Loading...
Agenda Packet - 2011-11-28 AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKEOSWEGO cMm ww+o-:oio PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 380AAvenue Monda November 28 2011 PO Box 369 Y� > Lake Oswego,OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503-635-0290 City Hall - Council Chamber www.ci.oswego.ocus/plan Contact: Iris McCaleb Also published on the internet at: Email: imccaleb@ci.oswego.ocus www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/planning_commission Phone: 503-697-6591 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact Iris McCaleb at 503-697-6591,48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda (3 minute limit per Individual) This is an opportunity to raise issues regarding Planning or Citizen Involvement. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE S. MINUTES 5.1 August 22, 2011 5.2 October 10, 2011 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) Review and discuss preliminary background reports for inspiring spaces and places and complete neighborhoods and housing action areas. Staff coordinator is Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner. 6.2 Boones Ferry Road Plan Implementation (LU 11-0040) Update and discussion of plan and code amendments to implement the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Study. Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner,Assistant Planning Director. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054—Community Development Code- Policy Related Housekeepine Amendments. Amendments(Chapter 50)for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions have been identified as having policy implications. This hearing is continued from November 14, 2011. The Commission will begin with page 120 which covers Article 50.42 Weak Foundation Soils. Additional portions that may be covered include Article 50.43 Hillside Protection,Article 50. 45 Building Design,Article 50.55 Parking,Article 50.65 Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards,Article 50.68 Variances,Article 50.70 Non-Conforming Uses and Structures,and Article 50.79 Types of Development and Review Criteria for Each Type of Development. Staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Senior Planner. FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT-http://www.ci.Oswego.Or.uslpian/casef.htm (Select LU 08-0054) (Continued on Other Side) Jon Gustafson,Chair ■ Puja Bhutani,Vice Chair Bill Gaar ■ Julia Glisson s Jim Johnson ■ Russell Jones ■ Todd Prager ■ Jeff Gudman,Council Liaison Page 2 8. OTHER BUSINESS—PLANNING COMMISSION 9. OTHER BUSINESS—COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW 11. ADJOURNMENT pp o-oQo FILE COPY CITY OF L OSWEGO LARM OSWEGO cenremm�i t9 W miu 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 bw MEMORANDUM i.oswe 5-0270 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner Laura Weigel, Associate Planner DATE: November 17, 2011 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Check-In & Draft Backgrounds for Inspiring Spaces and Places and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing ACTION No formal action is required. This update is intended as an opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan process and to introduce preliminary background materials on the next two action areas: Inspiring Spaces&Places and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing. BACKGROUND On September 26, staff met with the Planning Commission to get feedback on the overall Community Summit schedule and format, as well as the background summary and policy questions for the November 3 summit on Community Culture.The Commission's feedback helped staff to re-organize the summits around 4 rather than 7 events,with the following new dates and topics: Community Summit Dates February 2: Complete Neighborhoods&Housing and Inspiring Spaces& Places March 22: Economic Vitality and Connected Community May 24: Community Health& Public Safety and Healthy Ecosystems The schedule revisions were aimed at grouping complementary topics into major public events,in order to keep public interest and create efficiencies. Feedback from the Commission,along with feedback received from the CAC at their October meeting, helped staff to revise the background materials and policy questions for the November summit. DISCUSSION Goal and Policy Update Process As the City heads into the first set of updates to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies—for Community Culture—it is a good time to review the steps involved in this process. Following is the anticipated process and schedule for updating the Community Culture goals and policies. Planning Commission Meeting November 28,2011 Page 11 Page 2 Community Culture Action Area Schedule November 3: Community Culture Summit held November 1-13: Virtual/Online Summit open for comments November 10 TAC Meeting-Debrief of summit event and introduction of next topics November 16: CAC Meeting—Debrief of summit event and introduction of next topics November 28: Planning Commission Meeting—Review process and schedule, and introduce next topics December 13: City Council quarterly update December 16: CAC Meeting—Discuss goal& policy updates for Community Culture.The following is planned for inclusion in their meeting packet: • Copy of all comments received for the November 3 summit. People could comment through 1)Small group discussions (flip chart notes),2)Comment forms, 3) Policy wall comments, and 4)Virtual summit. • Summary of common themes or ideas that were provided in the above comments. • Initial draft goals and policies for the Community Culture action area, presented In track changes format that shows changes to the existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and new goals and policies added.The draft changes will reflect public input received to date, the 2035 Community Vision and the Vision Map. Questions may also be posed to the CAC where goal/policy direction is unclear. Staff will ask the CAC to have reviewed public comments,and propose changes to the draft goals and policies based on their understanding of public input received to date.They will forward a revised set of goals& policies for Planning Commission review. 2012 January 9: Planning Commission Work Session to review draft Community Culture goals &policies.The Commission will be asked for feedback including revisions and questions,which will be brought back to the CAC for review. January 25: CAC Meeting —Review Planning Commission feedback on draft goals &policies and forward a recommended draft for the Planning Commission hearing. February 23: Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed Community Culture goals& policies.The Commission will be asked to forward a recommended draft to the City Council. The Council will be asked to adopt a resolution supporting a set of Community Culture goals and policies for final adoption into the updated Comprehensive Plan by April 2013. March 20: City Council Study Session April 17: City Council Hearing—Resolution of intent to adopt Community Culture goals and policies. This process will be repeated for each of the action areas,with adjustments as needed to respond to public process while ensuring completion within the City's Periodic Review timeline and budget. Summit Format At the November 16 CAC meeting,the Comprehensive Plan CAC debriefed the November 3 Community Culture Summit. Commissioner Gustafson attended the CAC meeting and shared some concerns that he and Commissioner Bhutani raised following the summit, including the effectiveness of the small group discussion format to receive citizen guidance on policy issues,and inconsistencies among group facilitation and dynamics. The CAC provided several suggestions for improvement at the next summit: Planning Commission Meeting November 28,2011 Page 12 Page 3 • Limit the size of discussion groups to one table,or a circle of chairs without a table,to allow participants to hear and converse more easily. • Possibly take notes in a notebook rather than flipchart,so the note taker can better hear/observe the discussion. • Pass out 4x6 note cards at the discussion tables. Invite participants to record their comments on the card during the discussion session,and hand them to the facilitator to post at the discussion circle. • Skip the introductions—it took too much time. Provide nametags at the table to make sure everyone has one. • While there are some drawbacks to having a big group of people talking in one room, it is also powerful to have everyone in one room sharing their ideas. • Keep comment forms at the meeting short and easy to complete,and allow people to submit longer comments online. Each summit presents an opportunity to improve upon the format and tailor the event to the topics at hand.The CAC expressed interest in hearing ideas from the Planning Commission on how to resolve the concerns shared at the last Commission meeting. Community Culture Summit Results in Brief Staff estimates that approximately 200 community members attended the November 3 event, including many people who were new to the process. In addition to discussion table notes,comment forms were completed by 17 people, and 18 comments were written on the"policy wall" of existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to Community Culture topics.An online Virtual Summit was also open from November 1-13,and received 461 unique views from 178 people who provided 3,528 comments.Staff is in the process of compiling all of the Community Culture input and will share it with the Commission when it is available. Inspiring Spaces&Places AND Complete Neighborhood&Housing The next community summit is scheduled for February 2,2012 on the Inspiring Spaces&Places(Statewide Planning Goals 2 and 14)and Complete Neighborhoods& Housing(Statewide Planning Goal 10)action areas. Goal 2 is intended to establish a land use process and policy framework for land use decisions. Goal 14 is intended to provide the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use to accommodate population and economic growth. Housing Goal 10,entails providing housing opportunities to accommodate the city's 20-year housing needs,at price levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of area residents. The Special Districts (i.e. neighborhood plans) element of the existing Plan also falls under the Complete Neighborhoods&Housing action area. The existing Comprehensive Goals and Policies for Goals 2 (Land Use Planning), 10(Housing) and 14(Urbanization) can be found at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Como%20PIan/`default.htm Staff is in the process of developing the background documents and one-page summaries for the next summit. The background document is intended to be a 3-5 page overview of the issues and changes that have occurred since the last Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1994. The one-page summary provides the same information in an annotated form that participants can refer to during the community summit. Both of these documents include: Existing Comprehensive Goals(if any);People, Places, Prosperity outcome(triple bottom line);Policy Questions, Background and Source of information. Reference materials A and B are the first drafts of the 3-5 page background reports related to the two upcoming action areas: Inspiring Spaces&Places and Complete Neighborhoods and Housing. Materials for the latter build on the draft Housing Needs Analysis that was developed over the last year. The attached materials are works in progress and staff is seeking your input on: • What's missing—Are there othertopics that should be included in this background and discussion? • Other Sources—Are there other sources that we should be referring to? • What should be emphasized as hot topics? • Are these the right policy questions to ask at the summit? Planning Commission Meeting November 28,2011 Page 13 Page 4 The CAC will be reviewing revised copies of the background reports at their next meeting on December 14. Feedback from the Commission will help to update the background materials for this next round of review. Staff also met with the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)on November 10 to discuss the draft background documents for the upcoming action areas. There was also a lot of discussion on the importance of visuals for the next action areas,and how best to illustrate a range of housing types imagined in the different areas on the 2035 Vision Map. There was also discussion about making these topics,and particularly Goals 2 and 14, understandable and pertinent to the public.Staff will seek feedback on these background sections and policy questions from the Planning Commission and Development Review Commission in early January. New Issues Protocol At the October 26 CAC meeting,the committee discussed an