Agenda Item - 2001-09-17 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001
SUBJECT: INFORMATION SESSION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LU 00-0018(A), ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION TARGETS AND PLANNING COMMISSION
ISSUES REGARDING LU 00-0015(A), LOCAL STREET
CONNECTIVITY.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: No action is required. The Council may request additional
information or provide guidance on any remaining issues.
EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: PUBLISHED NOTICES
IMPACT: Heisler Council Report (Date) September 6,
Staff time w/Attachments: 2001
STAFF COST: N/A Ordinance no's. 2246 and
2250
BUDGETED:
Y N Resolution no.:
FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council
consideration: September
19, 2000.
PT. DIRECTOR ASST. CITY MANAGER CITY M AGER
9—io—o/ /2 x ` d�
Signoff/date Signoff/date Signoff/date
L/jane/case files/2000/lu 00-0018/cover memo
001
0Cl2
``t{of LANE os.,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager,
SUBJECT: Information Session on Planning Commission Recommendation on LU
00-0018(A), Mode Split Targets for Alternative Transportation and
Hearing on LU 00-0015(A), Local Street Connectivity
DATE: September 10, 2001
ACTION:
No action is required. The purpose of the information session is to discuss the Planning
Commission's recommendation regarding Alternative Transportation Targets (LU 00-0018(A))
(Exhibit 1). The Commission also held a hearing on Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015(A)),
but continued it for additional time for staff to work with Metro on interpretation matters. Staff
will discuss the relevant issues with this case as well.
BACKGROUND:
Both of these items were denied by the City Council last year. The Planning Commission has
made a recommendation to approve the revised policies regarding Alternative Transportation
Targets. The attached staff reports discuss issues raised by Council and addressed by the
Planning Commission in this case.
Regarding LU 00-0015(A) Local Street Connectivity, the issues Council raised both during the
hearing and during the joint study session with Planning Commission are addressed in the
attached staff report. Staff requested continuance of the August 27, 2001 Commission hearing in
order to more fully explore options with regard to making the development standard more
understandable and working with Metro on some interpretation issues.
EXHIBITS:
1. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 00-0018(A)
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, LU 00-0018(A)
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, LU 00-0015(A)
P/case files/2000/1u-00-0018/0015/Council Information Session Report.doc
Page lof1 00 3
Council Report—LU 00-0015(A)/LU-00-0018(A)Council Information Session Report
0 0 d
ApplawID
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
2 OF THE
3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
4
5
6 A REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF NEW ) LU 01-0018(A) - 1434
7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT LANGUAGE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
8 TO RECOGNIZE NEED TO ESTABLISH ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
9 MODAL TARGETS FOR ALTERNATIVE )
to MODES OF TRANSPORTATION )
11
12 NATURE OF APPLICATION
13 A request by the City of Lake Oswego for adoption of new Comprehensive Plan Text language
14 (Policy, Recommended Action Measure) to recognize the need to establish modal targets for non-
15 single occupant vehicle (SOV) person trips for all Metro 2040 design type areas in Lake Oswego.
16 These areas include town centers, main streets, transit corridors, employment areas and inner
17 neighborhoods, and will result in meeting Metro code requirements [3.07.640(A)] and
18 Transportation Planning Rule Requirements [660-12-035(6)].
19
20 HEARINGS
21 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
22 August 27, 2001.
23
24 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
25 A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code
26 LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
27
28 B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
29 Goal 10: Housing
30 Goal 12: Transportation
31
32 C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional
33 Planning Requirements
34 OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule
35
36 D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
37 Title 6, Regional Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2)
38
39
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 1 " "J. LU 00-0018(A)- 1434
�
1 E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies'
2 Goal 10: Housing, Policy 8
3 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 1
4 Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policy 3
5 Subgoal 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policies 1, 2, 3
6
7 CONCLUSION
8 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 00-0018(A) is in compliance with all applicable
9 criteria.
10
11 FINDINGS AND REASONS
12 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated August 15, 2001 on LU 00-
13 0018(A), (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the
14 further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the
15 supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they
16 are consistent with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral
17 deliberations on this matter.
18
19 ORDER
20
21 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
22
23 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 00-0018(A) be approved by the City
24 Council.
25
26 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
27 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
28
29 DATED this 10th day of Se tember 2001.
30
31
32
33 Daniel Vizzi , air
34 Planning Commission
35
36
37
38
39 Iris Treinen
40 Senior Secretary
I Although the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies are not descnbed as a criteria under LOC 49.60.1505 for
legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, they are listed here and discussed in the Staff Report to address
consistency of the proposed amendment with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and to illustrate how the
referenced LCDC goals cited have been and will be met through the adoption and implementation of this proposal.
PAGE 2 0 0 6 LU 00-0018(A)— 1434
1 ATTEST:
2
3 PRELIMINARY DECISION - August 27, 2001
4
5 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
6 NOES: None
7 ABSTAIN: None
8 ABSENT: Groznik, Sandblast
9
10 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - September 10, 2001
11
12 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
13 NOES: None
14 ABSTAIN: None
15 RECUSE: Sandblast
16 ABSENT: None
PAGE 3 007 LU 00-0018(A)- 1434
€ 08
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANT: FILE NO.:
City of Lake Oswego LU 00-0018(A)
LOCATION: STAFF:
Applies City Wide Jane Heisler, Community Planning i anager
DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF HEARING:
August 15, 2001 August 27, 2001
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS:
All
I. APPLICANT REQUEST
The City of Lake Oswego proposes amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12,
Transportation, to add the following Comprehensive Plan Policies and a definition relating to e
establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas.
These changes are required by the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan:
Goal V,Transportation Demand Management- Proposed New Policies:
4. The City establishes the following alternative transportation targets* for trips into,
out of and within Lake Oswego's land use design type areas which it will strive to
achieve by 2040. The City will analyze its progress toward these targets every fly:
years.
EXHIBIT P
Page 1 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets (�
Planning Commission Staff Report 0 0
Alternative Trip Targets by Design Type
Land Use Design Type Areas (See Figures Current Estimate of Alternative Trip
26—29 of the Comprehensive Plan) Alternative Trip Share Share Tar.ets
Lake Oswego Town Center 35% 55%
Lake Grove Town Center _ 31% 31%
Lake Oswego Main Streets 35% 44%
Boones Ferry Main Street 31% 44%
Kruse Way Employment Center 29% 45%a
Corridors (State Street 35%
A Avenue 35%
Boones Ferry 28% 44%
Kruse Way) 29% _
Inner Neighborhoods (all other areas) 35% 45%
5. The City shall identify and support actions that will implement the adopted
alternative trip targets.
Definition: Alternative Trip Share Targets: Pedestrian, bicycle, transit and carpool
trips as a percentage of all person-trips for all modes of transportation.
II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals:
Goal 10: Housing
Goal 12: Transportation
C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or
Regional Planning Requirements
OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule
D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional
Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2)
E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies'
Goal 10: Housing, Policy 8
Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 1
Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policy 3
Although the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies are not described as a criteria under LOC 49.60.1505 for
legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, they are listed here and discussed in the Staff Report to address
consistency of the proposed amendment with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and to illustrate how the
referenced LCDC goals cited have been and will be met through the adoption and implementation of this proposal.
Page 2 of 9,LU 00-0018(A),Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report l�
Subgoal 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policies
1, 2, 3
III. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS REQUEST:
The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of
LU 00-0018, which proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text, Chapter 12,
Transportation, to add policies and a definition relating to the establishment of non-
single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets in design type areas. The Metro
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requires these changes.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00-
0018 (Exhibit 1, minutes). The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
meeting on February 13, 2001, to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation.
At the joint meeting, there were no specific comments regarding LU 00-0018. At the
public hearing, however, Council members raised the following issues:
1. Concern that it was impossible to "enforce" rules to reduce single occupant
vehicle trips
2. A dislike of the language was expressed (confusing terms), and
3. Concern that the language was redundant with existing adopted comprehensive
plan policies.
The Planning Commission met on July 9, 2001 (Exhibit A, Minutes) to discuss these
issues. The Commission concluded in response to the comments listed above, that:
1. It does not anticipate any "enforcement" from this policy, since it merely sets
targets, but view it as a basis to support future studies to determine a base line and
changes in the single-occupancy vehicle usage rate. Thus, the study will define
the methodology of determining whether the policy is being met, and from those
studies, the Planning Commission and City Council will decide what "action
measures" it believes are appropriate, to advance towards the policy aspirations.
2. It agreed with the Council that the language was confusing and reworded the
proposal to eliminate the term "Non-SOV Mode Split Target", replacing it with
"Alternative Trip Targets." Metro has indicated that this language is satisfactory
to them (Exhibit B-2).
3. The policies are not redundant with existing comprehensive plan policies, but
supplement them by establishing a tool with which to track whether substantive
policies and implementation measures are having an effect on alternative
transportation modes
The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in
November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
(RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in
these documents include encouraging a compact urban form, reducing vehicle miles
traveled per capita, reducing reliance on a single mode of transportation and maintaining
Page 3 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets �'u
Planning Commission Staff Report
oS_
and improving water quality. In 1999,Lake Oswego adopted one of the Title 1
Functional Plan requirements, which is to designate specific Design Type areas includ ng
Town Centers, Employment Centers, Main Streets, Regional Centers, Transit Corrido s
and Inner Neighborhoods, in its Comprehensive Plan. The City also adopted definitio i s
and maps for these design types located within the City.
This report addresses adoption of related Comprehensive Plan changes that are intended
to support and complement adopted requirements and to comply with additional
Functional Plan requirements (Title 6) by establishing mode split targets for non- singl-
occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to. from and within design type areas. Achievement of
these targets in the long tet[a, is intended to result in a more balanced transportation x
in design type areas and greater access to non- SOV modes of transportation.
Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) indicates that the alternative mode split target shall be no 1 ss
than the regional targets for the 2040 Growth Concept land use design types establishers
in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These targets are based on the Metro
targets, with the exception of the alternative share targets for the Lake Grove Town
Center. Metro estimates that the current alternative mode share is 31%, but its modeli g
results indicate that in the future the mode share expected for this type of a town center
would be only 22%. The Planning Commission concluded at its work session that it
would be more acceptable to at least maintain the current mode share as a target, whic is
reflected in the recommendation.
IV. FINDINGS:
A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the
discretion of the City Council, but shall:
1. Comply with any applicable state law;
2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or
Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197,
3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code,
Development Code or Development Standards, comply with any
applicable provisions of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Although these proposed changes are not subject to 49.60.1505(3), above, since they ar
not amendments to implementing standards, this report includes applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies for purposes of illustrating how the City's past actions ha e
met the requirements of the Metro Functional Plan and Transportation Planning Rule a d
how this proposed amendment is consistent with and/or implements the City's
acknowledged comprehensive plan policies.
B. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning goal or Administrative Ru e
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197.
1) Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. This Goal requires communities to
provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. It requires the developme t
Page 4 of 9,LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report
of plans that encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing
units at price and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capaci l es
of Oregon households that allow for flexibility of housing location, type and
density. The proposed policy amendments will result in encouraging more
accessible housing (more types and densities of housing) in main streets, town
centers, employment centers, along transit corridors and in neighborhoods. As he
City increases alternative trip mode share, housing in these locations will be m•re
accessible as it will be served by several modes of transportation in addition to
single occupant auto travel. Therefore, this policy complies with Statewide
Planning Goal 10 because it will allow for increased accessibility of housing to
transportation options.
2) Goal 12, Transportation and Administrative Rule 660-12
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR 660-12-035
(6) Regional and local TSPs shall include interim benchmarks to assur
satisfactory progress toward meeting the requirements of this section at fiv-
year intervals over the planning period. MPOs shall evaluate progress in
meeting interim benchmarks at five year intervals from adoption of the
regional and local TSPs. Where interim benchmarks are not met, the
relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequa e
to meet the requirements of this section.
The Goal requires cities to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system and reduce reliance on a single mode of
transportation. Additional travel options will reduce reliance on a single occupai t
vehicle trips because alternative and more convenient and economic
transportation options than SOVs are expected to be used by residents. shoppers
and employees.
The proposed policy changes are in compliance with the TPR in that they
establish benchmarks with which to measure progress in meeting the overall Cit
goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled.
3) Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional
Accessibility, Section 3.07.640 indicates that mode split will be used as an
important factor in assessing transportation system improvements. It also
indicates that Cities and Counties shall identify actions which will implement the
mode split targets. These actions should include consideration of the maximum
parking ratios adopted as part of Title 2, section 3.07.220; Regional Street Desig
considerations in Title 6 and transit's role in serving the area. The City to date
has undertaken the following actions:
• In 1998, the City of Lake Oswego adopted Metro's maximum parking ratios
(DA 4-96).
• In 1998, the City also adopted policies relating to transit, bicycle and
pedestrian travel as part of the development of its TSP (PA 7-97).
Page 5 of 9,LU 00-0018(A),Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report o 3 `��
• Lake Oswego has also developed a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as
part of its Public Facilities Plan, which includes a balanced list of projects,
including roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes (PA 7-97). Bicycle
and pedestrian projects were ranked based on whether they were located in
areas of high employment or housing density, the connectivity provided,
distance to activity centers, whether they were included on the RTP, the level
of traffic volume in the corridor or street and whether there was an existing
parallel facility.
• In addressing street improvements, the City amended its acceptable level of
service (LOS) for major streets from LOS "D" to LOS "E" in all areas of the
City, in order to encourage alternative modes of transportation.
The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains goals, policies and recommended
action measures that:
• Require that streets designated as Regional Streets on the RTP are
designed to balance all modes of travel and the Metro publication
"Creating Livable Streets" will be used as a resource for street design for
those streets.
• Require the City to work with regional agencies to develop interim
benchmarks for measuring progress toward transportation goals and
policies
• Require the City to educate and inform employers regarding Tri- Met's
demand management programs and to include promotional information in
business license renewal packets for businesses with 25 or more
employees.
• Require businesses in the City's highest density employment areas, such
as the Kruse Way Corridor, to develop Transportation Management
Associations.
• Require development of design and zoning standards for development
within Design Type areas that promotes compact urban form, ensures
pedestrian scale design and encourages transit usage in order to reduce
auto dependence.
In conclusion, the City's Comprehensive Plan currently contains many policies
and program requirements for increasing alternative modes of transportation. The
recommended policies and definition will bring the City into compliance with the
Metro requirements to state the alternative trip targets for design type areas.
Requiring measurement of progress toward these benchmarks every five years
will allow the City to adjust its strategies and programs to better meet the targets.
It is one more tool that the City can use to gauge its progress toward increasing
Page 6 of 9,LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report
non-SOV trips.
C) Comply with any Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
GOAL 10: HOUSING, Policy 8
9. Link housing density and location to reduce automobile travel by
locating high density residential (R-0, R-2 and R-3) and mixed use
developments within walking distance of bus lines or transit centers,
and preferably clustered to as to avoid strip development.
This policy instructs the City to link location of higher density housing in close
proximity to transit availability. Studies have shown that housing densities of 7
dwelling units per acre or greater within 1/4 mile of transit are the minimum
necessary to generate the ridership to make transit financially feasible.
The proposed amendments to the Transportation Chapter will provide the City
with measurable targets for increasing alternative mode splits with a review of
these targets every five years. These proposed amendments are in compliance
with this Housing policy because the use of benchmarks will enable the City to
measure its success, and then adjust its programs, zoning, etc,. in order to move
towards these benchmarks. Therefore, they support making this land use and
transportation connection.
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination
3. The City shall work with Metro, Tri-Met, ODOT and Clackamas
County to develop interim benchmarks for measuring progress
towards transportation goals and policies over the planning period.
The adoption of alternative transportation targets will implement this policy to develop
measurable benchmarks.
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION, Subgoal 5,Transportation Demand
Management
GOAL. Lake Oswego shall develop strategies and implement programs
that reduce the number of automobiles traveling in Lake
Oswego, especially during peak morning and evening traffic
hours.
POLICIES:
1. Work with ODOT, Metro, Tri-Met and Clackamas County to develop
travel demand management programs to maintain the total number
of vehicle miles traveled per-capita in the City at current levels to the
Page 7 of 9, LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportatio Tarts
Planning Commission Staff Report Uij ��,a)
year 2005 and to reduce current vehicle miles traveled by 10% by the
year 2015.
2. Support the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Employee
Commute Options (ECO) goals for trip reductions.
3. Increase the attractiveness of alternative transportation through
mixed-use development in areas consistent with the Region 2040 Plan.
The language in this subgoal and policies supports the intent of the TPR and Metro
Functional Plan as it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita.
In general, TDM strategies are designed to manage the flow of traffic on, and extend the
life cycle of, existing facilities by reducing and reshaping the demand for use of those
facilities. Most TDM strategies are designed to influence travel choices by providing a
reason to choose a means of travel other than driving alone. Achieving the stated
reductions in vehicle miles traveled will be largely as a result of TDM strategies that will
encourage non single-occupant vehicle (non-SOV) trips. Adopting the suggested text
amendments will provide a tool to accomplish this by providing a benchmark for
measuring the effectiveness of the City's programs and strategies for increasing non-SOV
trips.
The following includes some of the programs and strategies that the City has
accomplished to date to increase trips using alternative transportation modes:
• In 1997, the City adopted DA 4-96-1247 which requires employee carpool and
vanpool parking spaces (5% of total spaces) for all commercial and industrial
development which requires a total of 50 or more parking spaces.
• Covered bicycle parking is required for all new multi-family residential developments
of four units or more, commercial, industrial and institutional uses as well as
modifications to these structures by more than 10% of the floor area.
• The building design standard has been amended to require all commercial, industrial.
institutional, multi-family residential and attached single family development to be
designed to incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves and awnings to protect pedestrians
from the elements, encourage pedestrian access, including locating buildings within
30 feet of a public street and having a public entrance directly from the street.
• In 1999, the City applied to Metro for funding for a feasibility study for creation of a
TMA in the Kruse Corridor. It is anticipated that funding may be available within 2-5
years.
• The 1997 adopted parking requirements included modifiers for parking requirements.
Reductions are available for access to transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle access
within the Downtown Redevelopment District and reductions based on a parking
study.
Page 8 of 9,LU 00-0018(A),Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report - (0
6i
V. CONCLUSION:
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan are in compliance with applicable state laws
and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, Metro Functional Plan Requirements
and City Comprehensive Plan policies.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed text
amendments to the City Council.
VII. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS FOR INCREASING
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TRIPS.
While the above recommended changes represent the minimum the City must do in teams of
meeting the Functional Plan at this time, in examining the detailed Round 3 modeling results,
there may be opportunities to craft additional programs and strategies in order to improve non-
SOV travel within the design type areas. Staff has attached a memo in Exhibit C-4-4
summarizing these suggestions.
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2001 work session regarding alternative
transportation benchmarks (LU 00-0018)
B. Planning Commission Memo dated June 27, 2001, regarding work session to discuss
Council comments and direction to staff if additional code amendments required with
Exhibits
B-1) Minutes of September 19, 2000 City Council Hearing on LU 00-0018
B-2) Email from Tom Kloster at Metro dated June 27, 2001
C. Council Report for September 19, 2000 with Exhibits:
C-1) Ordinance 2250
C-2) LU 00-0018 — 1374 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order
C-3) Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 5, 2000
C-4) Planning Commission Staff Report, LU-00-0018
C-5) Planning Commission Findings, LU 00-0018 — 1374
C-6) Minutes of May 8, 2000 and February 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
P/case files/2000/LU 00-0018(A)Staff report LU 00-0018(A).doc
Page 9 of 9,LU 00-0018(A), Alternative Transportation Targets
Planning Commission Staff Report G j 7
018
DRAFT
L�1{O�IAKEOS�zcO
01111,1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 9, 2001
OREGON
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 9, 2001
to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake
Oswego, Oregon,
II, ROLL CALL
Members present were Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards* and Commissioners
Frank Groznik, Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring and Alison Webster. Commissioner
James Johnson was excused.
Councilor John Turchi was present as City Council liaison to the Planning Commission.
Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone. Deputy
City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary.
M. CITT7EN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda
City Councilor John Turchi related that he was Council liaison to the Planning
Commission and that he had arranged his schedule so it would allow him to attend
Commission meetings.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of June 11, 2001, after they
had been amended to change a word in Commissioner Sandblast's comments on
page 3, paragraph 2 from "worried" to "questioned." Commissioner Sandblast
seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and
Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Waring
recused himself. Commissioner Johnson was not present. There were no votes against.
Chair Vizzini revised the meeting Agenda to allow the Commissioners to vote on
Findings, Conclusions and Orders before beginning the Work Session.
V, OTIIER BUSINESS — FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission ova EXHIBIT A
Minutes of July 9,2001 U v. a (LU 00-0018-A)
LU 01-0004, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order
The staff advised the draft to be voted on was a more complete document than he
previous. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised that approval by a majo 'ty
of members present and eligible to vote would be necessary to adopt the Findi igs
document.
Commissioner Sandblast moved to direct the staff to provide a staff rep n rt
regarding the revisions. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0004 Sedoruk/Pri ce
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, Corrected Findings.
Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and the v I to
was split after Commissioners Edwards and Groznik voted yes, and Commissioners
Sandblast and Vizzini voted against. Commissioners Waring and Webster recusr d
themselves from the vote.
Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Council was scheduled to hear t e
matter and if the Corrected Findings were not forwarded to them, the Council wou d
consider the previously adopted Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions a d
Order. Chair Vizzini indicated that he believed the Council should have the revis:d
Findings, even though he did not agree with the Conclusion, Mr. Boone advised th.t
the vote on the Findings and Conclusion was to indicate they did reflect the majority
opinion of the Commission and Commissioners who did not support the Finding..
Conclusion and Order could explain for the record why they disagreed with them. Cha r
Vizzini observed there was insufficient support for conducting another vote at th-
meeting. Ms. Heisler related that the City Council had agreed with a request from th-
applicants to continue the hearing and the applicants had indicated they intended to holt
another meeting with the neighbors.
VI. GENERAL PLANN VG—WORK SESSION
Long Term Care Housing (LU 99-0070)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that the staff had responde.
to a Commission request to clarify some issues related to Long Term Care Housing b
preparing a Comparison Chart and maps (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 in the staff report date.
July 2, 2001). She noted the maps identified where long-term care use categories wer:
currently allowed and where they might be allowed under the proposed language. She
explained the map in Exhibit 4 identified areas (in olive color) that included parcels that
were one half acre or larger and where Special Use Housing was currently permitted
outright, and areas (in pink) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and
abutted Major or Minor Arterial Streets that would be peiniitted as conditional uses
under the proposed language. She pointed out that an olive colored line outlined areas
that were within one half mile of commercial services. She clarified that under the
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 2 0 Page 2 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
current Code Special Use Housing could be sited on any parcel in any residential zon- if
it was over one half acre in size and the facility provided some sort of transportation.
She clarified that the criteria that would allow Special Use Housing as a conditional se
in the R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones were that the use was part of a predominant patte of
higher intensity uses and served as a transitional use between a major street and to er
density uses. She observed there were parcels that might fall into that categor in
Stafford (near Rosemont), but that would be hard to deteu it ne without a comp ete
analysis. She noted the Planning Commission had not discussed how to address Spei ial
Use Housing locations in commercial areas.
Ms. Heisler pointed out that Map 5 designated (in olive) where it was currently possi.le
to locate Nursing and Convalescent Homes and Skilled Nursing facilities as Conditio al
Uses and identified (in pink) where the uses might be allowed as a Conditional se
under the proposed language. She noted that this map also highlighted Collector
Streets. She observed that the proposed language would reduce the number of
locational possibilities for the facilities. She acknowledged that there were other parcels
that should have been colored pink near Lakeridge High School and Luscher Farm, nd
parcels that abutted McVey, Stafford and Country Club Roads. She recalled he
Commissioners had wondered whether the proposed long team care housing regulations
would open the door for other special needs housing, such as homeless shelters, d ug
rehabilitation and half-way houses (see Exhibit 6, June 5, 2000 memorandum from Ron
Bunch to the Planning Commission). The staff memorandum had advised that 'he
definitions proposed by the Long Term Care Housing Ordinance were sufficien ly
specific to prevent it from being interpreted to include a range of short-teiui and sped al
needs housing; however, the Zoning Code allowed and broadly defined "institutio ,al
uses," and institutions such as halfway houses, short-term homeless shelters, and d g
rehabilitation facilities could conceivably be sited in residential areas. The staff had
recommended that the Planning Commission include a recommendation to the Coun it
to pursue a tightening of regulations and criteria for institutional uses.
