. Olson acknowledged that people may have certain assumptions regarding who has access to a 36 common courtyard based on the configuration of lot lines, regardless of easements. However, Mr. Olson 37 went on to point out that, as of the time of the meeting, Lake Oswego had yet to see a single cottage 38 cluster development constructed, and that requiring common ownership of shared courtyards could 39 present another barrier to allowing for the individual purchase and ownership of cottage cluster units . 40 41 Carole Ockert, on behalf of the Neighborhood Chairs Committee, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (appeared 42 remotely), stated that she took working within a process very seriously, and that she first raised the issue 43 of the common courtyard concern in an email to staff on September 11, 2023 (with follow ups in October, 44 December, and January). She asked for members to understand how genuine they had been in their 45 efforts and how much time had elapsed since their first contact with staff. Vice Chair Mitchell re-closed the 46 public hearing. 47 48 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2024 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 6 1 Deliberations(Continued) 2 Members had no comments on the remaining items without options, and they agreed to consider the 3 request made by the HCDC as part of a variance request, if received (per Ms. Numanoglu's 4 recommendation). Commissioner Naujock further explained the thought process behind the HCDC's 5 request. 6 7 Straw Poll results for the items with options: 8 • Maintenance#12: 9 o 2-day cut-off-Vice Chair Mitchell and Commissioners Naujock, Stewart, and Thwing 10 o 1-day cut-off-Commissioner Rigby(wished to provide the public with as much time to submit 11 evidence as possible) 12 o Undecided -Commissioner Schenone. 13 • Maintenance#16: 14 o 25%common wall -Commissioners Rigby, Stewart, Naujock, Schenone 15 o Detachment permitted -Vice Chair Mitchell (setting the code with as much flexibility for 16 construction options as possible) and Commissioner Thwing. 17 • Policy#1: 18 o Unopened only-Commissioner Rigby (unimproved ROWs have more potential for future 19 improvement versus unopened ROWs) 20 o Unimproved & unopened -Vice Chair Mitchell and Commissioners Thwing and Naujock 21 o Poll vote not voiced -Commissioners Stewart and Schenone. 22 23 Commissioner Rigby indicated that he did not want to move forward with Policy item #2 because the 24 existing restriction would continue to minimize the effect on the street (by keeping the garage set-back an 25 additional 2 feet) and was cohesive with the purpose of the regulation. Commissioner Stewart countered 26 that bringing the garage forward 2 feet would not make that much of a difference, and the full setback line 27 could still not be crossed. 28 29 Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the Maintenance and Policy Item amendments as written, with 30 special note for Maintenance Item 12 (2 business days), Maintenance Item 16 (common wall for at least 31 25% of the structure), and Policy Item 1 (street can be an unimproved or unopened ROW). 32 33 The motion passed 5:1. Commissioner Rigby voted no. 34 35 Mr. Boone instructed staff to return with the written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, 36 February 26, 2024. 37 38 8. OTHER BUSINESS 39 None. 40 41 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW 42 Mr. Olson reviewed the schedule. 43 44 Action Items: 45 • February 26: 46 o Review Goals for 2024 47 o Consider a request from Mary's Landing Neighborhood Association for a 48 recommendation to the City Council for being a recognized neighborhood association. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2024 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 5 of 6 1 • March 26: 2 o Finalize 2024 Goals. 3 o Receive an update from the Engineering Department on recommendations for proposed 4 amendments to the Stormwater Code. 5 • April 2: 6 o Joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Housing Production strategies. 7 8 10. ADJOURNMENT 9 There being no further business, Vice Chair Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2024 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT D-1 pti�A E PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES V j O STAFF REPORT OREGO� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 23-0036, Ordinance 2938 LOCATION STAFF Citywide Ellen Davis, AICP, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE February 1, 2024 February 12, 2024 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of clarifying and updating various sections. The draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: Maintenance Amendments (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.04, 50.05, 50.06, 50.07, and 50.10) ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Remove references to parking allowances for cottage clusters of LOC 50.03.003.1.d.vi(1) more than 16 cottages because the maximum number of cottages allowed in the code is eight. 2. Remove C Avenue from the special street setback table because LOC 50.04.002.5 this right-of-way width already meets the 60-foot width Table 50.04.002-1 established in the table. 3. Clarify the methodology for determining the front property line LOC 50.04.003.6.c for flag lots created prior to adoption of code regulating flag lots or outside of City limits. 4. Clarify that the 75% impervious surface limit for cottage clusters LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii(4); supersedes certain zone and overly district standards that also LOC 50.04.001.2.f.iii; LOC regulate impervious surfaces. 50.05.001.4; LOC 50.05.003.5; LOC Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 11 50.05.012.6 5. Update text limiting certain surfaces within the Uplands Overlay LOC 50.05.012.6 district to include hardscape surfaces and roof areas rather than "impervious" surfaces, to be consistent with legislative history and current practice. 6. Clarify that invasive tree removal is permitted within sensitive LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(b) lands and that mitigation is required for such removal. 7. Clarify that interior side yard setback planes are measured from LOC 50.06.002.2.e the property line, not the setback line. 8. Clarify that townhouse minimum street frontage is 15 feet, LOC 50.06.003.1.c.i consistent with the 15-foot lot width required for townhouses, Table 50.06.003-1 and replace the term "rowhouse" with "townhouse" for consistency. 9. Update the retaining wall height exception that currently applies LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(4) only to walls supporting driveway or parking areas for single- family residences to include middle housing and access lanes. 10. Exempt lots created through Middle Housing Land Divisions LOC 50.06.007.1.b (MHLD) from the solar access standard. MHLD lot creation is solely for ownership purposes, not zoning or building design standards. Partitions are already exempt from this standard. 11. Update practices for notice of appeal hearings to allow staff to LOC 50.07.003.7.g.i email commenters who submitted electronic comments and did not provide a mailing address. 12. Update the deadline for submittal of written testimony for LOC 50.07.003.7.k(ii) closed record appeals to City Council to review for new materials and distribution to members of the hearing body. 13. Clarify that screening fences must be sight-obscuring, and LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii exempt property lines within flood management areas and along Oswego Lake or Canal from the fence installation requirement. 14. Prohibit the installation of new invasive species plantings to LOC 50.07.007.2.f.v comply with flag lot landscaping requirements. 15. Clarify that construction or placement of an accessory structure LOC 50.10.003.2 is considered a minor alteration for Historic Preservation purposes. 16. Clarify that Duplexes, Triplexes, and Quadplexes must share LOC 50.10.003.2 common wall(s) or floor(s); or leave current code language in place that allows separation between units of less than three feet.' 1 Maintenance Item#16 is new,added after the second work session held on December 11,2023.See pages 19-20 of Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1 for details. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 11 CODE POLICY ITEMS& DISCUSSION (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.06 and 50.08) Discussion of policy items 1-4 follows table. ITEM TITLE CODE SECTION(S) 1. Establish cottage orientation for cottage cluster sites that abut LOC 50.03.003.1.d.iii(3) an unimproved or unopened street right-of-way. 2. Determine whether to allow a third (or more) garage opening to LOC 50.06.001.4.a.v be offset two feet from the previous garage plane rather than requiring the two feet to be stepped back specifically. 3. Exempt open fences around athletic facilities such as tennis and LOC 50.06.004.2.b.x(2) basketball courts, baseball backstops, etc. from the evergreen hedge screening requirement. 4. Determine whether to allow minor variance applications to all LOC 50.08.002.2.e fence standards. Increases in fence/wall/retaining wall height are already considered minor variances. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2, C-1, C-3 and D-1 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 3 and 8 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Policies A-4, B-1, and C-7 Economic Vitality Policy B-1 (b, c, and d) Community Health and Public Safety Sound Quality- Policy 1 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined 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 III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of the proposed code amendments is twofold: 1) to correct errors, eliminate text redundancy, and clarify text; and 2) to implement minor policy changes intended to Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 3 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 11 streamline the permit process and implement City Council goals and priorities, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This process is part of the City's ongoing effort to make the regulations less burdensome on residents and businesses while maintaining community standards. Proposed Ordinance 2938 consists of 16 maintenance amendments and four policy amendments. The text boxes in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1 describe the reason for each amendment, and include commentary on its background and discussion points. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On January 31, 2024, public notice of the proposed Community Development Code (CDC) text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice None of the proposed amendments constitute a "rezone"; therefore, the individual noticing measures of ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) are not required. C. DLCD and Metro Notices Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and LOC 50.03.007.16.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. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal: Land Use Planning— Development (Community Development Code), Development Review, Design Standards and Guidelines, and Land Use Administration Policies A-1, A-2, C-1, C-3, and D-1 Development (Community Development Code) Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: /// Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 11 b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; /// g. Promote architectural and site design quality. Findings: Staff finds that all of the proposed amendments are necessary to streamline the Code for consistency and efficiency. None of the amendments will negatively impact the Code's ongoing ability to ensure compatible redevelopment, preservation of neighborhood character, and quality of architectural or site design. 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: Staff finds that many of the amendments are specifically tailored to allow flexibility, and provide clarity for developers, neighbors, and City staff. Maintenance Items#3 -4, 6 - 10, and 13, and Policy Items#1 -4 clarify code terms, measurement methodologies, and zone and development regulations applicable to residential, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use structures, thereby reducing confusion and removing potential development barriers. These amendments, along with all of the others, will not change how the existing Code preserves open space and natural resources, and avoids negative impacts of development on surrounding properties. 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; and, d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment. Findings: Staff finds that many of the amendments are specifically tailored to enhance the built environment and landscaping and that none of the proposed amendments impact the ab365 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 many of the proposed Maintenance and Policy Items provide greater clarity to the residential, commercial, mixed use, and institutional design standards to help ensure new development enhances the community aesthetics. Maintenance Items#3, 5 - 7, 13 - 16, and Policy Items#1—4 clarify, refine, and Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 5 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 11 improve existing regulations designed to enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Land Use Administration Policy D-1: Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro, federal agency, and special districts. Findings: Staff has provided the required notification to State and Metro jurisdictions consistent with this policy. Federal agencies and special districts do not similarly exercise regulatory jurisdiction within the scope of the proposed amendments and thus no coordination is required. Conclusion: Proposed amendments are consistent with Land Use Planning policies. Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 3, and 8 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: Staff finds some of the proposed maintenance and policy amendments help refine the existing Code's design regulations and standards listed under this policy as follows: • Maintenance Item #3 provides greater consistency on structure locations for flag lots created outside of current flag lot code, allowing development to better complement the pattern of development within the City. • Maintenance Item #4 clarifies the regulations applicable to cottage cluster development, aiding design of this development type. • Maintenance Item #5 simplifies and makes clear the legislative history and current practice for regulating residential development within the Uplands Overlay district. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 6 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 11 • Maintenance Item #7 clarifies side yard setback plane methodology for residential development, aiding the development community in creating designs and maintaining compatible design with abutting properties. • Maintenance Item #13 codifies existing interpretation that screening fences along the side and rear property lines of flag lots must be sight-obscuring, screening the yards of flag lots from the view of abutting properties. • Maintenance Item #15 clarifies that construction or placement of an accessory structure near a historic resource requires review as a minor alteration, ensuring that the historic resource's integrity is retained. • Policy Item #2 allows greater design flexibility for residential garages while still maintaining design regulations to decrease the perceived massing of garage openings. With these amendments, the Code will continue to promote quality residential and non-residential aesthetics within the built environment. Policy 2:Adopt and maintain design standards and provide incentives that encourage exceptional or high-quality design. Findings: Maintenance Items #3—5, 7, 13, 15, 16, and Policy Items #1, 2, and 4 clarify or improve existing design standards. All other proposed amendments either maintain or do not impact adopted zone, development, and design standards that ensure exceptional design. Policy 3: Establish standards for new development to preserve and enhance the natural environment, and to integrate natural features and functions. Findings: Maintenance Item #6 clarifies that invasive tree removal is permitted within sensitive lands areas and Maintenance Item #14 prohibits the installation of new invasive plant materials in required landscaping for flag lots. Prohibiting new invasive plantings and encouraging removal of invasive species preserves and enhances the natural environment by improving habitat for plants and wildlife. 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: Adopted standards that ensure quality design and preservation of residential character are being maintained in the Code, with some proposed modification to ensure greater clarity (per practice) and consistency. Maintenance Items #2-5, 7-9, 13, and 16 and Policy Items#1 and 2 clarify regulations that apply to the design of residential structures, preserve the streetscape, and protect the village Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 7 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 11 aesthetic. Maintenance Item #15 clarifies that placement or construction of an accessory structure in conjunction with a historic resource requires review as a minor alteration in order to preserve the character of the historic resource. 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: Existing Code regulations include standards that ensure enhancement and preservation of the City's unique neighborhoods and commercial districts. None of the proposed amendments negatively impact the unique character of the City or impede local economic growth. Maintenance items are consistent with existing practice and interpretation for greater readability and public understanding. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with the Inspiring Spaces and Places policies. Complete Neighborhoods and Housing—Housing Location and Quality, Housing Choice and Affordability, and Complete Neighborhoods Policies A-4, B-1, and C-7 Housing Location and Quality: 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: Existing Code regulations include standards that mitigate adverse impacts from new development on surrounding uses with regards to noise, traffic, privacy, and visual aesthetics. Proposed amendments ensure greater clarity and consistency with implementation of those standards. 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. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 8 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 11 Findings: Existing Code regulations include standards that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types. Proposed amendments ensure greater clarity and consistency with implementation of those standards. • Maintenance Item #1 removes confusion related to the maximum number of cottages allowed within a cottage cluster. • Maintenance Item #3 promotes compatibility with existing patterns of development for flag lots created outside current regulations. • Maintenance Item #4 clarifies that only the use-specific impervious surface limitations for cottage clusters apply, pursuant to state law. • Maintenance Item #7 removes an error from the description of the side yards setback plane methodology, making this regulation easier to use for the residential design community. • Maintenance Item #8 streamlines regulations that apply to the creation of a new townhouse lot. • Maintenance#10 allows middle housing land divisions of more than three lots, which are currently precluded in most situations by solar access requirements that apply to new subdivisions. • Maintenance Item #16 requires that duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes share common walls or floors to be consistent with the legislative intent that these units be fully attached and to not allow separated units. • Policy Item #1 allows more logical cottage orientation for cottage cluster sites that abut an unimproved or unopened right-of-way. • Policy Item #2 increases design flexibility for residential garages. Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Findings: Existing Code includes both zone dimensional and structure design standards that ensure compatible infill development. Maintenance Items#1, 3 - 5, 7- 9, 13 - 16, and Policy Item #1 clarify or correct those code terms, measurement and implementation methodologies, applicability, and zone and development regulations for primary and accessory residential infill development. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies. Economic Vitality—Employment Zones Policy B-1 (b, c, and d) Policy B-1: Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in employment zones while: /// Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 9 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 11 b. Addressing impacts such as noise, traffic, and visual aesthetics, on adjacent land uses through site and building design; c. Complying with design and aesthetic standards to promote compatibility with Lake Oswego's community character; d. Preserving natural resources and providing required open space; Findings: Policy Item #4 allows fence/wall/retaining wall standards to be varied through a minor variance process, rather than the current major variance process. This reduces cost and time for new development proposals, particularly for nonresidential projects with very prescriptive screening requirements for fences and walls with very few exceptions. The minor variance process still requires public notice, review for impacts on abutting properties and the streetscape, and allows for a public hearing if the staff decision is appealed, but this process removes the high cost, difficult (or impossible, in many instances based upon the circumstances of the site) criteria to meet, and the required public hearing for a major variance to fence/wall/retaining wall standards. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with Economic Vitality policies. Community Health and Public Safety Sound Quality- Policy 1 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. Findings: The proposed amendments either do not impact or maintain regulations that preserve residential neighborhood character. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with this Community Health and Public Safety policy. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 10 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 11 VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2938, draft 01/19/24 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments w/Commentary, draft 01/31/24 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 F-1 Legislative History for Maintenance Item 16 with Highlights 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 webpage for LU 23-0036: https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-projects Under "Search" enter LU 23-0036, then press "Enter. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 11 of 11 LU 23-0036 02/12/24 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 11 EXHIBIT F-1 F °� COUNCIL REPORT � o OREGO\-\ Subject: Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (House Bill 2001) Meeting Date: November 16, 2021 Staff Member: Erik Olson, Senior Planner (Joint Meeting with Planning Commission) Department: Planning and Building Services Report Date: November 4, 2021 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: n/a Recommended Language for Motion: n/a Project/ Issue Relates To: Council Initiative to "Adopt codes that comply with HB 2001 that are consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." ' Issue before Council: Provide direction on the next stage of the City's process to adopt code that complies with HB 2001 and is consistent with the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. ❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL Provide direction to staff on the next stage of the City's process to adopt code that complies with the minimum requirements for middle housing set forth in House Bill 2001 (HB 2001). 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 1 OF 25 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consistent with the City 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 appointed an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC, or the "Committee") to provide high-level policy guidance on key issues related to middle housing implementation required under HB 2001. Now that the Committee process has concluded, staff and consultants with Cascadia partners are proceeding with the second and final phase of work to comply with the bill through further code development, code refinement, and the public review and adoption of code changes. HB 2001 requires that we adopt compliant regulations not later than June 30, 2022, or the State Model Code for Middle Housing would apply directly to the City. Staff is seeking Council feedback on code concepts recommended by the Committee, as well as direction on two process-related questions: 1. Whether to pursue code concepts recommended by the Committee that are not required by the state for compliance with HB 2001. Refinement and testing of some of those concepts would be necessary, which could make it difficult to complete the State- required code updates prior to the June 2022 deadline, as discussed in this report. 2. Whether the recently adopted state legislation requiring cities to permit land divisions to facilitate middle housing ownership opportunities (Senate Bill 458)could complicate the City's work, and require more time to implement non-mandated concepts such as the allowance of detached forms of middle housing. Staff recommends that the City adopt code amendments that are required to comply with SB 458 concurrently with the code amendments required for compliance with HB 2001, but the Council should consider whether to pursue non-mandated code amendments under HB 2001, such as the allowance of detached middle housing, in light of SB 458 requirements. BACKGROUND On December 9, 2020, the State of Oregon formally adopted rules intended to implement HB 2001, which provide the roadmap for local governments' compliance with the middle housing requirements in the bill. Shortly thereafter, staff and consultants with Cascadia Partners initiated the City's first phase of work to adopt code amendments compliant with the bill. This process began with a number of opportunities for public engagement in January and February of this year, including a kickoff meeting, several interviews with neighborhood association representatives, and a survey that received over 880 responses from Lake Oswego residents. The Planning Commission also hosted several presentations during this time in order to learn directly from professionals who were involved in the development of HB 2001 or have specific expertise related to middle housing. At a joint meeting held on May 18, 2021, the Council and the Planning Commission received a presentation outlining initial findings and the work products completed during phase one: a Neighborhood Character Report with a qualitative analysis of the development patterns, character and architectural history of Lake Oswego neighborhoods; a Neighborhood Conditions 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 2 OF 25 Page 3 Analysis with an analysis of existing neighborhood conditions in Lake Oswego; a Plan and Code Audit Memo that identifies Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (CDC) sections that should be updated for compliance with HB 2001; and a Middle Housing Opportunities Report containing recommended concepts and alternatives for amending the Comprehensive Plan and CDC for middle housing to be compliant with HB 2001. These reports and other background documents are available on the project web page referenced at the end of this Council Report. 