approach for scoping out issues or ideas for inclusion in the Plan update. Following is a description of the proposed process,along with some additional notes.Staff anticipates the CAC will begin referencing this process in December during the review of Community Culture public comment, and draft goals and policies. This discussion references the "New Issues Protocol Memo' which can be found online with the meeting materials. Councilor Moncrieff posed several discussion questions from the memo: Do we want to have a protocol or procedure through which we can deal with issues that come through e- mail, public comment or the action area summits? CAC members agreed but stressed that the process be all inclusive while staying concise and focused. Councilor Moncrieff pointed to the potential protocol put forth in page two of the memo. It was suggested that while there should be a rigid format for comment submission, some flexibility is desirable as not all submissions will conform. It was stressed that comments which fall within the periodic review framework need to be addressed. Concern was voiced over how "level of support" will be measured in submission criteria#4. It was stated that this draft protocol describes a process but lacks measures to gauge performance. All CAC members agreed that the requisite majority vote should not occur first because more information might be required. Councilor Moncrieff summarized the CAC's input on the draft protocol: If the need to evaluate a proposal or citizen request arises,the CAC may consider the following: - Define the proposal. What specifically is the proposal, and what response is requested of the CAC? - How is the proposal addressed or not addressed in the existing Comprehensive Plan? - Is the proposal consistent with the 2035 Vision statement? -Why is the CAC the appropriate body or should more information be required from an outside board or commission? -What level of interest has the proposal received through the public engagement process? -The CAC may also raise other considerations as appropriate. This will be followed by a majority vote that will decide whether the CAC will evaluate the proposal as part of the CAC charge, or whether it is not within their scope. Planning Commission Meeting November 28,2011 Page 14 Page 5 It was suggested that there be a firm deadline for project proposals. It was also proposed that proposals after the closing date still have the potential for inclusion, perhaps in the form of plan amendments. It was also suggested that a method be established for responding to the request,such as a memo from staff explaining how the issue was considered. REFERENCE MATERIALS A. DRAFT Inspiring Spaces & Places Background Document, dated November 7, 2011(Goals 2 and 14) B. DRAFT Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Background Document,dated November 7, 2011(Goal 10) Planning Commission Meeting November 28,2011 Page 15 INSPIRING SPACES & PLACES (Goal 2: Land Use & Goal 14: Urbanization) Draft Background Report Updated 11-7-11 Existing Goals Lake Oswego shall ensure that: a. The City's land use planning processes and policy framework serve as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land; and, b. The City's land use regulations, actions, and related plans are consistent with, and implement the Comprehensive Plan. c. The City shall maintain and enhance the appearance and design quality of Lake Oswego. Policy Questions to Consider • What other policies are needed to implement the 2035 vision and 2035 vision plan. • What objectives should urban development support? Where? • What policies are needed to further sustainable urban development that contributes positively to quality of life? People, Places and Prosperity (show nested diagram) As the City develops key elements of the Comprehensive Plan update, sustainability—defined for Lake Oswego as meeting the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs—is an important consideration. Strategic questions will aid in the decision-making framework moving forward. Planning in a sustainable way means looking at the community as an interrelated system that includes places around us (the natural and built environment), people (that live and work here), and prosperity (of the local economy) that supports society's needs. As an example, land use planning supports a sustainable Lake Oswego in the following ways: People: Land use planning promotes public health and safety. Places: Effective land use planning supports great places to live, work and play such as the 20- minute neighborhood concept. Prosperity: Land use planning helps to secure a community's future by helping ensuring coordinated development. Reference Material A 1 Background The purpose of this report is to provide background information for the update of the Goal 2: Land Use Planning chapter of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan. This chapter consists of two section: 1) Land Use Policies and Regulations and 2) Community Design and Aesthetics. This report assesses changes which have impacted the City's land use planning program since the last Comprehensive Plan update in 1994 and highlights issues and trends that should be considered in the current Comprehensive Plan update. Lake Oswego is a largely developed, or built-out community. There are just a few large, vacant tracts of developable land remaining. Since regional and state regulations require the City to permit and plan for needed growth, the impacts of small land divisions and infill development in established neighborhoods have been increasingly important. In the current Comprehensive Plan update, the community should consider where growth should be encouraged, how benefits to existing neighborhoods can be maximized and negative effects avoided or mitigated, which tools are best suited for these challenges, and how land use planning can otherwise contribute to Lake Oswego's vision of a sustainable community. Regional Context(much of this and the Metro discussion also applies to Goal 14—Urbanization) With approximately 36,500 residents, Lake Oswego is a mature, inner suburb in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. There are approximately 2.2 million residents in the greater metropolitan area. Both the Portland metropolitan region and the State of Oregon have longstanding, comprehensive land use planning programs to promote efficient use of developable land. In recent decades, the region has become nationally known for its compact urban form, integrated land use and transportation planning and other leading planning practices. Within the region, Lake Oswego has a reputation for its exceptionally high quality of life. Effective planning in Lake Oswego must balance the desires of local residents to preserve Lake Oswego's existing character with regional and statewide land use regulations with which local jurisdictions must comply. Regulatory Obligations State of Oregon In 1973, the State of Oregon adopted Senate Bill 100,the bill which instituted the nation's first comprehensive, statewide land use planning program. The foundation of the new program was 19 statewide planning goals, each of which articulated a specific part of a larger vision for Oregon's future development. The new law also created the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which administers the statewide land use planning program and reviews local plans for consistency with the 19 statewide goals. Goal 2 calls for coordinated land use planning. 2 Goal 2 of the statewide planning goals, mirrored by Lake Oswego's existing Goal 2 outlines procedures for the emergent statewide land use planning program. This goal requires local jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plans which are based on factual information. Plans must be generally consistent with the statewide planning goals and other applicable state, regional, and federal requirements. Local governments' ordinances and land use decisions must, in turn, be based on state-approved comprehensive plans. Goal 2 also contains procedures for review and amendment of local comprehensive plans. Metro Metro is the regional government for the Oregon side of the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. To control urban sprawl and maintain compliance with the statewide planning system, Metro administers an urban growth boundary around the metropolitan region beyond which urban services are not extended. To accommodate projected population growth within the urban growth boundary, Metro adopted the 2040 Growth Concept in 1995 based on broad public input. This concept to "grow up and not out" envisioned higher-density, mixed-use development in designated centers, main streets, station communities, and corridors and preservation of farmland outside the boundary. To implement the 2040 Growth Concept, Metro adopted the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan in 1996. The Functional Plan established specific requirements on housing, commercial development, and other areas of importance for the regional growth management strategy. Local jurisdictions are required to ensure their comprehensive plans and development codes are consistent with the regional Functional Plan. Functional Plan requirements which affect land use planning in Lake Oswego include: • Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation • Title 2: Regional Parking Policy • Title 3: Water Quality, Flood Management and Fish and Wildlife Conservation • Title 4: Industrial and Other Employment Areas • Title 6: Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, and Station Communities • Title 7: Affordable Housing • Title 8: Compliance Procedures • Title 9: Performance Measures • Title 12: Protection of Residential Neighborhoods • Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods Two primary impacts of Metro's 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan on land use planning in Lake Oswego are: • More intensive land uses in the city's two primary commercial areas (downtown Lake Oswego and the Lake Grove commercial area), both of which are designated "Town Centers" by Metro. In the 2040 Growth Concept, "Town Centers" are described as compact, well-connected community hubs providing essential services for residents within a two- or three-mile radius. 3 • Increased infill and redevelopment in established residential neighborhoods. Existing Conditions The recently updated draft Housing Needs Analysis and associated Buildable Lands Inventory confirms that Lake Oswego is a mostly developed community, with few large, undeveloped parcels within the city or in areas subject to annexation to the city. However, Lake Oswego still has many developed residential lots which are larger than twice the minimum lot sizes of their zones, and therefore potentially dividable. Many other properties were developed with modest buildings when local land values were much lower, and face redevelopment pressure as land values have increased. Therefore, the development of Lake Oswego continues, though mostly in the form of redevelopment and infill in established neighborhoods and in relatively small land divisions. Land use planning in Lake Oswego is now largely focused on managing the impacts of redevelopment and infill development in established neighborhoods. This trend is evident in the neighborhood planning program adopted by the City in 1993. Neighborhood plans outline a land use planning vision for defined neighborhood areas, and provide policy bases for code standards and legislative decisions such as comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. Adopted neighborhood plans have focused on preserving desirable aspects of established neighborhood character. The following neighborhood plans have been adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the comprehensive plan since its last major update in 1994: • First Addition Neighborhood Plan (1996) • Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan (1998) • Old Town Neighborhood Plan (1998) • Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan (2000) • Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan (2002) • Waluga Neighborhood Plan (2002) • Evergreen Neighborhood Plan (2005) • Palisades Neighborhood Plan (2008) The City's land use planning program is also implemented by the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50), which must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and which provides specific standards for development applications. Since the 1994 Comprehensive Plan update, changes to the Community Development Code have also tended to focus on managing and minimizing impacts of redevelopment and infill development in established neighborhoods. Community Development Code Reorganization Project The last time the Community Development Code (CDC) was reorganized was in early 2000. In the