Ms. Heisler confirmed for Chair Vizzini that the maps in the staff report did not refl:ct
where lots might be assembled into parcels that were large enough to be potent al
Special Use Housing sites under current regulations. He observed that a developer
might be able to assemble sufficient sized property along the City's major corridors 'or
Special Use Housing facilities, but if the facilities were sited along Neighborhood
collectors, such as Greentree Avenue, Knaus Road, and Lake Forest Boulevard, th-y
could be intrusive. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Carman Oaks (which abutted Carm:
Drive), a facility at the National Guard Armory (along South Shore Boulevard), an. a
facility at the City Library site would not be allowed under the proposed regulatio s
because they did not abut a major arterial (please refer to the comparison chart on pate
3 of the staff report).
Chair Vizzini suggested that an additional locational requirement that the facilities we!e
to be within a certain distance of services would allow the facilities on Reese Road, bit
not along South Shore Boulevard, near the Blue Heron Neighborhood (a residential
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001 0 2 1
neighborhood that should not have the impacts of a nursing facility). Ms. Heis'i er
suggested a requirement that would restrict the facilities to a site within a certain
distance of a Major Arterial street.
Chair Vizzini opined that the need for facilities for the aging population should se
balanced against the impact of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Seve al
Commissioners recalled that FAN residents considered the City Library and the Ad It
Community Center to be intrusive.
"Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 7:17.
Ms. Heisler confirmed the Library and Adult Community Center operated under a
Conditional Use Peiniit in a residential zone, and the proposed regulations would of
allow long teiiui care facilities there. She pointed out that the definition "residential c.re
housing" provided that up to one third of the total occupant capacity could be for skill-d
nursing care (see page 21 of the staff report). Ms. Heisler observed that the proposal
had not addressed location of the facilities in commercial zones. She asked if t e
locational criteria used in residential zones should be used in commercial zones (a
predominant pattern of higher intensity uses: transitional land use; easily accessib e;
near services). She said that the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40% might se
very appropriate in a residential zone, but perhaps not in a commercial zone. She ask.-d
if the requirements related to mitigation of the impacts of traffic and maintenance of
neighborhood scale and character should apply to a commercial zone. She asked i a
separate section of the proposal should be created to deal with the uses in ti e
commercial zones. The Commissioners discussed whether there was a need for criteria
and standards other than those that already existed in the commercial zones, or whether
the uses should be permitted outright in the commercial zones. The staff advised that
Special Use Housing was currently permitted use in all three commercial zones;
however, it had to meet special standards listed on page 30 of the staff report.
The Commissioners discussed a suggestion that the "General Conditions" fir
Residential Care Housing printed on page 32 of the staff report should also apply o
those uses in the commercial zones. Ms. Heisler pointed out that General Conditio' s
(1)(c) only permitted siting along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. She advised the e
were NC Zoned areas along South Shore Boulevard, McVey Avenue, Lakevie
Boulevard, Jean Road, Pilkington Road, and Kerr and Monroe Parkway. She asked 'f
the facilities should also be permitted along non-arterial streets in the NC Zon-.
Commissioner Sandblast indicated he did not believe residential care housing w.,s
appropriate along Kerr and Monroe Parkways. Ms. Heisler advised that facilities that
provided their own transportation would be allowed in many areas, including alo g
Goodall Road. She acknowledged that with additional time the staff would be able to
identify more locations for the uses than were indicated on the maps. She said s e
would provide those at the next meeting. She observed there were a number of big to s
on the north side of Country Club Road.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001 0
a
Ms. Heisler advised that Carman Oaks was a residential care facility of apartm:nts
without cooking facilities that also featured some skilled nursing units. She advised 'hat
it could continue as a conditional use under the new regulations, but a new facility co ld
not be sited there.
The Commissioners wondered whether developers would opt to seek a zone change for
residential care housing. Mr. Boone advised that a rigorous analysis of alternative saes
in the City was required to prove a public need for the change and that could discourage
people who wanted to site a small facility. Commissioner Sandblast expressed I is
concern that the proposed language would allow the facilities to be sited in unfores:en
locations. Councilor Turchi acknowledged the issue was a difficult one. He shared
with the Commissioners that he had searched for a care facility for his father in an . ea
near his home and had not found many. He related that he had favored smaller facilities
that offered more personalized care. He observed that it was the larger institutional t pe
structures that the Commissioners desired to keep out of specific areas. Ms. Heisler
recalled that the Building Department had counted 25 adult foster care facilities (ho es
with 5 or fewer clients) within the City limits four years prior; that Marylhurst featu ed
approximately 500 units; and that Cauuan Oaks featured 90 units.
Commissioner Groznik indicated that he did not consider the proposed language to se
too restrictive and he believed that it would allow the facilities to be sited in the Ci y.
Ms. Heisler related that the state legislature had been considering a recommendation .y
the Governor to impose a moratorium on assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone report-d
that he was in the process of preparing a matrix to show what federal and st to
regulations required regarding siting of different types of residential care housi
including drug rehabilitation and halfway housing. He advised against repealing t e
Special Use Housing provisions (which allowed housing for socially disadvantag d
persons to be specially cited) and only allowing residential care housing for medically
disadvantaged persons. He anticipated in that case higher jurisdictions would force ti e
City to make some arrangements for housing for social rehabilitation. T e
Commissioners discussed a suggestion to add a socially disadvantaged element to t e
definition of "residential care housing" and couple that with stringent location.l
requirements. Ms. Heisler advised that a developer could still rely on the City's bro.d
definition of"institutional use" to site a facility.
Mr. Boone advised that a public agency or a private educational, cultural, religious oI
social welfare facility might qualify as a Major Public Facility and be allowed to site
facility — an "institutional use" - as a conditional use. However, he advised th,
Commissioners not to recommend a repeal of the Special Use Housing provision.
because federal and state laws said the City had to provide for that kind of housin:
somewhere, such as in the "institutional use." provisions. He suggested the Plannin:
Commission could recommend to the City Council that separate criteria should b.
created for siting socially disadvantaged housing. He said the matrix he was to
complete and present to the Commission would include the state definitions of"skilleu
nursing" and "convalescent care" and he would further categorize uses into •
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001 0 2 . 3
"halfway" and rehabilitation" housing category. He added that he also intended to
define what was a "school." He anticipated the matrix would help the Planning
Commission to decide whether to deal with the issue in the light of the proposed
ordinance or to suggest to the City Council that Code provisions for "institutio al
uses" should be refined.
The staff recommended that the Commission schedule another work session an. a
public hearing regarding the issue. They agreed to provide the matrix and refine 'he
maps prior to the next meeting. Chair Vizzini observed the consensus was not to dir ct
the staff to create separate locational criteria for facilities in commercial zon-s.
Commissioner Sandblast asked for a brief staff report.
Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, recalled the City Council had not
favored the Planning Commission's recommendation of Code amendments in LU 10-
0015. She discussed the following concerns that had been expressed by Counci ors
(see staff memorandum to the Commission dated June 27, 2001).
1. The recommended changes "go too far" and should only reflect illet o's
minimum requirements (that they be applied to parcels of 5 acres or larger a nd
that they should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. he
maps alarmed some people.
Ms. Heisler advised the 13 maps could be eliminated because very few incluaed
parcels large enough for the Metro requirement to be applied and the text of he
proposal clarified that connections (to schools, between activity areas or to tra!sit
facilities) were proposed in areas where right of way was available or could be m:de
available through development or redevelopment. She noted that most of he
proposed pedestrian access ways were located within existing rights of way or
easements, or were routed over public lands. She suggested that some mechani.m
be used to keep track of them, such as including them in the Public Facilities P an
(PFP) or in neighborhood plans. She advised that eliminating the maps would of
put the City out of compliance with Metro requirements.
2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity.
Ms. Heisler reported that data to support the need for connectivity was provided b, a
Metro study that concluded that local street connectivity reduced traffic demand on
regional roadways and in five areas that had been studied. She observed a healthy
market demand for developments that were within walking distance of transit .nd
employment areas.
3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001 (y ,2; r
She acknowledged that there would be only isolated instances in which connectiv ty
would apply, particularly if the provision was applied only to parcels 5 acres or
larger. She explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation that ti e
provisions apply to parcels that were at least 5 times the minimum lot size in tl e
zone and abutted developable land that was also 5 times the minimum lot size
reflected the Commission's perspective that all of these situations should .e
reviewed, but that did not necessarily mean that a connecting street or accessway
would be required.
4. Residents favor cul de sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods.
She said that although an advantage of a cal de sac might be that it helps red e
through traffic, that was also its weakness, because it increased traffic past cert.'n
properties by forcing everyone to take the same route. She noted the Me'ro
provision for a shorter cul de sac allowed some flexibility in situations such as wh-n
there was no developable land or very steep land that would not accommod.te
another development beyond the development with the cul de sac.
5. Future connectivity is good, but don't make people retrofit when they come ,*n
with a proposal.
She recalled the Councilors were concerned that property owners who presentd
plans to construct a gazebo or garage would be subject to a connectivity review. S e
suggested that the Commission might address the Council's concerns by a)
eliminating all maps and references to maps and amend the text language to apply
the connectivity review process to any parcel proposed for development t at
included creation of a lot and was greater than five times the required minimum let
size; and (b) removing requirements for future street plans for ministerial
developments. She explained that would mean that someone who applied for a
building peinlit for a single-family house would not be subject to the connectivity
review process.
6. The recommendations do not go far enough. There are no provisions fir
neighborhood review.
She explained that the Planning Commission recommendation had assumed th.t
current review process requirements regarding notice to properties within 300 feet .f
a subdivision and a developer/neighborhood meeting would remain in place.
Mr. Boone clarified that existing standards required a site analysis for a major
development that could trigger an access requirement. Ms. Heisler pointed out that t le
language regarding lands that had been included on the maps in 26.025(2) [at the top of
page 14] provided that a proposal for a ministerial development did not requi e
dedication of a street, but required a future streets plan and placement of structur,s
according to the setback of the future right of way. She suggested that the City mig t
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 2 '0 Page 7 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
require access dedication in the case of a lot partition, but she also recalled he
Councilors' comment that, on balance, property rights were more important t an
obtaining an accessway.
One Commissioner said that property owners might misinterpret conceptual maps as
regulation, but they should be made aware of connectivity issues. Ms. Heisler advi•ed
there were not many opportunities for requiring a street inside the current •ity
boundaries, but if the Stafford area were included, those opportunities would incre e.
Mr. Boone acknowledged that it had been a challenge for the staff to draft the propo.al
because the language might require an owner to provide a future streets olan when he
only wanted to build a garage or a barn, but the language might also discourage hVm
from placing the structure over an area where the City would like to see an access w:v.
He referred to the example mapped on page 28 of the staff report. He noted the bets
that represented a future residential access way showed in a very general way whey. it
would be located, but unless the future pathway was platted, an owner might buil. a
garage over it. He contrasted this hypothetical case to Dolan vs. the City of Tig. d,
advising that case revolved around a requirement to dedicate land, but the hypothetic al
case might simply be a situation where the City would encourage an owner to locate 'is
garage on the right side of his house, rather than the left side, without any "taking" of
property rights. The City would plan to build the access way on the left side when it hid
the funds to do so, and it would not be necessary to buy a garage on the left side or
relocate the access way on the right side (where it might also be more costly to the C.ty
due to topography, or impact another nearby property owner with a smaller lot (a
"domino" effect). He said the question was "When should we restrict development o er
a possible future access way?" He assured the Commissioners that the dots (indicati g
the access way) in the example were not going to be in the right place after a site
analysis had been accomplished. He asked when that analysis should be accomplished.
Commissioner Groznik opined that should be when there was an overriding public ne:d
for that connection. Mr. Boone observed that some would say it was needed now - fir
connectivity - but the City will not extract it now because it did not have the funs.
Commissioner Groznik indicated that he believed it was important to determine tie
location of access ways now and funding for the projects should be included in t e
Streets Plan in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Heisler observed that would requi e
an analysis by either the City or the developer. Mr. Boone observed that it complicat:d
a partitioning process to have an access way sited ahead of the partitioning process.
Commissioner Sandblast stressed that it was important to have a conceptual plan 'n
place, even if the access way was not exactly located. Chair Vizzini said he desired 'o
see a more aggressive approach to planning access ways than simply advising prope 'y
owners of the potential street requirement. He said the marketplace should be made
aware of them at the earliest possible time in order to prevent an unfortunate situatio
where a structure might have to be moved. He wondered whether some people mig it
try to frustrate the connectivity policy by placing obstacles in the way. Mr. Boo e
clarified for Ms. Webster that he was not certain that placing a structure where an access
way would go through was "devaluing" the owner's land, but that it might be possible to
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001 026
frustrate an access way to cause appreciation of the land. Chair Vizzini related t at
property owners in Forest Highlands might not welcome connecting pathways in their
neighborhood because they did not want to see strangers walking through their ba k
yards.