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. At their meeting on June 15, 2021, the Council formally appointed the Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC, or the "Committee") to provide high-level policy guidance to the Planning Commission for the development of draft code amendments to comply with HB 2001. See also, Committee Process and Recommendations, below. At a joint study session scheduled for November 16, 2021, the Council and Planning Commission will receive a brief presentation from staff, MHCAC Chair Randy Arthur, and MHCAC Co-Chair Lisa Strader. This presentation will cover the Committee's process and recommendations, recently-passed state legislation that requires cities to permit land divisions to facilitate middle housing ownership opportunities (Senate Bill 458), and a proposed timeline and work plan for completing the project, including adopting code amendments. This presentation will be followed by Planning Commission work sessions on December 13, 2021, and January 10, 2022, focused on the drafting of code amendments that comply with HB 2001 based on Council direction. DISCUSSION The following summarizes the MHCAC process and recommendations, code concepts recommended by the Committee that are not required by the state, recent legislation requiring cities to allow expedited land divisions to facilitate middle housing ownership opportunities (Senate Bill 458), and a proposed process for adopting code amendments that comply with HB 2001 by the June 2022 deadline. Committee Process and Recommendations The Committee was comprised of a balanced membership of 13 voting members representing a diverse set of interests, as follows: • Randy Arthur: Chair, Development Review Commission representative • Lisa Strader: Co-Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee representative • Rachel Verdick: City Council representative (non-voting member) • Helen Leek: Planning Commission representative (non-voting member) • Cynthia Johnson: 50+Advisory Board representative • Larry Snyder: Historic Resources Advisory Board representative • Stephanie Glazer: Sustainability Advisory Board representative 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 3 OF 25 Page 4 • Carole Ockert: Neighborhood Chairs Committee of Lake Oswego representative (1 of 2) • Robert Ervin: Neighborhood Chairs Committee of Lake Oswego representative (2 of 2) • Ross Masters: Building Industry Advocate, Crosswater Development • Samuel Goldberg: Affordable Housing Advocate, Fair Housing Council of Oregon • Ralph Tahran: Architect, Tahran Architecture & Planning, LLC • Tam Hixson: Realtor or Real Estate Finance Professional, Windermere Realty • Todd Prager: At-large member (1 of 2),Todd Prager & Associates, LLC • Alexandra Byers: At-large member (2 of 2), Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Advisory Board The Committee adopted bylaws that established the roles and responsibilities of Committee members and staff, including a provision that, "a vote by two-thirds of the members present and eligible to vote will be required to decide any question."The Committee 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, Committee 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 storm water impacts of middle housing 4. Affordability and accessibility of middle housing Committee 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 Committee's discussion on each question /code concept. Staff has also maintained a record of substantive email communications between MHCAC members and/or staff, as well as comments from members of the public to the MHCAC. For a summary of the key issues and discussion of MHCAC recommendations, see Attachment 1. Code Concepts Not Required for Compliance The Committee discussed a number of code concepts for middle housing that address the Council's initiative to pursue code amendments that maintain consistency with, "the community's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability." Many of these code concepts involve modifications to the City's existing siting and design standards for single-family 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 4 OF 25 Page 5 housing to better address middle housing and its anticipated impacts. Pursuant to Council direction, staff plans to incorporate many of these siting and design concepts into the code amendments that will be considered for adoption prior to the June 30, 2022 deadline. However, a number of the code concepts that were intended to address the Council's direction to maintain neighborhood character and livability would have wider applicability, and amendments to incorporate these broader concepts would not necessarily need to be adopted concurrently with other code amendments required by June 2022. For example, though the state does not specifically require that cities allow for the development of detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in order to comply with HB 2001, the Committee recommended code amendments that would permit such detached "plexes" in Lake Oswego. Code concepts recommended by the Committee that are not technically required under HB 2001 include the following: • Recommendation 1.a: Revise the definition of"demolition" to include remodels that remove more than 50%of the exterior walls of the house. • Recommendation 1.b: Define duplexes, triplexes, and quad-plexes to include detached units, in addition to attached units. o Recommendation 2.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 but could also be in common areas between buildings on the same lot. Do not specify minimum size or location of open space. o Recommendation 2.i:Allow smaller front or rear yard setbacks of 10-15 feet (compared to 25 ft/30 ft front/rear) for detached duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as is allowed for cottage cluster housing. • Recommendation 3.a: Limit the development of impervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of increased density. Currently impervious surface limits apply in only two neighborhood overlays: Glenmorrie, Lake Grove, and Uplands. • Recommendation 4.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. Currently, financial incentives apply to accessory dwelling units and multifamily affordable housing projects of 20 or more units. o Recommendation 4.a.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. o Recommendation 4.a.ii: Provide property tax exemptions for middle housing developments that provide a minimum percentage of income-restricted affordable units or meet certain accessibility standards. See Attachment 1 for a more in-depth discussion of code concepts listed above. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 5 OF 25 Page 6 Senate Bill 458 In May of 2021, the Oregon legislature adopted Senate Bill 458 (or "SB 458") as a follow-up to HB 2001 in order to facilitate lot divisions for middle housing that enable units to be sold or owned individually (see Attachment 2). As stated in Attachment 3, "For any city or county subject to the requirements of House Bill 2001, Senate Bill 458 requires those jurisdictions to allow middle housing lot divisions for any HB 2001 middle housing type (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters)" built pursuant to the state's minimum requirements for middle housing (ORS 197.758). SB 458 only applies to land divisions permitted on or after June 30, 2022, which is the same date as the state's deadline for compliance with HB 2001. The bill requires that cities process middle housing land division applications using an "expedited land division" procedure, as long as the application includes a plan that: • Complies with applicable middle housing land use regulations and the Oregon Residential Specialty Code; • Provides separate utilities for each dwelling unit; • Provides "Easements necessary for utilities, pedestrian access, common use areas or shared building elements, dedicated driveways/parking, and dedicated common area"; and • Results in no more than one dwelling unit per each resulting lot or parcel. The bill is intended to facilitate land divisions for middle housing where the original or "parent" lot complies with applicable middle housing requirements, in order to make dwelling units in middle housing developments available for individual ownership. This is primarily intended to address the difficulty of making middle housing units available for ownership currently, given that ownership models such as condominiums typically have additional costs associated with insurance and maintenance, including homeowners associations, as compared to dwellings on individual lots. Unlike other partition or subdivision processes contained within the City's code currently, land divisions to facilitate middle housing would not always accompany an increase in the density permitted on a given lot or parcel. Because HB 2001 requires that cities allow an increased number of dwelling units on parcels that meet minimum lot requirements regardless, land division applications are not necessary to develop middle housing with up to four units on parcels currently zoned for single-family residential use. As outlined in Attachment 3, cities will, "retain the ability to require or condition certain things, including further division limitations, street frontage improvements, and right-of-way dedication if the original parcel did not make such dedications." However, cities are not allowed to apply approval criteria beyond those provided in SB 458 (Attachment 2); this means that the City could not require additional driveways, vehicle access, parking, minimum or maximum street frontage, or other requirements inconsistent with HB 2001. Staff notes that, while SB 458 does limit the ability for cities to condition or require such elements, compliance with all 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 6 OF 25 Page 7 applicable middle housing regulations—including those related to vehicular access, parking, frontage width, etc.—would still need to be demonstrated on the "parent" lot prior to a middle housing land division. Updated Phase 2 Work Plan Staff has drafted an updated work plan for the final stages of the City's work to comply with HB 2001 (Attachment 4) outlining next steps to develop the MHCAC's recommendations into code language for Planning Commission review and eventual adoption by City Council. Multiple Planning Commission work sessions are proposed in order to prepare draft code amendments, as well as another "check-in" with the City Council prior to draft code amendments going to a public hearing. These meetings will provide the Council with several opportunities to refine policy direction relevant to the implementation of middle housing, and will allow the Planning Commission to receive more updated guidance from City Council prior to staff finalizing the proposed code amendments for a public hearing. The work plan also includes opportunities for public engagement, including two "community forum" events and ongoing opportunities for neighborhood associations to request meetings with City staff to answer questions or present to their members. The first of these community forums is tentatively scheduled to be held virtually on December 9, 2021 at 6:30 PM. An online tool is being developed for the public to provide input on middle housing code concepts if they are unable to attend or want to provide input following the event. RECOMMENDATIONS With respect to the question of how to prioritize code concepts not required by the state for compliance with HB 2001, staff recommends that the City conduct economic feasibility testing to further explore MHCAC Recommendation 3.a, "Limit the development of impervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of increased density." This will allow the Planning Commission to make a more fully-considered and informed decision regarding whether to apply impervious surface limitations in all single-family residential zones, while allowing for further exploration of concerns identified by the Committee that such regulations could make middle housing development less feasible. Staff recommends that other code concepts not required to be adopted by the state-mandated deadline of June 30, 2022 be explored at a later date in order to more fully assess their potential impacts. Recommendations related to affordability and accessibility of middle housing would be most appropriate to consider when the City updates its Housing Needs Analysis and develops housing production strategies pursuant to House Bill 2003; staff anticipates that the City will begin to conduct this work in mid-2022. Due to workload-related concerns, staff recommends considering code concepts that would modify the definition of"demolition"to be more inclusive of significant structural removal (1.a) at a later date, due to the potential impact on the City's demolition tax, and the effect these changes could have on development of other types of housing. Staff also recommends considering code changes that would permit the construction of detached "plexes" (1.b, 2.h. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 7 OF 25 Page 8 2.i) at a later date, after HB 2001-compliant code amendments have been adopted by the City. This would help ensure that the City meets the State-mandated deadline for HB 2001 compliance and provide more time for the additional research and analysis required by DLCD to demonstrate that these concepts do not result in "unreasonable cost or delay" to the development of middle housing, as both concepts would only be permitted through DLCD's "alternative track" process. Finally, staff recommends adopting code amendments that comply with the middle housing land division requirements of SB 458 concurrently with other code amendments required under HB 2001. Guidance provided by DLCD indicates that, if a City were not to incorporate middle housing lot division standards into their development code by the June 30, 2022 deadline, the City would instead be required to directly apply the bill's language in order to process SB 458 middle housing land division applications. Staff suggests that amending the City code to incorporate SB 458 land divisions would be a more straightforward and less administratively-cumbersome way to comply with the bill. ATTACHMENTS 1. MHCAC Key Issues Summary Memo, 11/02/2021 2. Enrolled Senate Bill 458, 5/17/2021 3. DLCD Senate Bill 458 Guidance, 7/8/2021 4. Revised Phase Two Project Timeline, 11/2/2021 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES Use the link below to visit the City's HB 2001 "Project" webpage, which contains links to background materials and references mentioned above. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/house-bills-2001-and-2003 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 8 OF 25 C s CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING + � MINUTES November 16, 2021 o� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. on November 16, 2021. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, Rapf and Mboup Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Jason Loos, City Attorney; Erik Olson, Senior Planner; Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public Works Director; Shawn Cross, Finance Director; Scot Siegel, Economic Development Director; Kari Linder, City Recorder Others Present: Senator Rob Wagner; Garet Prior, Toll Policy Manger with ODOT; Lucinda Brussard, Toll Program Director with ODOT; Adela Mu, ODOT; Robert Heape, Planning Commission Chair; Randy Arthur, Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Chair; Lisa Strader, Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Vice-Chair; Cynthia Johnson, Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee Member 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT • Elise Monroe Ms. Monroe expressed concern about the possibility that the Lake Oswego Pickleball Club's management would be taken over by Vancouver. She appreciated the dedicated volunteers who managed the courts and did not want that to change. City Manager Bennett stated she would determine whether the information was accurate and would report back. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 9 OF 25 4.1 PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP No prior public comment follow-up was provided. 5. PRESENTATION 5.1 Senator Rob Wagner Legislative Update Senator Wagner spoke to his personal ties and his family's ties to Lake Oswego and the region. He provided an update to the last legislative session and a preview on a couple of bills for the short session, noting more than 4,000 bills had been introduced, and a budget of more than $100 billion was balanced. He identified seven focus areas: Investments to assist communities with the pandemic, wildfire prevention and other necessities; investments in early childhood education; long-term care and behavioral health initiatives, including the Hope Amendment; environmental protection putting Oregon on the path to 100 percent clean energy 2040; providing access to democracy and voting; criminal justice reform and police accountability; equity and encouraging conversations about racism; local investments with ARPA American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to include the pathway from Hillsdale to Lake Oswego and resources for Habitat for Humanity. In the 2022 legislative session were two bills, one to include ethnicity information on personal tax returns to show any disproportional impacts; and working toward legislation to make sure everyone felt safe and welcome on campus. Mayor Buck expressed his appreciation for the Senator's and the Senator's staff's availability to help and for the assistance on the Habitat for Humanity project. He noted Oregon has one of the highest rates of addiction in the country and the lowest access to treatment and asked what could be expected as a tangible benefit to those suffering from and impacted by addiction. Senator Wagner replied that because strategic investments had not been made to addiction recovery, a long way remained to catch up. Measure 110 accountability measures were necessary to make sure those receiving citations from the police were getting connected to the resources they needed. The largest investment ever was passed for behavioral health and included a huge tranche of resources for addiction recovery. He would follow up with Council about what was being done to surge the workforce to provide training to those who could provide mental health services and other aspects of the rollout. Councilor Manz stated her daughter recently became the Assistant Director at Loyola Marymount for LMU Cares where students could report sexual assault, addiction, or anything that impacted the student body. She had noted it was often women who took the lead on such issues and it was heartening to see the Senator taking a position. Senator Wagner confirmed that problems often start at a very early age and recovery and prevention were needed before trauma happened. Councilor Rapf drew attention to the incredibly polarized world and the responsibility of elected officials to try to bring people together. He encouraged the Senator to continue to do so and to work across the aisle. The members of Council were very different politically but got along well and that allowed them to accomplish great work. Senator Wagner agreed that Council had done well as a model for the community, and he understood the necessity of disengaging from creating headlines on social media in particular. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 10 OF 25 Councilor Wendland spoke to the issues people have shared with him about the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), though that was not local officials' area of responsibility. Lake Oswego tried to promote a customer first attitude to serve its citizens in the best way possible. During a recent visit to Arizona, he noted the state was moving ahead with services while having the same issues to deal with as Oregon, and he hoped Oregon could do the same. Essential services needed to be provided in order for government officials to retain their credibility. Senator Wagner responded it was important to understand the role each official played. Bipartisan support had been achieved for mandated civics courses. He acknowledged the difficult work done by workers on the front lines like those at the DMV. He appreciated the feedback and would take it back to his staff. 6. STUDY SESSIONS 6.1 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Tolling Project Update Lucinda Brussard, Toll Program Director, ODOT, spoke to the history leading up to the proposed tolling, noting the problems with traffic choke points on 1-205 and I-5. People were spending many hours stuck in traffic and congestion pricing was under consideration to alleviate the problem. Additionally, the percentage of freight moving on the region's highways was very high and was subject to bottlenecks. Other issues included reconciling or mitigating diversion due to tolling. Tolling was being considered on all lanes in both directions on 1-5 near the Interstate Bridge down to the Boone Bridge, and from 1-205 where it met 1-5 up to the Glen Jackson Bridge. The ultimate goal of tolling was to manage congestion and generate revenue to provide funds for maintenance. Tolls would pay for core projects and the 1-205 improvements would not happen without tolls. Tolling would allow for modernization and multimodal transit options. The toll rate would not be known until closer to implementation. Under consideration also was an income- based rate. Congestion pricing would be variable and higher during peak hours. The tolls would be collected electronically through a transponder placed in a vehicle's windshield and no need would exist for traffic to slow or stop to pay a toll. If a vehicle did not have a transponder or an account, a picture would be taken of the license plate. The 1-205 project would start at the end of 2024. Public input was being received and presentations were being given to the community about tolling. Garet Prior, Toll Policy Manager, ODOT, spoke to the equity considerations regarding tolling. Under consideration were credits, discounted rates, or other types of exemptions focusing on the impact to seniors, youth, people with disabilities, people with low English proficiency in the household, low-income households, and racial minorities. Diversion was being taken seriously and a number of intersections in Lake Oswego would receive close analysis. Mayor Buck inquired about the impact of the federal infrastructure package on the proposed tolls on 1-205 and the future system-wide tolling. If the cost of infrastructure was not a factor, he asked if congestion pricing would still be a consideration. Ms. Brussard replied the federal infrastructure package was being evaluated, but congestion pricing would still be necessary as the congestion would not go away. The details of the infrastructure legislation were not yet known, but the money collected on the corridor would stay in the corridor and users would pay for what they used. Mr. Prior added as the environmental review process currently underway progressed, and the toll City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 11 OF 25 rate-setting phase was reached, the financials would be reevaluated to better understand how much would be paid for the 1-205 improvements. Funds from the federal government and other resources would also be assessed to best tailor the toll rate to pay for infrastructure as well as to manage congestion. Mayor Buck noted employees had recently started paying the State transit payroll tax, and it should be kept in mind that those with higher incomes were often able to work from home and lower-income workers would be driving to their work sites. The State transit tax was not for federal roadways, but too many workers, it was the same. Councilor Manz commented that drivers avoided backups on 1-205 by cutting through certain roads in Lake Oswego. Some older roads were very narrow with no room for expansion. Care should be taken to not burden the city by traffic trying to avoid tolling, especially on the McVey Ave corridor with its schools and upcoming recreation center. Consideration needed to be given to the fact that the only way for residents of Lake Oswego to get to the airport, other than by using surface streets, was via 1-205 or 1-5 at the end of S Macadam Ave. Councilor Rapf understood ODOT believed there was an equity solution to the traffic impacts to Lake Oswego and stated he did not understand how that would solve the very basic problem of traffic on the city streets. He asked how the two were connected. Ms. Broussard replied ODOT was working toward an equitable toll solution to the traffic impacts on Lake Oswego and was considering an equitable toll program to determine which measures should be used. Regarding diversion, ODOT was reviewing and analyzing marked intersections which fell under mitigation. Mr. Prior noted an equity lens would apply to the traffic burdens that might show up in lower- income neighborhoods, neighborhoods with limited English proficiency, areas where a sizable number of people with disabilities lived, or where seniors lived. Councilor Mboup pointed out that those not wanting to pay tolls would use Hwy 43, which already had problems, and other roads which would impact Lake Oswego. Ms. Broussard responded that operationalizing the equity measures for those with lower incomes would be based on people identifying themselves, not to ODOT, but to other places already addressing their concerns. That information would be provided to ODOT for provision of an equitable measure. If people were using a community-based organization to get services, ODOT would want to offer passes or discounts or other means to enable use of the service. The Regional Mobility Pricing Project would mitigate diversion because drivers would be paying for the roadway regardless of whether they used it or not. Congestion pricing would provide a reliable, rapid trip and make it less likely for drivers to divert. People might be initially reluctant to pay but then adopt the process very quickly when they realized it would save time. Mr. Prior further explained that with the reinvestment of tolling dollars, the infrastructure could be better used and people could be kept moving on the highway, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. People would also have more transit and transportation options, such as vanpools and carpools. ODOT would also be working with employers to provide more transportation options. Councilor Mboup noted tolled roads were still subject to backups and using a tolled highway would not reduce carbon emissions, which could be achieved through building a metro train system. Councilor Wendland stated tolling would go forward on 1-205 at the end of 2024, but tolling should also be done on 1-5 as well; otherwise, it would be like placing a tax on those in Clackamas County and on truck drivers going through the area to Multnomah County or to Washington State. Multnomah County would not have a tax on 1-5 and if ODOT coordinated the two, it would lessen City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 12 OF 25 diversion. Tolling on 1-205 would be another tax on shift workers who did not have a choice to travel during a time of lower volume traffic. It would be preferable to gain revenue through a more progressive methodology. Councilor Nguyen believed consideration needed to be given to how tolls would be determined equitably for people who shared vehicles. Tasking agencies like ODOT and the DMV with additional responsibilities for tolling seemed like a burden. Enforcing tolling was also a concern. A tax on the weight of a vehicle could encourage commercial traffic to use the roads at different times of the day, which would save time for daytime commuters and also cut down the time truckers might sit in traffic. It might also incentivize businesses if their drivers could travel farther in a shorter amount of time. Councilor Verdick said she had seen congestion on tolled roads in Chicago. It was necessary to start focusing on other measures, such as safe means of transportation for pedestrians and bicyclists because congestion would get worse as the population grew. Tolling needed to be equitable for everyone and the tolling project as proposed might not have support. Councilor Rapf believed people did not take the trains or public transportation because they did not feel safe on them. It would be good to consider how to fund those systems more appropriately so people would use them more often. Equity seemed to be more of a buzzword and the conversation should be over the concerns of traffic impacts on Lake Oswego. No equity solutions were being presented because none existed yet and they would likely not be done in time. Mayor Buck stated that requiring Clackamas County residents to pay for what they used and having Multnomah County residents get a federally-funded project was not desired, nor should the county workforce be double-taxed just to drive to work. It was understood that the Abernethy Bridge needed to be upgraded and 1-205 needed to be an interstate where traffic flowed freely. Ms. Brussard replied that work was planned to begin on 1-205 in about the fourth quarter of 2024 and the Regional Mobility Pricing Project was to begin the fourth quarter of 2025. Mr. Prior continued by noting the timeline had been sped up based on the feedback received from Clackamas County during the study of the 1-205 tolling project which started 11/2 years ago. The Portland region told the State that it wanted the 1-205 section around the Abernethy Bridge and another section of 1-5 in the Rose Quarter area done as stepping stones. ODOT brought forward the larger segments of I-5 and 1-205 to lessen the gap between the two projects. 