summer of 2010, the City completed an audit of the CDC and related codes to identify problems with the organization, readability, and usability and to define an approach for 4 creating a more user-friendly code. The final recommendation of the audit was endorsed by the City Council and involves a two-phase approach to overhaul the codes. Phase 1: the CDC and other development-related chapters will be reviewed for practical changes to improve clarity, organization, and user-friendliness, setting the stage for future amendments. Phase 1 will kick off in December 2010 and is expected to be completed in early 2012. Phase 2: substantive, policy-related issues identified during the initial code audit and Phase 1 will be addressed. Phase 2 could be implemented within six months of completion of Phase 1, but depends on the availability of funding. The goal of the Phase 1 Code Reorganization project is to present the existing content of the Community Development Code (CDC)and related development codes in a more coherent, consistent, concise and user-friendly manner. Code Amendments The last major CDC update was in December 2005. Ideally amendments are scheduled on an annual basis that consists of"housekeeping' and substantive changes. The "housekeeping" changes back to 2008 are scheduled to be completed in the near future. The Planning Commission will then begin the substantives changes to the CDC. Emerging Issues and Trends Since 1994, the Portland metropolitan region's population has grown significantly, and current projections are for one million more newcomers to the region by 2030. Under Metro rules, the City of Lake Oswego must plan for its fair share of the growth. Updated targets for new population and employment growth are due out by the end of 2011. Where should growth occur? The Comprehensive Plan process looks to address the issue of where best to accommodate new growth over the next 20 years.The 2035 Vision Plan map is the beginning of a community discussion about where growth and development should occur. Some residential areas, such as Forest Highlands and Lake Forest, are designated in the current Comprehensive Plan Map for somewhat higher residential densities than characterize those neighborhoods now. Development proposals which approach planned densities often generate controversy, as many neighbors prefer these areas to retain a low-density character. Some have suggested "downzoning" certain neighborhoods for lower density, which, under the Functional Plan, may require the City to plan for higher densities elsewhere. Meanwhile, the City has the opportunity to absorb some growth through redevelopment of the Foothills industrial area, as well as through continuing redevelopment of the downtown and Lake Grove commercial areas. 5 How should we address infill compatibility? Another emerging, land use-related challenge the City must address is the compatibility of infill. The long-term trend in Lake Oswego's residential neighborhoods, interrupted only recently by economic recession, has been toward increasing land values and larger new homes. State rules for housing require that subjective standards may not impede development of affordable housing. Sustainability Considerations and Proposed Indicators The current Goal 2 chapter of the Comprehensive Plan supports the City's vision of a sustainable community in the following ways: • Requires provision of open space and protection of natural resources as land is developed. • Requires that land use regulations minimize pressures to expand the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. • Requires that opportunities for mixed-use development be provided in commercial zones. • Requires evaluation of transit opportunities, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and energy conservation measures for residential subdivisions of four units or more. • Promotes a "safe and interesting" transit and pedestrian environment city-wide. What We've Heard According to the September 2010 Vision survey, respondents most desire a community that is: • safe (82%) • has quality schools (78%) • has a small town feel (69%) • has scenic beauty (65%) • has great neighborhoods (64%) • has great parks (48%) • a variety of housing types (43%) • and close to work (33%) These measures are possible with good land use planning and the engagement of the Lake Oswego community. Sources (LO staff to fill in) 6 INSPIRING SPACES & PLACES (Goal 14: Urbanization) Background Report Updated 11-7-11 Existing Goal: The City shall, in conjunction with adjacent jurisdictions and Metro, control urban sprawl and enhance livability by managing growth in an orderly and efficient manner to establish stable and predictable land use patterns. Policy Questions to Consider • The 2035 Vision Map assumes that anticipated residential and commercial growth can be accommodated within the City's existing Urban Services Boundary(USB). Shall the City accommodate needed growth within the existing(USB)and affirm a no-growth policy regarding Stafford Basin? • Should the City annex the areas inside the Urban Services Boundary or continue its owner-initiated annexation policy ? People, Places and Prosperity (show nested diagram) As the City develops key elements of the Comprehensive Plan update, sustainability—defined for Lake Oswego as meeting the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs—is an important consideration. Strategic questions will aid in the decision-making framework moving forward. Planning in a sustainable way means looking at the community as an interrelated system that includes places around us (the natural and built environment), people (that live and work here), and prosperity (of the local economy)that supports society's needs. As an example, Goal 14 supports a sustainable Lake Oswego in the following ways: People: Planning for urbanization identifies where Lake Oswegans can live, work and play as population increases. Places: Compact urban growth uses resources in an efficient manner. Lake Oswego is currently known for its attractive quality of life. Prosperity: Planned urbanization secures a community's future by organizing intended growth and infrastructure investment. 7 Background EXISTING PROCESS Since the late 1970's, the regional government Metro has been charged with managing the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) around the Portland metropolitan area. Pursuant to state law, Metro is required to review and consider expanding the UGB every five years to ensure that there is a 20-year supply of land to accommodate projected urban residential and employment growth. Cities within Metro also are required to periodically update their comprehensive plans and development codes.The City entered into periodic review on May 20, 2008. The work program was approved by the state on April 15, 2010. The City has three years to complete periodic review with a deadline of April 15, 2013. Stateside, the primary factor in determining the location of future urban growth has been based on the quality of soil types.This is because protecting high value farmland has been a priority under state planning laws since inception. This process has directed development to less productive farmland or areas with lower levels of developments. Some say this process 1) Directs development into areas that are not necessarily good places for compact urban development; 2) A time-consuming process to undertake every five years; and 3) carries too much uncertainty that leaves land owners and farmers wondering if their land will be urbanized in the next round of expansion. This uncertainty makes it difficult for producers and other investors to plan for and manage their land. Senate Bill 1011 In 2007, the Oregon Legislature approved Senate Bill 1011 (SB 1011). The purpose of the SB 1011 was to provide a long range planning process that provided more certainty over the next 40-50 years when considering expanding the UGB. Specifically, the legislation enabled Metro and the three counties (Clackamas, Multnomah,and Washington)to designate lands as either rural reserve or urban reserve, thereby providing a level of certainty that land would be urbanized or could be farmed for the next 40-50 years without threat of urbanization. Implementation of this legislation is found in Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR) 660, Division 27- Urban and Rural Reserves in the Portland Metropolitan Area. • Urban Reserve: Lands outside an urban growth boundary designation that will provide for future expansion of the UGB over a long-term period and to facilitate planning for the cost-effective provision of public facilities and services when the lands are included within the urban growth boundary. • Rural Reserve: Lands outside the Metro UGB, and outside any other UGB in a county with which Metro has an agreement pursuant to this division, reserved to provide long- term protection for agriculture, forest or important natural landscape features. 8 NOTE: A third category not defined is"undesignated"; lands not designated either urban or rural reserve. Metro and the counties are not required to designate all lands as either urban or ruralreserve. • If land is designated as urban or rural reserves, a county cannot amend its land use regulations to allow more intensive uses or smaller lots than those allowed at the time of the original zoning. This in essence holds the zoning on land designated rural reserve for the next 40-50 years. Zoning on urban reserve land is held until the urban land is included in the UGB. • Coordinated and concurrent process for adoption. o Metro is responsible for designating urban reserves outside of the UGB that are suitable for accommodating urban development over the next 40-50 years. o Clackamas, Multnomah,and Washington County are each responsible for designating rural reserves,which protects high value farmland and important natural features such as forest, rivers and floodplains for the next 40-50 years. o Metro and the counties must agree on urban and rural reserves designations. o Metro and the counties must enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the reserves areas, then submit their amended Comprehensive Plans (counties) and regional plan (Metro) reflecting the reserves lands for acknowledgement by the State. • Required stakeholder and public involvement coordination. Metro and the counties must coordinate the Reserves process with the public, cities, special districts, school districts and state agencies. Metro in partnership with the counties is coordinating the regional public engagement process. The Clackamas County process is further described below. • It is important remember that the Reserves process does not rezone any land and Metro still needs to review the UGB every five years. • In the latest round, the Stafford Basin was given an urban reserve designation. HB 2229 HB 2229 implemented the 2008 recommendations of the "Big Look Task Force," appointed in 2005 to review Oregon's land use system.The legislation: (1) Established new "main principles" for the state land use system; (2) Expands authorities for regional land use planning; 9 (3) Provides that a county may conduct a legislative review of county lands for purposes of correcting mapping errors and updating designations of farmland and forestland, and to determine whether zoning of such lands is consistent with definitions of agricultural lands, forest lands or non-resource land. The county must submit any decisions to change planning and zoning as a result of this review to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for approval; (4) Revises statutory criteria and other provisions under which a county, in conjunction with at least one other local government, may enter into a collaborative regional problem-solving process; and (5) Authorizes the Land Conservation and Development Commission to carry out a policy- neutral review and audit of the land use system to reduce complexity. Declares an emergency, effective on passage. EXISTING CITY GUIDING DOCUMENTS Summarized below are documents that provide direction to the City regarding the Stafford area: • 1993 Stafford Area Task Force Agreement o In 1992, the City sponsored a local government forum on the future of the Stafford area with the purpose of providing local guidance for the Stafford area. The Stafford Area Policy Task Force was formed and members included: Lake Oswego, Tualatin, West Linn, Clackamas County, West Linn/Wilsonville School District, Unified Sewerage Agency(now Clean Water Services), and citizens from the area. o The Task Force concluded that the Stafford Area should not be urbanized and found that the future land use pattern of the Stafford area should be comprehensively planned to: • Preserve the air, water, and land resource quality of the area; • Provide safe and efficient transportation