• Mr. Boone identified a difference between a roadway and a residential access way: it
might be easier to site an access way by bending it. He recalled that some homeown:rs
felt that access ways posed a security concern because they provided some dark, angl d
places for people to hide. He recalled that access ways could be designed with saf-ty
ion mind. The staff advised that access ways were often planned along the boundari-s
between lots. Councilor Turchi commented that if the City did not warn owners th-y
needed to make accommodations for pathways that already existed in the Cit 's
Transportation System Plan the City was frustrating its own Plan and making it
impossible to connect things. Ms. Heisler advised that all of the pathways identified in
the Pathway Plan were along rights of way. She recalled the staff had identifii d
opportunities for connectivity in areas where the lots were less than 5 acres in size, b t
they felt that a threshold of three times the minimum lot size was too small becau.e
those parcels were typically only partitioned into two lots. They believed that the larg-r
parcels (at 5 times or larger) were situations where a future street would be constructs d
or partitioning might facilitate the location of access ways. Mr. Boone recalled a rece t
subdivision review where the DRC had allowed the pedestrian pathway to be located n
the required 20% Open Space area, and the area of the access way still was counted •s
Open Space because the pathway was located where it provided an appropria e
connection for the neighborhood. He clarified that location of a pathway would me
inappropriate through sensitive land, but that lot clustering within subdivisions cou d
result in additional land for a pathway.
Chair Vizzini observed a general consensus that the maps should be eliminated. M..
Heisler observed the Commissioners did not seem to favor a requirement for a
connectivity review during ministerial applications. Chair Vizzini asked the staff uo
schedule a public hearing regarding the issue. Ms. Heisler suggested that it se
scheduled for August 27, 2001.
Modal Targets (LU 00-0018)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that Metro Functional Pla i,
Title 6, required cities and counties to establish benchmarks and measure t e
community's progress towards their targeted percentage of non-single occupant vehicl-
modes of travel. She noted the targets had been set for the City's "Design Type" area.,
including Main Streets, Town Centers, Employment Centers and significant street
corridors. (See chart of current and targeted percentages on page 2 of the staff
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001.) She explained eac
jurisdiction was to measure and review its progress at five-year intervals. Mr. Boon-
related the City Council had not favored the previous Planning Commissio
recommendation of Comprehensive Plan amendments to add policies and a definitio
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 27 Page 9 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
relating the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets
in design type areas. Ms. Heisler listed the Councilors' concerns.
1. It would be a challenge to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips
unless single occupant vehicle trips were taxed. Ms. Heisler advised that Titl- 6
simply imposed a requirement to measure and compare the percentage of trips .y
alternative modes of travel against the percentage of non-single-occupancy-vehii le
trips. She clarified for the Commissioners that Metro required this provision to se
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in order to gauge whether the Plan as
working.
2. The recommended language is confusing. She pointed out that the staff as
suggesting that the language `iNon-SOV Mode Split Targets" be changed to
"Alternative Trip Share Targets." She reported that Metro had indicated they co ld
agree to the change of language and proposed text.
3. The recommended language is redundant with existing adopted Comprehensi e
Plan policies. She advised that Comprehensive Plan policies already called fat a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the City. and that would happen when drivers
began to use other modes of travel besides single occupancy vehicle travel.
Ms. Heisler related that Metro was now counting school bus trips as alternative tries,
and that their expectations of the level of use of alternative transportation was not as
high in Lake Grove (which has a low level of transit service and very few intersectio s
per mile) as in Downtown, where there were many intersecting streets and route optio s
that would encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. She clarified that the currant
and targeted share percentages reflected what the Regional Transportation Plan (RTC')
expected for each design type area. Chair Vizzini commented that the same factors
(availability of paid parking, level of transit service and number of intersections .er
mile) might also be benchmarked in the Quality of Life Indicators Program. A
Commissioner commented that the target for Lake Grove should be at least as high .s
the current percentage share of alternative trips.
Mr. Boone advised the Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the issue befo e
they made any additional recommendations to the City Council. Chair Vizzini direct.d
the staff to schedule a public hearing.
VIE. OTHER BUSINESS
July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
Ms. Heisler announced that a Metro representative was to discuss periodic review of ti e
2040 Plan, and Ron Bunch, Special Projects Manager, would discuss the connection
between the Qualify of Life Indicators Program and sustainability at the Commissio 's
July 23, 2001 meeting.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Conunission 0 a Page 10 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
Foothills Road Improvement District Committee
The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Groznik was to serve as Planni g
Commission representative to the Foothills Road Improvement District Committee a id
Commissioner Waring was to serve as alternative representative. Ms. Heisler relat:d
that the Committee was to consider whether the area should be planned to incluiie
additional uses and a non-industrial connection with the waterfront.
VIIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Vizzi i
adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
1:\pc\minutes\07-09-01.doc
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission t 9 Page 11 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001 0 2
o tl o
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANT: FILE NO.:
City of Lake Oswego LU 00-0015(A)
LOCATION: STAFF:
Applies City Wide Jane Heisler, Community Planning M.nager
DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF HEARING:
August 17, 2001 August 27, 2001
I. APPLICANT REQUEST:
The City of Lake Oswego proposes:
A. New Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 26, Local Street Connectivit
Standard to comply with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements and
Metro Code requirements regarding local street connectivity; and
B. Text Amendments to LODS 25, On-Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways,
Walkways and Accessways; and
C. Text Amendments to LOC Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks, to add
methodology for measuring a cul-de-sac or dead end street length and revising
maximum length for a cul-de-sac or dead end street from 1000 feet to 200 feet.
These changes are required by the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and are
found in Exhibit 1, Ordinance 2307.
II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals:
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources EXHIBIT 3
Goal 8: Parks and Recreation
Page 1 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity 0 3
Planning Commission Staff Report
Goal 10: Housing
Goal 12: Transportation
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
C. Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or
Regional Planning Requirements
OAR 660-12 Transportation Planning Rule
D. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional
Accessibility, Metro Code 3.07.640(A)(1) and (2)
E. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, Policy 4
Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Policy 8)c)
Goal 10: Housing, Policy 10
Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3,Neighborhood Collectors and Local
Residential Streets, Policy 9
Goal 13: Energy Conservation, Policy 5
III. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS REQUEST:
A. Introduction and Background:
The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in
November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
(RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in
these documents include encouraging a compact urban form, reducing vehicle miles
traveled per capita, reducing reliance on a single mode of transportation and maintaining
and improving water quality.
This report addresses adoption of related code changes that are intended to support and
complement Metro Functional Plan requirements (Title 6) by establishing criteria for
auto, bicycle and pedestrian route connectivity for residential developments.
The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of
LU 00-0015, which proposed a new Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 26,
Local Street Connectivity. This new standard and other related code changes were
proposed to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not create excessive
travel lengths or limit route choices, by requiring connected streets and accessways under
certain conditions, limiting the length of cul-de-sacs under certain conditions and
providing for construction standards for residential accessways.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00-
0015 (Exhibit E-2, minutes). The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
meeting on February 13, 2001, to discuss Council's concerns with this recommendation.
Page 2 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity 0 3 2
Planning Commission Staff Report '
At the joint meeting, there were several specific comments regarding LU 00-0015 tha;
were raised by the Council as follows:
1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro
minimum requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not
apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps.
2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity
3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated.
4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods.
5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for
a proposal.
6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for
neighborhood review.
The Planning Commission met on July 9, 2001 (Exhibit B, Minutes) to discuss these
issues. The Commission concluded in response to the comments listed above, that it
would review a revised LODS 26 at a public hearing. The revisions would include
eliminating the requirement for review of ministerial developments under the
connectivity standard and elimination of the maps from the standard.
B. Discussion:
Local Streets generally serve the immediate travel needs of the City at the neighborhood
level. They serve most short automobile, bicycle and pedestrian trips. When the local
street system is designed to have many connections to local destinations, it reduces travel
on major streets for local circulation needs. In addition, when direct multi-modal routes
are in place, auto travel is reduced.
The Metro standards require cities and counties to identify all contiguous areas of vacant
and redevelopable parcels of five or more acres planned or zoned for residential or
mixed-use development and prepare a conceptual new streets plan map. The purpose of
the map is to provide guidance to landowners and developers on desired street
connections that will improve local access and preserve the integrity of the regional street
system. The proposed draft does not contain maps, since the city currently does not have
any residentially zoned parcels of five acres or more. The draft proposal would require
review of developments under the connectivity criteria in the following circumstances: 1)
when development is proposed that requires the construction of a street, 2) proposed
development results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or
aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size
required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that is also at least
five times the minimum or 3) construction of a structure other than a single family
dwelling, zero lot line or duplex that also is at least five times the minimum lot size
required by the zone and abuts similarly sized property. Development proposed under 3)
could include conditional uses such as churches, long-tesin care housing or other
institutional uses or multi-family uses.
Page 3 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity
Planning Commission Staff Report 03 3
In addition to the street plan map, cities and counties are to require new development that
will require construction of new street(s) to provide a street map that provides full
connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where
prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, preexisting development
or water features where regulations implementing Title 3 of the Functional Plan do not
allow or prescribe different standards for street facilities. When full streets are not
possible, pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way are to be provided
at intervals of no more than 330 feet.
The draft standards also allow the review authority the ability to grant exceptions to the
requirements to full street improvements when the presence of sensitive lands, extreme
topography, traffic safety issues, freeways or existing development patterns preclude the
logical connection of streets. The review authority may also grant exceptions to
accessway requirements if the applicant demonstrates that reducing the number or
location of connections would not result in an increase in out-of-direction travel to
activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines or that existing
development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of accessways
and when the applicant has submitted an alternate design which serves the purpose of
providing safe, convenient and direct bicycle/pedestrian access which is consistent with
the purposes of the standard.
IV. FINDINGS:
City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
A legislative decision is generally a policy decision that is up to the discretion of the
City Council, but shall:
1. Comply with any applicable state law;
2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197,
3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code, Development
Code or Development Standards, comply with any applicable provisions of
the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
1) Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning goal or Administrative Rule
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197.
A) Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources. This goal
requires communities to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and
land resources of the state. The proposed changes requiring through streets, rather
than allowing cul-de-sacs and dead end streets as a matter of course, will provide
more direct routes that may be used to travel to local destinations. Providing
multi-modal through-routes will also encourage walking, biking and transit use,
since users of these transportation modes will have shorter distances to travel in
many instances, auto travel will be reduced, and hence, associated auto pollution.
Therefore, the proposed changes will result in maintaining or improving the air
Page 4 of 9, LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity
Planning Commission Staff Report 0 3
quality in Lake Oswego.
B) Statewide Planning Goal 8, Parks and Recreation. This goal requires
communities to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability
of the resources to meet such requirements. These connectivity standards could
result in additional and shorter routes to parks for many existing and future City
residents by reducing travel distances. Therefore, the proposed changes will
improve access to and from the city's parks and recreation facilities, making them
more readily available to residents.
C) Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing. This Goal requires communities to
provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. It requires the development
of plans that encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing
units at price and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capacities
of Oregon households that allow for flexibility of housing location, type and
density. The proposed policy amendments will result increasing the availability
and frequency of transportation routes to and from homes and schools, shopping,
employment and bus routes for existing and future residents. Therefore, the
proposed amendments will result in providing more accessible housing.
Therefore, this policy complies with Statewide Planning Goal 10 because it will
allow for increased accessibility of housing to transportation options and
destinations.
D) Goal 12, Transportation and Administrative Rule 660-12
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR 660-12-020)
(2)(b) ...The standards for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe
and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation necessary to carry our
OAR 660-012-045(3)(b). The standards for the layout of local streets
shall address: (A) Extensions of existing streets; (B) Connections to
existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors; and (C)
connections to neighborhood destinations.
660-12-045(3)(b): On-site facilities shall be provided which accommodate
safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new
subdivisions, multi-family developments, planned developments,
shopping centers and commercial districts to adjacent residential
areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity centers within
one-half mile of the devilment. Single-family residential developments
shall generally include streets and accessways.
