6.4 TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services

Transcription

1 6.4 TO: FROM: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Study Session: Ordinance 2759, Flag Lot and Access Lane Amendments (LU ) DATE OF REPORT: December 8, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: December 19, 2017 ACTION This report provides background information to the Council for its December 19, 2017 study session regarding proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50 CDC) relating to flag lots and access lanes. A study session was requested due to the policy implications of some amendments. The public hearing on this proposal is scheduled for January 2, The Council may direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and return for the public hearing before the Council. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) [Ordinance 2759] are part of the City s on-going effort at process improvement, which includes making regulations more usable for residents, developers, and City staff by correcting errors, eliminating text ambiguities and redundancies, and codifying past code interpretations. Additionally, the amendments respond to community concerns regarding flag lot developments. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: Limit the number of flag lots served by a private access lane; Increase the number of parking spaces required in flag lot developments; Increase the front setback on flag lots; Provide flexibility on setback orientation on certain flag lots; Delete the requirement to connect private access lanes; Clarify that lot coverage and floor area on flag lots are calculated on net site area; Clarify the location of required landscaping and fencing in flag lot developments A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

2 Page 2 The proposed amendments were the subject of five Planning Commission (Commission) work sessions in January, February, April, June and September 2017, a Public Review aft that was circulated August 15-31, 2017, notice to owners of residential properties large enough to be divided (mailed September 11, 2017), and Planning Commission public hearings on October 9 and November 27, For the purposes of review, staff encourages the Council to read the staff report dated September 29, 2017 (Exhibit D-1); the memo to Planning Commission (Exhibit D-2), and the updated code amendments (Attachment 2, dated 12/06/17 to Exhibit A-1.1). DISCUSSION At its public hearing on October 9, the Commission recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendments. Of all the amendments, the items below generated discussion at the Commission s public hearings. Limit on Flag Lots [LOC ]: Currently, up to eight flag lots can be served by an access lane, which has a minimum width of 20 feet. Developments of nine or more lots require the construction of a public street; public streets generally require a right-of-way dedication width of 50 feet. The original package of flag lot amendments focused on controlling the impacts of development (parking, drainage, setbacks, etc.) without limiting private property rights. The Commission requested that staff analyze the impacts of reducing the size of flag lot developments after receiving public input that larger subdivisions or serial partitions served by private access lanes (flag lot developments) impact the surrounding neighborhood character. The key concerns related to parking spillover onto public streets, garbage collection (cans placed at the end of a private drive where it meets a public street), and the lack of public access on private access lanes. One consideration with a limitation on the creation of flag lots is the concern that owners may have about a reduction of their development opportunities. Limitations on uses that create a demonstrable reduction in property values have the potential for triggering Measure 49 claims, which could result in a waiver of the limiting regulations in certain cases, or compensation to the property owner for the lost value. Another consideration is the impact to density that a limitation on flag lots would have. However, as described in Exhibit D-1, the 2013 Housing Needs Analysis identified that Lake Oswego has more low-density residential land than will likely be needed by the year 2035 to accommodate demand for single-family homes in the R- 7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones. On October 9, the Planning Commission tentatively recommended limiting the number of Flag Lots to two (not more than three lots in a development served by a private access lane), and requested that Staff consider standards for a reduced-width street (< 50 ft. right-of-way) that could serve developments of 4-8 lots. On November 27, Staff returned to the Commission with an amendment that created a standard for a 38-foot private street that could serve 4-8 lots; the private street section was inclusive of roadway, parking, drainage and sidewalk. The City Engineer recommended against dedication to the City of these smaller streets due to concerns about maintenance costs, efficiency, and the ability to service the smaller streets with the City s equipment. At its public hearing on November 27, the Commission recommended that the A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

3 Council adopt the proposed amendments without the proposed private street standards; flag lot developments would be limited to three lots (one standard lot and two flags) served by a private access lane. Page 3 Parking [LOC ]: The minimum on-site parking requirement for single-family dwellings is one space per dwelling. Required parking cannot be within a front yard setback, though it is not uncommon for residential lots to have additional parking, for example in a driveway area in front of a garage. Currently, where an access lane serves seven or eight dwelling units, additional parking for four standard vehicles must be provided either on-lane in small turnouts, or off-lane in a small parking lot. Smaller flag lot developments have no requirement for providing parking in addition to the one space required on each lot. Because of the narrow width of access lanes (20 ft.), parking cannot generally be provided on the lane. The Commission recommends that for each flag lot served by an access lane, a standard parking space be provided on the lane. This may limit development in some cases as the areas provided for access and parking are excluded from Net Developable Area. Setbacks and Orientation [LOC e.v(1)]: In 2010, the flag lot standards were amended to require development sites to provide the opportunity for access lanes (existing or potential) to be extended onto an abutting property. In addition, whether or not there is development potential on the abutting lot, the front yard setback on the flag lot is measured from the access lane or a projection of the access lane (see Figure A: Flag Lot Front Yard). Since 2010, no partitions or subdivisions have resulted in connected access lanes, and the potential for connected access lanes was not generally supported by the community. The Commission recommends removing the requirement to connect access lanes. The Commission also recommends the front setback for the last flag lot be similar to the what is required in the zone for corner lots, measured either from the property line parallel to the public street or to the property line parallel to the orientation of the projected access lane. This change provides flexibility for appropriately orienting the house on its lot. Front Setback on Flag Lots [LOC e.v]: Recent flag lot developments can appear crowded as viewed from the street or access lane, and the difference in front setback requirements between flag and non-flag lots may be contributing to this problem. This is particularly true where flag lots line both sides of a private access lane and is due in part to the narrower width of these lanes compared to standard city streets. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the front setback, measured from the access lane, is proposed to increase from 10 ft. to 15 ft. Lot Coverage and Floor Area [LOC e.vii]: This amendment clarifies that lot coverage and floor area are both calculated on net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole area is deducted from the gross lot size). Presently, the access lane/flag pole area is netted out only for determining minimum lot area and lot coverage. This change is consistent with the original intent of the 2010 Flag Lot Amendments A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

4 Page 4 Flag Lot Screening, Rear Yard Landscaping [LOC f.iv]: The Flag Lot standards require a landscaping buffer to be provided along the rear property lines of flag lots. As the required orientation of houses on flag lots changed in 2010, the screening requirement was rotated to what was previously a side yard. A rear yard is always opposite a front yard, but because of the way side and rear flag lot setbacks are calculated (cumulatively), the rear yard may not be the largest yard. The proposed amendment requires the landscaping buffer to be provided along the largest side or rear yard of a flag lot. Therefore, the yard that is most likely to be actively used and also has the most space for plantings will have a landscape buffer. Flag Lot Definition [LOC ]: The Flag Lot standards (established in 1998) are imposed at the time of lot creation and enforced at the time of building permit review. Accordingly, the Flag Lot standards do not apply to lots created prior to The amendment to the definition of flag lot clarifies that the flag lot standards apply only to lots created under the Flag Lot standards. Lots created before September 6, 1998, the effective date of the flag lot requirements, that do not have standard frontage on a public street are not considered flag lots. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The Council may direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and schedule a public hearing on the proposed Code amendments. The proposed amendments may indirectly have a positive fiscal impact, as they include some code streamlining; however the limitations on the number of flag lots served by an access lane, as well as the increased parking requirements could have a negative fiscal impact. Limitations on uses that create a demonstrable reduction in property values have the potential for triggering Measure 49 claims, which could result in a waiver of the limiting regulation in certain cases or compensation for the lost value. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council identify items in the proposed Code amendments that the Council would wish additional information on, and provide direction to staff for preparation of a draft ordinance and subsequent public hearing before the Council. EXHIBITS A. aft Ordinances A-1.1 aft Ordinance 2759, 12/06/17 (supersedes Exhibit A-1) Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: aft Code Text, 12/06/17 (supersedes version dated 11/08/17) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes, 10/09/ A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

5 Page 5 D. Staff Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 09/29/17 D-2 Planning Commission Memo, 11/17/2017 E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Access Lanes E-2 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Public Streets F. Written Materials F-1 Public Review aft Narrative, 08/15/17 F-2 Spreadsheet Comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets, 09/29/17 G. Letters G-1 Letter from Sheila Carlson, 08/29/17 G-2 Letter from Bill Abadie with Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, 08/30/17 G-3 from Dianne Cassidy, 08/30/17 G-4 from Jim Standring, 08/31/17 G-5 Letter from James Adkins with Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 09/05/07 G-6 from Scott Bullard with Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, 09/06/17 G-7 from Diana Boom with Evergreen Neighborhood Association, 09/27/17 G-8 Photos submitted by Liz Martin, submitted 10/08/17 G-9 from Jim Fisher, 10/02/17 G-10 Letter from Waluga Neighborhood Association, 10/09/17 G-11 Letter from Wendie Kellington on behalf of Stuart Bingham, 10/09/17 G-12 Statement from Bill Abadie, submitted 10/09/17 G-13 Statement from Liz Martin, submitted 10/09/17 G-14 Map-Uplands Flag Lot Dev. And City of Portland Handout on Flag Lot Dev. submitted by Audrey Mattison, 10/09/17 G-15 Photo of Prohibited Parking on Access Lane, submitted Carolyn Krebs, 10/09/17 G-16 from James Adkins, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 10/23/17 G-17 from Bruce Brown, Waluga Neighborhood Association, 11/27/17 G-18 from James Stupfel, 11/27/17 G-19 Letter from James Adkins, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 11/27/17 G-20 Letter from J. Terrance Bittner, Attorney for Bryn and Janice Torkelson, 11/27/17 G-21 Letter from Renee France, Attorney for Teri and Saul Caprio, 11/27/17 G-22 Sample Plans submitted by Ralph Tahran, 11/27/17 G-23 Letter from Jerry Nierengarten, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, 10/27/ A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

6 Page 6 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project web page. Use the link below to visit the City s Project page. In the Search box enter LU then press Submit : A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR

7 DRAFT 12/06/17 ORDINANCE 2759 EXHIBIT A-1.1 LU AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OEGO AMENDING LOC , LOC AND LOC OF CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE FLAG LOT STANDARDS REGARDING LANDSCAPING, SETBACKS AND PARKING; LIMITING THE NUMBER OF FLAG LOTS SERVED BY AN ACCESS LANE TO TWO; REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT ACCESS LANES; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF FLAG LOT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU ). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, public hearings before the Planning Commission were held on October 9 and November 27, 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on January 2, 2018, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to update the Access and Flag Lot standards; and The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU ), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code is amended by adding the new text shown in double underlined type and deleting text shown in strikethrough type as shown in Attachment 2. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective date. As provided by Section 35.C. of the Lake Oswego Charter, this ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day following enactment. Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 2nd day of January, Ordinance 2759 EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 1 OF 2

8 DRAFT 12/06/17 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder David Powell City Attorney Ordinance 2759 EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 2 OF 2

9 ATTACHMENT 1 Reserved for City Council Findings (not included)

10 PROPOSED CHANGES: Shown as strikeout text for deletions, and underline text for new language. ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2759) LU CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY 1. ACCESS/ACCESS LANES (FLAG LOTS) a. Definition of Access For the purposes of this section, access shall be defined as: "area within public right-of-way directly affected by the traffic generated by the particular development and necessary to provide safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property." b. Applicability This section is applicable to all major developments and to the following minor developments: i. Construction or alteration of multi-family dwelling; ii. Construction or alteration of major public facilities; iii. Construction or alteration of commercial development; iv. Construction or alteration of institutional development; v. Construction or alteration of industrial development; and vi. Land divisions (partitions and subdivisions). c. Standards for Approval i. Every residentially zoned lot shall abut a street for the following minimum length: TABLE : MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE Residentially Zoned Lot Rowhouse Flag Lot All Other Minimum Street Frontage 17 ft. LOC c 25 ft. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 1 OF 18

11 ii. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: (1) Topography; (2) Traffic volume to be generated by the development; (3) Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residentiallocal, collector or arterial); (4) Traffic volume presently carried by such street; and (5) Projected traffic volumes. iii. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed only where approved by the City Engineer under LOC Chapter 42. iv. Direct access from a development or a structure to a local residential street is required unless such access is not available. v. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. vi. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. vii. Access lanes created by a partition or private streets created by a subdivision shall contemporaneously provide an option of dedication to the City. Dedication: City will not accept access lanes because they do not meet public street standards for width, access, etc. (Nov 2017). d. Standards for Access Lanes Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: i. Twenty-ft. wide easement. ii. Access to two to threefour dwelling units 12 ft. of pavement with a four ft. shoulder on each side. iii. Access to five to eight dwelling units 16 ft. of pavement with a two ft. shoulder on each side. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 2 OF 18

12 iv. When providing access for seven to eight dwelling units, the access lane shall be designed to provide "on-lane" parking for a minimum of four standard vehicles or provide an "off-lane" parking area for a minimum of four standard vehicles. viii. Access lanes shall align with existing and/or planned streets or access lanes where practicable. ivi. All new or modified access lanes shall follow access spacing as shown in Table , Access Spacing, where practicable, and, as determined by the City Engineer, shall not create a traffic operational or safety conflict. TABLE : ACCESS SPACING Functional Classification Minimum Spacing Private iveways (ft.) Major Arterial 300 Minor Arterial 200 Major Collector 150 Neighborhood Collector 100 Local Residential Street 50 Local Commercial/Industrial Street 50 Oct 2017 (PC): Planning Commission recommends limiting flag lot developments to two flag lots (and one nonflag lot) accessed by an access lane, and requiring one additional parking space on the access lane for each flag lot. [Note: If a flag lot is served by a DRIVEWAY, no additional on-site parking space is required.] Amendment to Access Spacing Table clarifies that the spacing does not apply to driveways (which only serve one lot, by definition). e. Traffic Study Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. f. Expenses Borne by Developer The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting shall be paid for by the developer. g. Distance between Access and Nearest Intersection Except for partitions, access from a development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 ft. from the nearest intersection of street centerlines. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 3 OF 18

13 LAND DIVISIONS 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DIVISIONS All land divisions shall meet the requirements of this Code including all zone district standards and dimensions except as modified in this section. 2. FLAG LOTS a. Purpose; Applicability i. The purpose of the flag lot section is to: (1) Enable the efficient use of residential land and public facilities and services, (2) Provide standards for site, building, and design compatibility of the new development with the existing neighborhood character, (3) Reduce the area of impervious surface resulting from redundant access paving, and improve the appearance where pavement is necessary, and (4) Minimize the disturbance of natural resources. ii. The provisions of this section shall apply to all land divisions and lot line adjustments creating flag lots in residential zones after September 6, 1998, and to any development occurring on a flag lot in a residential zone created after September 6, Exception: These provisions do not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot s creation remain applicable. iii. Compliance with Zone Standards. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone except where noted in this article. A land division or lot line adjustment creating a flag lot shall also comply with any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 4 OF 18

14 CREATION OF FLAG LOT: Under the legal lot creation analysis, creation of a lot could include reconfiguration of an existing flag lot through a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA). Because orientation and setbacks of flag lots changed considerably in 2010, a LLA that creates a new flag lot could create non-conformities with setbacks and orientation. This amendment clarifies that the applicability of current flag lot standards do not apply to existing flag lots (developed or undeveloped) that have their boundaries adjusted through a LLA. Oct 2017 (PC): Combined with edits to Flag Lot definition, clarifies that development on lots created before 9/1998 and that do not have frontage on a public street are not subject to the then current flag lot standards because the Flag Lot Standards per LOC are imposed at the time of creation of the flag lot. If created before the 1998 Flag Lot standards, even if boundaries later adjusted by LLA, development on the lot is subject to the underlying zone standards [Phantom Bluff]. iv. Parcelization Plan In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions or lot line adjustments, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property illustrating the maximum potential density, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels. The reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not preclude the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited) to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. May 2017: Clarifies that the parcelization plan should show maximum potential density. b. Exceptions The reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this section without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances, in one or more of the following circumstances: i. Landscaping required by LOC f.i as separation between driveways, which would not result in screening or buffering as intended due to topography, lot configuration, or existing natural resources which would be preserved, may be modified or may not be required; ii. Setback adjustments of up to two ft. which are necessary to site a dwelling in compliance with this article, or will result in additional separation from existing dwellings on surrounding lots, may be permitted; iii. If an existing structure(s) would be located on a proposed flag lot created by partition and the structure(s) would become noncomplying with any regulation of this Code, the proposed partition may be approved if the standard causing the noncompliance can be adjusted under LOC , General Exception to Lot Area and Dimension Requirements. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 5 OF 18