consistent with the areas needs; • Ensure that future development is consistent with the capacity of the existing public facilities and services; and ■ Preserve the rural character and open space values of the area. • Comprehensive Plan—Growth Management Policy(Goal 14-Urbanization) o In 1997, Metro considered expanding the UGB in the north Stafford area and raised the possibility that the City would be expected to provide urban services to 1,200 acres in this area. In response, the City adopted the policy below: 10 Goal 14 (Urbanization), Policy 1 states: 'The City will not expand the Urban Services Boundary(USB) and will resist efforts to require expansion, except in those areas designated as Tier 1 Urban Reserves as of February 1998." • CityCharter—VoterAnnexation o Associated with the adoption of Goal 14, Policy 1 (above), in November 1998, the voters of the City approved an amendment to the City Charter, requiring voter approval of annexations in the North Stafford Area,except for those identified as Tier 1 Urban Reserves. Specifically, this required that prior to annexation of affected unincorporated territory to the City of Lake Oswego, the proposed annexation shall be referred to the voters in a City-wide election. No annexation shall occur unless approved by a majority of electors voting in the election. • Aspiration o On May 5, 2009,the City Council adopted Lake Oswego's Community Aspirations. Key Stafford area aspirations include: ■ The City does not envision or support urban levels of development in the upper Stafford area. The area is envisioned to be a rural enclave within the region with access to small sustainable agriculture farms. • Borland Road area (south of the Tualatin River, north of 1-205), if the area were to be designated as an urban reserve,the City would want to have a primary decision-making role in the development of the area. Additionally,the area should be developed with a walkable, transit oriented, mixed-use town center, only upon the condition that high capacity transit is provided along 1-205. STAFFORD AREA IMPACTS AND INTERESTS Stafford Hamlet—In 2006, Clackamas County created the Stafford Hamlet with the purpose of providing those area residents with a voice in land use and growth management issues related to the Stafford Triangle (generally north of 1-205, south of Lake Oswego, west of West Linn and east of Tualatin). The Stafford Hamlet adopted a Vision and Value Statement in March 2009 with an 87%approval rate. Highlights of the document include: rural residential cluster housing to preserve the rural character and natural resources, designation of the Borland Road area for residential and employment development; Exclusive Farm Use parcels (EFU, 80 acres minimum size) should be allowed to subdivide to allow for some development;and providing water through a water district or other common system. The City of Lake Oswego(including the Urban Services Boundary) is approximately 8,000 acres. The Stafford area under consideration for urban or rural reserves is almost 4,000 acres. Urbanization at any level in the Stafford area could have the potential to negatively impact the quality of life the citizens of Lake Oswego have come to enjoy and expect. A summary of considerations submitted as a part of the urban and rural reserves process is described below. 11 M' • Transportation: o The major roadways in the area, Stafford Road, Rosemont Road, and Childs Road are not improved to urban.standards. Any development in this area would require significant roadway improvements that would increase traffic impacts on these roadways from the Highway 43 system. o Clackamas County is in the process of constructing a three lane (designed for up to five lanes) bridge over the Tualatin River with an expected completion date of November 2010. The County has proposed a Regional Transportation Plan project for 2018-2025 on Stafford Road to relieve congestion and improve access to Lake Oswego and West Linn. The road widening project will include three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks. o In a letter from State agencies to the Reserves Steering Committee, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) indicated that a preliminary analysis showed that 1-205 would be the least suitable to accommodate additional trips and most expensive to improve. • Governance: o West Linn has not identified any of the area as an "area of interest". Tualatin has indicated they no longer have an area of interest in Clackamas County. The Hamlet has considered incorporation, but went no further. The County does not appear to have any interest in urbanizing the area. • Public Facilities: o Metro's analysis rated the Stafford area as having"high suitability"for the potential extension of sewer and water as compared to other reserve candidate areas.Staff has not done an extensive cost or serviceability analysis; however,a preliminary analysis indicates that the City could potentially serve some parts of the area. • Open Space and Natural Resources: o Protecting open space and natural resources in the Stafford area is important to the cities and the Stafford Hamlet. The aspirations of the cities and Stafford Hamlet all aspire to preserve the rural character and natural resources in the Stafford Area. The Stafford area has been described as the City's southern rural gateway. The City currently owns approximately 150 acres of open space and resource lands, including the 40 acre Luscher Farm. o Metro's Natural Landscape Features Map (2008) appears to identify Wilson Creek as the only natural feature for preservation. The natural features identified on the County's Rural Reserve candidate map (Attachment 5), includes the Tualatin as a natural feature for protection. In addition, the Tualatin River would be protected under Metro's Title 3—Water Quality, Flood Management and Fish and Wildlife Protection Conservation. 12 QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS(QOL)PROGRAM In 1998 the City adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for Goal 14-Urbanization, incorporating growth management policies.These amendments were in response to the concern over the potential expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary into the Stafford Road area. Subsequently, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council create a QOL Indicator Program to monitor community livability and identify growth related impacts that may affect the community. In December 1998, the Council appointed a 24-member QOL Task Force to develop indicators that were comprehensive and measureable with timely and reliable information. After 12 work sessions and two open houses, the Task Force submitted a report that included 72 indicators and an implementation program. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council adopt the Quality of Life Indicator Program; however, the Planning Commission also recommended that a Planning Commission Subcommittee ("Subcommittee") be formed to refine parts of the program, including the 72 indicators. The Commission cited need to make more simple and clear the 72 indicators and also match implementation of the program with available resources (staff time). In December 2003, the Subcommittee, after two years of work, presented the Council with an update on the QOL Program. The update included 41 indicators; some of the original 72 indicators were either deleted or amended and new indicators added. These can be found at (URL). METRO'S 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Insert information on Metro's 2040 Design Types: • Two Town Centers: Downtown and Lake Grove Village Center • Main Street • Transit Corridors Emerging Issues and Trends If trends continue, Lake Oswego will continue to age in place. To ensure a vibrant future population, families with young children as well as elders will need to be able to make a home in Lake Oswego. (Could include more from BLI/HNA; staff to fill in as time.] What We've Heard (LO staff to fill in) Sources (LO staff to fill in) 13 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing (Goal 10: Housing) DRAFT Background Paper Updated 11-7-11 Existing Goals Lake Oswego's 1994 Comprehensive Plan identifies three goals for housing: 1. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in locations and environments to provide an adequate supply of safe, sanitary, energy efficient housing at price and rent levels appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of present and future city residents. 2. Protect the character of existing neighborhoods. 3. Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, using land and public facilities as efficiently as possible, and facilitating greater use of alternative transportation modes. Policy Questions to Consider • What strategies should be considered to encourage housing types that accommodate the aging population and attract young and working families? • One of the main strategies to accommodate future growth in the 2035 Vision map is to create 20-minute neighborhoods where people have access to housing, recreation, work and stores in areas with existing commercial development. What kinds of incentives should be considered to make this happen? Introduction The Complete Neighborhoods & Housing background paper is a part of We Love Lake Oswego: Planning for People, Places and Prosperity, a multi-year effort to guide the physical, economic, social, cultural and environmental development of Lake Oswego over the next 20 years.The Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Action Area addresses the requirements of Housing (Goal 10), the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR Division 7) and Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 1, with a focus on housing options, aging in place and access to amenities. The purpose of this report is to provide background information for developing a decision- making framework and strategy for providing housing over the next twenty years.The report outlines existing housing goals, policy questions and potential changes for consideration during the Comprehensive Plan update process. It assesses the existing housing stock, housing needs and capacity including current trends, including the link between housing and sustainability. Finally, the report suggests how the City might track future progress toward achieving its housing and sustainability goals. Reference Material B Page 1 Planning for People, Places and Prosperity As the City develops key elements of the Comprehensive Plan update, sustainability—defined for Lake Oswego as meeting the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs—is an important consideration. Strategic questions will aid in the decision-making framework moving forward. Planning in a sustainable way means looking at the community as an interrelated system that includes places around us(the natural and built environment), people (that live and work here),and prosperity (of the local economy)that supports society's needs. As an example, strong parks and recreation programs support a sustainable Lake Oswego in the following ways. People: Providing a range of housing choices for residents of all ages and income levels increases community diversity, resilience and strength. Well-designed housing in proximity to amenities, such as transportation options, parks and shopping contribute to a strong and active community. Quality housing opportunities are energy efficient and less expensive to maintain overtime. Places: Housing should be attractive and complement existing neighborhoods. Construction that incorporates quality local, renewable resources whenever possible also contributes to the local economy. Prosperity: Housing adjacent to job locations and/or transportation options reduces commuting costs and helps create a vital and vibrant community. Using local building material suppliers and construction workers strengthens the City's economy. Background Lake Oswego's draft vision for Complete Neighborhoods and Housing states: We have a wide variety of neighborhoods with high quality, attractive and compatible housing that serves a range of ages, incomes and households. Our distinct and walkable neighborhoods contribute to the city's small town feel. Mixed-use districts enhance adjacent residential areas by providing access to quality jobs, housing, transit entertainment,services and shopping. Higher density housing is located strategically and sensitively, including along transportation corridors and town centers to preserve the character of our existing neighborhoods. Since the last Comprehensive Plan update in 1994,downtown redevelopment and plans for the Lake Grove town center and Boones Ferry transit corridor have moved Lake Oswego toward compliance with the Functional Plan 2040 Growth concept. The Lake Grove Village Center Plan, adopted in 