660-12-045(3)(b)(E): Streets and accessways need not be required where one
or more of the following conditions exist:
(i) Physical or topographic conditions make a street or accessway
connection impracticable. Such conditions include, but are not
limited to freeways, railroads, steep slopes, wetlands or other bodies
of water where a connection could not reasonably be provided.
(ii) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands
Page 5 of 9, LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity [f 3 J
Planning Commission Staff Report
physically preclude a connection now or in the future considering the
potential for redevelopment; or
(iii) Where streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases,
easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of
May 1, 1995 which preclude required street or accessway connection.
660-12-045(4)(b)(B): Pedestrian connections to adjoining properties shall be
provided except where such connection is impracticable as provided
for in OAR 660-012-045(3)(b)(E)
Goal 12 requires cities to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system and reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation.
Requiring frequent (every 530') full street connections and frequent (every 330')
pedestrian/bike accessways, will provide convenient and more economic
transportation by reducing trip lengths to local destinations. Reducing trip lengths
by requiring more travel routes will increase the probability that walking and
bicycling trips will be made rather than auto trips for local trip. Providing multi-
modal travel options from neighborhoods to destinations will encourage
alternative modes of transportation and thus, reduce reliance on the automobile.
The proposed code changes, therefore, are in compliance with the TPR in that
they will reduce reliance on a single mode of transportation and provide more
convenient transportation to local destinations.
The Transportation Planning Rule requires safe and convenient multi-modal
connections to local activity centers and for connections to be stubbed to abutting
properties when practicable. Exceptions are allowed for physical or topographic
constraints. The proposed code changes require frequent multi-modal
connections, where feasible, between neighborhoods and activity centers, allow
for exceptions if physical and topographic constraints exist and require
connections to be stubbed to abutting properties. Therefore, the proposed code
changes are in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule in that they
ensure connectivity, the extension of streets to abutting property, where feasible
and exceptions to these requirements when physical and topographic constraints
exist.
E) Goal 13, Energy Conservation. Goal 13 requires cities and counties to conse-ve
energy. Land, and uses developed on the land, shall be managed and controlled
so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles. The proposed amendments require frequent street and/or
accessway connections with new development. Connections are to provide multi-
modal connections to decrease trip length and to encourage alternative modes of
travel activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, bus lines and parks.
Providing frequent, multi-modal connections will save fuel in two ways: reducing
fuel consumption and by encouraging non-auto trips by decreasing trip length.
Therefore, these amendments will reduce fuel energy use and thereby comply
with this goal.
Page 6 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity Gel; 6
Planning Commission Staff Report
F) Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional
Accessibility, Section 3.07.630, Design Standards for Street Connectivity.
This standard indicates that the aggregate effect of local street design impacts the
effectiveness of the regional street system when local travel is restricted by a lack
of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional network.
Therefore, it concludes, streets should be designed to keep through trips on
arterial streets and provide local trips with alternative routes. The proposed
standards are intended to improve local circulation in a manner that protects the
integrity of the regional system by requiring frequent multi modal routes when
development occurs, increasing the probability that local trips will remain on local
streets or accessways and local trips will decrease on major streets, thereby
complying with this criteria.
2) Comply with any applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; Air Resources Quality
4. Increase the opportunity to use alternative transportation as a means to
reduce air pollution by:
a. Requiring safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle pathways as
part of all new street construction projects, where feasible;
c. Requiring the design of new development to be supportive of
pedestrian, transit and bicycle users;
The proposed development standard and related changes require additional connections
to and from activity centers in the form of full street improvements every 530 feet or
accessways every 330 feet, depending on topography, lot size and type of development
proposed. These standards also require through streets rather than cul-de-sacs and
accessways when full streets are not feasible. Requiring frequent travel connections
encourages residents to walk or bike (non-polluting modes of transportation) rather than
utilize their automobile for short trips to local destinations. These proposed requirements
also will result in safe and comfortable pedestrian and bike facilities and are supportive of
alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in
compliance with this policy.
Goal 8: Parks and Recreation
8. Develop parks that:
c. Are, where possible, accessible by a variety of transportation modes
including transit, bicycling and walking.
The proposed amendments will require full streets every 530 feet or residential
accessways every 330 feet when development is proposed on larger parcels or groups of
parcels. This will ultimately result in reducing trip length for many existing and new
residents as development occurs. It will also provide additional auto, bike and pedestrian
access to parks and may improve access to transit lines which serve major park and
recreation facilities. Therefore, these amendments comply with this Chapter 8 policy.
Page 7 of 9,LU 0015(A), Local Street Connectivity g 3 7
Planning Commission Staff Report U'tJ
Goal 10: Housing
10. Provide for an interconnected street system to encourage pedestria n,
bicycle and transit travel and to reduce vehicle miles traveled to to n al
destinations thus reducing energy use, pollution and congestion.
The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system wit
new development, rather than closed-end streets. This will reduce travel time and
increase modal choices to local destinations. Therefore, the proposed amendments wi 1
result in reducing energy use, pollution and congestion associated with longer auto tri.
lengths and will provide safe and convenient options to auto travel where none may n.w
exist.
Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local
Residential Streets
9. Ensure that connectivity of local streets is achieved in order to:
a. Reduce excessive trip lengths;
b. Efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and
medical vehicles;
c. Promote the use of alternative modes of travel;
d. Ensure even dispersal of local traffic; and
e. Provide local street circulation patterns that provide
connections to and from activity centers such as schools,
commercial areas, parks and employment centers.
The proposed amendments require an interconnected street and accessway system for to e
purposes stated in this Comprehensive Plan policy. By providing frequent interconnec led
multi-modal transportation routes, trip lengths will be reduced, emergency vehicles wil
be able to reach destinations more easily and quickly, additional modes of travel may b-
encouraged since travel distances to activity centers will be reduced and local traffic will
not be restricted to one route choice as is often the case when roads and accessways are
not interconnected. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in compliance with this
policy.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
5. Promote energy efficiency through site planning for all types of developme ii t
including residential subdivisions, multi-family, commercial and industrial
projects.
The proposed amendments will require more energy efficient site planning by ensuring
full street and accessway connections are constructed, when development is proposed
under certain circumstances. Multiple routes to destinations results in shorter routes fo
more travelers, which increases walking, transit use where applicable and bicycling.
Page 8 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity 0 3 3 PlanningCommission Staff Report
�
4
Interconnected streets and frequent intersections are characteristics of"transit supporti e
development," which is a strategy to preserve mobility and livability, while conserving
energy, reducing pollution and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the propos=d
amendments are in compliance with this goal in that they will increase energy efficien•v
through site planning that requires more connectivity of travel routes.
V. CONCLUSION:
The proposed amendments to add a new development standard (LODS 26), amend LODS 20 .nd
make changes to Chapter 42 to provide for local street connectivity, are in compliance with
applicable state laws and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, Metro Functional
Plan Requirements and City Comprehensive Plan policies.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed code
amendments to the City Council.
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance 2307, Local Street Connectivity
B. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2001 work session regarding local street
connectivity (LU 00-0015)
C. Planning Commission Memo dated June 27, 2001, regarding work session to discuss
Council comments and direction to staff if additional code amendments required with
Exhibits
C-1) Ordinance 2246, Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015
C-2) Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing
C-3) Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting
C-4) Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps
C-5) Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Tom Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro
Street Design Work Team
C-6) Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues
D. Minutes of September 19, 2000 City Council Hearing on LU 00-0015
E. Council Report for September 19, 2000 without Exhibits:
F. Draft illustrating changes from initial (2000) proposal
Case files2000/LU 00-0015/2001 Activity/Staff report LU 00-0015(A)
Page 9 of 9,LU 0015(A),Local Street Connectivity G �a �ll h
Planning Commission Staff Report 3 9 .N'
040
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING LOCAL STREET
CONNECTIVITY; AMENDING THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION
42.03.085 (CUL-DE-SACS AND DEAD END STREETS); AND ADOPTING CHAPTER
26 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (LODS); AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE LODS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSW AYS.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding
the new text shown in redline and underline.
Section 1. Section 42.03.085 is hereby amended to read as follows
42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets.
LOC 42 Streets and Sidewalks
LOC 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Closed End Streets.
1. Cul-de-sacs shall not be permitted where they would preclude current or future through
connections. If all connections required by a neighborhood circulation plan are made, or
if natural constraints restrict connection, cul-de-sacs may be permitted with appropriate
accessways required for pedestrian and bicycle circulation
2. Cul-de-sacs shall generally be designed with a circular closed end with sufficient radius
and right-of-way to allow for utilities, street lights, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. Use of a
"fish tail" or "hammerhead" configuration must be approved by the City Engineer.
Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all closed end streets cul de sacs wi:h
five or more lots.
3. A cul-de-sac or closed end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no event more
than 206�000 feet in length. A cul-de-sac or closed-end street shall provide a turnaround
without the use of a driveway. Dead end streets shall not be permitted against the-Urban
Gfewth Be dary unless a-fer-cseete e-oxxtinuation shall bo demonstrated.
th of-a cult de-sac or closed-e'nd street 4: , ;='fri-cleterriiin.,'ig Elie leii� .f for°complariee with(3)
above, the starting point for'th'e in-easureinent shall be at.the:intersection of the centerline
of.theproposed-closed-erid.street:or cul=de-sac:with the projected edge of the.ri ht=of-
way of the nearest_intersecting through street, measured along the centerline of the cul-
de-sac or closed-end street to the nearestpoint of curvature of the-cul-de-sac bulb or the
nearest angle=of-a hammerhead turn around(See Appendix Al'. The length of a cul-de-
sac'or hammerhead.does not include the area devoted to the turnaround, and shall be
measured along the centerline-according to the methods illustrated on Appendix A. A
future streettlan that shows a street will be extended from a nroposed closed-end street,
Page 1 of 4 041 EXHIBIT A
(LU 00.0015-A)
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A)
tia form afthrouah street, il1`riot'be:au%ieca`fd.the.200-'foot limitation and will be
consi:dered:at'emporar$closed':'end: 'In such cases a temporary provision for fuming
arounctwithbu tisiiig a dr'iveivav;!shaltbe'recuir'edi
Section 2. The Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) are hereby amended to adopt
Chapter 26.000, Local Street Connectivity, as shown in Exhibit "A" for the purpose of providing
a Local Street Connectivity standard to ensure that the layout of the local street system does not
create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices.
Section 3. Lake Oswego Development Standard (LODS) 20.005, "On-Site Circulation
Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "B"
for the purpose of providing construction standards for residential accessways.
Section 4. Effective Date of subsection LODS 26.020(3). Prior to codification, the City Recor.er
shall insert the effective date in LODS 26.020(3) to be the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of t 'e
City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Page 2 of 4
042
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE No. 2307 (LU 00-0015-A)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
M:\Ord\2307
Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A))
The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) is hereby amended by addi ig a
new Chapter 26.000 entitled "Local Street Connectivity" as follows:
26.000 LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY
26.005 Title
The title of this standard is "Local Street Connectivity"
26.010 Applicability.
This standard is applicable to any development that requires:
a) The construction of a street, or
b) Results in creation of an additional parcel and is located on a parcel or aggregate
of parcels that contains land area that is five times the minimum lot size required by the zone
within which the parcel is located and abuts land that meets the definition of"further
redevelopable" land, or
c) Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duple
zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure
which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20.105(2)(c), which is
located on a parcel or aggregate of parcels that contains land area that is at least five times the
minimum lot size required by the zone within which the parcel is located and abuts land that
meets the definition of"further redevelopable" land.
26.012 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that:
1) The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or
limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to
reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient
provision of utility and emergency services,provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and
reduce air pollution and energy consumption;
2) Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs o
pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes;
3) Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography
and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones,
pursuant to LOC 48.17; Floodplains, pursuant to LODS 17.005; and steep slopes, pursuant to
LODS 16.005;
4) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from th-
efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets;
5) The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and
from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas,parks, employment centers and other
major trip generators;
6) The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity
requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met;
7) Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude
properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the
requirements of this standard, and,
44
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A))
8) To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedes an
accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to
schools, transit, shopping and employment areas.
26.015 Definitions.
1) Residential Accessway: A strip of land intended for use by pedestrians and
bicyclists that provides a direct route through single family residential development where the
use of public roads would significantly add to the travel time and/or distance.
2) Closed-end street: A street that has only one connection to any other existing
through street or planned through street. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are examples of
closed-end streets.
3) Abutting parcels: Parcels of land that share a common boundary.
4) Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi-modal access, a street section
that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping,
drainage and all other City standards or requirements.