15 iv. Minimum driveway widths of 12 ft. required by LOC c.iii may be reduced, when approved by the City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshal. c. Access i. When creating flag lots, the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots is consolidated into a single shared access lane with access to the non-flag lot(s) parent parcel or off site, wherever practicable. If not practicable, then new lots may have individual access pointsan additional access may be allowed on site or off site. Access lanes shall extend through the partition site and be extended to abutting developable property to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable. MAINTENANCE 1: The parent parcel ceases to exist after the LLA or land division that creates a flag lot; reference is changed from parent parcel to non-flag lot(s). MAINTENANCE 2: Partition site changed to development site because flag lots can be created through lot line adjustments, partitions and subdivisions. OCT 2017 (PC): Deletes requirement that access lanes make connections to abutting developable lot(s). ii. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. iii. A driveway shall be used to serve a single propertylot. An access lane shall serve no more than two flag lots (the access lane may also provide access for one non-flag lot) eight properties. (1) iveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 ft. iveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LOC , On-Site Circulation iveways and Fire Access Roads. (2) See LOC d, Standards for Access Lanes, for width of access lanes. iv. No more than two driveways (whether to flag lot or non-flag lots) or access lanes shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 ft. of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway or access lane. v. All dwellings buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway or access lane. The address shall be no less than six in. tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction to the buildingdwelling. OCT 2017 (PC): Flag lot development limited to two flags and one non-flag. Access lanes can therefore serve a maximum of three dwellings. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 6 OF 18

16 d. Lot Configuration Requirements i. Determination of Front Yard The front yard shall be determined as follows: (1) Except for a lot that fronts on a public street, as provided below, the front yard(s) of a flag lot shall be measured from the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the property (see LOC e.v for setback requirements). Exception: For a flag lot at the farthest end of the access lane or a flag lot served by a driveway, the zone front yard setback shall apply and is measured from either the property line most parallel to the public street or the property line most parallel to the orientation of the projected access lane or driveway (see Figure B). DELETE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT ACCESS LANES, ADD SETBACK FLEXIBILITY FOR LAST FLAG LOT: The Planning Commission recommended removing the requirement to connect access lanes. This amendment also provides flexibility on setbacks for the last flag lot: the amendment would apply the zone front setback (25 feet in R-15, R-10, R-7.5; 20 feet in R-5, R-3 and R-0), measured from either the property line parallel to the public street (similar to the Uplands proposal) or to the property line parallel to the orientation of the access lane/driveway. Where connectivity for public access is needed, a public street dedication or pedestrian access easement and future street plan would be required under a separate code provision (Street Connectivity). May 2017: The current flag lot standards treat a single flag lot that accesses via a pole (i.e., it fronts on a public street) differently from a single flag lot that accesses through an easement (no frontage). In the former case, the 25-foot front yard is measured from the property line abutting the street. This discrepancy is identified in Exception 1 (moved from introduction). The flexibility proposed for the last flag lot should apply to the flag lot in two-parcel partitions: front either measured from property line parallel to the public street, or along property line parallel to projected access easement. [Prior to 2010, front always measured from property line most parallel to public street; the Flag Lot Amendments in 2010 that created the streetscape/orientation to the access lane created this discrepancy]. The option allows flexibility the remaining setbacks would be distributed according to formula and abutting development pattern; the applicant s burden is to show how the setback distribution responds to existing development on abutting properties. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 7 OF 18

17 (2) A front yard occurs on either side of the access lane of the flag lot. See Figure A: Flag Lot Front Yard. Figure A: Flag Lot Front Yard DOUBLE FRONT YARD ON FLAG LOTS: May 2017: The situation described in the graphic i.e., that access lanes are located on two sides of a flag lot has never occurred in the 8 years that this has been effective. This requirement sets up the impossibility of requiring a dwelling to orient in two opposite directions see e(i)(1), Building Orientation, below. Staff recommends deleting this subsection and graphic. [Editor s Note: Figure A was repealed by Ord. 2759, and the reference is reserved for future use.] ii. Lot Width Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines, that will result in a line parallel to the front yard. iii. Lot Size Area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. The "flag" portion of the lot shall be equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 8 OF 18

18 e. Building and Site Design Standards i. Building Orientation The reviewing authority shall require the following: (1) Except for dwellings on flag lots(s) at the farthest end of the access lane or flag lots served by a driveway, nnew dwellings on flag lots shall have the front of the house oriented towards the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the property. FLEXIBILITY ON LAST FLAG LOT: The Planning Commission recommended elimination of the requirement to connect private access lanes to abutting development. Similar to the flexibility on the location of the front setback on flag lots at the end of an access lane, this amendment gives flexibility to the orientation of the dwelling on the last flag lot, i.e., the front of the house does not have to coincide with the front setback). However, subsection (2) below still applies to the last flag lot, requiring maximum separation and privacy. (2) Buildings shall be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on abutting lots outside of the partition site. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increased setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. ii. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be side-loading where a turning radius can be provided that allows for a minimum of 24 ft. separation from the garage door and any obstructions or property lines, or (2) Be placed such that no more than 40% of garage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street. (3) Garage Wall Facing Street. When a garage has wall(s) facing a street, these wall(s) shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the garage wall. When the lot is a corner lot (abutting two or more streets), this subsection is applied to each wall that faces a street. (a) To demonstrate compliance with this standard, building elevations shall be submitted which depict the facade area facing the street at a width equal to the access easement. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 9 OF 18

19 (b) The area of a specific facade of a building is determined by adding the square footage of surface area of each section of wall facing the street. For buildings with more than one wall (plane) along one facade (for example, rooms jutting out from the main building or a building where each floor is set back from the floor below), all of the walls are included in the total area. The total area does not include any roof area. GARAGE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION STANDARDS: Deleted in entirety because garages on flag lots are never close enough to a public street for these standards to have any practical effect. The Garage Appearance and Location standards are meant to minimize the appearance of a garage from the street. The garage design standards that apply to Non-Flag lots are not applicable to garages that are at least 60 feet from a public right-of-way, regardless of whether the garage doors face the street. In flag lot developments in all zones, the garage face on a flag lot could be no closer to the street than 75 feet. For example, using minimum dimensional standards of the R-5 zone (20-foot front setback and 20-foot rear setback on non-flag lot), and assuming only a 25 foot deep building envelope, plus a 10 foot side setback on the abutting flag lot, the flag lot dwelling is 75 feet from the street. iii. Maximum Structure Height The height of a single-family residential structure and any accessory structures on a flag lot shall not exceed: (1) For flag lots created after August 14, 2003, the taller of: (a) Twenty-two ft., or (b) The average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site, as determined prior to the time of creation of the flag lot. Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 ft. away from the development site: (i) The maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average, except: 1. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site, then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. (2) For flag lots created before August 14, 2003, the taller of: (a) The maximum building height limitation established at the time of creation of the flag lot. The methodology used to calculate the maximum building height permitted by this subsection shall be the same methodology used at the time of lot creation to establish the maximum building height, or (b) Twenty-two ft. (see LOC , Height of Building, for methodology). DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 10 OF 18

20 The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions, upon the owner s or adjacent property owner s request, or at the City s discretion, if necessary to reflect a taller building height limitation than previously approved. (3) Modification of Approved Building Height The maximum building height of single-family residential structures and accessory structures on a flag lot (whether created prior to or after August 14, 2003) may be modified from that previously determined at the time of creation of the flag lot to the average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site. Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 ft. away from the development site, then the maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site, then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height allowed by the underlying zone, then the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for purposes of calculating the average. An application for modification of maximum building height for a flag lot shall be processed pursuant to LOC , Modification of Development Permits, as a new application. The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions. (4) Exceptions to Maximum Structure Height A greater height than otherwise permitted for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers, may be allowed pursuant to LOC g.ii, g.ii, or f.v(2). iv. Access Lane Siting The access lane shall be located no closer than five ft. to any existing dwellings. v. Setback Requirements (1) The standard front yard setback of the zone shall be superseded by the following front yard requirement: A minimum 15ten-ft. front yard setback is required from the access lane, except that a 20-ft. setback is required from the access lane to the front of a garage or carport when the garage or carport opening faces the access lane. For flag lot partitions or subdivisions that receive a minor variance to the determination of the front yard, per LOC m, the setbacks from the access lane described above shall apply. For purposes of this standard, the access lane shall include the projected extension of the access lane through the property as illustrated in Figure B: Access Lane. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 11 OF 18

21 Exception: This provision does not apply to the flag lot(s) at the farthest end of the access lane. In such case, the zone front yard shall apply and be measured from either the property line most parallel to the public street or the property line most parallel to the orientation of the projection of the access lane. FRONT SETBACK INCREASE: Front Setback, as measured from the access lane, is increased from 10 feet to 15 feet; Planning Commission determined that the 10 foot setback creates a crowded feeling along the access lane. Where the zone setback is required, the front yard would be 25 feet in R-15, R-10, R-7.5; or 20 feet in R- 5, R-3 and R-0. FRONT SETBACK FLEXIBILITY: The Planning Commission recommended elimination of the requirement to connect private access lanes to abutting development. Without a required connection, there is no reason to provide a streetscape along the lane for the last flag lot. This amendment provides flexibility on the location of the front setback on flag lots at the end of an access lane. Figure B: Access Lane DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 12 OF 18

22 Access Lane Graphic revised (bottom graphic) to reflect (1) increased setback to dwelling and (2) flexibility on location of front setback on last lot. (2) Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density, the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which that have abutting property lines. (3) The side and rear yard setbacks shall be established at the time of flag lot creation, subject to the following requirements: (a) The sum of the side and rear yard setbacks on flag lots shall be not less than: (i) 50Fifty ft. in R-10 and R-15 zones; and (ii) 45Forty-five ft. in the R-7.5 zoneresidential zones other than R-10 and R-15.; and (iii) 35 ft. in the R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones. (b) In applying the flexible standard, provide yard dimensions that are similar to the yard dimensions of primary structures on abutting properties that are not part of the DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 13 OF 18

23 partition site and that abut the rear or side yards of the flag lots, but in no event shall the rear or side yard established under this section be less than: (i) (ii) T tten ft. in the R-15, R-10 and R-7.5 zones, and 7.5 ft. in the R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones. SETBACK DISTRIBUTION: In the R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones, the cumulative rear and side setbacks had to add up to 45 feet on flag lots, which was 15 feet more than the cumulative rear and side setbacks on non-flag lots. Staff could find no legislative history that this discrepancy was intentional, and the stated reason for the setback distribution was to provide flexibility while maintaining the same overall combined setback total. The cumulative side and rear setbacks on non-flag lots is 30 feet (20 ft. rear and 5 ft. on each side). The proposed cumulative of 35 feet, with nothing less than 7.5 feet, is closer to the non-flag distribution and will generally ensure that one yard is bigger (i.e., a rear yard). [Flag lot opportunities in R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones are fewer than in the other zones. This amendment does not affect density.] May 2017: Updated number conventions to match rest of Chapter 50: Only numbers below eleven are written out. vi. Lot Width Requirements The lot width dimension of a flag lot shall be not be less than the minimum lot width requirements of the underlying zone. vii. Lot Coverage and Floor Area For the purposes of calculating lot coverage and floor area on flag lots, the area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA BASED ON NET SITE AREA: Consistent with the intent of 2010 Flag Lot Amendments, this section clarifies that lot coverage and floor area on a flag lot are calculated on the net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole is deducted from the gross lot size). Currently, lot coverage is based on net lot area on flag lots but floor area is based on gross lot area. Staff recommends stating this specifically in the Flag Lot section. f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation i. A minimum five-ft. landscape strip shall be provided between the access lane and the exterior lot line perimeter of the development site when the shared access lane is providedlocated along the perimeter of the development site site, and along both sides of the access lane when the shared access is provided at the interior of the development site, abutting both sides of the access lane serving flag lots except for pedestrian and vehicle access to the flag lot(s) served by the access lane. Where land area is not sufficient to accommodate a the five-ft. wide landscape DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 14 OF 18

24 strip on either side of the new access lane, the reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval to include measures that will provide effective buffering and screening. These measures may include landscaped islands, fencing, and meandering access lane. Exception: If a new lot is provided on both sides of an access lane, the landscape strip is not required. The reviewing authority shall require the landscape strip to be planted with trees and shrubs in order to mitigate the visual impact of wide expanses of pavement, and to provide a visual buffer between the access lane and the affected dwelling(s) located on abutting parcels. Plant materials used for screening and buffering shall be of a size to provide an effective screen within two years of planting. Trees shall be a minimum two-in. caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum of five-gallon at time of planting. Maintenance of the buffer is an ongoing obligation of the property owner. Exception: Trees are not required when the trees would conflict with utilities. LANDSCAPING BUFFER ON INTERIOR SIDE OF ACCESS LANE: The requirement to provide landscaping on the interior side of the access lane has been deleted; it is often removed by the homeowner and does nothing to buffer existing development from flag lot development impacts. Landscaping only required along exterior, as shown below (green stripe). If access is provided in the middle of the site, no landscaping would be required on either side of the access lane. CONFLICT BETWEEN UTILITIES AND FLAG LOT LANDSCAPING: The Engineering staff noted the potential conflict between utilities (which are often placed within the access lane/easement) and the requirement of trees in close proximity; current policy is to prohibit trees within public easements. This amendment makes an exception to the tree requirement when utilities are present. [Note: the revisions to the flag lot fencing requirement should effectively buffer the access lane from the views of immediately abutting properties.] DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 15 OF 18

25 ii. Existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable. The reviewing authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. i. The perimeter of therear and side yards of the flag lot(s) shall be screened from abutting lots outside of the development partition site with a six-ft. tall fence, except: FLAG LOT FENCING: The sides and rear of flag lots must be fenced, but with the change in orientation in 2010, the sides and rear were rotated 45-degrees. This amendment would require fencing at the perimeter of any new flag lot. Flag Lot Flag Lot (1) Where a four-ft. fence is required by LOC b.i, Fences, or where such screening would conflict with standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; or (2) Where the fence would be located within a wetland or stream channel. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 16 OF 18

26 iv. A landscaped buffer within the rear deepest side or rear yard provided in compliance with the flexible setback standard of LOC v(3), setback a minimum of six ft. in width, shall be created along the rear property line and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four ft. in height at planting, which shall grow to a height of six ft. within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height. Thise above requirement s pertaining to the "rear yard" is are not applicable where the deepestrear yard abuts Oswego Lake or railroad rights-of-way. FLAG LOT LANDSCAPING: The rear of a flag lots must provide a landscaping buffer, but with the change in orientation in 2010, the rear was rotated 45-degrees. This amendment would require landscaping in the deepest side or rear yard provided on a flag lot [Note: A rear is always opposite a front, but because of the flexible/cumulative setback standard, the rear may not be the largest yard; the largest yard, which provides the activity area, should have the buffering. iv. Tree Removal Mitigation A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development as a part of the creation of the lot or for the first dwelling constructed on the lot. The mitigation trees shall be of a species which will attain a minimum of 30 ft. in height. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of two-in. caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight ft. tall. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 17 OF 18

27 DEFINITIONS 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms shall mean: //////////////////////////////// Access Lane The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress to for two to three lots the property or properties by applicable surface modes of travel. ////////////////////////////// Flag Lot A lot that was created after September 6, 1998 and: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement. //////////////////////////////// OCT 2017 (PC): Access Lane: Clarify that access lanes can serve no more than three lots. Flag Lots: The Flag Lot standards were created in 1998 and are imposed at the time of lot creation, not development. Accordingly, the Flag Lot standards do not apply to lots created prior to This amendment clarifies the definition of flag lot is applied to lots created through the Flag Lot standards. Lots created before Sept 6, 1998, that do not have standard frontage on a public street, are not considered flag lots. The amendment clarifies that the flag lot standards only apply to lots created after that date. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 18 OF 18

28 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 EXHIBIT C-1 LU CITY OF LAKE OEGO Planning Commission Minutes October 9, CALL TO ORDER Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Heape, Vice Chair Bill Ward and Commissioners Randy Arthur, Skip Baker, Ed Brockman, Nicholas Sweers. Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Kohlhoff provided an update on recent Council activities. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT Charles Skip Ormsby, 170 Birdshill Road, Portland, 97219, requested a copy of the annexation report released to the City by Portland State University. He invited the Commission to the general meeting of the Birdshill Neighborhood Association. He expressed concern and frustration about not being notified of Willamette Shore Line Consortium meetings and other meetings including a meeting with the Tryon Creek Culvert Replacement project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ormsby also provided an update on the status of the Terwilliger sewer installation and issues not being addressed. He stated that he may not be able to stay for the duration of this evening s meeting and shared that he supported the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) position on flag lots and was also very concerned about street connectivity and asked the record be left opened. He indicated that in April he had requested and was still waiting for a 1996 report from ODOT regarding the costs related to the expansion of Highway 43. He also alerted the Commission of an upcoming project regarding the potential of electronic tolling on I-205 and I-5, leaving Highway 43 the only non-toll roadway. Mr. Siegel advised Mr. Ormsby to contact the City Manager s office for a copy of the annexation report prepared by Portland State University. Regarding the Willamette Shore Line Consortium, Mr. Siegel stated he was unsure if they were meeting, but would follow-up with Mr. Ormsby regarding minutes of past meetings. Mr. Ormsby emphasized the importance of the city obtaining a copy and reviewing the Tri-Met Bus Stop Report for bus stop accessibility throughout the city. 5. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Chair Heape announced upcoming vacancies on various boards and commissions. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 1 of 18