2008,focuses on transforming Lake Grove to a pedestrian friendly mixed use center with high density housing and supportive commercial uses. The refinement plan for Boones Ferry Road which runs through Lake Grove and connects to the Kruse Way employment center will create a more pedestrian friendly environment. The Foothills Plan envisions it as an expansion of the downtown area and is well-suited to transit oriented development.The proposed Portland to Lake Oswego streetcar alignment is adjacent to this area. Lake Oswego has been working with the City of Portland,TriMet and Metro to investigate options for future streetcar or enhanced bus service that would connect Lake Oswego and Portland along the Page 2 Willamette Shoreline railroad tracks and/or Highway 43.The potential for additional transit options is linked to the types of housing that can be provided. One of Lake Oswego's Quality of Life Indicators is "The percentage of residential properties in Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary located within 1/4 mile of a grocery store or convenience store." As of June 2010, 5,155 households or approximately 27 percent of residences are within ''/. mile of a grocery store. Lake Oswego has 12 special district plans which are official elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Eight of these plans are neighborhood plans which official define and shape the unique characteristics of specific neighborhoods through goals, policies and specific improvement projects. Special District Plans will be reviewed to ensure that their provisions are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update. In 2005, the Affordable Housing Task Force published a study about the need for more affordable housing in Lake Oswego. Many of the existing affordable housing units in the City are threatened by demolition and replacement with more expensive housing. Given the scarcity of land and land values in Lake Oswego, it may be difficult to provide affordable housing without some kind of subsidy.To retain affordable units the Task Force recommended that the City: • work toward a goal of"no net loss" of existing affordable housing; • support local efforts to establish employer-assisted housing to accommodate people employed in the community; • replace the discretionary process in the review of secondary dwelling units with standards that are clear and objective, making sure to address neighborhood differences; • support the efforts of nonprofit housing providers; • establish an affordable housing trust fund to create, preserve and maintain affordable housing; and • establish a minimum percentage of affordable housing units in all developments that receive assistance from the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA). Housing Needs Analysis As part of its Comprehensive Plan update, the City of Lake Oswego must address its Plan chapter associated with Goal 10 (Housing), its implementing/guiding measure, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and the Portland Metropolitan Area Functional Plan, Title 1 (Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation). The intent of Goal 10 is to ensure provision for the housing needs of citizens of the State; and that each city accommodates its fair share of regional housing needs. To this end, Goal 10 requires that cities demonstrate sufficient buildable land that could produce a range of housing types appropriate to meet housing needs. State laws require that a range of housing types must be accommodated within Lake Oswego. Approval standards for needed housing types and densities must be "clear and objective" and must not have the effect, individually or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. Page 3 J In the Portland Metro region, Goal 10 is also implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule.The rule applies to the cities and three counties within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), including Lake Oswego, and addresses the Metro area as a regional market in terms of housing demand and buildable land supply and establishes minimum housing type and density standards for each city. An important requirement of the Metropolitan Housing Rule for Lake Oswego is to zone land to provide the opportunity for new residential construction to consist of at least 50 percent attached housing, and to provide an overall density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is intended to promote efficient land use for housing and employment within the Metro UGB.The Functional Plan is essentially a regional Comprehensive Plan and seeks to assure that each city plans for adequate capacity of buildable land to accommodate future housing. The primary tool for achieving this objective is for local governments to determine the location of 2040 Growth Concept design types (town centers, main streets, corridors, etc.)and incorporate these designations into adopted comprehensive plans. Lake Oswego has completed this process. Title 1 previously established dwelling unit capacity targets for each local government based primarily on the amount of buildable land and refill assumptions for each jurisdiction. In 1998 and 2002, Metro found that Lake Oswego met Title 1 capacity requirements. In December 2010, the Metro Council adopted Ordinance 10-1244B, known as the "capacity ordinance." This ordinance replaced the dwelling capacity target number with a "no net loss policy." Title 1 now requires the City to maintain the existing dwelling unit capacity by ensuring that any proposed zone change does not reduce the City's overall dwelling unit capacity. The draft Metro Urban Growth Report (UGR) (December 2009) is currently being updated with an expected completion date of December 2011. Lake Oswego will continue working with Metro toward a coordinated local dwelling unit forecast for 2035 through their periodic review Plan update process. The City of Lake Oswego conducted a Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) in 2010-2011. Two population projections are used for the analysis: a low-growth forecast based on the 2000-2010 Census-documented growth rate, and a medium-growth forecast that was consistent with the most recent adopted Metro forecast, coordinated with Lake Oswego in 2005. These ranges are being carried forward for comparison purposes until Metro and local jurisdictions arrive at updated forecasts, slated for December 2011. Page 4 2010 2035 2010—2035 Average Forecast Units Estimate Projection Change Annual AAGR' Change Low Population 43,094 47,307 4,213 169 0.37% Housing Units 19,166 21,040 1,874 75 0.37% Population 43,094 51,000 8,006 320 0.68% Medium Housing Units 19,166 22,726 3,560 142 0.68% According to U.S. Census estimates,the median age of Lake Oswego residents increased from 41.2 years in 2000 to 42.1 years of age in 2006/2008. This is more than five years older than the median age of residents within the Portland Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area (36.7). As older Baby Boomers tend to desire to remain in their current residence or community as long as possible, the population over age 75 is expected to increase measurably over the coming decades, while the 24-55 cohort is projected to shrink. If trends continue, the younger population cohorts (age 5-14) are likely to remain flat or experience negative growth. Lake Oswego's land area is designated primarily for residential use, with nearly 60%of the land within the USB zoned for low-density residential development with minimum lot sizes of 7,500- 15,000 sq. ft. Lake Oswego has a relatively new housing stock, with only 13% built prior to 1950, and 26%built since 1990.The housing is primarily owner-occupied, though attached and multi- family housing represented an increasing share of new development since 2000(70%). Median home prices reached their peak in 2005 and have since fallen an average of 22%, while still remaining the highest in the region at$400,800 in March 2011. Lake Oswego has approximately 600 acres of vacant and part-vacant land, the large majority of which fall into the part-vacant category,meaning they are at least 2.5 times the minimum lot size for the zone, and could be divided to form additional lots. Over 90 percent of this land is located on lots zoned for a minimum size of at least 7,500 sq.ft. The buildable land inventory also includes an analysis of redevelopment potential on medium and high-density residential land, and on commercial land where housing is a permitted use along with commercial uses ("mixed use" zones). This analysis examined where these zones have developed below their potential capacity, and may add additional units in the future, assuming that properties have redevelopment potential when the building value is up to 150%of the land value.The analysis demonstrated a large capacity for new high-density units in mixed-use areas like Downtown and Lake Grove Village Center. Including vacant, part-vacant, and redevelopable land, Lake Oswego's total buildable land inventory could accommodate approximately 5,500 new units. In addition to determining the total number of needed units based on population forecast,the State requires jurisdictions to provide housing that is "commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households."The HNA report used Clackamas County's demographics to demonstrate attainability needs for future residents. Based on the County income distribution, Lake Oswego's demographic trends and land supply,the following mix of housing types was estimated to meet future needs: Page 5 Distribution of Housing by Unit Type percentage of Future Dwelling Units Detached Large Lot SF (>5,000 sq.ft.) 23.7% Detached Small Lot SF (<= 5,000 sq.ft.) 15.0% Attached SF (Townhomes, Secondary Dwelling Units,Zero Lot Line Dwellings) 27.4% Duplex/Triplex 11.0% Multifamily(Apartments, Condos) 22.9% otal 100% The results of the HNA indicate that the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary has an adequate amount of vacant and part-vacant low-density land area, and redevelopable high- density land area to meet the 2035 forecasts for its projected housing needs. However, there may be an additional need to accommodate approximately 349 medium-density (small lot detached, townhouse, duplex, SDU, etc.) dwelling units to provide housing at a medium price level. While some or all of this attainability need may be met by the surplus in high density capacity, the community may want to provide the opportunity for additional medium density dwelling types as a housing option. The HNA demonstrates that Lake Oswego generally has the capacity to accommodate either the low or medium population forecast, providing 1,874 to 3,560 new dwelling units. While the low-density dwellings can be accommodated on vacant and part vacant land, the community will need to rely on redevelopment in existing medium-and high-density residential zones and mixed-use zones to meet the projected need for smaller and attached housing types. In order to realize the housing redevelopment potential described in this report, the City will need to develop new strategies such as incentives or requirements for new development in the town centers to include a minimum number of housing units. In addition to supporting the right size and type of dwelling unit, the city may need to establish strategies to help ensure a range of housing prices is maintained over time, in particular to provide attainable housing for residents earning less than 80 percent of the median family income, which represents 44 percent of Clackamas County households and 30 percent of Lake Oswego households. To meet the State's Metropolitan Housing Rule, Lake Oswego will need to ensure that all new housing may be developed under clear and objective review standards that do not have the effect of discouraging housing or reducing the proposed housing density as allowed through zoning. The City is beginning to investigate areas of its existing code that need to be updated. It is also exploring different approaches for providing clear and objective standards while ensuring continued high-quality community design. Page 6 Finally, the Housing Rule requires Lake Oswego to provide for an average density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. Lake Oswego has demonstrated compliance with this rule at each Periodic Review since the City's original acknowledgement of its 1978 Comprehensive Plan. In 1994, DLCD acknowledged Lake Oswego's average density at 10.2 dwelling units/acre. Consistent with the City's last acknowledgement, Lake Oswego plans to demonstrate its average density "based on the jurisdiction BLI at the time of acknowledgment as updated," which the City's preliminary analysis shows continues to meet the 10 dwelling units/acre requirement. Housing Trends Aging Demographic As mentioned above, U.S. Census