5) Further Developable: For the purpose of this standard, a lot or parcel is furthfr
developable if it contains land area that is at least five times larger than the minimum lot size
required in the zone in which the lot or parcel is located.
26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Constructio i of
a Street
1) Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be
designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this
standard as determined by the Review Authority.
2) Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street
connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between through streets, measured along th-
centerline of the right-of-way line of the nearest through streets in all directions from the site ti
be developed, except when the provisions of subsection 5, below, are met.
3) Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets whici
abut the development site.
4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where ;)
the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b)
construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end
streets are allowed under Section 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more the
25 dwellings.
5) The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Secti•ns
1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to addre•s
the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following:
a. Extreme topography(over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a
projected automobile route;
b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.17 or floodplai u s
LODS 17.005, where regulations do not allow construction of or prescribe different standards .r
street facilities;
c. the presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting
property_which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions;
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A))
d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation f
other city standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or
e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases
easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which
preclude required street or accessway connections.
6) If the Review Authoriy allows an exception to the above standards for full street
connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-
way so that spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the
nearest bicycle and pedestrian conne,-:tions in all directions from the site.
7) The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential
accessway connections required by LDDS 26.020(2) based on findings that demonstrate:
a) that reducing me number or location of connections would not result in
increase in out of direction travel from the proposed development to activity centers in the area,
such as schools, shopping, parks or bus lines, or
b) that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logica
connection of residential accessways.
26.025 Standards for Approval
1. When an applicant proposes a development that
a. Does not require the construction of a street, but creates new lots or
parcels, (e.g., a subdivision, flag lot or partition), and
b. Is located on a lot or parcel that is a minimum of five (5) times the
required minimum lot size in the zone in which the proposed development will occur, and;
c. Abuts one or more_lots or parcels that are a minimum of five (5) times th
required minimum lot size in the zone in which they are located, the Review Authority shall
require:
1) A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in
the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future
connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for
full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the
standards of 26.020(2) — (7).
2). Placerr Tit of structures in a manner that allows for the future
street(s) or accessways to be construc d, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone
setbacks from the future streets.
26.030 Procedures
For all development, the applicant sh submit:
1. Proof of notification o . circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and
subsection 2, below, to all property o ors within 530 feet of a proposed development if any
future streets or accessways are props J beyond the boundaries of the subject development.
Notification shall be in a form substa ally similar to the example provided by the City.
Notification shall be sent to the appli : and the owners of record on the most recent property
tax assessment roll of property locate ithin 530 feet of a proposed development as stated
above, in the manner required in LO( ..44.920.
2. A circulation analysis mch includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum:
043
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A))
a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the
proposed development site.
b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography for slopes of
ten(10) percent or greater, with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet,
c. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas,
d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing andl
approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways,
e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the
Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood
Plans;
f. All permanent structures;
g. Property lines;
h. Pedestrian oriented uses within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site
(e.g., bus lines, schools,parks, shopping);
i, All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant,
containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing strictures and land features on the
subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard.
26.035 Standards for Construction.
1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in
LOC Chapter 42.
2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in
LODS 20.025
C4 �
n .ar I'
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2307 (LU 00-0015(A))
The text of the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) 20.025, "On Site Circulation
Standards-Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways," is hereby amended by adding the new text
shown in redline and underline.
20.25 Standards for Construction.
7. A Residential accessway shall include:at least a 15-foot wide right-of-way or
easement and a minimum 6-foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around major
trees or vegetation, but shall be as straight as practicable, considering_the circumstances related
to the property
8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of
asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crashed rock, or four inches of
concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Depending on location, topography or presence of
sensitive lands, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential
accessway surfacing for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in
width.
9. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle access at
locations where accessways abut streets.
10. Accessways shall be constructed in such a way as to allow surface drainage to
sheet flow across them. and not flow along them longitudinally.
P/case files/an000015-A/LODS 26.doc
li
M•\Ord\2246-ExhA-LODS26.doc
048
DRAFT
01 LAKE osk,
cPAIIIIII
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
.(' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
\ k 1'IWO." ..)
�1 July 9, 2001
OREGO$
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 9, 2001
to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake
Oswego, Oregon.
H. ROLL CALL
Members present were Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards'" and Commissioners
Frank Groznik, Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring and Alison Webster. Commissioner
James Johnson was excused.
It
Councilor John Turchi was present as City Council liaison to the Planning Commission.
Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy
City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary.
I U. CITT7EN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda
City Councilor John Turchi related that he was Council liaison to the Planning
Commission and that he had arranged his schedule so it would allow him to attend
Commission meetings.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of June 11, 2001, after they
had been amended to chance a word in Commissioner Sandblast's comments on
pace 3, paragraph 2 from "worried" to "questioned." Commissioner Sandblast
seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and
Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Waring
recused himself. Commissioner Johnson was not present. There were no votes against.
Chair Vizzini revised the meeting Agenda to allow the Commissioners to vote on
Findings, Conclusions and Orders before beginning the Work Session.
V. OTHER BUSINESS —FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission G 4 9 EXHIBIT B
Minutes of July 9,2001 (LU 00-0015-A)
LU 01-0004, Corrected Findings, Conclusions and Order
The staff advised the draft to be voted on was a more complete document than the
previous. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised that approval by a majority
of members present and eligible to vote would be necessary to adopt the Findings
document.
Commissioner Sandblast moved to direct the staff to provide a staff report
regarding the revisions. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0004 Sedoruk/Prince
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Corrected Findings,
Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and the vote
was split after Commissioners Edwards and Groznik voted yes, and Commissioners
Sandblast and Vizzini voted against. Commissioners Waring and Webster recused
themselves from the vote.
Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Council was scheduled to hear the
matter and if the Corrected Findings were not forwarded to them, the Council would
consider the previously adopted Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and
Order. Chair Vizzini indicated that he believed the Council should have the revised
Findings, even though he did not agree with the Conclusion. Mr. Boone advised that
the vote on the Findings and Conclusion was to indicate they did reflect the majority
opinion of the Commission and Commissioners who did not support the Finding,
Conclusion and Order could explain for the record why they disagreed with them. Char
Vizzini observed there was insufficient support for conducting another vote at the
meeting. Ms. Heisler related that the City Council had agreed with a request from the
applicants to continue the hearing and the applicants had indicated they intended to holkl
another meeting with the neighbors.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING— WORK SESSION
Long Term Care Housing (LU 99-0070)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that the staff had responde
to a Commission request to clarify some issues related to Long Term Care Housing b
preparing a Comparison Chart and maps (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 in the staff report dated
July 2, 2001). She noted the maps identified where long-term care use categories were
currently allowed and where they might be allowed under the proposed language. She
explained the map in Exhibit 4 identified areas (in olive color) that included parcels that
were one half acre or larger and where Special Use Housing was currently permitted
outright, and areas (in pink) that included parcels that were one half acre or larger and
abutted Major or Minor Arterial Streets that would be permitted as conditional use
under the proposed language. She pointed out that an olive colored line outlined area
that were within one half mile of commercial services. She clarified that under th
00
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
current Code Special Use Housing could be sited on any parcel in any residential zone if
it was over one half acre in size and the facility provided some sort of transportati n.
She clarified that the criteria that would allow Special Use Housing as a conditional se
in the R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones were that the use was part of a predominant pattern of
higher intensity uses and served as a transitional use between a major street and lover
density uses. She observed there were parcels that might fall into that category in
Stafford (near Rosemont), but that would be hard to determine without a complete
analysis. She noted the Planning Commission had not discussed how to address Special
Use Housing locations in commercial areas.
Ms. Heisler pointed out that Map 5 designated (in olive) where it was currently possile
to locate Nursing and Convalescent Homes and Skilled Nursing facilities as Conditional
Uses and identified (in pink) where the uses might be allowed as a Conditional Use
under the proposed language. She noted that this map also highlighted Collec ror
Streets. She observed that the proposed language would reduce the number of
locational possibilities for the facilities. She acknowledged that there were other parcels
that should have been colored pink near Lakeridge High School and Luscher Farm, and
parcels that abutted McVey, Stafford and Country Club Roads. She recalled the
Commissioners had wondered whether the proposed long teini care housing regulations
would open the door for other special needs housing, such as homeless shelters, drug
rehabilitation and half-way houses (see Exhibit 6, June 5, 2000 memorandum from Rbn
Bunch to the Planning Commission). The staff memorandum had advised that the
definitions proposed by the Long Term Care Housing Ordinance were sufficiently
specific to prevent it from being interpreted to include a range of short-term and specal
needs housing; however, the Zoning Code allowed and broadly defined "institutional
uses," and institutions such as halfway houses, short-term homeless shelters, and drUg
rehabilitation facilities could conceivably be sited in residential areas. The staff hlad
recommended that the Planning Commission include a recommendation to the Council
to pursue a tightening of regulations and criteria for institutional uses.
Ms. Heisler confirmed for Chair Vizzini that the maps in the staff report did not reflect
where lots might be assembled into parcels that were large enough to be potental
Special Use Housing sites under current regulations. He observed that a developer
might be able to assemble sufficient sized property along the City's major corridors for
Special Use Housing facilities, but if the facilities were sited along Neighborhood
collectors, such as Greentree Avenue, Knaus Road, and Lake Forest Boulevard, thley
could be intrusive. Ms. Heisler pointed out that Carman Oaks (which abutted Carman
Drive), a facility at the National Guard Armory (along South Shore Boulevard), an4 a
facility at the City Library site would not be allowed under the proposed regulations
because they did not abut a major arterial (please refer to the comparison chart on page
3 of the staff report).
Chair Vizzini suggested that an additional locational requirement that the facilities w re
to be within a certain distance of services would allow the facilities on Reese Road, ut
not along South Shore Boulevard, near the Blue Heron Neighborhood (a resident al
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 J - Page 3 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
neighborhood that should not have the impacts of a nursing facility). Ms. Heisler
suggested a requirement that would restrict the facilities to a site within a certain
distance of a Major Arterial street.
Chair Vizzini opined that the need for facilities for the aging population should be
balanced against the impact of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Several
Commissioners recalled that FAN residents considered the City Library and the Aault
Community Center to be intrusive.
*Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 7:17.
Ms. Heisler confirmed the Library and Adult Community Center operated unde a
Conditional Use Permit in a residential zone, and the proposed regulations would of
allow long term care facilities there. She pointed out that the definition "residential c re
l.
housing" provided that up to one third of the total occupant capacity could be for skil ed
nursing care (see page 21 of the staff report). Ms. Heisler observed that the prop sal
had not addressed location of the facilities in commercial zones. She asked if he
locational criteria used in residential zones should be used in commercial zones (a
predominant pattern of higher intensity uses; transitional land use; easily accessible;
near services). She said that the maximum lot coverage requirement of 40% might be
very appropriate in a residential zone, but perhaps not in a commercial zone. She asked
if the requirements related to mitigation of the impacts of traffic and maintenance of
neighborhood scale and character should apply to a commercial zone. She asked if a
separate section of the proposal should be created to deal with the uses in he
commercial zones. The Commissioners discussed whether there was a need for cnt ria
and standards other than those that already existed in the commercial zones, or whether
the uses should be peliLiitted outright in the commercial zones. The staff advised that
Special Use Housing was currently permitted use in all three commercial zones;
however, it had to meet special standards listed on page 30 of the staff report.
The Commissioners discussed a suggestion that the "General Conditions" for
Residential Care Housing printed on page 32 of the staff report should also apply to
those uses in the commercial zones. Ms. Heisler pointed out that General Conditi ns
(1)(c) only permitted siting along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. She advised th re
were NC Zoned areas along South Shore Boulevard, McVey Avenue, Lakev'ew
Boulevard, Jean Road, Pilkington Road, and Kerr and Monroe Parkway. She aske if
the facilities should also be permitted along non-arterial streets in the NC Zone.
Commissioner Sandblast indicated he did not believe residential care housing Nlyas
appropriate along Kerr and Monroe Parkways. Ms. Heisler advised that facilities that
provided their own transportation would be allowed in many areas, including along
Goodall Road. She acknowledged that with additional time the staff would be able to
identify more locations for the uses than were indicated on the maps. She said he
would provide those at the next meeting. She observed there were a number of big lots
on the north side of Country Club Road.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission �+2 Page 4 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
Ms. Heisler advised that Carman Oaks was a residential care facility of apartments
without cooking facilities that also featured some skilled nursing units. She advised that
it could continue as a conditional use under the new regulations, but a new facility could
not be sited there.