29 APPROVED: 11/27/ MINUTES Consideration of the September 11, 2017, minutes was moved to the next meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Community Development Code Amendments Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes (LU ) A request from the City of Lake Oswego for text amendments to the Community Development Code amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. The proposed text amendments are to the following sections: Circulation and Connectivity [LOC ], Park and Open Space Contributions [LOC ], and Land Divisions, Flag Lots [LOC ]. Staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Chair Heape opened the hearing and Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported and no one challenged any Commissioner s right to consider the application. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton presented the staff report and provided background and the history of the project to date, including four Planning Commission work sessions and two public review draft comment periods. She introduced Exhibits G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, and G-12 into the record. She provided history of Flag Lot Evolution: Pre 1998: No Flag Lot Criteria : Flag Lot 1 first criteria developed 2010-Present: Flag Lot 2 additional criteria developed Ms. Hamilton described the main updates made from 2010 to the present (Flag Lot 2), including: The addition of public access lane connectivity between abutting flag lot developments. The 90-degree rotation of the front lot line to face the access lane. The requirement to distribute the side and rear setbacks to create site-specific and context-specific setbacks. Ms. Hamilton stated that some of the key discussion points were around density and parking, including the number of flag lots accessing an access lane. She explained that currently the limit was eight and that staff had looked at limitations of six and four. She noted that the parking standard would be discussed as well to address concerns that flag lot developments didn t provide enough parking which could result in cars spilling out into the neighborhood. Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots: Current Code New flag lot standards apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured by a lot line adjustment. Creates non-conformities regarding setbacks and orientation on developed flag lots. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 18

30 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Proposed Code For Flag Lots approved prior to 2010, new development/remodels must comply with the dimensional standards and orientation in effect at the time the flag lot was created. Mr. Boone added that for lots that pre-date 1998, the underlying zone standards at the time of development would apply. Orientation/Setbacks: Current Code Front measured from access lane projection even if access lane cannot connect to abutting lot. Proposed Code Zone front can be either parallel to Public Street or parallel to access lane orientation; measured from property line. Maintain rear/side setback distribution to minimize impact to abutting properties. Ms. Hamilton explained that no access lanes had been connected since 2010 and that there were exceptions to the connectivity standard. She explained that even if a connection couldn t be made the access lane had to be projected; this change would provide additional flexibility. Mr. Siegel clarified that these were private lanes, not local streets. Commissioner Brockman raised a question about access lane projections in a practical sense, which would not be possible unless an easement was granted. He opined the people developing behind the flag lot development would not be guaranteed access through the access lane. Mr. Siegel responded that the easements were required to be recorded. Garage Appearance Standards: Proposed Code Garage Appearance and Location standards deleted. Not effective: garages on flag lots are more than 60 feet from the public street which is the limit for non-applicability on non-flag lots. Flag Lot Front Setback: Proposed Code: For flag lots with an access lane, increase setback from 10 ft. to 15 ft., as measured from the access lane. No change to garage face setback from access lane (20 ft.) Setback Distribution R-5, R-3, R-0: R-5 Flag R-5 Non-flag R-7.5 Flag R-7.5 Non-flag Side Setback 10 ft. (each) 5 ft. (each) 10 ft. (each) 15 ft. (total) Rear Setback 25 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Total 45 ft. 30 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. Current Code R-5, R-3, R-0 Sum of side and rear setbacks at least 45 feet No setback less than 10 feet City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 18

31 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Proposed Code R-5, R-3, R-0 Sum of side and rear setbacks at least 35 feet No setback less than 7.5 feet Ms. Hamilton explained the Setback Distribution standard and how it was calculated. The proposed amendment would better ensure that one yard would be big enough for an activity area. In response to question from Chair Heape regarding the 5-foot setback on R-5 non-flags and if that would change, Ms. Hamilton responded it would not be less than 7.5 feet on flag lots. Lot Coverage and Floor Area: Current Code Lot coverage and lot area based on Net Developable Area. Floor area based on gross area of flag lot. Proposed Code Lot coverage, lot area and floor area based on Net Developable Area. Consistent with original intent of 2010 Flag Lot Amendments. Screening/Access Lanes: Proposed Code Delete landscaping on inside (dwelling side) of access lane. Delete requirement for trees in buffer when potential conflict with utilities exists, as determined by City Engineer. Ms. Hamilton noted there were often potential conflicts when trees were required to be planted in those strips and the utilities that often run up and down the access lanes. She explained that one approach was to delete the requirement for trees in the buffer and the other was to delete the landscaping on the dwelling side of the access lane. She advised that the proposal would require buffering of the access lane only on the edge adjacent to another property. Screening/Perimeter Fencing: Current Code Fencing required along-side and rear property lines of flag lots. Screened at the rear. Orientation rotated in 2010, leaving one side unfenced. Proposed Code Fencing required at perimeter of new flag lots. Screening buffer against largest yard. Ms. Hamilton explained that the code change would return to the earlier ( ) requirement for perimeter fencing. She noted the buffering standard currently required a 6- foot buffer along the rear property lines of a flag lot, but that was not necessarily the largest yard or the activity area so the proposal was for a 6-foot landscaping buffer against the largest yard/activity area. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 18

32 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Serial Partitions and Density Ms. Hamilton noted the Commission s question about what the impacts to density would be if flag lots were limited on access lanes. She indicated that density impacts were hard to quantify exactly; it depended on context, lot shape, slope, sensitive lands, access constraints, etc. Ms. Hamilton summarized the results of the map analysis: By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to six, 25 flag lots would be lost. By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to four, 64 flag lots would be lost. By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to one, about 130 flag lots would be lost. She clarified that it did not account for smaller flag lots as the map analysis was based on parcels that could be divided into five or more lots. Ms. Hamilton referenced the spreadsheet of a comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets (Exhibit F-2), described the methodology used and noted that the density impact varied according to lot shape, such as long and narrow. She noted there were tradeoffs between access lanes and public streets flag lot access lanes were efficient in terms of providing less impervious surface and public streets, once dedicated, became a maintenance responsibility for the City. She clarified that access lanes could be more flexible in terms of saving trees. In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur, Ms. Hamilton clarified that the map analysis provided information about additional lots while the discussion about limiting flag lots served by an access lane, e.g. limiting to four flag lots, would not include the original structure unless it was served by the access lane. Mr. Siegel added that the one fronting the street was not considered a flag lot. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the front house was typically served by the public street, while the parcels along the access lane were the flag lots. She further clarified that the spreadsheet was an exercise in density impacts and assumes total lots, including the front house. In response to a question from Chair Heape, Ms. Hamilton stated the lot size was used for the spreadsheet analysis was 75,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Baker asked about the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) referenced in the staff report. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the HNA showed that Lake Oswego had more low-density residential land than would likely be needed by 2035; there was an estimate of 1,646 units in these zones, and a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. She pointed out that the HNA was not specifically looking at flag lots versus non-flag lots, but was consistent in terms of how the capacity was determined, such as taking out sensitive lands. Parking Ms. Hamilton explained that currently the only requirement for flag lots was that every singlefamily dwelling had to have one off-street parking space on their property outside of the setbacks. She further explained that in flag lot developments with access lanes that served seven or eight lots, four standard parking spaces, either on-lane or off-lane, are required. She reviewed the three proposed options: Option 1 Two on-lane standard parking spaces required for access lanes serving 4-6 dwelling units. Four on-lane standard parking spaces required for access lanes serving 7-8 dwelling units. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 5 of 18

33 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Will affect density because area devoted to parking is not counted in Net Developable Area. Option 2 One on-lane standard parking space required per flag lot if access serves 4-8 dwelling units. No additional on-lane standard parking spaces required if access lane serves 2-3 dwelling units. Option 3 Reduces flag lot developments to six lots served by an access lane. Four additional on-lane standard parking spaces required if access lane serves 4-6 dwelling units. Ms. Hamilton advised that that staff recommended that the Commission make a recommendation to Council on the amendment options presented, and to adopt Ordinance 2759 (including the attachments). Commissioner Brockman asked about potential Measure 49 consequences which Mr. Boone addressed, noting there might be situations where a property owner would chose to make a Measure 49 claim. Public Testimony Bruce Brown, 2323 Wembley Park Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, noted he lived in the Uplands Neighborhood and had recently presented to the Commission on the Uplands Neighborhood Plan Overlay, which dealt with flag lots. He noted three items to comment on: The number of lots allowed should reflect the underlying zoning density, if the Commission decided not to limit it to one flag lot. Some sort of sliding scale could be developed. Higher density zones could accommodate flag lots more easily in terms of character and density. The biggest negative comes out of the concept of the private access lane, which could be detrimental to the character of a neighborhood. Potentially you could start to get private enclaves in what would otherwise be publicly accessible neighborhoods; it not only isolates the people on that street, but the people who lived at the end of the access lane didn t get people walking by. He advised that any access lane that served two flag lots or more should be required to have a public access easement even if it was not a public street. Regarding setbacks, he didn t see any logical reason for a flag lot to have reduced setbacks; the lots should have to conform to the setbacks of the underlying zone. Lastly, Mr. Brown stated that he agreed that the flagpole should be deducted from the calculation and that it should be kept in the Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Brockman, Ms. Hamilton confirmed that an easement over the front lot for an access lane would be counted in the parcel s size. Commissioner Brockman observed that the very last lot would be in the same situation. Wendy Kellington, Kellington Law Group, 1335 Chandler Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was representing Stuart Bingham. She referenced the letter and maps submitted, Exhibit G-11. She explained that Mr. Bingham owned, individually or with his wife, three lots that were created by a subdivision in the 1920 s on Phantom Bluff Court and that in 1959 Phantom Bluff Court was vacated and thereafter became a private street. She stated that it looked like a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 6 of 18

34 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 public street; it did not look like a flag lot situation, the lots were linear. She indicated that the concern and hope they had was to obtain clarification in the proposed amendments that a situation like that, where you had existing platted lots created by subdivision long before there were flag lots, being served by a private streets, were not being embraced by the flag lot standards or access limitation standards. She stated she didn t see that the Bingham s lots fit the definition of a flag lot; the site had to be behind another lot. Staff thought they would meet the definition of a flag lot, but staff also felt that because the lots were created before the flag lot provisions were adopted, they would be developed under the traditional rules that would apply. She opined that staff did not intend for this type of development to be considered a flag lot. Staff clearly didn t inventory all of the private roads in the City to determine how many preexisting lots would be rendered undevelopable. Ms. Kellington added, if this was consistent with Commission s view as well, her written material offered four different ways to clarify things. She noted this would be similar to the proposed language that said existing flag lots that were reconfigured through a lot line adjustment were subject to the standard when the flag lot was created and were not subject to the new standards. Ms. Kellington suggested that if there was an existing lot that met all of the zoning and was created prior to the flag lot standards, and was never created as a flag lot, that it was developable as a regular subdivision lot or a regular partition lot; it wasn t subject to these new flag lot standards. She suggested the definition for flag lot could be amended to say it was a newly created lot. Ms. Kellington explained that the lots that Mr. Bingham and his wife owned were shown as 37, 38, 39, and 40, and more currently were referred to as 1300, 1500, and She pointed out that they abutted Phantom Bluff Court and were existing platted subdivisions lots; they should be developable as just regular lots. She added that Commissioner Brockman was correct that lot 1300 was composed of three additional lots that were consolidated for tax purposes. Ms. Kellington pointed out that if the assumption was made that you had developable lots that abut a private street (like 1300, 1400, 1500), was the intention that they be developable or were they somehow being affected by the flag lot standards which would foreclose them from developing because there were already four to six primary dwellings that were served by Phantom Bluff Court? Commissioner Brockman brought up the distinction between lots of record and tax lots; tax lots were just for tax purposes. Ms. Kellington agreed and added they didn t want to wade into that. Mr. Boone noted what was at question to the Commission was whether what Ms. Kellington raised was an issue. He read aloud the Code definitions of lot and lot of record; a legal lot was tied to the time of creation. He referred back to the discussion about lots that were created prior to 1998; if they were legally created at the time, the standards that were applied were the zone standards. He referenced another provision that stated the code only applied to lots that were created after 1998 as flag lots and that to Ms. Kellington s client s point, those lots were created in a legally created subdivision at the time; the later street vacation didn t change the legality of the creation of the lots. Mr. Boone further explained that they did not become flag lots under the post-1998 flag lot code; the base zone standards would apply. He advised that there were two code provisions that applied here that addressed that and the legislative history also provided that clarity. In response to a question from Commissioner Ward if Phantom Bluff Court was a developed road at this time, Ms. Kellington responded that it was actually a public street vacated in Commissioner Ward asked if the owner was interested in winding up with five buildable lots? Ms. Kellington stated it had been consolidated for tax purposes and that they may or may not. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 7 of 18

35 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 She added the owner was interested in maintaining tax lot 1300 now, and someday selling tax lots 1500 and 1600, perhaps to his children. Mr. Boone clarified that the tax lot references were to the tax lots and the underlying plats would be what the City would recognize. Mr. Boone confirmed that he did not think these amendments would constrain future development on these lots, however he didn t know the specifics of the lots. He noted that if a large lot came in now for a partition the new standards would apply going forward. Mr. Boone clarified that it would not apply to a lot line adjustment so long as it did not create a flag lot. Ms. Kellington described a scenario where Phantom Bluff Court was considered a private access way and if somehow developing off of Phantom Bluff created a flag lot situation; then the entire length of Phantom Bluff Court would be included as something you would be subtracting out of the lot area, resulting in a lot becoming undevelopable. Ms. Kellington thanked Mr. Boone for his comments. Ms. Kellington clarified she was trying to make sure things were clear. Bill Abadie, 1498 Meadows ive, Lake Oswego, 97034, voiced his concerns with the proposed amendments related to flag lots and private access lanes. His first concern was with the number of lots that could be accessed by a private lane in flag lot developments. He stated that flag lots should be limited to one additional lot behind an existing home and comply with the prevailing zoning requirements; if a developer or landowner wanted to develop more, they should go through the subdivision process. Mr. Abadie referenced the May 2017 Planning staff memo to the Commission regarding the Uplands overlay discussion. He opined that flag lot issues were citywide and questioned whether the city wanted numerous overlays around the city. He recommended the City adopt the Uplands Overlay citywide. Mr. Abadie objected to the proposed on- and off-lane parking requirements on private access lanes; it should be at least one if not two per lot if three or more homes were on a private access lane. He advised it was of the utmost importance if the City was going to continue to allow four or more homes to be accessed by a private access lane; this created parking issues and congestion. Another issue he raised was the construction of secondary units on flag lot development, such as garage apartments which compounded the problems with private access lanes; secondary units should be prohibited on flag lots. He referenced the stated purpose for the flag lot standards and opined this was not happening. He held that developers were squeezing in larger homes on smaller lots with substandard streets. He opined this had led to parking, stormwater, and garbage pickup problems; it also created challenges for emergency vehicles. He expressed his concern that the flag lot code was a means for developers to bypass more thorough and restrictive processes and that Lake Oswego citizens had to live with the problems it created. In summary, Mr. Abadie requested the following: Limit flag lots to one additional home, which could most efficiently be accomplished by adopting the Uplands Overlay citywide. Do not allow changes to prevailing zoning requirements in flag lot developments. Increase the on-lane and off-lane parking requirements for private access lanes. Prohibit secondary units in flag lot developments. He referenced the written testimony submitted by the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association and noted support from a number of other neighborhood associations. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 8 of 18

36 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 In reference to the suggestion flag lots should be processed as subdivisions, Commissioner Brockman stated that under current code, four lots or more were already processed as a subdivision. Mr. Siegel confirmed this; there was not a separate process for flag lots and a subdivision could have private lanes or public streets. Commissioner Arthur asked for clarification from staff about secondary dwelling units (SDU) and accessory dwelling units (ADU). Ms. Hamilton stated they were the same; a guesthouse was defined differently by the code and described their approval process. She noted that an SDU did not require a separate address or access, are a maximum of 800 square feet; and one additional off-street parking space was required. Mr. Siegel advised that there were Metro Code provisions that required the allowance of one additional accessory dwelling unit on each lot in zones that authorized a detached single-family dwelling; accessory dwellings were permitted subject to siting and design standards. Donald Mattersdorff, 930 Bullock Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated flag lots were an important issue to Lake Oswego and how the community would grow in the future. He acknowledged that a lot of work had gone into this project but commented it was the first evening of taking public comment; it was a little late in the game. He stated public comment as to the general direction should have been solicited earlier in the process. He reviewed the public comment drafts and helped to prepare some comments and disagreed with almost every word in both drafts. He questioned why they were here tonight talking about flag lots; was it so a homeowner could sell off a lot and stay in their home or was the city creating a second parallel code by which developers could bypass the established code in Lake Oswego? Mr. Mattersdorff opined the private lane route allowed for substandard development, including the ones developed on Cedar Street, which created a tremendous amount of problems for neighbors. He advised that the city needed to revisit the purpose of flag lots and they should be limited to one new structure behind the other house with access taken from a lane. He pointed out that the Cedar Street development included tearing down the front house, which in his opinion made it no longer a flag lot development. He opined people were now planning projects with one lot in front and all the others behind for the expedience of using the flag lot standards with reduced setbacks, etc. He further shared concerns about the Cedar Street development and the vacation of the street easement. He encouraged the Commission to go back and start at first principles, which was permitting one new structure behind an existing structure; anything else should follow the standard code. Commissioner Brockman asked what he considered the standard code. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that the city had a code that had been developed carefully over many years, requiring the width of the cul-de-sac, dimensional standards, etc. He held that flag lots bypassed a very large number of them, the major and minor development code. Commissioner Brockman observed the proposed amendments were restricting flag lot development, not enhancing it from what currently was code. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that they d like to see it reduced to one lot. Chair Heape asked Mr. Mattersdorff for any thoughts on the earlier suggestion for the number of allowed flag lots to be guided by the underlying zone. He responded that his personal view was that flag lot developments were a blight, more than one additional lot. He added he didn t like the larger direction of creating multiple new structures behind a sometimes-imagined front structure. Commissioner Arthur asked Mr. Mattersdorff if he had any perspective or thought to offer on the prospective loss of value to property owners if they lost development opportunity by the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 9 of 18