data shows that Lake Oswego's population is aging. Lake Oswego's aging population requires a new focus on meeting the future needs of residents. Lake Oswego residents want to "age in place in a community where they can maintain their independence with available and appropriate housing, increased mobility and effective services and support." This will require smaller homes located near transportation and shopping. Affordable housing It has been noted that Lake Oswego has been less able to accommodate younger working families due to high housing costs, which then impacts school enrollment. This indicates a need for smaller, more affordable housing units for younger households. These units could be small lot and attached single family homes as well as multi-family condominiums. What We've Heard The 2010 We Love Lake Oswego community survey which received 823 responses, asked a variety of questions about neighborhoods and housing: • 57 percent of respondents say that "the ability to walk or bike safely to meet daily needs" is one of the three most desirable elements of a great neighborhood, followed by "proximity to high-quality neighborhood schools" (49%) and "caring and connected neighbors" (41%). • When asked what housing options will be most important to accommodate Lake Oswego residents over the next 25 years, 64 percent said "preservation/rehabilitation of existing housing," followed by"redevelopment of underused/blighted properties" (63%) and "cottage style housing" (59%). • 84 percent of respondents say that quality schools will attract more young individuals and families to Lake Oswego. Sources Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, City of Lake Oswego, Adopted 1994. Draft Lake Oswego Housing Needs Analysis, City of Lake Oswego, 2011. Community Vision and Values Survey, 2010. Page 7 City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Update Planning for People, Places, and Prosperity Citizen Advisory Committee Charge Statement Adopted by Council on July 6, 2010 (Resolution 10-45) PURPOSE The purpose of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is to advise staff and provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the update of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan represents the longterm vision for the City and includes planning policies that guide City decisions on land use, transportation systems, utility systems, and other aspects of City government. The City of Lake Oswego has not conducted a major update of its Comprehensive Plan since 1994. In April of 2010, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development approved a "periodic review" work program requiring that the City update the Housing, Economic Development, Transportation, Public Facilities, and Urbanization sections of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has directed that the update of the plan be broader than what is required under the state- mandated periodic review process. The Council directed that all sections of the Comprehensive Plan be updated and that the update be conducted in a manner that integrates sustainability into the plan. The overall objective of the update is to plan for people, places, and prosperity in such a way that we address Lake Oswego's present needs without compromising the needs of future generations. COMMITTEE CHARGE The Citizen Advisory Committee serves at the request and direction of the City Council. The charge of the committee is to: • Provide thoughtful and creative recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding: o A broad community vision; o Background elements of the plan; o New or amended comprehensive plan goals and policies; o New or amended comprehensive plan maps; and o Plan implementation actions. • Update the Goals of the 1994 comprehensive plan (and the Special District Plans) and incorporate principles of sustainability into the comprehensive plan. Consider the changing circumstances since the 1994 plan was completed including changes in the regional planning context, climate change, and demographic shifts. '� Page � 1 WE : LO Plann�l br Peo41a,%xes aM P.11111 • Make recommendations that assist the City in meeting state-mandated planning requirements, Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, and Metro functional plan requirements. ■ Act as the liaison between their constituent group and the CAC. CAC members shall engage their constituencies in the update of the Plan, by encouraging them to participate in public events, read background materials, attend hearings and other events, and submit public comment. ■ Help engage the broader Lake Oswego community in their review and comment on recommended plan products, with special attention given to underrepresented categories of Lake Oswego citizens including children, young adults, working parents, and the elderly. ■ Form and work with subcommittees, if necessary, to address specific issues such as affordable housing, sustainability, urban service area expansion, or other issues that require concentrated or focused attention. MEMBER COMPOSITION AND SELECTION The CAC will consist of 15 members. Nine of the members will be from the City's Boards and Commissions (that meet on a monthly basis); five of the members will be at-large positions, and one member from the City Council. It is desirable that the at-large positions include representatives from two neighborhood associations, the school district, a business, and a young adult. Some members may fill more than one qualification. The City Council will appoint the members via resolution. The Council Liaison will serve as the chair of the CAC and will be the primary liaison between the committee and City staff, as well as serve as an ambassador for the committee throughout the process. In the event that the term of a Board, Commission or Councilor position expires during this project, they should, if possible, continue to serve on the CAC until such time that the project is completed. Additionally, the member should continue to report back to the committee they originally represented. In the event that a member cannot serve out the term of this appointment or fulfill their responsibilities,the City Council shall appoint a successor at its discretion. MEMBER RESPONSIBILITY The Citizen Advisory Committee is expected to: • Make recommendations that reflect the values of the community as a whole. ■ Listen carefully, educate themselves, and ask questions so that they may make informed choices. ■ Serve as host at public events, encourage other community members to attend and help . present information or facilitate discussions, where appropriate. • Provide updates and solicit feedback from the constituencies or interest groups which they may represent, including making presentations to those groups about the project, when possible and appropriate • Review and comment on work products in a timely manner. Come to meetings prepared to make recommendations to staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council at key junctures throughout the process, including at adoption of the vision and the final Plan. WE 2 1 O Page 12 Planning for People.Plana and 1. ray ■ Understand that the City has a limited budget and a three-year state mandated deadline. Decisions will need to be made at times with limited information, therefore it is important to remain on schedule and within the scope of work. ■ Attend and participate in the meetings of the CAC. Any member who misses three consecutive meetings, without an excused absence may be removed from the committee. Excused absences may include illnesses or other absences excused by the Advisory Committee Chair. If a vacancy exists on the committee,the City Council shall appoint a successor. QUORUMS AND DECISIONS A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of CAC business. Members shall strive for consensus but in the event consensus cannot be reached, the vote of the majority shall represent a decision of the CAC. For controversial issues, the CAC may include a minority opinion with the majority recommendation. TIMEFRAME The timeframe for the plan update is three years. A final plan is expected to be adopted in 2013. The CAC shall remain active until the plan is adopted. The CAC is expected to meet at least once a month. At times, more or less meetings may be required. STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES Lake Oswego staff will be responsible for designing and organizing events, and developing draft goals and policies for the Plan update process. Staff will prepare meeting agendas by consulting with the Advisory Committee chair and prepare meeting summaries that focus on discussion topics and key agreements Staff will serve as the primary contact point for inquiries regarding the activities of the committee. PUBLIC RECORDS Regular meetings of the committee are not public hearings. All meetings will be open to the public and subject to Oregon public meetings and records laws. All meetings will be open to the public; however, public comment will only be received for up to five minutes at the beginning and end of each CAC meeting. WE� LO Page 13 awn—,for ple.Nxes an FrasW,ty FILE COPY McCaleb, Iris FP 00-az:?- From: Selden, Sarah Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:36 PM To: Jim Johnson; Puja Bhutani;jdglisson@earthlink.net; Jon Gustafson Qngstfsn@aol.com); Bill Gaar; Russell Jones (Jonesrus45@yahoo.com); Todd Prager Cc: Andreades, Debra; Sin, Sidaro; Egner, Dennis, McCaleb, Iris Subject: RE: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 Attachments: CAC Charge Statement FINAL Adopted Resolution 10-45 7-6-10.doc Hello Planning Commissioners, Laura is out of town, and I will be attending the meeting tonight to talk with you about the Comprehensive Plan update. In reference to the discussion below, I thought it would be helpful to review the attached Comprehensive Plan CAC Charge Statement, which was adopted by City Council before the CAC began their work. I look forward to discussing the process, roles and responsibilities with you tonight. Thanks, Sarah Sarah Selden Neighborhood Planner 503.697.6524 sselden@ci.oswego.or.us -----Original Message----- From: Andreades, Debra Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:55 AM To: Sin, Sidaro; Selden, Sarah; Egner, Dennis Subject: FW: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 FYI -----Original Message----- From: Jim Johnson [mailto:johnsonjw3@frontier.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:45 AM To: Puja Bhutani Cc: Julia Glisson; ]on Gustafson; Andreades, Debra; Bill Gaar; Weigel, Laura; Russel Jones; McCaleb, Iris; Todd Prager Subject: Re: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 Puja is exactly correct. We have had this discussion including the direction received from the Council when creating the CAC. Discussion tonight will be important. What ever the CAC ultimately comes up with, it must come through the Planning Commission if it involves proposed plan/code amendments. See you all this evening. Jim Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Puja Bhutani" <bhutanipuja@cal.berkeley.edu> 1 i To: "Bill Gaar" <weg@buckley-law.com>, "Laura Weigel" <lweigel@ci.oswego.or.us>, "Russel Jones" <j ones rus45@yahoo.com>, "Iris McCaleb" <imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us>, "Todd Prager" <toddeprager@gmail.com> Cc: "Julia Glisson" <jdglisson@earthlink.net>, "Jim Johnson" <johnsonjw3@frontier.com>, "Jon Gustafson" <jngstfsn@aol.com>, "Debra Andreades" <dandreades@ci.oswego.or.us> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:57:40 AM Subject: RE: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 The overlapping roles of the CAC and PC have been an area of discussion/concern from very early on in the Comprehensive planning process. I thought that the overall opinion was that while the CAC would take the lead in visioning and scenario development, the PC would be the the land use and policy making body, consistent with its wider responsibilities. I would like the staff to address and clarify this issue tonight. Thanks. Puja Subject: RE: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:59:27 -0800 From: weg@buckley-law.com To: lweigel@ci.oswego.or.us; jonesrus45@yahoo.com; imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us; toddeprager@gmail.com CC: jdglisson@earthlink.net; johnsonjw3@frontier.com; jngstfsn@aol.com; bhutanipuja@cal.berkeley.edu; dandreades@ci.oswego.or.us Hi Laura: Please look at the comments below from Todd and Russ. Todd and Russ raise important points. Specifically, the issue regarding new issue protocol and the PC's jurisdiction regarding the comprehensive plan update. Could give me a call today sometime to discuss if possible. We have a PC meeting tonight and I would like to understand staff's perspective on this issue. If you have responsive questions, please reply to the full Planning Commission. Thanks much. Sincerely, Bill Gaar William E. Gaar William E. Gaar, Attorney SPHR Buckley Law P.C. I You're our most important partner. Three Centerpointe Drive, Suite 250 Lake Oswego OR 97035 503.620.8900 503.620.4878 fax weg@buckley-law.com I www.buckley-law.com Privileged Communication Warning. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do 2 not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: rus j [mailto:jonesrus45@yahoo.com) Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 6:14 PM To: IrisMcCaleb; Todd Prager Cc: jdglisson@earthlink.net; Jim Johnson (johnsonjw3@frontier.com); Jon Gustafson (jngstfsn@aol.com); Puja Bhutani (bhutanipuja@cal.berkeley.edu); Russell Jones (Jonesrus45@yahoo.com); William E. Gaar; DebraAndreades Subject: Re: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 I concur with Todd's assessment of the role of the PC and CAC. It strikes me that the Planning Commission is being placed in the position of rubber stamping what ever decisions the CAC comes up with regarding the Comp Plan Update. I believe, as Todd suggest, that the Planning Commission work directly with staff (not the CAC) on revisions to the goals and policies and hold public a hearing/hearings. This is the purview of the PC not the CAC. --- On Fri, 11/25/11, Todd Prager <toddeprager@gmail.com> wrote: From: Todd Prager <toddeprager@gmail.com> Subject: Re: PC Agenda and Draft Minutes for 11/28/11 To: "McCaleb, Iris" <imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: "jdglisson@earthlink.net" <jdglisson@earthlink.net>, "Jim Johnson (johnsonjw3@frontier.com)" <johnsonjw3@frontier.com>, "Jon Gustafson (jngstfsn@aol.com)" <jngstfsn@aol.com>, "Puja Bhutani (bhutanipuja@cal.berkeley.edu)" <bhutanipuja@cal.berkeley.edu>, "Russell Jones (Jones rus45@yahoo.com)" <Jonesrus45@yahoo.com>, "William Gaar (weg@buckley-law.com)" <weg@buckley-law.com>, "Andreades, Debra" <dandreades@ci.oswego.or.us> Date: Friday, November 25, 2011, 4:53 PM Hi Everyone, I can't make Monday's Planning Commission meeting, so I wanted to send my written comments on the packet: October 10, 2011 Minutes Correction see Word document attached Comprehensive Plan Update I have concerns about the Comprehensive Plan update process. The proposal is there will be a Planning Commission workshop where the Planning Commission will be asking the CAC for revisions to the goals and policies. Then the CAC will review the Planning Commission's request and send the revisions back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing (see page 2, January and February items of the Comp. Plan memo). I think the Planning Commission should work directly with staff (not the CAC) on revisions to the goals and policies. It is important that the Planning Commission have more control on 3 revising the goals and policies so they are ready for the public hearing. Suppose the Planning Commission's workshop revisions are rejected by the CAC, and there is a subsequent public hearing on goals and policies that are not supported by the Planning Commission? I think that would be problematic. Summit Format To improve the summit format, I think the virtual open house should be simplified by not limiting comments to the slides, but instead by allowing open ended comments on the topics in general. Most people don't have the time or interest in reviewing/commenting on 50+ slides about specific Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. New Issue Protocol I think it makes sense to have a process for addressing new issues. However, this implies there is already a set of existing issues that are part of the process. I think the CAC should publish the list of existing issues so people can understand whether their issue is part of the process or not. Also, issues that are rejected by the CAC should be published so people can see that as well. Whatever process is decided upon, it should be published on the website so expectations of the public, CAC, and staff are clear. Boones Ferry I think we should consider whether revisions to the non-conforming use provisions should apply citywide rather than just the Lake Grove Village Center. To me, non-conformance issues resulting from road projects could apply citywide which would be more consistent with the code reorganzation. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, McCaleb, Iris < imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us > wrote: Hello Commissioners, Attached is the meeting material for our meeting on Monday. Denny is still working on the material for his portion on the Boones Ferry Road Plan Implementation. He said he would be e- mailing it to you later today and he was also hoping to include the hard copy in the packet that will be going out in today's mail. Here's the link to the PC web page as well: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/planning_commission/2011-PCAgendasandMinutes.htm 4 Have a wonderful holiday weekend! Iris McCaleb Long Range Planning (503) 697-6591 E-Mail: imccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. s CITY OH LAKE OSWHGO • LAKE OSWEGC Ganten n sal 1110 2010 2180 AAveaue PO Boa 3(9 • Lake Oswego,ORI 97034 STAFF REPIORT 5103-0351-0270 www ci.oswegal.ocus 710: Planning Cc rr mission BROM: Clenny Egner,AIICP,Assistant Planning Director DANE: November 23, 2011 5I1.UBJBCT: Work Sdssicin on Bdones Ferry Road Refinement Plan Implementation(LU 111-00401 Introduction)Backs rot,nd On Augu st 31,th e Planning Commission h eld a twat-part work session on upcoming planning projects intendec tai h elp implement the Lake Grove Village Center(LGVC] plan. At that meeting,the IC VC financing strategy project was introduced and th el Cammissicin disciu ssied potential LGVC code amendments related to the Boone!' Ferry,Road Refinement Plan implementation and a stet of potential LC VC code e. amendments intended to clarify*e coc e. Following the August 717 Coimmi<.ssicin meeting,the City Cc a nail heild a meeting on September 27, 20111Ici review the overall direction for the Bocines Ferry Road project anc to c iscusis the IC VC. The general direction from the Council was to move forward with implementation cf code amendments 11c implement, the refinement plan but to time the amendments so that the findings of the financing strategy are known before any code amendments are made final. The financing strategy is soh Muted to be presented to the City Council in January. The Planning Commission isi scheduled to h old ai work session ori the financing sl ratlegy project on December 12, 2011. This men oraindum presents the current th inking of the staff regarding the sei at plc n and code amendments needed tc implement,the Boones Ferry Refinement Plan. If y c u need to refer to a oc Fly of the Bolonesi Ferryi Road Refinement Alan or the Lake Grove Village Center Plan,, relevant materials can be found on the City website at the fcIla wing address: http://www.ci.osweeo.or.0 s/pla n). Flallaw the link to the Bodnesi Ferry Refinement Plan. The Ref inemient Plan and the PAC memo are at the tap of the page and the Lake C rove Village Center Plan is at the bottom. Proposed I GVC Plan and Cod e Am iendmenlls The La le Grove Village Center Plan and related dew lcpmentl code sect ionsi were adopted three sears ago in 2008. Since that time, the City has conducted a two-phase res inemient plan process to better c efine Bodnes Ferry Rc ac improvements. Through 11h el refinement plan process a nu mber of potential IGVC plan and code amendments have been identified. On July 19, 71011,the Boones Ferry Road Pro ject Advisory Committee(PACO presented reocrosmendationsi regarding roadway alignment and proposed improvements I n Rage 2 to the City'Cot ncil. In September,the Cc uncil provided general directic ri to implement it a recommendations. The PAC recommendations for plan and coc e arrendmient.1 are listed below: 1. Alan map arc text amenic mianl s related to signalization at Madrona. 2. Alan map arc text amenic mend s related to the pedesi!Han crossing at it a Lake Grove Shopping Center near Starbucks. 3. Alan map and text amendments related to the elimination of the pedestrian crossing at Quarryt 4. Alan text amendments to better describe references 110 the roadway'width and to clarify the approach for constrained sections. 5. Code text amendment to the non-cor farming use section of the code so th at property owners are riot penalised when the City purch asesi RCIW or when property owners dedicate ROW. Key issues to address include lass of paIrk incl and landscaping arid compliance with loll coverage arid floor area ratio sl andards. 6. Code ilex1 amendment 110 asst,re that L pon redevelcpmiant five-foot sidewalk segments are widened to at least nine fleet. 1pxt amendments to better define what level of redevelopment triggers sidewalk widening. 7. The Parking Facilities and Alccess Cc ordination Map IIC DC Appendix 50.11A.050-B] sihoiu Id lx amended to sh ac a the Lake Clrove 8Iementarm School site adjacent to Boones Berry Road and the nerd. property line driveway wh id west,Id th en requ ire school redevelopment to k a designed to provic e sh ared access with abutting sites. 8. Add a plan policy to look for opportu pities 110 treat private s1 ormwaller with in the public greensteet system if capacity is ava Hak le and to jointly c eve lop shared stormiwa ter facilities at"pearls" where possible. Each of the proposed amendments is addressee in more detail be low. Items 3,2,and 3—AIdd Madrona Signalization, Add a Pedestrian Croesing at the Lalke Grave St opping Centelr,delete the Pedestrian Cros'sing at Quarry- These involve relative ly sirr pie map changes and minor text changes'. Hive miapii in the plan and five mapsi in iii a code will need to be amiendEic (the maps have not been prepared and are riot included in th isi packet]. In addition th ree mincer text amendment are requirec in the plan. The report f rem the PAC included a minority report requesting th all specific neigh borhooc traffic mitigatic in improvement be included as part of the recomimieric ai ion. Because the full PAC clic not support thisi proposal, it is not incite ed in the proposed amendments. (idem 4 —Plan Amlendments to Clarify Width and the Approach foil Constrained Sections—The text of the Lake Grove Village Center Alan makes multiple refe rerices to a desired 82-foot ROW width for e corridor. llhe refinement plan process found that the majority of the corridor would require a width between 92 feet and 82 feet in order to acccimimodalle u-turns and the transition between intersect ions. Boonesi Herryl Refinement Plan was ccimpletec iii two parts. Ahase ] ac dressed traffics operations and safety. Phase two addressed roadway alignment, green street design,, and economics impacts. This work was ccompleied in respc rise to Action Measures incilu ded in the Village Center Plan calling Voir complel ion of a Village Access Management Plan. Text amenc meats are propcisec to L pdate the access management discussion in the Village Canter Plan. Proposed amendments are included as Attach trent 1 at the end of this memorandum. " 9 � Page 3 Item 5-Code text amenidm'entsi sic that property ovum ers are not penalized w hen the City purchases ROW oir when property owner,I dedicalle ROW—The amendment to accomplish this recommendation is riot proposed fon the non-conlbrmin€l use section but rallhen in a new 'exception"subsection in the Applicability section oil tF e Lake Grove Village Center Ovleslay'Zone. The Flroposeld section is provided below in "track change '. Ac d a new Section 9 to 50.11A.020 A'pplica'bility: 5. Exceptions A ften anuary , 20]2, where the City has acquired on otherwise taken or reicseiv ed right-of-way fon the purwolj€i of improvements ib filoone!i Ferry Road that ane consistent with the Lake Grove Uilllage Center Alan: a. The squaw footage of that right-of--way may continue to be used as part of the overall!iguana footage of tile paned fon calculation of allowed floor area, Ilot coverage, and minimum Ibt s�iZEL b. ,If dile loss cif property fon right'-of way puma!les resulted tri a reduction'in ilanc!iciapec area, tile square footage of tile night-of-way may continue tci be counted toward satisfaction cif iancsciapinia requirements to the extent that Ilanc!iciapiniq requirements had previously been satisfied. c� if tile kiss of property fon rightl-of-wav purposes resulted MI a los! of on-lute parking swaces, the number of spaces Jost may continue to be counted toward satisfaction of parking requirements to the extent that parAlinq requirements had arm lousily been satisifiea. • Note: "Tiflis is an initial draft and is subject to change. Item'6-Text amendments to assure that filve-fla o1 sidewalk segments are widened to at least nine feet— Given the constrained right-oll-way along portions of Boones Ferry Rodd,tF el