1-205 had to go first to allow the bridge retrofitting and widening to be done as soon as possible. Council took a break from 4:31 p.m. —4:43 p.m. 6.2 Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on House Bill 2001 Erik Olson, Senior Planner, updated the City Council and the Planning Commission on the progress in implementing HB 2001 since May, noting the Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) process was complete and had produced the report in front of Council tonight. He provided an overview of HB 2001 and the steps taken so far to comply with the law. He described middle housing and its potential effect on Lake Oswego's neighborhoods, unique specifications for cottage clusters, limitations of middle housing by certain homeowners associations (HOAs), and implications of the recently-passed SB 458. Future plans included a City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 13 OF 25 community forum, a website launch to gather community feedback, and work on the development of Code language and amendments. Hearings were planned at the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption in spring or before the June 30, 2022 deadline. Randy Arthur, Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC) Chair, highlighted a few of the key recommendations and thoughts from the committee and described the procedure taken to allow members of the viewing public to express comments. In respect to the preservation of existing structures, the MHCAC discussion and polling found support for changing the definition of demolition in the Code to mean redevelopment that removed more than 50 percent of the exterior walls of an existing residential structure. MHCAC also recommended that duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes include detached as well as attached structures. He confirmed regulations for middle housing would apply to most of single-family housing as well other than cottage clusters in certain circumstances. Lisa Strader, MHCAC Vice-Chair, summarized the four main areas of MHCAC's recommendations: Preservation of existing residential structures; scale and character of new middle housing; runoff and stormwater impacts of new middle housing; and affordability and accessibility of new middle housing. Mr. Olson, Ms. Strader, and Mr. Arthur answered clarifying questions from Council as follows: • The minimum number of units to be considered a cottage cluster would be the City's decision. A stipulation within HB 2001 stated the footprint of a cottage cluster unit could have a maximum of 900 sq ft. Theoretically, a cottage cluster with multiple 450 sq ft stories could be allowed. • The State allowed duplexes to be defined by cities as detached units, so multiple units could be located on a lot within the envelope and floor area allowed for an existing single-family house. They have single family character but they would be smaller than the typical single- family house and similar to cottage clusters in certain ways. The definition of plexes being attached or detached was a policy question for the Planning Commission and City Council to decide. • The MHCAC discussed restricting the minimum size of cottage cluster units to avoid having them be too small to accommodate those with accessibility issues or those who had a live-in caregiver. Also recognized was that some cottage cluster concepts with flatter walkways and paths to the units would be ideal. • Some areas in the city had landscaping requirements such as the commercial area, but no consensus was reached to recommend landscaping requirements for residential single-family or middle housing. A preference was expressed for a tree canopy requirement. • Discussions took place with the Planning Commission and briefly at City Council in May regarding infrastructure focused primarily around the state's offer of an extension. The City decided not to pursue that to avoid getting into a position where a lot of infrastructure improvements would have to be done on the state's terms and timeline rather than the City's. If middle housing was proposed for an area where the infrastructure was insufficient and the developer was unable to provide adequate infrastructure, then the City would not have to allow the development. It would not be denied outright, but an opportunity would be given to the developer to provide sufficient infrastructure. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 14 OF 25 • The County would also need to comply with the HB 2001 ruling, so unincorporated areas that did not want to incorporate would also be impacted. The County was developing its own recommendations in a tangential process. • Four units would be allowed on a single-family lot in the R-10 zone under the middle housing bill. The density would increase beyond what was allowed in the zone, but the zoning envelope would still apply. The setbacks would have to comply, except for cottage clusters which would have smaller front and rear setbacks. Building height and lot coverage limitations would apply as well. Mainly, the rules that applied to a single-family zone would apply to middle housing. Variances could also be applied for, but policy questions about what types of variances to be allowed for middle housing would need to be addressed by Council. Councilor Wendland was strongly opposed to redefining plexes as detached and recommended addressing those issues along with ADA compliance or in consideration of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) which accomplished many equity goals. Council had agreed to make the least amount of character change to Lake Oswego in complying with HB 2001. Councilor Manz confirmed that once the Code amendments were adopted, the earliest a developer could develop middle housing would be June of 2022. Councilor Rapf concurred with Councilor Wendland's statement in that the recommendations provided were completely out of scope based on Council's request. He wanted to move on with the minimum requirements necessary to be compliant with HB 2001 and to allow the very capable Planning staff to take what was usable and work towards the solution requested. Cynthia Johnson, MHCAC member, stated she had a long history of service to the community, and a great deal of detail and work went into the committee's meetings and she hoped the City Council would take the time to view the meetings and look at the notes. The committee took Council's charge seriously and the members were very dedicated. Accessible housing was vitally important to many members of the community like seniors, those with disabilities, and those with lower incomes. Scot Siegel, Economic Development Director, thanked Ms. Johnson for her advocacy and support and encouragement to the committee. He noted the three topics mentioned by Mr. Olson that were not required or mandated by HB 2001, and it would be Council's discretion to direct staff and the Planning Commission whether those items should be pursued and completed by June 2022. The fourth area related to affordability and accessibility and efforts to provide those types of units was wholeheartedly supported by the committee though it was not mandated under HB 2001. Staff anticipated that it would be expected to address at least the affordability component under HB 2003. From a project management perspective, he and Mr. Olson had spoken about the great deal of work to be done between now and March, when the public hearing process would start, and he was concerned about taking on too much scope. He asked for Council's direction in terms of the four optional, but recommended, policy initiatives. Mayor Buck stated his appreciation of all the work the committee did and how they represented a diverse group from the community with different areas of expertise. The committee had put in a lot of work, and he appreciated the break down in the report and how it spoke to the community members caring for one another. HB 2001 intended to create a more accessible community for City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 15 OF 25 everyone, and he appreciated the committee's recommendations and good ideas to carry forward after June. The committee had done exactly what Council had requested and beyond. Councilor Mboup thanked the committee members and recognized the importance of what Ms. Johnson said. He supported the committee's work and believed it all should be taken into account, especially the areas where it reached consensus and those areas where consensus was not reached could be further discussed. He invited his fellow Council members to take into account the committee's advice and recommendations. State of Oregon was taking a wonderful action to accommodate people who could not afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars toward a home. Unaffordable housing was not the dream of the fathers and mothers who created this nation. People should be able to live in decent, subsidized homes like those shown by Habitat for Humanity. Councilor Verdick noted the MHCAC initially was to conduct five sessions but once it learned the complexities of the issues it realized more time was needed. The group volunteered to increase the length of its meetings and added an additional meeting. She was impressed by the dialog and the diversity of people and their knowledge. She gave a shout out to Ms. Johnson for giving seniors or those with accessibility issues a voice. It might appear the MHCAC had gone out of scope but it really had not. The result was due to the complexity of the issues and the Committee's decision that some of them could be delved into later. Some of the information was not known while discussions were taking place such as the impacts of SB 458. She thanked the MHCAC members for their dedication and the long hours they put in after a long day. Mayor Buck stated that the issues that received consensus should be addressed after the model code was adopted. Many of those issues tied into other issues such as a housing production strategy to comply with HB 2003 and other issues like the tree canopy would fold into the update of the Urban Forestry Plan. He preferred that defining demolition be completed before June because of the distress the current definition caused. Robert Heape, Planning Commission Chair, understood Council's direction was to focus on the minimum requirements and to consider the definition of demolition if the opportunity existed. He believed the work ahead for the Planning Commission was clear. He confirmed the MHCAC's recommendations would be considered. Mr. Olson announced a community forum was scheduled for middle housing work on December 9th Materials would be sent out shortly. Additional web opportunities would be available in the future for outreach as well. 6.3 2022 Master Fees and Charges Shawn Cross, Finance Director, presented the annual look at the Master Fees and Charges noting any changes Council made tonight would be brought back to Council on December 7th for a public hearing. Lake Oswego's consumer price index (CPI) was large this year at 6 percent but for the last 10 years it had been under an average of 2 percent. Fees had risen on average less than 2 percent over that time. He then reviewed the five-year fund balance forecasts of City utilities including stormwater, street, sewer, and water and estimated the combined impact on the single- family dwelling customers' bills to be $6.39, or a 3.8 percent increase per month. He clarified that City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 16 OF 25 water usage for multifamily was not as high as might be expected because irrigation was not a factor and their lower use of water, though it was also affected by the number and type of meters used. He confirmed a low-income assistance program had been set-up during the pandemic to assist people with utility bills. The number of those accounts ranged between 30 and 50. The amount users received depended upon the percentage they made of the area's median income. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Ordinance 2879, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50) to Amend the Existing Exception to the 14-Day Restriction on Temporary Shelters for Certain Commercial Uses During the COVID-19 Pandemic (LU 21-0068). Jason Loos, City Attorney, read the parameters of the public hearing. Mr. Siegel presented the Council Report and noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinance 2879 to amend the 14-day restriction on temporary shelters specifically for the pandemic. The only change from the existing policy was that the provision requiring physical distancing would be replaced with the provision that stipulated either State temporary or emergency regulations relating to COVID must be in effect in order to allow the temporary shelters for more than 14 days. He confirmed the provision would not automatically expire. Mayor Buck opened the public hearing, confirmed there was no public testimony, and closed the public hearing. Councilor Wendland moved to approve LU 21-0068, enact Ordinance 2879 and adopt Findings. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, Rapf, and Mboup voting `aye', (7-0). 8. CONSENT AGENDA— FULL COUNCIL 8.1 Approval to Purchase New Street Sweeper Councilor Wendland moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, Rapf, and Mboup voting `aye', (7-0). 9. CONSENT AGENDA— COUNCILORS ONLY 9.1 Resolution 21-42, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving the Appointment of an Alternate to the Planning Commission. City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 17 OF 25 Mayor Buck noted this Resolution was to appoint Miles Rigsby to the Planning Commission to replace Joel Fisher who had moved out of the area. Councilor Manz moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion was passed, with Councilors Manz, Nguyen, Wendland, Verdick, Rapf, and Mboup voting `aye', (6-0). 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Manz stated goals would be discussed at the Parks Board meeting tomorrow. Mayor Buck reported that this Saturday was No Ivy Day at 10 a.m. at Springbrook Park. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS There were no reports of officers. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(d) Conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations and (f) Consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Council met in Executive Session from 6:55 p.m. to 7:44 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, vtiAL, Kari Lind r, City Recorder Approved by the City Council on January 18, 2022 0-- Josep M. Buck, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 November 16, 2021 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 18 OF 25 MEMORANDUM rrt'Alt . V O GREG9; TO: Planning Commission/Commission for Citizen Involvement FROM: Erik Olson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: House Bills 2001 and 2003 Work Session-1 DATE: December 2, 2021 MEETING DATE: December 13, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&ACTION REQUESTED This memo provides background on the Commission's upcoming work session scheduled for December 13, which will include a presentation from staff regarding a refined work plan and initial set of concepts for amendments to the Community Development Code ("development code", or "CDC") necessary for the City to comply with House Bill 2001 (HB 2001). The Council has directed staff to pursue development code amendments 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"). An outline of code amendments that will be required to be adopted in order for the City to comply with HB 2001 can be found in Attachment D. The purpose of the December 13 work session is for the Commission to provide input to staff for drafting the amendments discussed below, under Required Code Amendments. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's direction on the development of these concepts into draft code language, as well as direction on policy questions related to middle housing implementation. BACKGROUND In late 2020, staff and consultants with Cascadia Partners initiated the City's first phase of work to develop code amendments compliant with HB 2001 that maintain consistency with Lake Oswego's sense of place, neighborhood character, and livability. This phase culminated with the development of concepts and alternatives for amending the development code to allow middle housing (see Attachment A), which were presented at a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission held on May 18, 2021. Shortly thereafter, the Council appointed an Ad-Hoc Middle Housing Code Advisory Committee (MHCAC, or the "Committee") in order to provide high-level policy guidance to the Planning Commission on the development of draft code amendments to comply with HB 2001. MHCAC 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 19 OF 25 Page 2 Chair Randy Arthur and MHCAC Co-Chair Lisa Strader presented the Committee's recommendations at another joint study session of the Council and Planning Commission on November 16, 2021 (see Attachment B). At this meeting, the Council directed staff to pursue a work plan to further develop the code concepts recommended by the Committee that are required to be adopted by the state-mandated deadline of June 30, 2022.The Council also recommended that staff explore a potential amendment to the definition of "demolition" in the building code to be more inclusive of significant structural removal, if feasible. WORK PLAN As shown in Attachment C, staff has further developed a proposed work plan for a series of Planning Commission work sessions, public meetings, and outreach events culminating in the formal adoption of compliant code amendments by City Council. The work plan includes four Planning Commission work sessions: the first will focus on an initial package of prescribed code concepts where the City has limited latitude beyond state requirements; the second will focus on standards related to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and townhouses; the third will focus on standards related to cottage clusters; and the fourth will involve the review of a preliminary draft set of code amendments to ensure that concepts have been properly translated into code language. Policy recommendations provided by the Planning Commission will then be presented to City Council for further direction prior to the development of a public review draft for wider consideration. As with previous work plans, the code adoption process requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, scheduled in March through May 2022. The work plan also includes opportunities for public engagement prior to the hearings, including two "community forums" and ongoing opportunities for neighborhood associations to request meetings with City staff to answer questions or present to their members. The first of these community forums will occur on Thursday, December 9th; a Storymap & Survey will also be released by the City in early December in order for the public to provide input on middle housing code concepts. Community Forum #2 will take place in early February 2022, and will focus on draft code recommendations. Input collected through this outreach will be provided to the Planning Commission for consideration at the above-described work sessions. These outreach opportunities will be reinforced by a social media strategy that will include ongoing updates in the City's Hello LO publication, and posts on the City's social media accounts such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Nextdoor. REQUIRED CODE AMENDMENTS The Council has directed staff to pursue development code amendments 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"). An outline of code amendments that will be required to be adopted in order for the City to comply with HB 2001 can be found in Attachment D. Please refer to the page numbers below for the specific items that staff will cover in your December 13 work session. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 20 OF 25 Page 3 While the state allows some flexibility for cities 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, there is less flexibility for the adoption of other types of standards related to middle housing.This December 13 work session focuses on the amendments that are prescribed by the state for compliance; future work sessions will focus on the options for design and dimensional standards for each middle housing type in more detail. Definitions (Pages 6-8 of Attachment D) State requirements in Division 46 include relatively precise definitions of each middle housing type - Duplexes, Triplexes, Quadplexes, Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters—that must be adopted in order for cities to comply with the bill. While, generally, the definitions in the CDC are consistent with the definitions in Division 46, per Attachment D the following amendments to LOC 50.10.003—Definitions will be needed: • Separate Triplex and Quadplex from multi-family. • Add a definition for Cottage Cluster. • Revise definition for Courtyard to align with Cottage Cluster requirements. • Add a definition for Townhouse Project to align with Division 46 Staff notes that Division 46 allows the City to define Duplexes, Triplexes or Quadplexes as multiple detached dwelling units on a single lot, in a variety of configurations. This concept was considered by the MHCAC and ultimately selected as one of their recommendations; however, the Council directed staff not to pursue this recommendation along with other code amendments required under HB 2001. Applicability (Pages 8-11 of Attachment D) 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, middle housing regulations will need to be included within LOC 50.02.001 —Residential Districts and LOC 50.02.002—Commercial, Mixed Use, and Industrial Zones such that they apply to the following base zoning districts: • Residential Low Density: R-15, R-10, and R-7.5. • Residential Medium Density: R-6, R-5, and R-DD. • Residential High Density: R-3, R-2, R-0, and R-W. • FMU (Foothills Mixed Use) Though middle housing must be permitted broadly within these areas, Division 46 allows the City to prohibit or limit middle housing in areas that are protected under existing Statewide Planning Goals, under certain conditions. The City has already implemented several regulations in order to maintain these goal-protected resources within code chapters such as the Greenway Management Overlay District (LOC 50.05.009), the Sensitive Lands Overlay District 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 21 OF 25 Page 4 (LOC 50.05.010), the Flood Management Area (LOC 50.05.011), Hillside Protection areas (LOC 50.06.006.2), and Historic Preservation areas (LOC 50.06.009). Per Attachment D, these chapters generally already comply with Division 46, with a few exceptions. The Sensitive Lands Overlay District (LOC 50.05.010) must be amended in order to eliminate references to single-family residential zones, and to both allow and regulate duplexes in the same manner as single-family dwellings within these areas. Other code amendments are being considered in order to clarify whether the City will limit the reconstruction of certain types of middle housing in goal-protected areas such as the Flood Management Area or Sensitive Lands Overlay District. See the Special Provisions for Conversions of Single-Family Dwellings and Policy Question sections, below, for more discussion. Though the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has stated that they do not expect cities to amend portions of their code related to Statewide Planning Goal 15: Willamette Greenway, and no amendments are necessary to the Greenway Management Overlay District for compliance, the City may decide to consider doing so at a future date. Staff will continue to track this issue in accordance with future guidance provided by DLCD. Division 46 also allows cities such as Lake Oswego to apply different types of regulations for master-planned communities than for other residentially-zoned areas. Master-planned communities are defined as sites over 20 acres in size, within or adjacent to the City, that have either a proposed or adopted master plan. Though it's not clear exactly how many of the City's existing "planned unit developments" (or "PUDs") would meet this definition, the City must still meet the special provisions in Division 46 for existing, previously-approved master planned communities. Per Attachment D, amendments will be needed to LOC 50.07.006—Overall Development Plan and Schedule to allow these previously approved PUDs to be amended by the applicant to allow for an overall net density of at least 8 dwelling units per acre and permit the development of a duplex on every lot. Use Standards (Pages 11-12 of Attachment D) As mentioned above, Division 46 requires that middle housing types be allowed broadly in most residential zones. Attachment D includes a description of the amendments necessary for the use-related standards in LOC 50.03 to reach compliance with HB 2001, including an extensive update to the Use Tables in LOC 50.03.002 to permit all middle housing types in the zones where they are required to be permitted. Review Procedures Lase 13 of Attachment D) Division 46 also stipulates 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 decision and subject to additional staff review. 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 22 OF 25 Page 5 Per Attachment D, the review procedures detailed in LOC 50.007.003 will need to be amended to treat middle housing the same as single-family housing; staff recommends code amendments that would classify the development of a single Triplex, Quadplex, or Townhouse as a Ministerial decision in order to comply with the bill. Density (Page 14 of Attachment D) Attachment D also includes a description of amendments that will be needed to the existing density provisions within the CDC. The City must eliminate any provisions related to maximum density in a number of residential districts (R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-5, R-DD, R-W, and R-3) for middle housing types other than townhouses, as Division 46 prohibits cities from applying maximum density standards to duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters. Given that the Council has provided direction to comply with the minimum compliance provisions in Division 46 for lot size and density, staff concurs with the recommendation in Attachment D to grant an exception to maximum density standards for Duplexes,Triplexes, Quadplexes, and Cottage Cluster housing. With respect to townhouses, the CDC must be amended to allow a maximum density of at least four (4) times the density applied to single-family dwellings in that zone, or 25 units per acre—whichever is less. Minimum compliance provisions of Division 46 also require cities to establish a minimum density for Cottage Cluster projects of at least four (4) units per acre. Though existing minimum density standards currently require more than four (4) units per acre in many zones, minimum density provisions in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones will need to be increased in order to comply with the bill. 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. Policy options related to compliance with minimum lot size standards for triplexes, quadplexes, and townhouses will be discussed in more detail at Planning Commission work sessions scheduled for early 2022. Parking (Pages 18-20 of Attachment D) Minimum compliance provisions for middle housing in Division 46 do not offer cities much flexibility with respect to off-street parking standards. Generally speaking, cities can require no more than 1 parking space per unit for all middle housing types. The City's existing parking requirement of 1 space per unit for single-family dwellings and duplexes complies with Division 46. However, off-parking requirements for multi-family developments, including Triplexes,Townhouses and Quadplexes, are calculated per bedroom, with a minimum requirement of 1 space per unit for studio/efficiency, 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom, and 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 or more bedrooms. Per Attachment D, the off-street parking requirements within L0050.06.002—Parking must be amended to match this 1 space per unit requirement for all middle housing types. This will require the code to specifically address parking requirements for cottage clusters, which aren't 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 23 OF 25 Page 6 currently defined, as well as parking requirements for townhouses in zones where they are not currently permitted. Additionally, parking requirements within the Foothills Mixed Use (FMU) Zone must be amended to address minimum parking requirements for lots less than 3,000 sq. ft. in size. Special Provisions for Conversions of Single-Family Dwellings (Pages 22-24 of Attachment D) Provisions within Division 46 require cities to apply different standards for conversions or additions to existing single-family dwellings to create middle housing than would be applied for new middle housing development or the redevelopment of middle housing. Generally speaking, these standards are not permitted to discourage middle housing conversions or additions by creating unreasonable cost and delay when compared to new development on a vacant site. Per Attachment D, Division 46 provides no alternatives to these requirements. In order for the City to comply with the special provisions for conversions of single-family dwellings required under Division 46, code amendments are necessary to the public works exceptions in LOC 50.07.003.14—Minor Development and LOC 50.07.003.13—Ministerial Development. Currently, these code sections provide the City with conditioning authority to require or defer public improvements for multi-family and townhouse developments, but not for single-family dwellings. Previously discussed amendments to this portion of the code would classify the development of a Triplex, Quadplex, or Townhouse as a Ministerial decision (see Review