37 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 code restricting development from eight lots to one, for example and whether he had any concerns for the vested property rights of that owner or comments he d like to share. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that the city had all sorts of codes that people had to meet; if their lot did not meet the standards created over the years they should not be allowed to develop. James Stupfel, 1137 Spruce Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that anyone that lived in or planned to move into a neighborhood should be able to look at the zoning or review the development code to understand what kind of community currently existed and how it would look in the future. He stated that he valued living in a medium low-density neighborhood like the Hallinan neighborhood, along with the walkability and the connected streets which were wide enough even without sidewalks to safely traverse. The flag lot code as proposed, he opined, would continue to erode the connectivity and the density as they knew and understood. He advised that neighbors didn t and couldn t safely access these narrow private streets, like Cedar Street, for example. He suggested these types of developments pushed excessive burdens onto adjacent properties and that allowing the continuation of the subversive flag lot loophole of the code, on top of the historic lot of record issue, did not seem to be consistent with the R-7.5 zoning of their area. He suggested such developments would change their area over time, which was not what he understood it to be when he moved there; if the city wanted to increase the density, then the underlying zoning should be changed. He held that the discussion should be about one flag lot, not a flag lot subdivision. Chair Heape referred to the two comments regarding interest in requiring public access or an easement for public access and asked if that was possible. Mr. Boone acknowledged that it was possible; if the Commission found that public access was necessary for the neighborhood character and walkability it could be included as a standard, it was ultimately judged under the conditioning authority. He explained that when more lots were created, more people were being put on the sidewalks so they were required to mitigate that impact, it was a permissible requirement. Liz Martin, 1017 Cedar Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, talked about the effects on the Hallinan Heights neighborhood and how they have had to try to become experts to understand the City Code. She discussed the Cedar Street property and showed before and after photos (Exhibit G-8), mentioning that the City vacated the street. She referenced City staff statements that maintaining streets was burdensome and pointed out all the trees that had been removed from the property. She opined that neither of the staff statements made sense for their neighborhood; flag lots were cutting corners and there was little thought about the effect on neighbors. She pointed out that there was no access since Cedar Street was vacated and showed the after photo, noting the moved Cedar Street; there was no open space, views had been blocked, and it was now a crowded mass of homes resulting in little privacy. She advised that there was no public access to Freepons Park although the findings showed a Development Review Commission condition of approval that there be an open public parkway connected to the development to Freepons Park. She reported that there was now a locked gate where the keys were only issued to the flag lot owners. She concluded that the result was an overdeveloped street with a private drive and locked access to Freepons Park. Ms. Martin advised that the biggest concern was lack of parking. She showed a photo of construction vehicles parked near her front yard and pointed out that any extra vehicle could not fit on the access lane, including guests; the land was simply overdeveloped and was the easiest way to get around the subdivision code. She stated that it did not take into account the people who already lived there. She requested the Commission consider a flag lot to be a single lot behind a parent lot with street frontage. In response to a clarifying question from Commissioner Baker, Ms. Martin stated she was advocating for one flag lot only to be allowed. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 10 of 18

38 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Jerry Nierengarten, Twin Fir Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated he was the chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. He stated that the neighborhood had reached no consensus on what to do about flag lots, however, as a neighborhood they were very concerned and were envious of the Uplands Overlay. He noted Lake Grove had been affected by flag lots and that two lots behind a home were very common. He indicated that the neighborhood thought the Commission needed to consider a more complicated code with exceptions. He opined the difficulty was with more than one lot and that Lake Grove had large lots and narrow streets with no sidewalks. He advised that flag lots with access lanes were not big enough for emergency vehicles and not accessible to garbage and recycling pick-ups. He added that having more than two lots needed to be considered from a traffic and safety standpoint. He pointed out that with flag lots you had to be specific with requirements and what the development was doing to the lot in front; for example there could be up to three cans (trash, recycling, and yard debris) from each of the eight houses on garbage day. He also pointed out that in much of their neighborhood mailboxes were only on one side of the street. He reported that their Board could not reach any agreement on the number but could agree that the size of the lot needed to be considered when deciding how many flag lots could go behind it; one flag lot didn t need as wide a street in front as four flag lots would. He added that allowing one flag lot would be a good starting point, with exceptions to allow more depending on the width of the front street. When asked, Ms. Hamilton responded that an access lane would have to be at least 20 feet wide. Commissioner Brockman indicated that in his experience with the fire department they required different widths depending how many flag lots were being served. Mr. Siegel added that for certain access lanes there had to be a turn-around. Mr. Nierengarten stated that for the two lot flag lots the garbage truck didn t go down those streets. Commissioner Brockman agreed the access lane would be too narrow. Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated his professional credentials. He addressed proposed amendments of required open space dedication on certain partitioned sites that were greater than 75,000 sq. ft. of land area. He opined it was a bad idea because land of a proposed partition was usually a relatively private piece of land and did not usually contain a 50-foot public road right-of-way; a minor land partition and the parcels therein usually were connected by 20-foot wide drive aisles. He indicated that the open space sites within the partition were expensive to maintain and would possibly never be used. He described his own residential property, a four-acre strip, with a portion too steep to develop for residential building. He advised that open space should be included as part of the parcel not as shared open space. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the open space requirements as part of large partitions in previous drafts had been dropped and was no longer part of the proposed amendments. Mr. Buford responded that if the open space requirements for large partitions had been dropped it would make his day. Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, Lake Oswego, OR stated she had lived in Uplands for 50 years and was Vice Chair of the Uplands Neighborhood Association. She stated that she had been following infill for many years and was involved in developing the Uplands Overlay. She provided comments about complexity, efficiency, connectivity, and community and acknowledged it was complicated. She advised that the Uplands Neighborhood Plan took two years to research and develop and she also referenced the City of Portland flag lot standards. She stated she was in support the Hallinan letter dated August 30, 2017 and other City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 11 of 18

39 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 similar requests. Commissioner Baker asked if she was advocating for the proposed changes and Ms. Mattison replied no, she was supporting having just one flag lot. Kate Meyers, 5250 Carman ive, Lake Oswego, and Carolyn Krebs, Denney Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated they were Board members representing the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association (NA). Ms. Meyers stated that the Lake Forest NA voted at their most recent Board meeting to support the definition of flag lot as proposed in the Hallinan testimony. She added that they really liked the idea that a flag lot was a pole and flag. She stated that anything that was larger should go through the Planned Development process; they were not opposed to additional development. Ms. Krebs stated the Lake Forest neighborhood, like Hallinan, had experienced adverse impact from flag lot developments in their neighborhood. She advised that flag lot standards could combine with Planned Development (PD) with Sensitive Lands delineations that resulted in lot sizes out of character with the neighborhood and smaller than 75% of the underlying zone allowed through Exceptions. She opined that the a la cart use of land division categories and exceptions had led to overly complex regulations and undesirable outcomes pitting density against resource protection. She added that in their neighborhood it was desirable to have residential development with significant resources on each residential parcel rather than have resources cut off completely in set-aside areas of protection and off limits. Ms. Krebs stated that private access lanes that served multiple homes didn t provide connectivity; it was quite the opposite, they cut off neighbors from public streets and made it questionable whether they could be walked or biked by neighbors not served by those private lanes. She noted Carman Grove, a nine-lot subdivision in their neighborhood, as an example. Only one lot on that site met the minimum lot size requirement; five lots were called flag lots in the staff report. She further described that development application and approval, including setback exceptions. She opined this set a precedent for the neighborhood. She indicated that they were anticipating a 10-lot subdivision on Bonita with a resource protection designation, where flag lot and PD overlay standards would once again suggest that this type of tightly configured development was what was best for their neighborhood. Ms. Krebs stated that the Lake Forest NA supported the positions taken by Hallinan in their letter dated August 30, 2017, to limit the number of flag lots to one served by a private lane; if a developer wanted more than one lot they should be required to construct a public street. She added that the Lake Forest NA requested the code of the Uplands Overlay District apply to low-density single-family zones, including R-7.5, citywide. She referred to the specific code sections of the Uplands Overlay that should apply related to access lane extension and projection to abutting properties, especially important in Lake Forest. In addition, she stated that minimum onsite parking requirements for single-family residences should be two spots each for both the parent and flag lot. She suggested the Commission should consider requiring access driveways to include one additional parking space to take pressure off of fire access lanes used for illegal parking. She referred to the photo she submitted (Exhibit G-15) showing a car parked illegally on a signed fire access lane; she stated that providing this type of dedication for parking was needed and should not allow for reducing lot size. She emphasized the need for adequate parking. Ms. Krebs stated that she didn t think it was appropriate to put flag lots on a Planned Development and would like to see the Commission put this on the work list to look at in the future. Ms. Meyers opined that the combining of the two standards allowed too much a la carte picking of standards to comply with. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 12 of 18

40 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Ms. Krebs confirmed for the Commission that the Lake Forest NA was recommending two off street parking spaces for each flag lot. Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth St., Lake Oswego, stated he was the Co-chair of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC). He stated representatives from Hallinan attended LONAC s last meeting and after a lively debate the board voted to support the Hallinan recommendation for one parent lot and one flag lot; this was also supported in the Upland Overlay Code. Mr. Bolland stated he had served on the Infill Task Force and recalled the concept of the private access lane was an outcome of that effort; however, the Task Force never intended for an access lane to serve more than a couple of homes. He opined that when talking about devaluing property you had to keep in mind that the flag lot standard had only been in effect for a few years; prior to that, flag lots were not allowed. Mr. Bolland added that LONAC also supported Hallinan s recommendation that secondary dwelling units (SDU s) not be allowed on flag lots because of the way they compounded parking problems. He reported that LONAC also supported the concept of two on-site and one off-site parking space. Mr. Bolland spoke about meeting density requirements and that in 2013 the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan; during its development there was a lot of talk about density standards and meeting growth projections. He recalled that the City had received confirmation from the State and Metro that the city was okay with its density and growth requirements, however the State had pointed out that the only thing the city could do that would be a problem would be if they down zoned one part of the community and didn t up zone another area. He opined that changing the flag lot standard would not be an issue as it was not down zoning. Mr. Bolland encouraged the city to go back to the traditional definition of a flag lot as one parent lot and one flag lot and to get away from having private access lanes serving multiple lots; it didn t work and was bad planning. When asked if the City could negotiate with Metro regarding the SDU requirement, Mr. Siegel advised that with City Council direction the code could be amended to disallow SDUs on flag lots, however, the city would have to reconcile the change with the existing Comp Plan and Code that were currently in compliance with Metro Code. Mr. Bolland added that the First Addition/Forest Hills NA supported SDUs but agreed with the issues raised by Hallinan as it compounded the parking issue. Vice Chair Ward stated he did sit in on one of the Infill Task Forces and it had always been unclear in his mind where the notion of serving eight flag lots with an access lane came from. Regarding SDUs, Mr. Siegel clarified that existing Code required one off-street parking space for a SDU in addition to one off-street parking space for the primary dwelling. Ms. Hamilton added, regarding the number of flag lots served by access lanes, it was in the flag lot standard itself as well as in the separate Access Standard; she was not sure when it was added. Mr. Bolland opined it was added after the second Infill Task Force completed its work. Charles (Skip) Ormsby, 170 Birdshill Road, Portland, 97219, stated he agreed with the Hallinan and LONAC testimony and that Birdshill would soon have a resolution stating that. He added he was also curious about how the flag lot numbers were derived and would also like the Metro density letter provided during the Comprehensive Plan update to be provided in the record. He opined the picture of Hallinan was scary and abysmal. He understood that surface water management was still an issue there and expressed concerns about surface water management in Birdshill and December flooding on Fielding Road and risks to emergency responders. He opined this was a matter of neighborhood concern throughout the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 13 of 18

41 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Lake Oswego area, especially in the outlying dual interest areas related to street and sewer capacity. Mr. Ormsby pointed out that Exhibits E-1 and E-2 showed densification potential within the Willamette River Greenway. Teri Caprio, 5570 Neff Park Lane, Lake Oswego, 97035, shared that the proposed ordinance could have a major impact on her property. She stated she had been working with the City for years and had an approved division in front of the City using a flag lot concept. She stated that she had been careful to share overall plans with the City to make sure there were no misunderstandings of the multi-year divisions that would take place. She added that any proposal that reduced the number of allowed lots under this ordinance would result in a major financial impact on her property. When asked if her proposed development would require an open space under the current code, Ms. Caprio replied that she did not know. Ms. Hamilton showed a plan of Ms. Caprio s property and noted the development was proposed as a serial partition serving a number of flag lots off an access lane. She recalled it was approved for a Minor Partition in 2013, with the idea that there would be a series of partitions to get it to 9 or 10 lots. Ms. Hamilton advised that what was locked in now with that approval was only the first partition. She added that if the flag lot numbers changed Ms. Caprio would be affected by the limits on the number of flag lots based on this development plan. Ms. Caprio added that in this particular case there were already nine existing homes on the one lot so the partition would not affect traffic. When asked if she was an advocate of the proposed changes, Ms. Caprio responded that she did not know; she didn t want anything to affect her property and the plans she had been making for years. Carole Ockert, 910 Cumberland Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was the Chair of the First Addition-Forest Highlands (FAN-FH) Neighborhood Association. She shared that while developing the FAN-FH Plan it was decided to give people a development option. She noted that flag lots were more of the double-lot splits, not the serial partitions. She clarified that in order to discourage the flag lots they established a policy to support the granting of a variance to the street frontage requirement to minimize the number of flag lots and to allow people to develop side-by-side when possible. Regarding SDUs, Ms. Ockert opined that Metro clearly saw them as important and they were seeing SDUs in FAN-FH where there was both street frontage and an alley, which helped with the extra traffic. She encouraged the Commission to keep that in mind when discussing access lanes. She added that the FAN-FH Board had a standing position related to off-street parking to go from one parking spot which was required by Code, to two spaces. She suggested the Commission consider this now for flag lots and that the FAN-FH Board would like that to be the requirement citywide. Commissioner Brockman asked staff to clarify its support for having lesser street frontage. Ms. Hamilton confirmed that a Minor Variance allowed for a reduction of five feet or less and that a Hardship Major Variance would be required for anything beyond that. Mr. Boone added that a Major Variance would be difficult to get; the lack of ability to create a partition was not a hardship as there was no guaranteed right to do a partition. None. None. Rebuttal Questions of Applicant City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 14 of 18

42 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Deliberations Chair Heape opened deliberations. He suggested discussing the concepts presented and then having the Code amendments brought back based on the Commission s direction. Mr. Siegel suggested the Commission might want to start with the density conversation, which affected parking. Commissioner Brockman suggested it might make more sense for a third task force to make a recommendation to the Commission, to have it vetted better. Vice Chair Ward recalled that they had held four work sessions on this matter thus far and had had a lot of time to work on it as well as a lot of public testimony tonight. He added that he felt prepared to make a recommendation; Chair Heape agreed and suggested there were additional things or concerns raised tonight that could be added to the Commission s plan for future work. Commissioner Brockman noted they had received overwhelming testimony related to limiting it to one flag lot, which was not the direction the Commission had been going; he opined that further vetting was needed to understand the consequences, good and bad. He recalled testimony related to concerns of right-of-way width and commented that possibly the width of the access lane should be tied to the number of lots with a maximum of four lots. Chair Heape suggested moving ahead tonight, starting with density and the number of flag lots followed by parking and then the other topics. No Commissioners objected. Density Chair Heape summarized that the Commission heard significant input from neighborhood associations asking for a single flag and pole as well as some concern over negative impacts from one property owner, and concerns from another about specificity and removing ambiguity. Commission discussion followed: Vice Chair Ward stated that was clear that many people wanted to see a single flag behind an existing lot, like in the Uplands NA. He noted that the Commission had received material supporting this from Hallinan Heights, Evergreen, Waluga, Oak Creek, and Lake Forest neighborhood associations, all expressing support for this position. He stated that with that kind of support from so many recognized NAs he recommended changing the flag lot rules. Commissioner Sweers agreed that the NAs brought a compelling argument but that sometimes poles had more than one flag. He suggested reconsidering four lots in conjunction with making that harder to reach for the developer. He agreed with Vice Chair Ward s suggestion for a one-lot requirement with the understanding that there were variance opportunities to reach a maximum of four. Commissioner Baker stated he tended to agree with a maximum of four lots and that requiring a wider private road could alleviate some issues with vehicles and garbage trucks. Commissioner Brockman suggested that one option was to do nothing and leave the code as it was. He commented that if changes were needed down the road there could be a different process to ensure a more comprehensive solution that didn t have unintended consequences. Chair Heape stated he shared some of the ideas expressed a larger number of flags meant that the access requirements increased. He was concerned that as the number of flags increased, what was to prevent the development from having a regular constructed street? He believed that going to a 50-foot wide right-of-way would become excessive. He recalled another concern that was brought up regarding access from the public s point of view; having private accesses closed to the public did not promote connectivity. He suggested that in addition to the size perhaps they should City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 15 of 18