The Commissioners wondered whether developers would opt to seek a zone change for
residential care housing. Mr. Boone advised that a rigorous analysis of alternative sites
in the City was required to prove a public need for the change and that could discourage
people who wanted to site a small facility. Commissioner Sandblast expressed bus
concern that the proposed language would allow the facilities to be sited in unforeseen
locations. Councilor Turchi acknowledged the issue was a difficult one. He shared
with the Commissioners that he had searched for a care facility for his father in an area
near his home and had not found many. He related that he had favored smaller facilities
that offered more personalized care. He observed that it was the larger institutional type
structures that the Commissioners desired to keep out of specific areas. Ms. Heisler
recalled that the Building Department had counted 25 adult foster care facilities (horrles
with 5 or fewer clients) within the City limits four years prior; that Marylhurst featured
approximately 500 units; and that Cainian Oaks featured 90 units.
Commissioner Groznik indicated that he did not consider the proposed language to be
too restrictive and he believed that it would allow the facilities to be sited in the City.
Ms. Heisler related that the state legislature had been considering a recommendation by
the Governor to impose a moratorium on assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone reported
that he was in the process of preparing a matrix to show what federal and state
regulations required regarding siting of different types of residential care housing,
including drug rehabilitation and halfway housing. He advised against repealing the
Special Use Housing provisions (which allowed housing for socially disadvantaged
persons to be specially cited) and only allowing residential care housing for medically
disadvantaged persons. He anticipated in that case higher jurisdictions would force the
City to make some arrangements for housing for social rehabilitation. The
Commissioners discussed a suggestion to add a socially disadvantaged element to the
definition of "residential care housing" and couple that with stringent locatioihal
requirements. Ms. Heisler advised that a developer could still rely on the City's broad
definition of"institutional use" to site a facility.
Mr. Boone advised that a public agency or a private educational, cultural, religious or
social welfare facility might qualify as a Major Public Facility and be allowed to site a
facility — an "institutional use" - as a conditional use. However, he advised the
Commissioners not to recommend a repeal of the Special Use Housing provisions
because federal and state laws said the City had to provide for that kind of housing
somewhere, such as in the "institutional use." provisions. He suggested the Planning
Commission could recommend to the City Council that separate criteria should be
created for siting socially disadvantaged housing. He said the matrix he was to
complete and present to the Commission would include the state definitions of "skilled
nursing" and "convalescent care" and he would further categorize uses into a
053
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
"halfway" and rehabilitation" housing category. He added that he also intended to
define what was a "school." He anticipated the matrix would help the Planning
Commission to decide whether to deal with the issue in the light of the proposed
ordinance or to suggest to the City Council that Code provisions for "institutional
uses" should be refined.
The staff recommended that the Commission schedule another work session and a
public hearing regarding the issue. They agreed to provide the matrix and refine the
maps prior to the next meeting, Chair Vizzini observed the consensus was not to direct
the staff to create separate locational criteria for facilities in commercial zones.
Commissioner Sandblast asked for a brief staff report.
Local Street Connectivity (LU 00-0015)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, recalled the City Council had not
favored the Planning Commission's recommendation of Code amendments in LU 00-
0015. She discussed the following concerns that had been expressed by Councilors
(see staff memorandum to the Commission dated June 27, 2001).
1. The recommended changes "go too far" and should only reflect Metro's
minimum requirements (that they be applied to parcels of 5 acres or larger and
that they should not apply to ministerial decisions). Do not include maps. The
maps alarmed some people.
Ms. Heisler advised the 13 maps could be eliminated because very few included
parcels large enough for the Metro requirement to be applied and the text of the
proposal clarified that connections (to schools, between activity areas or to transit
facilities) were proposed in areas where right of way was available or could be made
available through development or redevelopment. She noted that most of the
proposed pedestrian access ways were located within existing rights of way or
easements, or were routed over public lands. She suggested that some mechanistn
be used to keep track of them, such as including them in the Public Facilities Plan
(PFP) or in neighborhood plans. She advised that eliminating the maps would not
put the City out of compliance with Metro requirements.
2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity.
Ms. Heisler reported that data to support the need for connectivity was provided by a
Metro study that concluded that local street connectivity reduced traffic demand On
regional roadways and in five areas that had been studied. She observed a healthy
market demand for developments that were within walking distance of transit and
employment areas.
3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
She acknowledged that there would be only isolated instances in which connectivity
would apply, particularly if the provision was applied only to parcels 5 acres or
larger. She explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation that the
provisions apply to parcels that were at least 5 times the minimum lot size in the
zone and abutted developable land that was also 5 times the minimum lot sine
reflected the Commission's perspective that all of these situations should be
reviewed, but that did not necessarily mean that a connecting street or accessway
would be required.
4. Residents favor cul de sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods.
She said that although an advantage of a cul de sac might be that it helps reduce
through traffic, that was also its weakness, because it increased traffic past certain
properties by forcing everyone to take the same route. She noted the Metro
provision for a shorter cul de sac allowed some flexibility in situations such as when
there was no developable land or very steep land that would not accommodate
another development beyond the development with the cul de sac.
5. Future connectivity is good, but don't make people retrofit when they come in
with a proposal.
She recalled the Councilors were concerned that property owners who presented
plans to construct a gazebo or garage would be subject to a connectivity review. She
suggested that the Commission might address the Council's concerns by (a)
eliminating all maps and references to maps and amend the text language to apply
the connectivity review process to any parcel proposed for development that
included creation of a lot and was greater than five times the required minimum lot
size; and (b) removing requirements for future street plans for ministerial
developments. She explained that would mean that someone who applied for
building permit for a single-family house would not be subject to the connectivity
review process.
6. The recommendations do not go far enough. There are no provisions for
neighborhood review.
She explained that the Planning Commission recommendation had assumed that
current review process requirements regarding notice to properties within 300 feet Of
a subdivision and a developer/neighborhood meeting would remain in place.
Mr. Boone clarified that existing standards required a site analysis for a major
development that could trigger an access requirement. Ms. Heisler pointed out that the
language regarding lands that had been included on the maps in 26.025(2) [at the top Of
page 14] provided that a proposal for a ministerial development did not require
dedication of a street, but required a future streets plan and placement of structures
according to the setback of the future right of way. She suggested that the City might
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission U 0 Page 7 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
require access dedication in the case of a lot partition, but she also recalled the
Councilors' comment that, on balance, property rights were more important than
obtaining an accessway.
One Commissioner said that property owners might misinterpret conceptual maps as
regulation, but they should be made aware of connectivity issues. Ms. Heisler advised
there were not many opportunities for requiring a street inside the current City
boundaries, but if the Stafford area were included, those opportunities would increase.
Mr. Boone acknowledged that it had been a challenge for the staff to draft the proposal
because the language might require an owner to provide a future streets plan when he
only wanted to build a garage or a barn, but the language might also discourage him
from placing the structure over an area where the City would like to see an access way.
He referred to the example mapped on page 28 of the staff report. He noted the dots
that represented a future residential access way showed in a very general way where it
would be located, but unless the future pathway was platted, an owner might build a
garage over it. He contrasted this hypothetical case to Dolan vs. the City of Tigard,
advising that case revolved around a requirement to dedicate land, but the hypothetical
case might simply be a situation where the City would encourage an owner to locate his
garage on the right side of his house, rather than the left side, without any "taking" of
property rights. The City would plan to build the access way on the left side when it had
the funds to do so, and it would not be necessary to buy a garage on the left side or
relocate the access way on the right side (where it might also be more costly to the City
due to topography, or impact another nearby property owner with a smaller lot (a
"domino" effect). He said the question was "When should we restrict development over
a possible future access way?" He assured the Commissioners that the dots (indicating
the access way) in the example were not going to be in the right place after a site
analysis had been accomplished. He asked when that analysis should be accomplished.
Commissioner Groznik opined that should be when there was an overriding public need
for that connection. Mr. Boone observed that some would say it was needed now - for
connectivity - but the City will not extract it now because it did not have the funds.
Commissioner Groznik indicated that he believed it was important to determine the
location of access ways now and funding for the projects should be included in the
Streets Plan in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Heisler observed that would require
an analysis by either the City or the developer. Mr. Boone observed that it complicated
a partitioning process to have an access way sited ahead of the partitioning process.
Commissioner Sandblast stressed that it was important to have a conceptual plan in
place, even if the access way was not exactly located. Chair Vizzini said he desired to
see a more aggressive approach to planning access ways than simply advising property
owners of the potential street requirement. He said the marketplace should be made
aware of them at the earliest possible time in order to prevent an unfortunate situation
where a structure might have to be moved. He wondered whether some people might
try to frustrate the connectivity policy by placing obstacles in the way. Mr. Bone
clarified for Ms. Webster that he was not certain that placing a structure where an access
way would go through was "devaluing" the owner's land, but that it might be possible to
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 e.)V Page 8 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
frustrate an access way to cause appreciation of the land. Chair Vizzini related that
property owners in Forest Highlands might not welcome connecting pathways in their
neighborhood because they did not want to see strangers walking through their back
yards.
Mr. Boone identified a difference between a roadway and a residential access way: it
might be easier to site an access way by bending it. He recalled that some homeowners
felt that access ways posed a security concern because they provided some dark, angled
places for people to hide. He recalled that access ways could be designed with safety
ion mind. The staff advised that access ways were often planned along the boundaries
between lots. Councilor Turchi commented that if the City did not warn owners they
needed to make accommodations for pathways that already existed in the City's
Transportation System Plan the City was frustrating its own Plan and making it
impossible to connect things. Ms. Heisler advised that all of the pathways identified in
the Pathway Plan were along rights of way. She recalled the staff had identified
opportunities for connectivity in areas where the lots were less than 5 acres in size, but
they felt that a threshold of three times the minimum lot size was too small because
those parcels were typically only partitioned into two lots. They believed that the larger
parcels (at 5 times or larger) were situations where a future street would be constructed
or partitioning might facilitate the location of access ways. Mr. Boone recalled a recent
subdivision review where the DRC had allowed the pedestrian pathway to be located in
the required 20% Open Space area, and the area of the access way still was counted as
Open Space because the pathway was located where it provided an appropriate
connection for the neighborhood. He clarified that location of a pathway would be
inappropriate through sensitive land, but that lot clustering within subdivisions could
result in additional land for a pathway.
Chair Vizzini observed a general consensus that the maps should be eliminated. Ms.
Heisler observed the Commissioners did not seem to favor a requirement for a
connectivity review during ministerial applications. Chair Vizzini asked the staff to
schedule a public hearing regarding the issue. Ms. Heisler suggested that it be
scheduled for August 27, 2001.
Modal Targets (LU 00-0018)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that Metro Functional Plan,
Title 6, required cities and counties to establish benchmarks and measure the
community's progress towards their targeted percentage of non-single occupant vehicle
modes of travel. She noted the targets had been set for the City's "Design Type" areas,
including Main Streets, Town Centers, Employment Centers and significant street
corridors. (See chart of current and targeted percentages on page 2 of the staff
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001.) She explained each
jurisdiction was to measure and review its progress at five-year intervals. Mr. Boone
related the City Council had not favored the previous Planning Commission
recommendation of Comprehensive Plan amendments to add policies and a definitipn
G57
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 9 of 11
Minutes of July 9, 2001
relating the establishment of non-single-occupant-vehicle (Non-SOV) mode split targets
in design type areas. Ms. Heisler listed the Councilors' concerns.
1. It would be a challenge to enforce rules to reduce single occupant vehicle trips
unless single occupant vehicle trips were taxed. Ms. Heisler advised that Title 6
simply imposed a requirement to measure and compare the percentage of trips by
alternative modes of travel against the percentage of non-single-occupancy-vehicle
trips. She clarified for the Commissioners that Metro required this provision to be
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in order to gauge whether the Plan was
working.
2. The recommended language is confusing. She pointed out that the staff was
suggesting that the language "Non-SOV Mode Split Targets" be changed to
"Alternative Trip Share Targets." She reported that Metro had indicated they could
agree to the change of language and proposed text.
3. The recommended language is redundant with existing adopted Comprehensive
Plan policies. She advised that Comprehensive Plan policies already called for a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the City, and that would happen when drivers
began to use other modes of travel besides single occupancy vehicle travel.