Procedures, above). Staff recommends further clarification within this section that the City's conditioning authority for public improvements would continue to apply to Triplexes, Quadplexes, Townhouses, and Cottage Clusters. Staff also recommends code amendments to clarify that duplexes are not subject to conditioning authority for public improvements, as Division 46 includes a requirement that duplexes be granted the same public works exceptions as detached single- family dwellings. Division 46 also specifies that building design standards may not be applied to conversions or additions to a single-family dwelling that create middle housing. As a result, code language within LOC 50.06.001.1 —Building Design, LOC 50.05.007.3.c.ii—Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District, and LOC 50.05.001.5.a.ii—Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District must be modified to clarify that the design standards in these sections may not be applied to middle housing created through conversions or additions to a single-family dwelling. Code amendments are also needed to LOC 50.01.006.4.a—Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Site Features in order to clarify how rules related to the reconstruction of non- conforming structures will apply to each middle housing type. The current iteration of the City's code allows for the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed nonconforming single-family and duplex dwellings, accessory structures, and historic landmarks, but is silent on whether similar allowances should be provided for other middle housing types, such as triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, and cottage clusters. While Division 46 does not directly address the reconstruction of non-conforming middle housing, the City may be expected to grant these 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 24 OF 25 Page 7 allowances for all middle housing types since they are granted to single-family dwellings. Staff will continue to track this issue in accordance with future guidance provided by DLCD. ATTACHMENTS A. Middle Housing Opportunities Report, 5/2021 B. MHCAC Key Issues Summary Memo, 11/3/2021 C. Updated HB 2001 Work Plan and Schedule, 12/2/2021 D. Plan and Code Audit Summary, 5/6/2021 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 25 OF 25 February 12th 2024 Philip Stewart,Chair City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Comments on LU 23-0036(Community Development Code Annual Amendments) West Lake Grove Design District Dear Chair Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Community Development Code Annual Amendments,case file number LU 23-0036.While we have no comments on the proposed list of amendments,we would like to request that the Planning Commission consider additional amendments related to specific standards applicable to West Lake Grove Design District,as described below. Hacienda Community Development Corporation(CDC)has been selected by Metro to develop affordable housing at the southwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive. This project will provide 55 units of much- needed housing for the community and will enliven a vacant site that formerly served as a staging yard for the Boones Ferry Road improvement project. We are currently in the design stage of the project and have identified some code standards that deserve attention as part of LU 23-0036, specifically pertaining to requirements to provide shared driveway and parking lot access with the neighboring property to the west,per LOC Figure 50.05.005-C: Internal Parking and Circulation,reproduced below: Figure 50.05.005-C:Internal Parking and Circulation (with site marked) Site outlined in — green ' • rr n ` 1 °6; ► 1101 � Washington Ct West Lake Grove Design District Figure 50.05.005-C �n e' orire.ay Perxng ¢teugs �U'C O aai Laka Grovn Gasign_ �\ UIeIIIC[ i . Hacienda CDC agrees that in some circumstances, shared vehicle access can provide for efficient vehicle circulation among neighboring sites,particularly sites which may be developed with complementary commercial uses. In such a context, customers may frequent multiple businesses on abutting properties without adding vehicle trips to adjoining roadways. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 1 OF 14 However, in the case of abutting residential and commercial sites, shared vehicle access may not yield the desired reduction in roadway trips due to differing user profiles, and introduces safety and security concerns for residents. Accordingly,we are requesting that the code be amended to exempt our site from this requirement if the site is developed with multifamily housing. Our site is zoned West Lake Grove Office Commercial(WLG OC),which allows for a range of commercial uses. However,in recognition of the need for affordable housing, City Council adopted Ordinance 2872 pursuant to case file number LU 21-0019,allowing affordable housing at this site as now codified in LOC 50.03.003.2.d: 2. Residential Uses in Commercial and Special Purpose Zones d. WLG OC Zone Residential uses are limited to multifamily residences in the vicinity of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive, as depicted on Figure 50.03.003-A.1, and shall consist of 20 or more units where at least ten percent 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. Figure 50.03.003-A.1:Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone 1 ' .1 est Sunset Dr wV\Psr nset Dr ArQr UPr9t Case file number LU 21-0019 does not mandate housing at this location,but it does allow for it. If the site were developed with a commercial use,then shared circulation as depicted on Figure 50.05.005-C would be appropriate. However,if the site is developed with affordable housing,then shared circulation as depicted on Figure 50.05.005- C would no longer be appropriate for the following reasons: • The shared circulation easement would introduce commercial traffic into the subject site, leading to potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians(particularly children). • Providing vehicle access to the neighboring property would result in an interruption of landscape areas and buffering between the subject site and neighboring property. • Providing vehicle access to neighboring property would result in an overall reduction in on-site parking capacity since parking spaces would be displaced to accommodate vehicle through movements. • The shared circulation will inevitably result in commercial parking in residential dedicated parking stalls, burdening residents(families)to seek offsite parking. We have enclosed suggested changes to LOC 50.05.005.4.b that would treat this code standard differently depending on the proposed use (multifamily or otherwise).We have also proposed analogous changes to LOC 50.05.005.9.d.ii for those projects utilizing the Clear and Objective Housing Standards for Approval. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 2 OF 14 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Chavez Project Manager Hacienda CDC Enclosures: Requested code amendments LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 3 OF 14 City of Lake Oswego Comments on LU 23-0036(Community Development Code Annual Amendments) Hacienda CDC's proposed code amendments Hacienda CDC requests that the City incorporate the following amendments to the Community Development Code as part of LU 23-0036. In the text below, only those sections with amendments are listed. Proposed language additions are double-underlined. CHAPTER 50: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 50.05.005 WEST LAKE GROVE DESIGN DISTRICT 4. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE WLG DESIGN DISTRICT a. General Requirements Development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Grove through the following design elements: i. Architecturally designed structures of high design quality that are in scale with the site, in proportion to similar buildings in the West Lake Grove Design District and which utilize a pleasing variety of harmonious earth and muted tone materials, colors, finishes and textures; ii. Preservation of substantial trees to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; iii. Orientation of building entrances shall conform to the provisions of LOC 50.06.001.5, Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Development Standards for Approval; iv. Building design and orientation shall provide for effective screening and buffering of the subject properties from adjacent residential neighborhoods; and v. High quality designed landscapes involving native plant materials or those which have naturalized to the locale,which will grow to significant size and impart seasonal color and interest. b. Streets and Circulation Access to Boones Ferry Road,new streets, internal vehicular driveways,parking,pedestrian and bike facilities shall be provided and developed in accordance with the Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District shown below in Figure 50.05.005-B: Auto and Transportation Circulation,Figure 50.05.005-C: Internal Parking and Circulation, and Figure 50.05.005-D: Street Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways. If the site depicted on Figure 50.03.003-A.1:Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone is developed with multifamily residences as permitted by LOC 50.03.003.2.d, then it is exempt from the shared driveway parking lot standard depicted on Figure 50.05.005-C: Internal Parking and Circulation. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 4 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-B: Auto and Transportation Circulation / i I rnfriona _ 'a '� .uII'� A r` r - a. I Re-alignment of West Sunset Drivel • gv_est, —Sunset I ' \ ` 110 P% West Lake Grove Design District.C �'-' ��.tl. �llikli Figure SD.OS.DOS-B 0 / CO ' ad ' O rZi cnan��»i'aaio°�wm'en New Roadway with on-street parking - IG 5,8, - Washington Ct y��I - 0 S e: ~� 2ofrst eet ParMeine°� 000 �d of r CI : �o tr, d y '" ' Figure 50.05.005-C: Internal Parking and Circulation i JVladrnr St Qa — _ .11111111 III lik'llilit . t' N z• '11111&41411P°6 41 I it e � w€i�itrtm 1r!� -, 1 Imo' r ,' /444( * ,,,,../_____Ii c,,,,,, II ' G Washington Ct West Lake Grove Design District Figure 50.05.005-C :: � orirewsy Paxmg yot eccess oi.e n LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 5 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-D: Street Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways i 100. / m 1 m r • ILO 0 /\..y. litii \:_,..>„...._ 1111 .... .. itli , a s .: 11 Westure Lake50.05 G.roveU D Design District Fig Washington Ci '�'- rhootlCoinineria1StreN oo�6y of l7 0G .o a r.. wnei _arm°.3(el�a jaj ,I . e10 Ne°s°tely �. Through provision of shared access and driveways,parking and pedestrian systems, development shall occur in a manner to ensure the phased construction of the planned circulation and access system and in no circumstance shall prevent the development of a cohesive access and circulation system. Furthermore, public bike and pedestrian facilities shall be provided on both sides of Boones Ferry Road as illustrated by Figures 50.05.005-B, 50.05.005-C, and 50.05.005-D. Figures 50.05.005-E, 50.05.005-F, 50.05.005-G, 50.05.005-H, and 50.05.005-I illustrate the desired design treatment of West Sunset Street,Lower Boones Ferry Road and a pedestrian path intended to serve a portion of the WLG R-2.5 Residential Townhome zone. Figure 50.05.005-E: West Sunset Street Typical Street Section A-A crcaj rt 5 I w. I.(' n . lei 1 1 't „firer • i i rtr- MEWS' fr� ` 1 J,-- 1 West Sunset Street - Typical Steel Setctlots A-A LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 6 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-F: West Sunset Street Typical Section B-B surer 11, •R'ir #W5 9 I' V , 4, f '1/4 . J-_,i i �, --r i I J�+T 8' if:4; 7-fr (Or to :(' 0' l5r Weal Sunset Street °'mil ft Typical Slreel Secu0n B-H Figure 50.05.005-G: Lower Boones Ferry Road Typical Section C-C ,__ .4.1 s'-::* 9 \ _‘-'99\--D (96:4 rr--- sr7t .\ , 'r 1 j...El N�+YYYIi$ t •i, i fYM CLm�F{ iRl• ' r • 4 5 I ae 1 S� 8 11 fl —f re' "'~ rf' !S1r a Grj IiC:la!Y YaK qb-o Lamm--- - Law Dowses Ferry flood —'�' 1ypIc7Y SIreaI Sectlun C-G Figure 50.05.005-H: Pedestrian Walkway Typical Section .444=t1Erego- 4:. =ktE (A-2- u ii° �' ----•.,,..,..,.......,LI y i te r _ 4' {—A Iinekems- , amS t st LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 7 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-I: Lower Boones Ferry Road Typical Section E-E ma' s r �AjrE 5liY.MW 77410.9fors 404Ve5. rrnsfed t71+I7 4E ,9raw4 c ryirrr. f11Yn re -Trime i J44L il' il� f' fl le 6' Sr tO' 16-e Lower$Hones Ferry Road Typical Street Section E-t: The number of access points on Boones Ferry Road shall be minimized through the use of consolidated driveways sufficiently wide enough to allow for simultaneous ingress and egress. This shall require property owners to agree to construct or share in the cost of consolidated driveways either: i. At the time of development; or ii. At such future time when sufficient land area is developed to make driveway consolidation practical. This provision does not apply to the site depicted on Figure 50.03.003-A.1: Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone if it is developed with multifamily residences as permitted by LOC 50.03.003.2.d. If it is impractical, due to the timing of development,to develop consolidated driveway access for more than one parcel,the location of future consolidated access shall be determined by the approval authority based upon the: (1) Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District,Figure 50.05.005-B, Figure 50.05.005-C, and Figure 50.05.005-D; (2) The ability to serve the maximum number of land uses and properties; (3) Traffic safety and operational characteristics; and (4) Use of more than one property to ensure future consolidated access, such as at property lines. The approval authority may approve interim individual driveways access to Boones Ferry Road subject to the findings of a traffic analysis and the condition that when adjoining properties develop,permanent shared access be developed pursuant to this section. In circumstances where the location of permanent shared access is not in the same location as an interim driveway,the driveway shall be removed and the area landscaped or otherwise integrated into the design of the subject site under the provisions of this section. Driveway consolidation shall require the execution of reciprocal,nonrevocable easements in a form necessary to ensure unimpeded property access and driveway maintenance. All driveways shall include safety features such as changes in surface material, signage and lighting to alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 8 OF 14 9. CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL d. Standards Applicable to the Entire WLG Design District i. Site Design Standards (1) Purpose Development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District shall achieve an aesthetically pleasing site and building design that: (a) Preserves substantial trees in order to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; (b) Through building design and orientation,provides effective screening and buffering of the subject properties from adjacent residential neighborhoods; (c) Through high quality designed landscapes involving native plant materials or those which have naturalized to the locale,plants will grow to significant size and impart seasonal color and interest; and (d) Incorporates landscape features which contribute to a unifying design theme and continuity within the West Lake Grove Design District, such as paving materials and textures, lighting, street furniture, signage and plant material selection, especially trees. ii. Streets and Circulation Access to Boones Ferry Road,new streets, internal vehicular driveways,parking,pedestrian and bike facilities shall be provided and developed in accordance with the Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District shown below in Figure 50.05.005-0: Auto and Transportation Circulation,Figure 50.05.005-P: Internal Parking and Circulation, and Figure 50.05.005-Q: Street Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways. If the site depicted on Figure 50.03.003-A.1:Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone is developed with multifamily residences as permitted by LOC 50.03.003.2.d,then it is exempt from the shared driveway parking lot standard depicted on Figure 50.05.005-P: Internal Parking and Circulation. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 9 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-0: Auto and Transportation Circulation /— I iLim7 NI a,. I 7-0; -----75- - l Re-alignment of West Sunset Drivel 0111111‘ p —Sunset Dr I , • I I Dt-� 7 West Lake Grove Design District - I /(f__. -c:Dv-5:-. - I \ Figure 50.05.005-0 'M1 Tu-r�n CM1anlneliufiun n New Roadway with on-street parking O .uanic sgmi —VVashin ton Ct Q ZI:t.e' a:r'° " _~1�(,ey 4-► �� e Ongreen e w e ee • Future Traffic Sip `4VO = Por y "'"" Figure 50.05.005-P: Internal Parking and Circulation 1/ _ , mad..n.r 9, R-61k, I _ • • • i - , ` ‘ / \ Illt ` 'V r J r rr Wait Sunset f]�I �Mrr S 1 4 �—� 110-00-tolik i R`'/� ,�—iSPpet- E2 \ \ 1 .>_c_.----- ,0,\ -Wash tag ct - ..a---4- _ West Lake Grove Design District s. Figure 50.05.005-P p�a_ - y C,,,, Pa4kln9 Lat Access J5 1 Wen Lake6rayefleflpn n. 011�cf LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 10 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-Q: Street Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways _ Ti — - s ,___L__ _ ,,, . .. 10,...- \ m West unseii ter..L """ CgO p iAOi,, P tco., \ .i A\ i1,i1i-,\k �� Weat Lake Gwve Deagn District — Figure 50.05.005-Q Washingtot—Gt— 1 1 .... nom..,": ::, __--:\_A �camkt[en AH C,DeN Erclx b,he / . poM r9 atrtHaeo5om 3,4.�$1.5{07, lt{ 1(EIe�>lH. Through provision of shared access and driveways,parking and pedestrian systems, development shall occur in a manner to ensure the phased construction of the planned circulation and access system and in no circumstance shall prevent the development of a cohesive access and circulation system. Furthermore,public bike and pedestrian facilities shall be provided on both sides of Boones Ferry Road as illustrated by Figures 50.05.005-0, 50.05.005-P, and 50.05.005-Q. Figures 50.05.005-R, 50.05.005- S, 50.05.005-T, 50.05.005-U, 50.05.005-V and 50.05.005-W illustrate the desired design treatment of West Sunset Street, Lower Boones Ferry Road and a pedestrian path intended to serve a portion of the WLG R-2.5 Residential Townhome zone. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 11 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-R: West Sunset Street Typical Street Section A-A . Si 5 Ti1111.(...t. -.1r-..'-'1c-14Ct .}r�G Le1lf a -` .i �. ! .40 i. .t,.. ,+. crag roll *' 1 r fai+e+W+ r 1A . �.� .1 .i. •` w ;i. III re-li.+ I-4 j i 1- 1=1. it- ` Weal Sting gt.S knot TVpIIal Street Seetlat A-A Figure 50.05.005-S: West Sunset Street Typical Section B-B szAgivok • shy+. 4�}ipar 791 4Y t )^ fir b-----7-^- t k. .(. ii 1, vtle 4144 ' 4 F_ _.., rs 7 Ir i r + a /441Pri ' - Co r'i7N f+I.4i'fpfsfF Went Sunset Street , 4'+7aacft Typical Street Section A-u Figure 50.05.005-T: Lower Boones Ferry Road Typical Section C-C AAt lk.r.1.,_. ,...,,..1,.7 lij_i.1{ti 4 Liim fy1.._1 n e —,4. s,.'[ d, dt` . - J-d ,.e-m'- fr,-t--fK1,'_ H.--,'C_ i_ tIi,A9,ft. rerrE ,O , ,,,_,,,111.-11,,.,-I401 1: !f 'thr `:1 ST ' I 7 1 r;' ; e' s' rr' 4 r+� ��' n rt `k s s G` ccrrw 1=' `tb-O. a'"-- Lower Dowses Fany Road Typical Slreel Sectlun C•G LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 12 OF 14 Figure 50.05.005-U: Pedestrian Walkway Typical Section c-4�u_ �� CA- ,jr‘ _.„..________ ____ .., w .. .. r Iceir— Figure 50.05.005-V: Lower Boones Ferry Road Typical Section E-E sueri, T '.+was fR hE,-t.A9�, i A iwtI L i N. S ti� .4e5L.Y rryhr,. "WI ra j, II 4_11: li.C II' ; It* 1,6 j,4 1 r; JLLL q nr-0M //�( Lower- Soonaa Ferry Road - Typical Stri,1 Section -E Access points on Boones Ferry Road shall be consolidated to allow for simultaneous ingress and egress. This shall require property owners to agree to construct or share in the cost of consolidated driveways either: (1) At the time of development; or (2) At such future time when sufficient land area is developed to make driveway consolidation practical. This provision does not apply to the site depicted on Figure 50.03.003-A.1: Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone if it is developed with multifamily residences as permitted by LOC 50.03.003.2.d. If it is impractical,due to the timing of development,to develop consolidated driveway access for more than one parcel,the location of future consolidated access shall be determined by the approval authority based upon the: LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 13 OF 14 (a) Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District,Figure 50.05.005-0, Figure 50.05.005-P, and Figure 50.05.005-R; (b) The ability to serve the maximum number of land uses and properties; (c) Traffic safety and operational characteristics; and (d) Use of more than one property to ensure future consolidated access, such as at property lines. The approval authority may approve interim individual driveways access to Boones Ferry Road subject to the findings of a traffic analysis and the condition that when adjoining properties develop,permanent shared access be developed pursuant to this section. In circumstances where the location of permanent shared access is not in the same location as an interim driveway,the driveway shall be removed and the area landscaped or otherwise integrated into the design of the subject site under the provisions of this section. Driveway consolidation shall require the execution of reciprocal,nonrevocable easements in a form necessary to ensure unimpeded property access and driveway maintenance. All driveways shall include safety features such as changes in surface material, signage and lighting to alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians. LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 14 OF 14 Siquina, Cristina From: Kate Myers <katemyers2011 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 10:58 AM To: PC Testimony Subject: Definition of Attached housing for meeting 2/12 Attachments: Planning Committee letter re Attached homes.docx CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Please find my comments regarding the definition of attached housing which is one of the "Housekeeping" items listed for review tonight (2/12). Thank you, Kate Myers 1 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 1 OF 2 To the Planning Committee: It seems that yet again,the City is using the "Housekeeping" process to undercut and rewrite the hard work of its citizens. The Middlehousing guidelines presented to the City were created through a process of extensive citizen involvement. The definition of an attached house as being ACTUALLY attached was not created in error. It was chosen specifically after receiving feedback from residents and the City Council. If there is a discrepancy in current code,then one of three things should happen: A) The code should be amended to meet the newer, more recently vetted definition of attached as referenced in the Middlehousing guidelines that were created by the citizen panel Or B) The Middlehousing panel should be reconvened to address this discrepancy. Or C) The Code should be modified to account for the exception that when it comes to Middlehousing —attached means attached (as specified in the guidelines or to an even greater percentage of wall length). The Planning Commission and the City Council should NOT change the hard work of the panel in favor of the older definition. In fact,the City should be responsible for bringing these types of conflicts to light far earlier in the process so that they may honor citizen time and effort and engagement. Frankly, the use of the "housekeeping" vote to "tidy up"things that actually have very large impacts is disingenuous. It smacks of avoiding citizen engagement and lacks transparency. This is 2024—not the 1990's. Do better. Sincerely, Kate Myers (commenting for myself) Serving as Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Chair 5750 Carman Dr Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 2 OF 2 02/12/2024 Neighborhood Chairs Committee presentation Annual code updates 2024 • 'y •1 4 ' . . . .,f- • : II \ • '4L.46* - .1 q it " ) 6,4,_%,- ., t i• -. , . . .,,,i ii -... , , .. IIIJitt ,o. „...,,,,,,A lor' - ' 0 � 1.' itt.................- 4 . - LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 1 OF 6 1 02/12/2024 rofiri - A -v_ !. h' : ., �° a � • . -- o- - m / . � P, t / /- l i ccuArrnno - N ® f o.'i7 ✓ !7 -. I o , ce •- ware J • 0 W lap ,14" 1Z4_20. • • "� Jlc, 'r 1111411 .. . , � A 4. 1 LI am,#0 II 111166,i atta ri: . I 4Cil ir ' n I V . c wit mi I O 1 O T , O ,t O 120' •• E Avenue - LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 2 OF 6 2 02/12/2024 Who Owns the Common Courtyard? Planning Commission Item 2 Item 5 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 3 OF 6 3 02/12/2024 Add to 2024 Annual Community Updates "Adopt code to prohibit all or a portion of the common courtyard from being sold to individual unit owners. The common courtyard must be in a tract held in common ownership." NCC "Neighborhood associations are an officially recognized channel for citizen participation in land use planning in Lake Oswego" Harlan Levy,Westlake Betsy Wosko,Old Town Bob Brown, Blue Heron Elizabeth Jordan, Mt. Park Cheryl Uchida,Waluga Andy Leonard, Bryant Ruth Bregar,Westridge Frederique Lavios, Palisades Tom Bland, Uplands Carol Ihlenburg, North Shore/Country Club Grant Howell, Rosewood Ellen Steele, McVey/Southshore Chris Huttemeyer, Hallinan Carole Ockert, FANFH Figure 9.Attached Triplex Front and Back Figure JO.Attached Triplex Side•by•Side 111101111 41APAP101 ,^ "Quadplex"means four dwelling units cm a lot or parcel in any configuration.See Figure 11 and Figure 12 in Section E for examples of possible quadplex configurations. Figure IL Stacked Quadplex Figure I2.Detached quadplex _"41.0 tas*No ( 1 !Otto111011° 4114 LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 4 OF 6 4 02/12/2024 \� ,,'- e C ems � �-PO ••r ,`.a r. )* w..it.m. $'fir.+3 1 i }am 3Y - A . '''. rA 1'j r', 'e. 10 - . mat .. ...� .. [i f i--14 Misinterpreted Code f._ _ "Detached " [ 1A horizontal separation of three ft.or more, between the subject structure and nearby structures " Code Interpretation Log General: "Interpretations of Code text are sometimes necessary by staff. This Interpretation Log collects some of the staff interpretations... " "..are subject to revision or rescission for a number of reasons, i.e., change of law, change of method, or a prior interpretation is reexamined and determined to be incorrect. " LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 5 OF 6 5 02/12/2024 Some examples The flag pole area is not excluded from lot coverage calculation_ 50.10.003.2,Lot 50.10.003.2,Lot Lot Coverage Flag Lots,Lot 8/16/2006 However,for purposes Area, Area Coverage of minimum lot size, 50.07.007.2_diii the flat pole area orI access easement is excluded. Elevated driveways, while exempt from 50_06.004.2.b.x(4), 50.10.003.2,Lot Lot Coverage�Elevated 3/10/2010 setbacks,are counted 50.10.003.2 Lot Coverage Driveways toward lot coverage (all portions more than Coverage 30"above grade). under the definition nl 'oetaphed'a breezeway connecting two ln res does not make the structures'attached' Icr the purposes of The definition of"Detached" compliance with standarre:.ineraw needed clarification in 'I'code in 50.10003,2 'breezeway'is not 50.10.003. Detached hT d ached defined.Inarderfor 2013 h/W2013 Structure,eway & as' wnlaeswbe Breezeway Breezeways r/° °Eeways nsidered ailaMed, er xeway connector must It needs clarification again notion ro be ve a sad and opal least sand well on el Ieail e side which not allow breeze re to to passsllxould the walkslunct1 could here windows.g doom and windows. Attached means physically attached { y z•r ` 4•-- •T J ri n'• � . r•"- ems= `{ems _ - ' ~1 y ,• f•1 ~• - • ,, ++ . A,1 — 7gl` —411 _ - Common Wall Structures LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 6 OF 6 6 02/12/2024 FANFH presentation 2024 Annual Code Updates We know middle housing and multi-family . i - n ii I li �: iel. a ' T. otkok s' duplexes town homes 1k: Y�t� , 1111 l ' ,. U. ''- — E', 114g'+y- Lid AI , � _ iF ;� r. — - '. 4 ff • Will—Ta4' `t Mulit-family may LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 1 OF 2 1 02/12/2024 Proposed projects In FANFH Cottage Cluster Quadplex? t: •Ilven ait 7il koh... - - itviIr Imonilipi i _IF2.1,12L, � r— E Avenue Input from FANFH board 13 member board comprised of both newer Oregon residents and long term Oregon residents A wide age range, retired folks and parents of young children thru high school FANFH - wide variety of housing types for well over 25 years Lets make code clear and easy to understand 1. Put common courtyard fix in 2024 Annual Code Updates 2. Common courtyard means common ownership 3. Attached means physically attached 100% of the common wall LU 23-0036 EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 2 OF 2 2