43 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 consider requiring public access as well. He questioned whether it should be made a public street when going up to a higher number of lots. Commissioner Arthur noted that tonight s testimony was convincing and compelling in support of significantly reducing the number of flag lots permitted on a private access lane. In his best judgement his recommendation was to explore lowering it to two flag lots in addition to the existing house. Ms. Hamilton explained that flag lots that accessed a lane were to be combined where practicable; if it served two properties, including the front lot, it had to be 20 feet wide; if it served just one flag in back and the access couldn t be combined, it could be a private drive at 12 feet wide. Commissioner Brockman opined the 12-foot driveway option was not very well known. Commissioner Arthur added that, in light of testimony and commentary that the 2010 Infill Task Force never intended for an access lane to serve more than a couple of flag lots, taking everything together, he was persuaded that no more than two flag lots should be authorized on an access lane. He strongly recommended the Commission recommend allowing up to two flag lots on an access lane, in addition to the front lot or original structure. Commissioner Brockman reminded they had had many work sessions and a public hearing that resulted in a recommendation about substandard lots that the Council did not take. He opined he was not sure what would get approved by City Council. Chair Heape summarized the similarities: o Two recommendations to consider up to four flag lots o One recommendation for only one flag lot o One recommendation for up to two flag lots Chair Heape asked for a recommendation. Commissioner Arthur moved to recommend authorizing up to two additional flag lots to an existing parcel, for a total of up to three homes on the original parcel. Commissioner Sweers seconded the motion. [No vote was taken.] Discussion followed. Chair Heape stated that had heard suggestions to have additional standards. The Commission also heard that it might make sense to look at the underlying zoning in terms of applying something citywide; R-3 or R-5 could possibly support additional flags while in R-7.5 or R-10 it might be more compatible to have larger and fewer flag lots. He questioned whether they should consider basing part of the criteria for allowing more than one flag lot on the underlying zoning. Mr. Boone reminded the Commission that at this point in the process this was more of a straw poll than a vote. Chair Heape polled the Commissioners. All of the Commissioners were in agreement with recommending up to two additional flag lots on an existing parcel, for a total of up to three lots on the original parcel. Parking Chair Heape stated there were a couple of options related to parking. He asked for comments: Commissioner Brockman stated that if they were to go the direction as discussed, two houses would be using the access lane and that current road widths didn t require any additional parking requirements. Commissioner Sweers concurred; under this scenario. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 16 of 18

44 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Commissioner Arthur expressed that he still had concerns about parking and that they had not discussed the width of the private access lane, if it should remain at 20 feet. He stated he felt strongly that each residential unit should have enough driveway space to accommodate two cars, and his preference would be to require an additional parking space to those two, as well. Vice Chair Ward stated he completely agreed with Commissioner Arthur: two on-site parking spaces and one more in an additional location, either on the access way or on the lot. Commissioner Brockman asked if the front lot were accessing off the main street, would it still be required to have one additional parking spot on the access lane? Commissioner Ward clarified only the flag lots would be required to have an additional parking spot on the access lane. Ms. Hamilton clarified that there was a Code section that prohibited required parking in a setback. The parking would have to be outside of any setback to count toward the required parking. Mr. Boone added that the required parking space was typically in the garage and that currently there was only one required parking space for single-family development. He noted that it could be on a parking pad located outside the setback, in a carport, or in a garage. Commissioner Arthur noted he had observed a car parked in a driveway, but the concrete driveway wasn t long enough to accommodate the car so that he perceived the car was hanging out into the private access lane. He added that, on balance, there should be one additional parking space on the access lane near the flag lot residence in addition to what was required now for single-family development. Commissioner Brockman stated that currently in the flag lot standards the garage setback had to be 20 feet from the private access lane. He held that if a parking spot was required off the lot, it would reduce the amount of developable area for the partition. He pointed out that the Commission was already recommending reducing the development potential from nine to three lots. He noted that the access lane was 20 feet plus a five-foot vegetative strip and that the drives could not be combined, resulting in a 12-foot-wide driveway. Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission had heard a lot of concerns about parking and was in favor of requiring one additional on-site parking space for each flag lot, in addition to the current code requirement. Commissioner Brockman described how requiring two off-street parking spots would affect the locations of development on the site due to setback requirements. Ms. Hamilton confirmed that each parking spot was about 200 sq. ft. Chair Heape summarized that there was a recommendation for requiring one additional parking spot for each flag lot. He polled the Commissioners and five of the six Commissioners were in favor. Discussion followed about whether the additional parking spot should be on the private access lane or on the lot, as it was not clear during the polling. Commissioners asked staff if there were bump outs for parking on the access lane in the Hallinan Heights example or could people simply parallel park on the lane? Mr. Siegel clarified there had to be a minimum clear width of at least 14 to 16 feet wide for fire department access; any parking would have to be outside that; the dimensions for an on-lane parking space were 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long minimum, with additional space needed for a taper. He advised that parking bays could be configured a lot of different ways and would be site specific; if it s one flag lot the parking could be parallel to the lot or at the end of the lane, as flag lots don t have street frontage. Mr. Siegel added that some of the public street facing lots didn t have on-street parking today. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 17 of 18

45 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Commissioner Baker stated he believed there was consensus for an additional parking space on the access lane, not on the lot. Chair Heape observed that many of the concerns raised in testimony were related to visitor or worker parking, a situation where someone would not park their car in someone else s garage or in their driveway. Commissioner Ward stated he lived on a private lane that was paved, and with 20-feet of paving it was possible to park there and for a vehicle to also get by, this worked for occasional parking. He indicated that it seemed doable without a great deal of developable space being lost and a parking space was obtained. Commissioner Brockman noted he often drove through First Addition which had narrow paving and sometimes someone had to pull over to let someone else pass; this was not an unusual thing. Chair Heape asked for a recommendation. Commissioner Arthur suggested requiring one additional parking space off-site, on the private access lane, in addition to the one required onsite parking space for a single-family dwelling. He added it might make sense to require the private access lane to be 22 feet wide or the appropriate width to accommodate fire department access and on-lane parking spots. It was suggested that a two-car garage could meet this requirement, but several Commissioners expressed concern that would not address the problem of workers and other occasional guests. Chair Heape polled the Commission about requiring one additional parking space per flag lot to be located on the private access lane. Five of the six Commissioners were in favor. The Commissioners discussed the remaining code amendment recommendations: Screening/Perimeter Fencing Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Screening and Access Lanes Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Setback Distribution (R-5, R-3, R-0) Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Flag Lot Front Setback Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Garage Appearance Standards Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Orientation/Setbacks Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots Staff and Commissioners further discussed this proposal and the example raised in testimony regarding the property on Phantom Bluff. The Commission asked for the language to be further clarified by staff, including the definitions of flag lot and access lane, and to remove any ambiguity. Delete Access Lane Connection Requirement Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Brockman asked how the Commission could move forward the discussion regarding the width of local public roadways, including possible amendments to Chapter 42. Commissioner Brockman stated he was in support of recommending that staff pursue this further with the City Engineer. Commissioners were in support of this. Commissioner Arthur moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of Ordinance 2759 (LU ), with the changes as discussed by the Commission, returning with the Findings, Conclusions and Order on October 23, Vice Chair Ward seconded the motion and the motion passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 18 of 18

46 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT D-1 LU APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego LOCATION Residential Citywide DATE OF REPORT September 29, 2017 FILE NO. LU , Ordinance 2759 STAFF Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE October 9, 2017 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of amending various sections relating to flag lots and access lanes. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: Limit the number of flag lots served by a private access lane; Increase the number of parking spaces required in flag lot developments; Increase the front setback on flag lots; Provide flexibility on setback orientation on certain flag lots; Delete the requirement to connect private access lanes; Clarify that lot coverage and floor area on flat lots are calculated on net site area; Clarify the location of required landscaping and fencing in flag lot developments. The amendments are more fully described in Section III of this report as well as in the narrative of the Public Review aft, Exhibit F-1. The draft text amendments which would enact these changes, can be found in Attachment to 2 to Exhibit A-1 (Ordinance 2759). Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 1 of 11

47 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute : Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban Growth Areas B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Development (Community Development Code): Policy A-1.b Design Standards and Guidelines: Policies C-1 and C-5 Land Use Administration: Policy D-1 Inspiring Spaces and Places: Goal 1, Policy 1 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Housing Choice and Affordability: Policy B-1 Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7 Community Culture: Civic Engagement Policies 1 and 9 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC c. LOC a LOC b LOC c LOC d.iii LOC e Published Notice for Legislative Hearing Legislative Decisions Defined Criteria for Legislative Decision Required Notice to DLCD Planning Commission Recommendation Required City Council Review and Decision Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 2 of 11

48 III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of the proposed amendments is to correct errors, eliminate text ambiguity or redundancy, and clarify text. Additionally, the amendments respond to community concerns regarding flag lot developments. This process is part of the City s ongoing effort to make the regulations more business-friendly and resident-friendly while maintaining community standards. Proposed Ordinance 2759 consists of amendments to the flag lot standards. Staff had previously requested input from the public and the Planning Commission on an amendment that would have added a requirement to provide open space for partition sites that are 75,000 square feet or larger. Based on input from the public and Planning Commission, that amendment is not proposed. It was believed that it could result in small private open space areas that would have little or no public benefit and could be difficult to maintain. The text boxes in Attachment 2 describe the reason for each amendment, and include commentary on its background and discussion points. The amendment that generated the most discussion at the work sessions and Public Review aft limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane - is further described and analyzed below. Section II (Background) of the Public Review aft (Attachment 2) describes the policy issues behind each of the proposed amendments as listed below: Limits on the Number of Flag Lots Access Lane Parking Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots Setbacks and Dwelling Orientation on Flag Lots Garage Appearance and Location Standards for Flag Lots Flag Lot Front Setbacks Setback Distribution on Flag Lots in the R-5 Zone Lot Coverage and Floor Area Calculations for Flag Lots Flag Lot Screening and Fencing Comments on Public Review aft The Public Review aft was circulated August 15 August 31, 2017 for public review and comments. Seven comments were received from the following: three individuals, three Neighborhood Associations (Hallinan Heights, Forest Highlands and Evergreen), and one professional organization (the Home Builders Association of Greater Portland), [see Exhibits G-1 through G-7]. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 3 of 11

49 On the larger policy issues, there did not appear to be consensus in the public comments. Three approved of limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane, and supported limits ranging from one to three to six dwellings; two were opposed due to potential impacts to density. On the question of flag lot parking, two commenters support requiring additional parking but suggested different standards. Two commenters were opposed the then-proposed requirement of Open Space dedication for certain serial partition sites. Density Impacts from Limiting Flag Lot Development One consideration with a limitation in the creation of flag lots is the concern that owners may have about a reduction of their development opportunities. Limitations on uses that create a demonstrable reduction in property values have the potential for triggering Measure 49 claims, which could result in a waiver of the limiting regulations in certain cases. Currently, up to eight dwellings can be served by a private access lane, which has a minimum width of 20 feet (because the flag lot standards require a 5-foot buffer on the outer edge of an access lane, staff has used a 25-foot access lane width for the purposes of analysis). Public streets generally require a right-of-way dedication width of 50 feet. If the number of flag lots were limited to six lots, for example, a public street would be required to serve a development of seven or more lots. Attachment F-2 is a spreadsheet that calculates the maximum density of flag lot developments that are served by an access lane compared to developments that create a public street to serve the lots. [Note: The analysis is broad and assumes rectangular parent parcels, access lanes and public street alignments that are straight and extend from the fronting public street to the rear of the parent parcel; slopes, sensitive lands and other constraints were not included in the analysis. There are many factors that affect access, density and lot layout, including the opportunity for density transfers on sites with sensitive lands.] The analysis shows that the biggest impact to density comes on parent parcels that are long and narrow (75 ft. x 1,000 ft.). In the low-density residential zones (R-7.5, R-10 and R-15), density impacts are generally small (loss of one lot) or none. On larger lots, there can be a density gain from providing a public street since flag lot developments are currently limited to eight lots. However, public streets are considerably more expensive to design and construct; public streets, unlike access lanes, include sidewalks, curbs and gutters and the additional impervious surface area must be managed in storm facilities. Additionally, private access lanes are maintained by the property owners who jointly use them. Once a public street is dedicated, the City would assume the financial burden of its maintenance. Staff identified the properties that were dividable either individually or cumulatively if abutting properties are under the same ownership. Exhibit E-1 calculates density based on flag lot development, i.e., 10% of the lot area is devoted to circulation and netted out of the gross acreage before calculating density. Exhibit E-2 calculates density based on the provision of a public street, i.e., 20% of the lot area is devoted to Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 4 of 11

50 circulation and netted out of the gross acreage before calculating density. The maps also illustrate RP designations and steep slope, which can further affect density or lot configuration. In addition, undivided properties typically have frontage onto an existing public street; as these properties are divided, the City requires dedication of right-of-way for frontage improvements such as widening of a street or a pathway. Because these right-of-way dedications are subtracted from the net buildable area they too reduce development potential, regardless of whether a site is developed with a private access lane or public street. The maps illustrate that many of the lots that are potentially dividable into 5 or more lots have constraints such as limited access, steep slopes, sensitive lands, historic landmarks, and/or odd shapes. While some of these constraints do not limit the number of permitted lots, they may limit their development likelihood, even under current regulations. Lake Oswego s Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), adopted in 2013, shows that Lake Oswego has more low-density residential land than will likely be needed by the year 2035 to accommodate demand for single-family homes in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones. The HNA estimates a dwelling unit capacity of 1,646 units in these zones, and a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. Given the constraints on many of the potentially dividable lots as shown in Exhibit E-1 and E-2, the potential loss of residential flag lots as described above is minimal, and does not impact the City s ability to meet future low-density residential housing needs. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On November 28, 2017, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by the changes. The notice was mailed to all residential property owners with property individual or abutting that could be further divided on September 11, Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 5 of 11

51 C. DLCD Notice Pursuant to LOC , staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). D. Metro Notice Pursuant to Metro Code and.820, staff provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to Metro not less than 35 days prior to the hearing date. V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA Legislative amendments to the CDC shall comply with the following criteria: A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute : Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban Growth Areas Response: This statute requires that jurisdictions provide a clear and objective approval path for needed housing. The proposed flag lot amendments, which apply to the development of single-family housing, maintain existing clear and objective language for single-family dwellings. The code amendments also maintain the existing Residential Infill Design (RID) Review variance procedure for granting exceptions to the existing zone design and dimensional standards, consistent with the two-track approach (clear and objective path and design review path) that is authorized by the statute. This criteria is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 6 of 11

52 B. Applicable Provisions of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Staff finds that the following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this proposal: Land Use Planning Chapter Policies (Statewide Planning Goal 2) Development (Community Development Code) A.1.b: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: *** (b) promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character. Response: The proposed CDC amendments promote compatibility of new single-family development by revising standards for flag lot setbacks, parking, landscaping and access lanes to be more compatible with the existing neighborhood character. This criteria is met. Design Standards and Guidelines C-1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: C-5. Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Response: The proposed flag lot amendments are consistent with this policy. See above response to Section A, Applicable State Law. Land Use Administration D-1. Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro, federal agencies and special districts. Response: Metro and the DLCD were notified of the proposed text amendment at least 35 days prior to the first Planning Commission hearing, as required by Metro Code and State law. This criteria is met. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 7 of 11

53 Community Culture Civic Engagement Goal (Statewide Planning Goal 1) 1: Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, ****. 2: Ensure that information related to land use planning and decision-making is readily accessible to the public and easy to understand. Response: The Planning Commission has held four work sessions in 2017 on the flag lot amendments (January, February, April and June) to review and provide feedback on the Code. In addition, two Public Review afts have been circulated to the public one in April May and one in August. A notice required by ORS (Ballot Measure 56) was sent to all property owners in the city with residential property that is potentially dividable with information about the proposed code changes, and a notice of public hearing was sent to all Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association chairs, along with local and regional organizations, including LONAC, the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, and Metropolitan Homebuilders Association, and affected public agencies. These criteria are met. Inspiring Spaces and Places 1: Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure: a. New development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use Policy C-1. See response to Policy C-1, above. Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Planning Goal 10) Housing Choice and Affordability B-1: Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents. Response: The amendments to the flag lot standards affect all residential zones except R-W (cabana). Minimum lot size is unchanged in all of these zones. The amendments reduce the number of flag lots that can be served by Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 8 of 11