advisory(committees fbr the Lake Grove Village Center Filan and Boones Ferry Rciac Refinement Plan F ave recommended that the initial constri,lion oil Boone!'Henry(Road should minimise impacts to existing t l siriesses. ft do so,the plays identifies consirainec areas where overall roadway improvements will include five-'bat wide sic ewalks in some location's. It has been assumed that upon redevelopment cn remodeling,'these properties will need to provide widen right-of-wi y and sidewalks but the current code does not make any provision far this to OCC r. Draft text amendments are included below but note th at the trigger thresihc Ids for remodeling and redevelopment have not been reviewed or vetted by the Bconesi Ferry Project Adv`sory Committee. Amend slut sect ion 3 of Sect ion 90.]I]IA.020 AF plicability(new language in"'track cF anges"): a Applicability by Tifpel of Development. a. New Construction/Redevelopment All sllande.rdsi 01 LOC Art"de 50.111A apply to new building(s)or site improvements or any vacs rt or redeveloped site and to new buidir g(s)and related site improvements or any partially developed or developed she. b. Remodeled Buildings, Building Expansion,and Site Ilrnprovlemertt. The standards of LOCI Article 50.111A applyto any remodeling, building expansion, or site improvement prgeci or a partially developed or developed site,except as expressly provided below: ai Page 4 L Except as seill forth it s ubsiectior iv below. sStandards appy only to the structure or to that portion of a sin cl une'on site that is being constructed, modified, remodeled, or built upon. AL Elxc'ept as seill fcvtli it subsection iv bekiwi. siStandardsi that enhance the pedestrian en ironment apply only when the proposled building or site'irnprelvement change s,remode is on results in news construction occurring)within the build-to Nine, LOC 50.111A.030(I)(a).For purposes of this subslectior, the fOiowingl standares are the standards that enhance the pedestrian environment: LIOC 5G.11A.010(5), Streetfront E nvironmer t LIOC 5C.11A.C140(4)(e), Rain Protection' LIOC 50.VIA.C140(9)(c),Public Plaza LIOC 50./11A.CI40(9)(d„ Urban Villages Standards for Bulildfngs Exceeding 35 feelt or Twc ant One- hdlll Stories LIOC 50.111A.C140(9)(e), Storefront Window LIOC 50.11IA.OEO(3)(b), Urban Streetfront Environment LIOC 90.11IA.CIE0(3)(c), Tra nsiticnal 5 treetfrc nt Env ionmenit Elxc'ept as seill fcvth in sit bseiction iv bekiw.. tThe following standards dc nc t apply to building remodeling projects. The slandands apply td site improvement projects only if the proposed site imprglveme nt includes the abutting street right-of-ways LIOC 90.111A.CIEO(3), Village Stree'tfront /JOC 50.1:IA.C130(5)(g), Street)tees LIOC 50.11IA.C1C0(2), Village Commons and Gathering Places iv. the'constrained riaht-cf--wav sections where the Lakes C rove Village Center Plan and the Eloones Ferry Road Ref'ineme'nt Plan assume that initial construction of Booms Flerry Road improvements will rest II in sicewalks that ane less than five'feet in width, right-cf-way shall!be dedicated and sidewails ailona Eloones Flerry Road shall Llei widened IIo no less than r ine feat upon redetebpment of the property or upon revnodelina of the primary build it a on the property. Flemode lino cv reden eibomeint praieclls that are less than 50C sa. ft. in size or less than SIOGLOC10.in value'are exempt from this provision. Any series of Indere(dent remodelina aroiects oven en v fi'e year period shall be considered a sinalle ordeal'sutliect IIo this alandard. Note: Please give some attention to the trigger threshalc s for the proposed siidewallk improvements. Rage 5 Iterrl 7-Parking Facilities and AccIesis C oordinatic ri Map IICDC Appenc ix 50.11A.050-131] -llhe Project Adviscir'Committee recommended that the access coordination map in the code lx amielrmc ed to include shading of the Lake G rave E lemerltary Sclhool site adjacent to Boones!Berry Road and the LE newolod intersection 111 he map is not inch c ed in this packdl). The effect of tF is amerlc mierut is to require tF a school to possibly participate in shared access with adjoining sites such as the former Andrews Furniture sl ore Miller Paint)and the vacant property to the west. This issue was hotly debatec by the Project Advisaryl Comlmiittee and a mine rity report was included in tF el reccirr miendation. No text amendments are proposed to accic mlpany the new map. Item 8—Shared Sltormwater Bacililliesi—The Boones Berry Road Pro jed Advisory Comim ittee recommended adding a policy to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan to look for opportL pities to treat private storm water within the public greed si reet system if capacity is available and to jointly develop!IF areic sd ormiwater facilities!at"pearls'wh ere pcssih le. It is proposed that the new policy be ac ded to the Natural Resou roes section of the plan L nder Goal 8. A new Policy'8.7 is pro pc sec: 6.7 Slupport opportunities to treat pr late stonnsiwaten within tiles public!amen street system if capaciitk is available and to ioirltily develop shared storniwaten facilities at plazas and aatherina places(''pearls1 wi erei posisiblel. lb implement the policy a new Ad ion Measure is also necessary. Ad ion M eiasure ii is Flroposec to be amended as follows: IL Sustainable Devlelbpanent Provisiions (Policy 8.4 and E.7) Amend code provisions as requited to provide development bona sec far sustainable building and stoinlwater management ppactiices. As part of the Boones!Ferry Road protect explore opporl unities to treat Mill ate storrrwatelr wit?in if ei public!sneer!street systeim mild examine 0000rt unities to jointly d evelbp shared storm waterfacillities al plazas and aathesina places('pea,uls'"). IA Aso sSee Lclnd Use Action Mleasuses!ii.) C ondusion/Recommendation It is req acted th at the Cc mmission provide direction to staff regarding the proposed amendments)so tF ad we can prepare a final set of plan arlc code proposals. We are ariticipallint a.lanuary 24,, 2012 publics hearing on the amendments!. Page 6 Attachment) 1 — Village Center Rlan Amendmentlsi The proposed amendments below am indlendec tic i.pdate the Transportation Action Measiuues sectic n at the Lake E row Village C enter Plan. The arrenc mientl are based an the work completed in 201111 on the Bocnnesi Henry Refinement Plan. All proposed changes!are s!h own in"track changes!". Page 15 Action Measures-Tran sportatlor 7nansportaition action measures'are organiaea under five heaaings: i Village Ccntcr "cces "ma"c"e t Ioonels Ferry Alma Rlefinernelnt Flan ii. Streetl Design iii. Pubilic Invollvement iv. Transportation Project! Llesign Direction IL Dames Ferry Rocha Rlefinernelnt Plan. in response to a Village Center Plan action measure calling for an access manaaelment plan. the City complefea c! Booties Ferry Roma Rlefinemelnl Alan in 20J J. The Refinement Alan hi intenaea tb be used to Guide subsequent -- : .. . . . . . . - .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • - - - . . . . • - te-iRitietin l Engineering Akins(see ii.Street Design„ b. Engineering Plans). The e�•c_cc menagementRefinement Alan was prepared in tub phases. The first phase plan ,.mall p_oviele irs, heiincIuaea a Traffic and Safety Analysis and resulted in a sieriesi of reccimmended reifiriemenls which were eilaminea fu Wier in the second phase. The second phase also include% an allowed y-the-Economic impacts Anailys�i. :.,enti sed�.,,►ow - - - _ - . ' - : _ - _ •- _ : : : . : - . a. Traffic!and Safety Analysis. (Policies J.1,; 1.2; J.5)'The traffic and safety analysis was comp Ietled as pail of the first phase!of the Boones Ferry Florid Rlefinernert Flan. The analysis was conducitea bk DICT Associatles4 InicL ana was cornpileted in September of 2009. The analysis found that with a series of recommended relfirelmentbi and irnnrouementsi traffic operations cauda be maintainieed atl acceptbb Ie lleveels thrcwah the()Mannino time frame(2C35). The plan concept)fon center medians ana U-turns at sianalized intersections did notl result.in excessive neialibonhooa cut-throuall traffic on create congestion prclbllerns. Furtil er work is nieledea durina the enaimeerina Orme of tile 6loones Ferry Rbad project tb aaaress delivery truck access to busiiniessesi. - - - . Page 7 .thefeliewiRip a. _ - _ - - a b. Econcm,ia Irr pads Ar allysiis. IPblicies 1..1;1.1)Tilei second phase of the Boonesi Henry Alefinevnent Flans was compleitea in Jully 1011. As part of the Alefinement Plans work, the FCS Group cempletled an analysis'of economic'irr pacits resulting from the proposed noxa improvements. The analysis fou nd that folilowinq construction, some busiinieisssesi may experience a short term(2-3 year)atop in average veil idle trips but that giver overall enhanced access for all traveel m oa es ana prciiecteid increases'in auto traffic tine(Jail the corridors aesitiination trips fon businesses in the district should increase by 33-50%by the year 2035. Pagel 8 410 c. Flefinement Flan Flecomrnemotions and bac Alignment–Tile 20�1 Boones Fein:Refinement Plan pneparea By hINTB Corworation and the July 8, 20J J memcirandum documenting the necommendationis of thea Boone!'Ferry Road Refinement PVbn PlroiectAdr isory Comm ittee ill all be usiea to provide qukance fon subsequent engineeninq work related to Ebonies Ferry Fbad impnoverrienits throuall the Village Center The Refinement Flan and memorandum oddness 22 specific plan refinements that were identified dulling phase 3 of the Boone!'Ferry Road Flefiniement Plan prosect. In addition, the Refinement Alan and merr onandum inicludeI:vac alignment diagrams that area intencec to establish the overall fnarrieiwonk fon road alignment fon initial constnuction. , ii. Street Design. a. Green StneetsL (Policy 1.3) The second phase of the Bowles Ferry Rao Refinemenit Plan refiinec amen street concepts for Boones Ferry Road. The Rlefinement PVbn concepts area intendec to provide auidanice for furthen enaineerina wcink related to Boone!'Ferry Rbad im prov ements. : . - • . - • - - - . . . .. . . • - 1 - _ i b. Eioonieis Ferry Conidon Ehginieeirinq Plans. (Policies 3.1;1.2;3.3;1.4;3.5;2.1;2.2;3.2;3.3;3.4. Sele also Transportation Plnoj ect 1:Booms Ferry C a rridon I,F rror ements t., Fund and cio mpa ete the following-engineering plans for Boones Ferry Road Im pry i ements. Conduct eniaineenina studies to f-lj • • • • - '- : • • • • - ` - -:•- - • -• - • • - • • '- •dentify oonstructabdity issues, necessary rights-al-way acv.uisutions, and ®sta the frcmework for the final aesign, such as grade,slope,sub-base of road and underground4ing of utilities. The 35%-engineering plans should includes the fol4lowing.• - Evaluation de ratification of the centlenline based on the results of the 20.1:i Bac nes Fenno Rloaa RlefinerrientPlan: . • • •• • • - - - - • • • - - • : - - - -— - - • • - Assess menti and aesign for mitigation of:pc_'i_c_oncmicconistnuction impacts to adjacenti properties including impacts)to existling buildings,parking supply], access, . delivery access, and business operations during street construction;and I - Preparation Flefinement c f preliminary cost)estimates. 111 Page 9 • r_ development. Note: The next phase of engineering we rte is intended to prow de st,ffiaieeret irifc rmiation for a private deveelo per to have certainty as to the amiot.nt of RCW neeeec eec and tF e improvement.)that are planned for the Boones FeIrryl frontage. TIF ee distinctic re between the 39%plan and tF ee 659E plan is no longer relevant given the work tc date on the Rellirierreerit Plan. Rage 271 Deslign Direction Tb clarify plan language related to roac way width and constrained roac way sections, th ee text on page 27 of the La le C rove Village Center Plan is proposed tc be amended as follows: Aequined Alightl-of-Way Alight-of-Wav Width. Based on ihei 2O. ]' Baines Ferry Road Refiinemer t Plan, the r11ahi-of-way wigth neeedeed "n 2 of right-of way is ommended to accommodate street elements identified in the Boones Ferry Corridor Street Crosse Sect4iors wiM range between weeen approximately 92 feet and 82 feet. The wider ROW is generally needed at intersections to accommodate U-turns. = - ' - - - - = - - • - - - - - • - . Existing Development Con!trainti. EMistiing development)on a number of properties along Boones Ferry Aloud constrains consetlructlic ni of the recommended street eleemenhl identified in the Boones Ferry Corridor Street)Crosse Sections at locations where existing development], iincilua ing!Ithud ure!1 and/or palrking, are ibcated within the reecommenaea right-of-way. in these ccenstrairedareasl, irterim reoaa way design solutions are recommended. Upton redevelopment of a site„full right-of-way width would be dedicated, aLbwingl f or sidewalks and/or bike lanes to be widened. Note: No change is reeeced tc the plan section addresising 9reisting Ddveloprent Cansi mints.