Ms. Heisler related that Metro was now counting school bus trips as alternative trips,
and that their expectations of the level of use of alternative transportation was not as
high in Lake Grove (which has a low level of transit service and very few intersections
per mile) as in Downtown, where there were many intersecting streets and route options
that would encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. She clarified that the current
and targeted share percentages reflected what the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
expected for each design type area. Chair Vizzini commented that the same factgrs
(availability of paid parking, level of transit service and number of intersections per
mile) might also be benchmarked in the Quality of Life Indicators Program. A
Commissioner commented that the target for Lake Grove should be at least as high as
the current percentage share of alternative trips.
Mr. Boone advised the Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the issue before
they made any additional recommendations to the City Council. Chair Vizzini directed
the staff to schedule a public hearing.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
Ms. Heisler announced that a Metro representative was to discuss periodic review of the
2040 Plan, and Ron Bunch, Special Projects Manager, would discuss the connection
between the Qualify of Life Indicators Program and sustainability at the Commission's
July 23, 2001 meeting.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 10 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
Foothills Road Improvement District Committee
The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Groznik was to serve as Planning
Commission representative to the Foothills Road Improvement District Committee and
Commissioner Waring was to serve as alternative representative. Ms. Heisler related
that the Committee was to consider whether the area should be planned to include
additional uses and a non-industrial connection with the waterfront.
VLLI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Vizzini
adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
1:\pc\minutes\07-09-01.doc
•
G 9
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 11 of 11
Minutes of July 9,2001
fib °
°SwE� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
MEMORANDUM
ON EGOS
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Man(g- ---/
SUBJECT: LU 00-0015, Discussion of Council Comments and Direction to Staff if
Additional Code Amendments are Required
DATE: June 27, 2001
ACTION:
The purpose of this work session is to discuss the Council's comments regarding LU 00-0015
Local Street Connectivity and to determine whether the Commission would like to make changes
to its previous recommendation to Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council on June 26, 2000 of LU 00-
0015, which creates a new Development Standard (LODS 26, Local Street Connectivity) and
amends LOC Chapter 49.20 and Chapter 42, Streets and Sidewalks to comply with Metro
Functional Plan, Title 6, Regional Accessibility and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
requirements. Exhibit 1 contains the previously recommended ordinance language.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which it denied LU 00-0015.
The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on February 13, 2001 to discuss
Council's concerns with this recommendation. At the public hearing and the joint meeting,
Council members raised the following issues:
1. The recommended changes "go too far." They should be closer to Metro minimum
requirements (regarding lot area of minimum five acres and should not apply to ministerial
decisions). Do not include maps.
2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity
3. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated.
4. People liked cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods.
5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal,
6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review.
Page 1 of 6, LU 0015, Local Street Connectivit
EXHIBIT C
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 24416 1 (1_U 00.0015-A)
The minutes of the Council hearing on LU 00-0015 are found in Exhibit 2. The minutes of the
joint Planning Commission/Council meeting are found in Exhibit 3.
These points are discussed in the staff analysis below.
DISCUSSION:
1. The recommendations should be closer to the Metro minimum requirements. The purpose of
these standards, as stated in the draft, is to furnish a layout of local streets that does not create
excessive travel lengths or limit route choices, which then will increase the use of alternative
transportation modes. The minimum requirements per Metro Title 6 would include:
• Identification of all contiguous areas of vacant and underdeveloped parcels of five or
more acres planned or zoned for residential or mixed use and preparation of a conceptual
local street plan.
• The map should conceptually demonstrate opportunities to extend and connect to existing
local streets, provide direct routes and limit the potential of cul-de-sacs and other closed
end street designs.
• The maps shall provide for full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet
between connections except where there is extreme topography, railroads, freeways or
preexisting development or environmental constraints.
• Provide for bike an pedestrian connections at spacing of no more than 330 feet, with same
exceptions as stated above,
• Include no closed end streets longer than 200 feet, or with more than 25 dwelling units,
and,
• For redevelopment of existing land uses that require construction of new streets, develop
local approaches for meeting the connectivity and design standards outlined in Title 6.
The Planning Commission's recommendation included 13 maps containing a combination of
proposed street connections and residential accessways (pedestrian connections). Very few
of these maps contain parcels or groups of parcels of five acres or more. Rather, the maps
identify areas throughout the City where street and pedestrian connectivity was determined to
be desirable. The rationale behind these choices is explained in detail in Exhibit 4. To
summarize Exhibit 4, connections were proposed in areas where either right of way was
available or could be made available through development or redevelopment, to provide
connections to schools, between activity areas, or to transit facilities, where none exists now.
The purpose of the maps is to act as a reminder to property owners, developers and City staff
and review bodies that connectivity is desirable in a particular location and that, if a rational
nexus can be established between what they are requesting of the City and the connectivity
requirements, then the City will require the needed improvements.
The Planning Commission may wish to discuss eliminating the maps altogether and rely on
the text only to describe the situations in which connectivity will be examined and possibly
requested. This can be accomplished while remaining in compliance with Title 6, in that no
other parcels of five acres or larger remain to be developed in the City. The southerly parcel
Page 2 of 6,LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity b 0 %�L►
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 vj'J
•
on Map 1 was approved for a 23-lot subdivision recently and the connectivity requirements
would no longer apply. Proposed pedestrian connections on Maps 7, 8, 10 and 11 are located
within public rights of way or easements or on publicly owned land. The City could pursue
these connections at any time, whether they are mapped or not. Also, if they were desirable
to neighborhoods, residents could include them in their neighborhood plans or request
construction through the neighborhood enhancement grant program or the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). The proposed text requires all parcels that are at least four times
the size of the minimum lot size required in the zone, and are abutting other redevelopable
parcels, to be reviewed for connectivity.
In regard to other Title 6 requirements, the recommended proposal contains language
requiring street and pedestrian connection spacing and addresses redevelopment situations.
Item 6, below, addresses the breadth and depth of the those recommendations
2. There is no data to support the need for connectivity.
The Metro policies and implementation requirements contained in the Functional Plan and
the Framework Plan are based on research that Metro has done as well as experience both in
the Portland metro area and elsewhere. Exhibit 5 is a report summarizing the Metro Regional
Street Design Study. This study modeled and evaluated street connectivity impacts on traffic
conditions along regional streets designated in the 2040 Growth Concept. The study
concludes that moderate to high local street connectivity reduces traffic demand on the
regional roadways and overall vehicle traffic demand across each of the five representative
case study areas.
Reducing the need to drive forms the basis for connectivity. If streets go through and contain
opportunities for pedestrians and bikes, transportation choices will be increased and,
therefore, utilized more. Connectivity can be defined as a system of streets with multiple
routes and connections serving the same origins and destinations. It relates to the number of
intersections along a segment of street as well as how an entire area is connected by the
system. An area with high connectivity has multiple points of access around its perimeter as
well as a dense system of parallel routes and cross-connections within the area. The purpose
of a "redundant" street system is to provide multiple choices for drivers wishing to travel
short distances completely within the area, and from within the area to points outside of the
area, without being forced to travel on a major arterial. More people will walk, take transit or
ride a bike if the transportation system provides these kinds of safe and convenient
opportunities.
The urban principle of the "five-minute walk," was popularized by Andres Duany and
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and has been implemented through several "new urbanist" designs,
including Seaside, Florida, The Kentlands and Laguna West, Sacramento, California. But
connectivity is not a new concept. The history of society is the history of connectedness.
Before automobiles, all streets were connected and multi-modal. For most of history
connectivity was not an abstract theory but a necessity of everyday life.
Page 3 of 6, LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity n ,
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 13 '-'
Related to connectivity is the issue of cul-de-sacs. The minimum Metro requirements of
limiting cul-de-sacs to no more than 200 feet and containing no more than 25 dwelling units
is contained in the recommended language. It appears to be a reasonable standard that can be
applied with rational exceptions to the rule, which have also been included in the
recommended language. Exceptions for steep topography, presence of natural resources and
lack of undevelopable parcels abutting a site are included.
3. People like cul-de-sacs because they keep traffic out of neighborhoods.
Many suburban residents choose cul-de-sacs because they prevent through traffic on their
street. However, if you live at the "mouth" of the cul-de-sac, you receive all of the traffic
from the rest of the homes on the street, who are unable to choose an alternate route to their
destination. Therefore, its great advantage—the elimination of through traffic—is also its
weakness, because it compels everyone in a given subdivision to use the same few roads,
often at the same times. Limiting cul-de-sacs to situations where they are absolutely
necessary for the redevelopment of land and are the minimum length necessary, can be an
important part of improving connectivity. The Planning Commission's proposed language
recommends meeting the Title 6 requirements.
4. The instances in which connectivity would apply would be very isolated. Opportunities for
connectivity on parcels within the City are limited, if a minimum of five acres is the
standard. However, the community can create more opportunities through the crafting of its
requirements for connectivity. The Planning Commission's previous recommendation
includes a review of connectivity opportunities if certain conditions are met such as lot size
of at least five times the minimum required size in the zone in which it is located and buts
any parcels that are at least five times or greater in size than the minimum lot size required in
the zone in which they are located. Exceptions are also included when certain circumstances
exists, such as extreme topography, the presence of sensitive lands or access issues. By
requiring this review for parcels less than five acres in size, opportunities for additional
connectivity may be recognized.
5. Future connectivity is good but don't make people retrofit when they come in for a proposal.
The Council's discussion showed concern about requiring a particular connection when and,
if someone came in for a building permit for a gazebo or other ministerial permit and found
out that they would have to have their plans reviewed for compliance with connectivity
requirements.
The Planning Commission's previous recommendation contains connectivity review
requirements for several different scenarios including:
Lll Development which requires the construction of a street on lands designated on the
Local Connectivity Maps. Since these types of development include a street, they
would encompass major partitions, subdivisions and planned developments.
Connectivity review would be conducted simultaneous with and be a part of
development review. Establishing a rational nexus for requiring improvements in
compliance with the standards would then be established.
Page 4 of 6,LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity !/
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 1 E.! ' `�'!
gj Development which does not require the construction of a street on lands designated
on the local Connectivity Maps. This type of development could include a
subdivision, flag lot or partition that utilizes existing frontage on a public street. This
section requires a future streets plan to be filed with the City and recorded on the
applicable County Clerk records as a condition of approval. The future streets plan is
to show how the location of a future street or accessway will provide for full
development of the subject parcel and any abutting parcels in order to meet the
standards. Structures must also be placed in a manner that allows for the future
streets to be constructed as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone
setbacks from the future streets. The same requirements would apply to ministerial
developments on mapped lands (future streets plan, placement of structures to avoid
future street or pedestrian connection).
(3) Development on lands not designated on Local Connectivity Maps. This section
applies to unmapped lands for development that requires construction of a street, is
proposed on a lot or parcel which is five times or greater in size than the minimum lot
size required by the zone in which the development is located and abuts a property
that is further developable (also five times or greater in size than the minimum
required lot size in the zone).
In order to address Council's concerns, the Commission may want to consider the following
options:
a. Remove all maps from the proposal. Amend language currently applicable to
mapped areas to be applicable to any parcel proposed for development that
includes creation of a lot and is greater than five times the required minimum
lot size.
b. Remove requirements for future streets plan for ministerial developments
Redrafted text including these options appears in Exhibit 6 for the Commission's review.
6. Recommendations don't go far enough. There are no provisions for neighborhood review.
Neighborhoods would continue to review development requirements based on existing city
regulations regarding neighborhood notice and public hearing notice. For example, following
a pre-application meeting for a subdivision, a developer would be required to meet with the
neighborhood association within which the parcel is located as well as all property owners
within 300 feet of the site, prior to submittal to the City of a development application. A
public hearing would also be held, which requires the same parties to be noticed as in the
neighborhood contact stage of the development, and an opportunity to testify at the
Development Review Commission.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council goals indicate that this item will be reviewed again in September, 2001. In
order for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation in a timely fashion, it should
schedule a public hearing no later than its first meeting in August.
Page 5 of 6, LU 0015,Local Street Connectivity
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 , j
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance 2246, Planning Commission recommended code changes, LU 00-0015
2. Minutes of the September 19, 2000, Council hearing
3. Minutes of the February 13, 2001 joint Council/Planning Commission meeting
4. Explanation of inclusion of parcels in Local Connectivity Maps
5. Technical Memo dated May 20, 1997, to Tom Kloster and Rich Ledbetter, Metro
Street Design Work Team
6. Revised draft of connectivity standards addressing several Council issues
Case tiles/2000/LU 00-0015/Supplemental Staff Report.Connectivity round Il.doc
Page 6 of 6, LU 0015, Local Street Connectivity n
Planning Commission Work Session—July 9, 2001 V