54 an access lane to less than eight, which my limit the creation of new homes on small number of lots. Lake Oswego s Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), adopted in 2013, shows that Lake Oswego has more low-density residential land than will likely be needed by the year 2035 to accommodate demand for single-family homes in the R- 7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones. The HNA estimates a dwelling unit capacity of 1,646 units in these zones, and a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. The potential loss of residential flag lots as described on pages 3-5 above is minimal, and does not impact the City s ability to meet future lowdensity residential housing needs. This criteria is met. Complete Neighborhoods C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use Policy C-4. See response to Policy C-4, above. Community Culture Chapter/ Civic Engagement Policies (Statewide Goal 1): 1. Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to participate in the planning process. 9. Utilize broadly representative, special citizen advisory bodies to provide input on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and other related land use planning matters. Response: Citizen involvement opportunities have included four study sessions and two public review drafts, and mailed notice to all residential property owners potentially affected by the reduction in the number of flag lots served by an access lane, and opportunity to comment at the Planning Commission hearing. These criteria are met. C. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Procedural Requirements LOC c. LOC a LOC b Published Notice for Legislative Hearing Legislative Decisions Defined Criteria for Legislative Decision Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 9 of 11

55 LOC c LOC d.iii LOC e Required Notice to DLCD Planning Commission Recommendation Required City Council Review and Decision Response: The Community Development Code a defines legislative decisions to include amendments to the CDC and to Comprehensive Plan policies. Public hearings by the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council for legislative decisions are required to have at least 10 days prior published notice, per LOC d.iii and c. Notice is defined as being published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in advance of the hearing, and mailed at least ten days in advance to the Commission for Citizen Involvement and to all recognized neighborhood associations. The notice shall include: i. The time, date, and place of the public hearing; ii. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and iii. A phone number for obtaining additional information. A Public Review aft was circulated between August 15 and August 30, 2017, and public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including noticing to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments is in compliance with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. These criteria are met. VI. RECOMMENDATION EXHIBITS Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council on the amendment options presented, and to adopt Ordinance 2759 (including the attachments). A. aft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2759, draft 09/28/17 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments aft, 08/15/17 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 10 of 11

56 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Access Lanes E-2 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Public Streets F. Written Materials F-1 Public Review aft Narrative, 08/15/17 F-2 Spreadsheet Comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets, 09/29/17 G. Letters and s G-1 Letter from Sheila Carlson, 08/29/17 G-2 Letter from Bill Abadie with Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, 08/30/17 G-3 from Dianne Cassidy, 08/30/17 G-4 from Jim Standring, 08/31/17 G-5 Letter from James Adkins with Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 09/05/07 G-6 from Scott Bullard with Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, 09/06/17 G-7 from Diana Boom with Evergreen Neighborhood Association, 09/27/17 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9, 2017 LU EXHIBIT D-1/Page 11 of 11

57 EXHIBIT D-2 LU TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Scot Siegel, Director Planning and Building Services REOPEN HEARING on LU Private Streets DATE: November 17, 2017 On October 9, 2017 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the standards for flag lots and private access lanes. At that time, the Commission tentatively recommended limiting the number of Flag Lots to 2 (not more than 3 lots in a development served by a private access lane), and inquired as a reduced-width street (<50 ft. of right of way) may be permitted for developments containing 4-8 lots. On November 13, the Commission reviewed Staff s proposal allowing developments of 4-8 lots to be served by a paved private street, 38 ft. in width, inclusive of roadway, parking, drainage, and sidewalk. Because this proposal was not part of the public hearing draft, the Commission decided to reopen the hearing to allow public testimony on it. The reopened public hearing is scheduled for November 27; as directed by the Commission, the scope of this hearing shall be limited review of the proposed Private Street Standard. [See Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2759 dated 11/08/17, pages 2-3 of 20.] In preparation for the reopened hearing, the City has notified all parties who were notified of the original (October 9) hearing and those who have testified on this case. LU EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 1 OF 1

58 Summit St A Mt t Meadowcreek Milburn Bunick Heathrow Camden a n Co m m o ns Crest Park Way Heri t Fields Schukart Madrona Hallinan Cherry Leafy SE Wagner Cameo Buck Brush Foot Pl Re Tech Center Windfield Halvers on Bullock St Crestview Devon Hillside S Ave 74th Ave SE St Denney Kilkenny Cornell Willow Cir S Hobbit Tamaway Ave n Dell Cir t St SE Main Lancaster Independence Ave Peters 72nd Ave I5-hwy 217 SE Courtney Ave Ramp SE Laurie Ave Evergreen Bonita HartfordPl Quarry Oakridge Reese McveyAve Ford Pl Shore Blvd South St Cornell Bryant Westminster Kapteyns opia S Sweetbriar 35th Ave 45th Ave 47th Ave SE Mcloughlin Stephenson St Eagle Crest Haines St Blvd SE Eagle St Terwilliger Blvd Orchard SE Bobwhite St Hill Condolea Pkwy Mcnary SE Sparrow St 61st Ave Greenridge Ter 62nd Ave Blvd ferson Jef Kingsgate Midvale Underhill SE Park Ave SE 23rd Ave Mountain Iron SE Evergreen St Willamette View Birdshill Hwy Westlake Atwater Orchard Chelsea Way Hastings 217 S W 10th St 75th Pl I5 Fwy-hwy 217 Ramp 2nd St SE River Boones Ferry Carman A Ave SE Rupert 41st Ave 56th SE Oak Grove Blvd Alyssa Ter S State St Inverurie I5 Fwy LakeviewBlvd Glen Haven SE Creighton Ave St Oak Park Iron SE Fairoaks Ave Mountain Blvd St Clara Manor Tc Glen Wheatherstone Winthr op N State St Berwick Edgemont Ave Bedf ord Roosevelt Aventine Circus Northgate 39th Ave Vacuna St Vacuna O ak Creek 27th Ave 33rd Pl Hidalgo St Pacific Hwy Boones Ferry 49th Ave Atlanta St St SE Bluebird Riverside Thunder Vista 70th Ave SE 22nd Ave Lesser Kruse Ridge Jefferson Pkwy Crestfield Greenridge Bonniebrae Galen St Bloch Ter 63rd Ave Westfield Country Club Pl Falstaff Touchstone Sherbrook Wembley Shore North Village St Furnace Lakewood Shore Oswego Trillium Woods SE Rocky Glen Eagles Pl Carman Terrace Glenmorrie Ter Patton St Summer Pl Aspen Greentree Rosewood St Durham Glenmorrie Ashley Linds ay G rand View Shepherds Findlay Bergis Lookout Jean 65th Ave Sundown Ferry Braeden Boones Westview Lower Bluff Green Pkwy Indian Creek Ridge F ernbrook Way Ra y Luce Skye Furman Mardee Ave Bonaire Ave Upper Boones Ferry CedarSt Nelson Shore Wall St Washington Oak Summer Woods Frost SE Centerwood St Mcewan Dell Hillshire Melissa Riven Willamette Stafford Dawn St Aspen St Sunny Hill Cedar Fernwood Haven St Tualata Ave Mcewan Pilkington Rogers 29th Ave Oriole 12thPl SE 20th Ave Fwy Ramp St-i5 Hain es Abelard Bay Point Goya Vermeer Leslie Golden Melrose St Andrews Bird Bill Bayberry Poloniu s Prestwick tage Stone Ave Boones Church St DurhamSt Ridgeway Summit Terrace Palisades Inverurie SE Lee Ave Frost St Holy Names Wren St Pilkington Way Kantara Hillcrest Childs 35th Cedaroak Valley View Wilderness 35th Nyberg St Ecot 57th Ave Parker Ivy Marylbrook Old River Pointe Ridge Bickel Westridge Marylhurst Olson HiddenSprings Suncrest 34th Ave Woods Walking Juarez 13th Becket Baylor St 19th Ave Preakness SE Lark St Creek Bay Galen Rosalia Way Southwood Cascara 66th Ave C Regency Cir Amberwood Way iroaks SE F Rainbow Foothills River Forest SE River Edge Central Ave Koderra Ave Bridgeport Arrowood SE Arista 63rd Pl Ratan Provincial Hill Boca F Ave G Ave E Ave D Ave C Ave Diane B Ave Uplands Brook SE Karry Ave one View Waluga Oak Ter Hemlock St ParrishSt Ave ilkenny K Crest Lower Pacific Hwy Way Martin Alber 21st Pimlico Amber Kerr C ellini Spri n g R osecliffe Hillside Way Essex Camelot Bree Skye Moria Chad AmberPl Pkwy Bartok Pl St Pamela Silver SE Waldron Wabash Ave Crest SE Taylors 3rd St Eleanor Bonaire Ave Fircrest Bergis Kenny St Piper Old Gate Cir Hill C orbett 18th 60th Ave Ave Morningview Cir Ave Aquinas Monroe Pkwy Sibelius Capilano Atwater Gershwin Ave Olson River Bend Dogwood Robin Cir Way Brae Mossy Pattulo Edenberry Bluff SE Wilmot Way Twin Fir Cabana Kenola SE Swain Ave Seville Ave Firc rest Bernard St Arbor Hazel Fern Edens Edge Twin Creek Sterling Way Sunningdale Shireva Yorkshire Hastings Doris Wembley SE Fairo aks Twin Fir Bay Lake Division SE Maple St Ash St Lake Forest Blvd I5-carman Ramp River Forest Lilli Lakeridge Depot St Devon U p pe r Mandi East Farm Bergis Stafford S Skyland Blue Heron Lakeview Blvd Overlook Tualata Edgewood Northgate Condolea l es 60th Peric Churchill i an S W Adr Downs Hide Way Mozarteum Suntree Del Prado SE Jefferson St SE Washington St Breyman 23rd Ave Southwood Leslie Cumberland Pl Sher B riarwood Goodall St Fir St Lily 9th St Glacier Pfeifer Cherry Greensborou g h ll y Ho Pfeifer Way Chandler SE Kenwood Erickson St 26th Pl 17th Ave Military Pl Hill Orchard Southview St Clinton St H a mpton Princeton Briercliff Beveland Twin Creek Hazel Avery Stampher Bridge West Sunset Tualatin St SE Keanu Arbor River Woods Pl Pl Cardinal Siletz Madrona St Cherry Lamont Eastridge St St Sherwood Centerwood Dogwood Brianne Burma Upper Ter Sunrise Woodland Gary S Cherry Cir Sydni Willow Woodway Travellers Elmran Marquis Braemar Hill Top Springs 5th St Oaks SE Rimrock Kruse Fairway Lily Bay Bangy Tara Pl SE Jo Fir Grove Sunwood Matthew Nola Headlee Hallina n Sylvan Ave Forest Kara Park Lamont Way Warren Viewcrest Cherry Rosewood St Kruse Way Dove Lake Front Lexington Bickner St Scott Fir Hofer Upper Ridgeview Erin Fir Belmore Ave Siena Lower Midhill Upper Midhill S Whitten Ave Dover Way Indian Springs low Longfel Colby Coho Wildwood Pl Greenwood SE Wren St Creekside Ter Dartmouth Elmhurst St Harvard Knaus Franklin St Britten Hampton St SE Silver Springs Botticelli Fielding Chelsea Amberwood Hwy Trillium 217-i5 Fwy Ramp 4th St Bangy Way Ridgecrest Daniel Wesley Tanager Middlecrest Sabina Oakridge Redwood Firwood SE PearcySt Parkview Cir Lund St Yates St St Dyer St Laurel Lee St Pl Carlson Robb Meadows Hallmark Greystoke Lanewood St Sylvania Ter P arsons SE 21st Ave Cervantes ie w Morningv 69th Ave Hill Way Provincial Blazer Trl Johnson Ter Shireva FirLoop Valley Pine Heritage Greenwood SE Rosebrier Allison Pl Summit Harrington Ave SE SE Lisa River Fo rest Pl SE River Forest Hunter Marjorie Ave Heron Meadow Canyon Potters Blue Oak Stonehurst Tree Top Condolea Ter Ridgetop Mesa SE 18th Ave La Auburn 68th Ave Country Commons Greco Wembley llis Ph y Forest Lake SE Mallard Westview Cir Old River dg Mayors Blue Heron Way Ford Pl El SE Torbank Bonita Buddington St Milita ry ak Way O a cy Leg Nova Amherst Kruse Oaks Blvd SE Teddy SE Pinelane St SE Maple St Village Park Brookside Douglas Way SE Windy Sou Baleine St Twin Green St SE Walden Way Woodsman Ivy Larch St Glenmorrie Cherry Greentree Ave Mellon Ave Washington Campus Way Fernwood Rosemary Cir Cardinal Arbor Marylcreek Way Woodhill H ollow eltic C Shady Meadowlark Way B e nfield Ave Fairview Riv e Stonehaven Megly Trout Way Cloverleaf Viewpoint S Upper Cherry Dellwood Kelok Lake Haven Overlook Lake Riverside Ridge Ter Deerbrush Points th View SE Hugh Ave Curve Horseshoe 31st Pkwy Dickinso n Breyman 68th Sylvania S W SE 19th Ave Ave Shelby Orchard Hill Pl 61st MountainView St Ramp Sierra Vista I5 Fwy-haines Fielding Rembran dt Glen Cirque Cellini SE River Ridge Ca mbridge Suncreek Denton Tamarack Clairmont Edenberry Meridian Verte SE Rafaela SE Maloy Snow brush Sundew hroeder Meadows Candlewoo d Langford Loop WestPoint Cardinal Parkview Fairmont Alston Way Lake Grove Ave River Forest SE Skyview Hazel St Quail Obrien Jewel College View College Hill Pl Oak Ave Gans St Livingood Cherokee Windsor Deer Atherton Anduin Buckingham 65th Ave Chinook Stonehaven Ter Rose Troon Brian Casey SE Sc Glen Eagles Parkhill St Leonard St SE Oak Shore Burnham Cir Weidman Hallinan Morning Sky Wight Glenwood Chapin Way Canal Woods Rydm an Zivney Marlin Wren Hawthorne Lords Schalit Way Gimley Tualata Vesta St Blvd Ramp Stephenson Lesser Way Riverwood Military Powers 25th Ave 27th Pl Loop Ic ar u s Bolivar A St Joshua St Orchard Hill 59th Ave Ophelia St Sandalwood 33rd Gunther Spinosa Edgecliff Fox Run Pl Offenbach Rye Wayzata Maree Nokomis Kokanee Bass Valle y River Run Canal Top View Chesapeake Forest S Elma St SE Schroeder Ave Dolph p s ur Hot Victoria Davis Oswego Pointe SE Ilona Mer cantile Lake View SE Stuart n oll Oak K Ridgewood Beasley Way Forest Meadows Way Sierra 22nd Ave Goodall Deerfield Grand Oaks Sunbrook Carrera Mulholland Kimberly 7th St Redwood Cir Hastings Pl 6th St Pfeifer SE Overlook 1st St SEMadrona Spring Bay Village View Trl Indian Wilbur St Ladd St Yorkshire Pl Cir Parelius Ave Glen SE Rive r Babson Pl Car negie Cedar LaburnumWay Allen Re Ter Lowenber g becca Alpine Way Bradbury Ridgeview Canyon S Wayside S Crestline St Skyland Clair Maria Lothlorien Way Trillium Robinwood Way Way Walling Walling Kantara Childs Edge Rivers Perch Wildwood 8th St Bilford Coventry Kruse Woods Berwick Cabana Pointe Cir North re Sh o Red Cedar Way Ridgewood Kable Palisades Lake Spruce St Old Pine St River Eena Mapleleaf Oakhurst Heron Blue Nicole Hillside Cre st Palisades Cheryl Tolkien a Chippew Pl 35th Parkview West Mapleton Mountain View Rose Way Hill Top Megan Pl Lorna Pl Robin Ri dgebrook Oak Tree Gallery Way Johnson F ern Rawhide St S Hazelhurst Omaha Ave Clara 57th Ave Mary Failing Ridge Bernini Kilchurn Timberline Auburn Pl Melrose Majestic 76th Ave Ave Rockinghorse Terwilliger Blvd Gonzaga St 72nd-hwy 217 Ramp Cumberland York Atwater Varns Duncan Colts St Orchard SE Fairoaks ton Ave n SE Orchard Springs SE Cedar Ave Ellis Ave SE Dohn Milton Head Harvey Way Diamond SE Yew St SE Anspach St SE Springbrook Eastwood Firwood SE Sunset Grandview Conifer Tyndall Cir Ave Tracy Ave Astor Ave Graef Crest Risley Cir Maple SE StonebridgeWay O xford Cherry Bay Virginia Way West SE Mulberry Banyan Redfern Ave Black Forest S Old River Gleason Pl Sarah Hill Woodhurst Tree St Tualatin Tc Crest lin e Cir Albert Vista Marylwood Arran Marylhurst Terry Ave Red Wing Tualamere Ave Cortez View Robin Hillside River Lazy Braemar Red Leaf St S Rosemont Ave Indian Creek Ter Dickinson Hillcrest Riverwood Way Grouse Masaryk Hill Tryon Northview os Cond 8th Englewood How Ya Kala Englewoo d Ro ck Highlands Elk Loop Da Vinci Streamside Landmark Collins Way Cir Pkwy Douglas Sequoia Oakridge SE Hanwood Ter Edgecliff Wells St Arrowhead Worthington St Greenbrier Way Poplar Canal Cir Marylhurst College Top Way Way Menard Jean Way Tree Provost Overlook Deemar St St Westview Way Kennycroft Marlin Ave Sunset SE Waldron Sundeleaf Fosberg Doris Ave Foothills Park Village Bluff Phantom Wildwood St Vale ioneer P Way Kristi Sycamore Ave Egan Way Pl Chandler Fir Ridge Troon Westward Ho Partridge Highland Jean Woodcre s Dogwood SE Marian St Cir Alder Christie Ferry-i5 Ramp Lower Boones Nyberg-i5 Ramp S Wilda Alder 50th Ave bile M o Derby Crescent 55th Pl 67th Ave Tempest Kruse Way Pl Cir Cherry Ave le Summervil Garibaldi I5 Fwy-barbur Smt Nansen Partridge I5-68th Ramp 68th-i5 64th Ave Ramp Monticello Hermoso Way Tanglewood Hood Hwy Hunziker nd Ramp Centerpointe Hwy Sandburg St 217-i5 Ramp White Oaks Shakespeare St SE Thornton SE Carman -i5 Fwy Ramp SE Creswain Dana Ave Ramp Ave Carman-i5 Galewood St SE Ruby I5 Fwy-carman Ramp Chapman Way Cobb Way Hill Way Ferry Ramp Way Royce Cir I5-lower Boones Woodside Delenka Skylands Cir Scarborough Cir Cir Midhill Indian Springs Montauk Cir Ridgewood View Sylvan Way Marylhurst Way Cir East Side Sun Nyberg View Fox R u Country Cir Mo untain rick Y o Othello Cir Charles Lake Garden R oyal Oaks re Lake Sho Kimball St 5.17 R-7.5 R-3 R-7.5 R R-15 R Cir Greentree Brookhurst R-3 R-10 R-15 R R-3 R-5 R R-7.5 R R R R-7.5 S Stonehenge Ter R-10 R-7.5 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-5 R-3 R-10 R-7.5 R-3 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-5 R-15 R-5 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-3 R-7.5 R-10 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-10 R-3 R-15 R-3 R-10 R-5 R-3 R-5 R-15 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 R-15 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-15 R-15 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-15 R-5 R-10 R-10 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-6 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-10 Serial Partitions ³ Analysis of Contiguous Lots Under the Same Ownership & Taking into Account 10% for Access Miles Cir Document Path: P:\GIS Projects\Planning\Serial Partitions\Access Lane Analysis\Serial_Partitions_10_percent_and_adjacent_owners.mxd Dividable Lot - Adjacent Owners 5 or more divisions RP Designation Steep Slope Labels on parcels signify potential lot divisions. 8/16/2017 Tualasaum Pl I5-nyberg Ramp S Sunshine

59 Summit St A Mt t Meadowcreek Milburn Bunick Heathrow Camden a n Co m m o ns Crest Park Way Heri t Fields Schukart Madrona Hallinan Cherry Leafy SE Wagner Cameo Buck Brush Foot Pl Re Tech Center Windfield Halvers on Bullock St Crestview Devon Hillside S Ave 74th Ave SE St Denney Kilkenny Cornell Willow Cir S Hobbit Tamaway Ave n Dell Cir t St SE Main Lancaster Independence Ave Peters 72nd Ave I5-hwy 217 SE Courtney Ave Ramp SE Laurie Ave Evergreen Bonita HartfordPl Quarry Oakridge Reese McveyAve Ford Pl Shore Blvd South St Cornell Bryant Westminster Kapteyns opia S Sweetbriar 35th Ave 45th Ave 47th Ave SE Mcloughlin Stephenson St Eagle Crest Haines St Blvd SE Eagle St Terwilliger Blvd Orchard SE Bobwhite St Hill Condolea Pkwy Mcnary SE Sparrow St 61st Ave Greenridge Ter 62nd Ave Blvd ferson Jef Kingsgate Midvale Underhill SE Park Ave SE 23rd Ave Mountain Iron SE Evergreen St Willamette View Birdshill Hwy Westlake Atwater Orchard Chelsea Way Hastings 217 S W 10th St 75th Pl I5 Fwy-hwy 217 Ramp 2nd St SE River Boones Ferry Carman A Ave SE Rupert 41st Ave 56th SE Oak Grove Blvd Alyssa Ter S State St Inverurie I5 Fwy LakeviewBlvd Glen Haven SE Creighton Ave St Oak Park Iron SE Fairoaks Ave Mountain Blvd St Clara Manor Tc Glen Wheatherstone Winthr op N State St Berwick Edgemont Ave Bedf ord Roosevelt Aventine Circus Northgate 39th Ave Vacuna St Vacuna O ak Creek 27th Ave 33rd Pl Hidalgo St Pacific Hwy Boones Ferry 49th Ave Atlanta St St SE Bluebird Riverside Thunder Vista 70th Ave SE 22nd Ave Lesser Kruse Ridge Jefferson Pkwy Crestfield Greenridge Bonniebrae Galen St Bloch Ter 63rd Ave Westfield Country Club Pl Falstaff Touchstone Sherbrook Wembley Shore North Village St Furnace Lakewood Shore Oswego Trillium Woods SE Rocky Glen Eagles Pl Carman Terrace Glenmorrie Ter Patton St Summer Pl Aspen Greentree Rosewood St Durham Glenmorrie Ashley Linds ay G rand View Shepherds Findlay Bergis Lookout Jean 65th Ave Sundown Ferry Braeden Boones Westview Lower Bluff Green Pkwy Indian Creek Ridge F ernbrook Way Ra y Luce Skye Furman Mardee Ave Bonaire Ave Upper Boones Ferry CedarSt Nelson Shore Wall St Washington Oak Summer Woods Frost SE Centerwood St Mcewan Dell Hillshire Melissa Riven Willamette Stafford Dawn St Aspen St Sunny Hill Cedar Fernwood Haven St Tualata Ave Mcewan Pilkington Rogers 29th Ave Oriole 12thPl SE 20th Ave Fwy Ramp St-i5 Hain es Abelard Bay Point Goya Vermeer Leslie Golden Melrose St Andrews Bird Bill Bayberry Poloniu s Prestwick tage Stone Ave Boones Church St DurhamSt Ridgeway Summit Terrace Palisades Inverurie SE Lee Ave Frost St Holy Names Wren St Pilkington Way Kantara Hillcrest Childs 35th Cedaroak Valley View Wilderness 35th Nyberg St Ecot 57th Ave Parker Ivy Marylbrook Old River Pointe Ridge Bickel Westridge Marylhurst Olson HiddenSprings Suncrest 34th Ave Woods Walking Juarez 13th Becket Baylor St 19th Ave Preakness SE Lark St Creek Bay Galen Rosalia Way Southwood Cascara 66th Ave C Regency Cir Amberwood Way iroaks SE F Rainbow Foothills River Forest SE River Edge Central Ave Koderra Ave Bridgeport Arrowood SE Arista 63rd Pl Ratan Provincial Hill Boca F Ave G Ave E Ave D Ave C Ave Diane B Ave Uplands Brook SE Karry Ave one View Waluga Oak Ter Hemlock St ParrishSt Ave ilkenny K Crest Lower Pacific Hwy Way Martin Alber 21st Pimlico Amber Kerr C ellini Spri n g R osecliffe Hillside Way Essex Camelot Bree Skye Moria Chad AmberPl Pkwy Bartok Pl St Pamela Silver SE Waldron Wabash Ave Crest SE Taylors 3rd St Eleanor Bonaire Ave Fircrest Bergis Kenny St Piper Old Gate Cir Hill C orbett 18th 60th Ave Ave Morningview Cir Ave Aquinas Monroe Pkwy Sibelius Capilano Atwater Gershwin Ave Olson River Bend Dogwood Robin Cir Way Brae Mossy Pattulo Edenberry Bluff SE Wilmot Way Twin Fir Cabana Kenola SE Swain Ave Seville Ave Firc rest Bernard St Arbor Hazel Fern Edens Edge Twin Creek Sterling Way Sunningdale Shireva Yorkshire Hastings Doris Wembley SE Fairo aks Twin Fir Bay Lake Division SE Maple St Ash St Lake Forest Blvd I5-carman Ramp River Forest Lilli Lakeridge Depot St Devon U p pe r Mandi East Farm Bergis Stafford S Skyland Blue Heron Lakeview Blvd Overlook Tualata Edgewood Northgate Condolea l es 60th Peric Churchill i an S W Adr Downs Hide Way Mozarteum Suntree Del Prado SE Jefferson St SE Washington St Breyman 23rd Ave Southwood Leslie Cumberland Pl Sher B riarwood Goodall St Fir St Lily 9th St Glacier Pfeifer Cherry Greensborou g h ll y Ho Pfeifer Way Chandler SE Kenwood Erickson St 26th Pl 17th Ave Military Pl Hill Orchard Southview St Clinton St H a mpton Princeton Briercliff Beveland Twin Creek Hazel Avery Stampher Bridge West Sunset Tualatin St SE Keanu Arbor River Woods Pl Pl Cardinal Siletz Madrona St Cherry Lamont Eastridge St St Sherwood Centerwood Dogwood Brianne Burma Upper Ter Sunrise Woodland Gary S Cherry Cir Sydni Willow Woodway Travellers Elmran Marquis Braemar Hill Top Springs 5th St Oaks SE Rimrock Kruse Fairway Lily Bay Bangy Tara Pl SE Jo Fir Grove Sunwood Matthew Nola Headlee Hallina n Sylvan Ave Forest Kara Park Lamont Way Warren Viewcrest Cherry Rosewood St Kruse Way Dove Lake Front Lexington Bickner St Scott Fir Hofer Upper Ridgeview Erin Fir Belmore Ave Siena Lower Midhill Upper Midhill S Whitten Ave Dover Way Indian Springs low Longfel Colby Coho Wildwood Pl Greenwood SE Wren St Creekside Ter Dartmouth Elmhurst St Harvard Knaus Franklin St Britten Hampton St SE Silver Springs Botticelli Fielding Chelsea Amberwood Hwy Trillium 217-i5 Fwy Ramp 4th St Bangy Way Ridgecrest Daniel Wesley Tanager Middlecrest Sabina Oakridge Redwood Firwood SE PearcySt Parkview Cir Lund St Yates St St Dyer St Laurel Lee St Pl Carlson Robb Meadows Hallmark Greystoke Lanewood St Sylvania Ter P arsons SE 21st Ave Cervantes ie w Morningv 69th Ave Hill Way Provincial Blazer Trl Johnson Ter Shireva FirLoop Valley Pine Heritage Greenwood SE Rosebrier Allison Pl Summit Harrington Ave SE SE Lisa River Fo rest Pl SE River Forest Hunter Marjorie Ave Heron Meadow Canyon Potters Blue Oak Stonehurst Tree Top Condolea Ter Ridgetop Mesa SE 18th Ave La Auburn 68th Ave Country Commons Greco Wembley llis Ph y Forest Lake SE Mallard Westview Cir Old River dg Mayors Blue Heron Way Ford Pl El SE Torbank Bonita Buddington St Milita ry ak Way O a cy Leg Nova Amherst Kruse Oaks Blvd SE Teddy SE Pinelane St SE Maple St Village Park Brookside Douglas Way SE Windy Sou Baleine St Twin Green St SE Walden Way Woodsman Ivy Larch St Glenmorrie Cherry Greentree Ave Mellon Ave Washington Campus Way Fernwood Rosemary Cir Cardinal Arbor Marylcreek Way Woodhill H ollow eltic C Shady Meadowlark Way B e nfield Ave Fairview Riv e Stonehaven Megly Trout Way Cloverleaf Viewpoint S Upper Cherry Dellwood Kelok Lake Haven Overlook Lake Riverside Ridge Ter Deerbrush Points th View SE Hugh Ave Curve Horseshoe 31st Pkwy Dickinso n Breyman 68th Sylvania S W SE 19th Ave Ave Shelby Orchard Hill Pl 61st MountainView St Ramp Sierra Vista I5 Fwy-haines Fielding Rembran dt Glen Cirque Cellini SE River Ridge Ca mbridge Suncreek Denton Tamarack Clairmont Edenberry Meridian Verte SE Rafaela SE Maloy Snow brush Sundew hroeder Meadows Candlewoo d Langford Loop WestPoint Cardinal Parkview Fairmont Alston Way Lake Grove Ave River Forest SE Skyview Hazel St Quail Obrien Jewel College View College Hill Pl Oak Ave Gans St Livingood Cherokee Windsor Deer Atherton Anduin Buckingham 65th Ave Chinook Stonehaven Ter Rose Troon Brian Casey SE Sc Glen Eagles Parkhill St Leonard St SE Oak Shore Burnham Cir Weidman Hallinan Morning Sky Wight Glenwood Chapin Way Canal Woods Rydm an Zivney Marlin Wren Hawthorne Lords Schalit Way Gimley Tualata Vesta St Blvd Ramp Stephenson Lesser Way Riverwood Military Powers 25th Ave 27th Pl Loop Ic ar u s Bolivar A St Joshua St Orchard Hill 59th Ave Ophelia St Sandalwood 33rd Gunther Spinosa Edgecliff Fox Run Pl Offenbach Rye Wayzata Maree Nokomis Kokanee Bass Valle y River Run Canal Top View Chesapeake Forest S Elma St SE Schroeder Ave Dolph p s ur Hot Victoria Davis Oswego Pointe SE Ilona Mer cantile Lake View SE Stuart n oll Oak K Ridgewood Beasley Way Forest Meadows Way Sierra 22nd Ave Goodall Deerfield Grand Oaks Sunbrook Carrera Mulholland Kimberly 7th St Redwood Cir Hastings Pl 6th St Pfeifer SE Overlook 1st St SEMadrona Spring Bay Village View Trl Indian Wilbur St Ladd St Yorkshire Pl Cir Parelius Ave Glen SE Rive r Babson Pl Car negie Cedar LaburnumWay Allen Re Ter Lowenber g becca Alpine Way Bradbury Ridgeview Canyon S Wayside S Crestline St Skyland Clair Maria Lothlorien Way Trillium Robinwood Way Way Walling Walling Kantara Childs Edge Rivers Perch Wildwood 8th St Bilford Coventry Kruse Woods Berwick Cabana Pointe Cir North re Sh o Red Cedar Way Ridgewood Kable Palisades Lake Spruce St Old Pine St River Eena Mapleleaf Oakhurst Heron Blue Nicole Hillside Cre st Palisades Cheryl Tolkien a Chippew Pl 35th Parkview West Mapleton Mountain View Rose Way Hill Top Megan Pl Lorna Pl Robin Ri dgebrook Oak Tree Gallery Way Johnson F ern Rawhide St S Hazelhurst Omaha Ave Clara 57th Ave Mary Failing Ridge Bernini Kilchurn Timberline Auburn Pl Melrose Majestic 76th Ave Ave Rockinghorse Terwilliger Blvd Gonzaga St 72nd-hwy 217 Ramp Cumberland York Atwater Varns Duncan Colts St Orchard SE Fairoaks ton Ave n SE Orchard Springs SE Cedar Ave Ellis Ave SE Dohn Milton Head Harvey Way Diamond SE Yew St SE Anspach St SE Springbrook Eastwood Firwood SE Sunset Grandview Conifer Tyndall Cir Ave Tracy Ave Astor Ave Graef Crest Risley Cir Maple SE StonebridgeWay O xford Cherry Bay Virginia Way West SE Mulberry Banyan Redfern Ave Black Forest S Old River Gleason Pl Sarah Hill Woodhurst Tree St Tualatin Tc Crest lin e Cir Albert Vista Marylwood Arran Marylhurst Terry Ave Red Wing Tualamere Ave Cortez View Robin Hillside River Lazy Braemar Red Leaf St S Rosemont Ave Indian Creek Ter Dickinson Hillcrest Riverwood Way Grouse Masaryk Hill Tryon Northview os Cond 8th Englewood How Ya Kala Englewoo d Ro ck Highlands Elk Loop Da Vinci Streamside Landmark Collins Way Cir Pkwy Douglas Sequoia Oakridge SE Hanwood Ter Edgecliff Wells St Arrowhead Worthington St Greenbrier Way Poplar Canal Cir Marylhurst College Top Way Way Menard Jean Way Tree Provost Overlook Deemar St St Westview Way Kennycroft Marlin Ave Sunset SE Waldron Sundeleaf Fosberg Doris Ave Foothills Park Village Bluff Phantom Wildwood St Vale ioneer P Way Kristi Sycamore Ave Egan Way Pl Chandler Fir Ridge Troon Westward Ho Partridge Highland Jean Woodcre s Dogwood SE Marian St Cir Alder Christie Ferry-i5 Ramp Lower Boones Nyberg-i5 Ramp S Wilda Alder 50th Ave bile M o Derby Crescent 55th Pl 67th Ave Tempest Kruse Way Pl Cir Cherry Ave le Summervil Garibaldi I5 Fwy-barbur Smt Nansen Partridge I5-68th Ramp 68th-i5 64th Ave Ramp Monticello Hermoso Way Tanglewood Hood Hwy Hunziker nd Ramp Centerpointe Hwy Sandburg St 217-i5 Ramp White Oaks Shakespeare St SE Thornton SE Carman -i5 Fwy Ramp SE Creswain Dana Ave Ramp Ave Carman-i5 Galewood St SE Ruby I5 Fwy-carman Ramp Chapman Way Cobb Way Hill Way Ferry Ramp Way Royce Cir I5-lower Boones Woodside Delenka Skylands Cir Scarborough Cir Cir Midhill Indian Springs Montauk Cir Ridgewood View Sylvan Way Marylhurst Way Cir East Side Sun Nyberg View R-7.5 Fox R u Country Cir Mo untain rick Y o Othello Cir Charles Lake Garden R-3 R-7.5 R oyal Oaks re Lake Sho R-7.5 Kimball St 6.7 R-15 R Cir Greentree Brookhurst R-3 R-10 R-15 R R-3 R-5 R R-7.5 R R R R-7.5 S Stonehenge Ter R-10 R-7.5 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-5 R-3 R-10 R-7.5 R-3 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-5 R-15 R-5 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-3 R-7.5 R-10 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-10 R-3 R-15 R-3 R-10 R-5 R-3 R-5 R-15 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 R-15 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-15 R-15 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-15 R-5 R-10 R-10 R-10 R-3 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-6 R-7.5 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-7.5 R-15 R-10 R-10 Serial Partitions ³ Analysis of Contiguous Lots Under the Same Ownership & Taking into Account 20% for Access Miles Cir Document Path: P:\GIS Projects\Planning\Serial Partitions\BLI Scenerio\Serial_Partitions_20_percent_and_adjacent_owners.mxd Dividable Lot - Adjacent Owners 5 or more divisions RP Designation Steep Slope Labels on parcels signify potential lot divisions. 7/6/2017 Tualasaum Pl I5-nyberg Ramp S Sunshine

60 EXHIBIT F-1 LU Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes, aft #2 (LU ) Request for Public Comments for Preparation of Hearing aft August 15, 2017 The City is requesting public comments on this draft by Thursday, August 31, 2017 (5:00 p.m.). Comments submitted by the deadline will be considered in preparing the Public Hearing aft for the Planning Commission hearing tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 9, Please see the inside cover for information on how to submit comments. LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 1 OF 10

61 HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS The Planning Department is accepting written comments to assist in the preparation of a Public Hearing aft of proposed Community Development Code amendments addressing development of flag lots and private access lanes. This is the second Public Review aft issued for this proposal. The prior draft, published on April 21, 2017 under File No. PP , has been updated to reflect public comment and feedback from the Planning Commission. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 31, 2017, will be considered in preparing the Public Hearing aft of the proposal for the Planning Commission hearing tentatively scheduled for October 9, For more information or to submit comments, please contact: Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning & Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR Phone: lhamilton@lakeoswego.city LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 2 OF 10

62 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction...1 II. Background...2 III. Conclusion...7 IV. Attachments...7 LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 3 OF 10

63 I. INTRODUCTION Proposal Summary This is a request from the City of Lake Oswego for a text amendment to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC or City code), amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. The Planning Commission and City Council identified this as a 2017 Planning Commission Goal. The purpose of the amendments is to streamline, update and clarify the code. This process is part of the City s ongoing effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2014), pursuant to City Council policies on preserving the character of existing established residential neighborhoods, maintaining clear and objective standards for development, and avoiding unnecessary restrictions on property owners. Key Terms A Flag Lot is: A lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement. An Access Lane is: The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress to the property (or properties) by applicable surface modes of travel. [LOC Definitions] Key Dates Public Comments due on this draft August 31, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing (tentative) October 9, 2017 City Council Public Hearing (tentative) November/December, 2017 The ordinance would go into effect thirty days after City Council adopts its final decision. August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 1 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 4 OF 10

64 II. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission (Commission) has conducted four work sessions (January 23, February 27, April 10, and June 12) and received one update (July 10) on the proposed amendments. The purpose of this Public Review aft is to assist staff in identifying any comments, questions, or concerns from the public prior to the Commission holding a public hearing. The amendments require Measure 56 Notice, as the proposed reduction in the number of flag lots and increase in the amount of parking required on an access lane would limit the use of residential property. This following summarizes the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50) regarding Flag Lots and Access Lanes and identifies issues raised in the Planning Commission work sessions and in public comments on the prior Public Review aft issued in April. These items correspond to the order in which they are addressed in Attachment A. Item #1 (Limit the Number of Flag Lots in the City) is new. 1. Limit the Number of Flag Lots [LOC d]: The proposal contains options for limiting the number of flag lots served by a private access lane to between four and six lots. The proposal also requires additional parking for flag lot developments. Both issues arose from the Cedar Street subdivision in the Hallinan Neighborhood in 2014 [LU ], where some neighbors felt that a subdivision consisting of eight flag lots on one access lane did not fit the character of the neighborhood. If the City had limited the number of flag lots in that case as considered here, a public street would have been required to serve a subdivision containing eight lots. By requiring a public street for developments of more than four or six lots, this code change could reduce allowed development and test the City s compliance with State and Metro housing rules, as discussed below. There are also actions the City could take to mitigate any reduction on housing density that might result. For example, with the City Engineer s concurrence, the Planning Commission could consider adopting a minimum local street standard for small subdivisions that reduces the standard right-of-way width, which is currently 50 ft. By comparison, the standard width of a private access lane easement is only ft. The State Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7), adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1981, is intended to ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce housing costs. It requires local jurisdictions in the Portland Metro area to maintain zoning for residential August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 2 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 5 OF 10

65 densities averaging six, eight, or 10 dwelling units per net acre, and to provide buildable lands for a housing mix consisting of at least 50 percent attached and multifamily dwellings. The standard for Lake Oswego is 10 dwelling units per acre. Multnomah County and the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego and Tigard must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. These are larger urbanized jurisdictions with regionally coordinated population projections of 50,000 or more for their active planning areas, which encompass or are near major employment centers, and which are situated along regional transportation corridors. (OAR ) The Planning Commission has asked whether Lake Oswego could request a lesser density requirement, as the cities of Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville, for example, are required to plan for a density of only eight units per net acre. Further, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2013, forecasts a population of only 45,693 within the Urban Services Boundary by However, it is not clear that the proposed amendment would take the City out of compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Staff is analyzing this as part of the current proposal. In its most recent analysis of planned density, the City demonstrated that it had land zoned for an average density of 10.2 dwelling units per net acre. (Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, 1994) If an updated analysis were to show the proposed amendments would take the City out of compliance with the State rule, it would either have to abandon the proposal or request an amendment to the rule, which could be difficult to achieve as it would affect other jurisdictions. However, even if successful in amending the State rule, the City would still have to comply with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Metro Code (Chapter 3.07, Title 1) prevents cities from reducing planned/zoned densities without commensurately increasing density elsewhere in the city. For these reasons, the City is seeking public input but has not yet committed to a preferred alternative for limiting the number of flag lots on a private access lane. 2. Access Lane Parking [LOC d]: The minimum on-site parking requirement for single-family dwellings is one space per dwelling. Required parking cannot be within a front yard setback, though it is not uncommon for residential lots to have additional parking, for example in a driveway area in front of a garage. Where an access lane serves seven or eight dwelling units, additional parking for four standard vehicles must be provided either on-lane in small turnouts, or off-lane in a small parking lot. The proposal contains options for providing additional on-lane or off-lane parking for flag lot developments as small as two lots. This may affect allowable density in some August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 3 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 6 OF 10

66 developments as the areas provided for access and parking are excluded from Net Developable Area. Staff is analyzing this as part of the current proposal. 3. Open Space/Serial Partition Sites [LOC ]: As identified by the 2015 Audit of the Comprehensive Plan and CDC, the applicability statement for Open Space should be amended to apply to serial partition sites where one or more of the new lots could be further divided to achieve four or more lots in total. This will result in reduced development potential of some properties, but is intended to remove a loophole where developments of four or more lots have not been required to provide open space, the effect of which has been an increase in density above that which is envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments would require (1) all serial partition sites of 75,000 square feet or more to provide 20% open space, and (2) serial partition sites of less than 75,000 square feet to provide open space only if there are resource lands present on the site. These triggers are identical to the open space triggers for subdivisions. Note: This amendment may no longer be necessary if the City Council limits the number of flag lots allowed on an access lane. 4. Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots [LOC a.ii]: The flag lot standards apply to all land divisions and lot line adjustments (LLA) that create a flag lot. Under the legal lot determination analysis, creation includes reconfiguring an existing flag lot through a Lot Line Adjustment; it also applies to an existing flag lot that is further partitioned (and thus has a new configuration). The first flag lot standards were codified in 1998; these standards were altered considerably in 2010, including amendments to setbacks and dwelling orientation. Applying the new standards to developed flag lots often creates non-conformities to setbacks and orientation. The proposed amendment exempts applicability of the current flag lots standards to existing, developed flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment. For flag lots approved pre-2010, any future development or remodel would have to comply with the dimensional standards (setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etc.) of the base zone, and the dwelling orientation requirements that existed when the flag lot was created. 5. Setbacks and Orientation [LOC e.v(1)]: In 2010, the flag lot standards were amended to require the development sites to provide the opportunity for access lanes (existing or potential) to be extended onto an abutting property where such property may be further divided. The proposal would remove this requirement; access lanes would no longer have to be planned to connect to and through abutting developable properties (where impediments do not exist), as private access lanes do not provide August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 4 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 7 OF 10

67 public access. Where connectivity for public access is needed, a future street plan may be required under a separate code provision. Relatedly, whether or not there is development potential on the abutting lot, under current code the front yard setback on the flag lot is measured from the access lane or a projection of the access lane (see Figure A: Flag Lot Front Yard). In situations where there is no opportunity to extend the access lane to abutting lots (e.g., railroad, existing development), or if the Code is amended to remove the requirement that access lanes in abutting developments be connected, the proposal would provide greater flexibility in setbacks and dwelling orientation on flag lots. This change will allow the City to prioritize setbacks where it makes the most sense. For example, dwellings would be placed so that the greater setback is where living spaces on abutting lots are next to one another, or where setbacks it facilitates protection of significant trees. The proposed amendments would apply the zone s front yard setback either to the property line that is parallel to the public street, or to the property line that is parallel to the orientation of the access lane, based on this analysis; the setback distribution would continue to apply to the remaining setbacks. 6. Garage Appearance and Location Standards [LOC e.ii]: These standards are proposed to be removed entirely because garages on flag lots are never close enough to a public street for the standards to have any practical effect. As a comparison, the garage appearance and location standards for non-flag lots do not apply to garages that are located more than 60 ft. from a public street; garages on flag lots are generally located more than 60 ft. from the public street. 7. Flag Lot Front Setback [LOC e.v]: Recent flag lot developments can appear crowded as viewed from the street or access lane, and the difference in front setback requirements between flag and non-flag lots may be contributing to this problem. This is due in part to the narrower width of private access lanes compared to standard city streets. As recommended by the Commission, the front setback, measured from the access lane, is proposed to increase from 10 ft. to 15 ft. 8. Setback Distribution on R-5 Flag Lots [LOC e.v(3)]: In the Medium and High Density Residential Zones of R-5, R-3 and R-0, the cumulative side and rear setbacks must add to 45 feet on flag lots, which was 15 feet more than the cumulative sides and rear setbacks on non-flag lots. Staff could find no legislative history that this discrepancy was intentional, and the stated reason for the setback distribution was to August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 5 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 8 OF 10

68 provide flexibility while maintaining the same overall combined setback total. The cumulative side and rear setbacks on non-flag lots in these three zones is 30 feet. The proposed cumulative of 35 feet, with nothing less than 7.5 feet, is closer to the non-flag distribution and will generally ensure that one yard is bigger (i.e., a rear yard). This amendment does not affect density. 9. Lot Coverage and Floor Area [LOC e.vii]: This amendment clarifies that lot coverage and floor area are calculated on the net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole is deducted from the gross lot size). Presently, the access lane/flag pole area is netted out only for determining minimum lot area and lot coverage. On the Public Review aft, the City received comments recommending that the dimensional standards for flag lots should be the same as for regular lots and comply with all standard code provisions and current zoning. The proposed amendments clarify that lot size, lot coverage and floor area are calculated based on the net lot area of the flag lot (i.e., the area in the flag pole or access lane is deducted from the flag lot area before lot size, lot coverage and floor area is calculated). This ensures that perceived lot size and dwelling size are the same on a flag lot as on a non-flag lot. 10. Flag Lot Screening Along Access Lane and Potential Conflict with Utilities [LOC f.i]: Engineering staff noted the potential conflict between utilities (which are often placed within the access lane/easement) and the requirement of trees in the landscape buffers required along the access lane. The proposed amendment makes an exception to the tree requirement when utilities are present and the City Engineer determines that there will be a conflict. 11. Flag Lot Screening, Perimeter Fencing [LOC f.iii]: The current flag lot standards require fencing along the side and rear yards of flag lots. When the orientation of flag lots was rotated in 2010, this standard was not amended to reflect the new orientation and often one lot line was not fenced. The proposed amendment would require fencing at the perimeter of the new flag lots (graphic provided in text). 12. Flag Lot Screening, Rear Yard Landscaping [LOC f.iv]: The Flag Lot standards require a landscaping strip to be provided along the rear property lines of flag lots. As the flag lot orientation changed in 2010, the screening requirement was rotated to what was previously a side yard. A rear yard is always opposite a front yard, but because of the flexible/cumulative setback standard, the rear yard may not be the largest yard. The largest yard, which generally provides the activity area for the occupants, should August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 6 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 9 OF 10

69 have the buffering. The proposed amendment requires the landscaping buffer to be provided along the largest side or rear yard of a flag lot. III. CONCLUSION The City is seeking public input on this proposal. Staff will consider all input received by August 31, in preparing the public hearing draft of the proposal for the Planning Commission hearing, which is scheduled for October 9, IV. ATTACHMENT Attachment 1 Proposed Code Amendments: Flag Lots and Access Lanes NOTE: ATTACHMENT NOT INCLUDED, PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHMENT 2 OF ORDINANCE 2759 FOR PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS. August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes (Public Review aft) Page 7 LU LU EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 10 OF 10

70 Density Comparisons Between Access Lanes and Public Streets EXHIBIT F-2 Zone Parent Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Lot Width Lot Depth Access Lane Sq Ft (25' access lane) Public Street Sq Ft (50' ROW) LU DRAFT: 09/29/17 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 Max Density Access Lane (Gross) Max Density Access Lane (True) Max Density Public Street R-5 75,000 5, ,000 50, ,000 5, ,500 15, ,625 5, ,875 13, ,000 5, ,250 12, ,000 5, ,875 3, R ,000 7, ,000 50, ,000 7, ,500 15, ,625 7, ,875 13, ,000 7, ,250 12, ,000 7, ,875 3, R-10 75,000 10, ,000 50, ,000 10, ,500 15, ,625 10, ,875 13, ,000 10, ,250 12, ,000 10, ,875 3, R-15 75,000 15, ,000 50, ,000 15, ,500 15, ,625 15, ,875 13, ,000 15, ,250 12, ,000 15, ,875 3, R-5 50,000 5, ,125 14, ,000 5, ,250 12, ,000 5, ,375 8, R ,000 7, ,125 14, ,000 7, ,250 12, ,000 7, ,375 8, R-10 50,000 10, ,125 14, ,000 10, ,250 12, ,000 10, ,375 8, R-15 50,000 15, ,125 14, ,000 15, ,250 12, ,000 15, ,375 8, Density Loss or Gain

71 LU EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 1 OF 4

72 LU EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 2 OF 4

73 LU EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 3 OF 4

74 LU EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 4 OF 4

75 LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 1 OF 8

76 LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 2 OF 8

77 LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 3 OF 8

78 Comments on the Public Review aft of April 21, 2017 for Flag Lot and Serial Partition Code Amendments From the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association (Flag Lot Study Group) May 18, 2017 Summary Flag lot developments (as opposed to individual flag lots) should not be allowed. Or, put another way, flag lot developments should be limited to a maximum of one new/additional home. The dimensional standards of a flag lot should be the same as for a regular lot and comply with all standard code provisions and current zoning. The practice of allowing developers to bypass normal code requirements for minor and major developments, by designating them as flag lots and following an alternative, less demanding set of rules, has led to a series of substandard developments, not in keeping with our code, and the practice should be discontinued. The amendments to the flag lot code proposed in the public review draft of April 21, 2017, go in the opposite direction. They codify these abuses. Therefore we object to the proposed amendments. Flag lot developments (with more than one new home) should not be allowed. Historically, homes were built on larger lots, often with large back yards, to allow for septic systems. Today, most homes are connected to the public sewer. In less densely developed neighborhoods, such as Glenmorrie, the large backyards remain, unused as septic fields, and we can understand the desire of landowners to partition some or most of this space and to sell it as a separate buildable lot, behind their own home, and with LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 4 OF 8

79 access to the street by an access lane or easement. Flag lots were conceived and initially approved for this purpose. According to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC ) a flag lot is defined as: A lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: 1. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or 2. An access easement. That is the full text of the definition. There is no additional definition in our code. A single home flag lot would be as illustrated below. Certain conditions should apply. There must be an existing home in front, one that the owners do not want to demolish. Secondly, the new lot must be behind the old lot, with reference to the street, not beside or in front of it. In short, flag lots must look like a flag. LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 5 OF 8

80 We believe that the concise definition of a flag lot in our code adequately expresses these concepts, and should be strictly interpreted. We object to the liberal practice of allowing multiple homes to be built on a parcel under the auspices of a flag lot. This practice has led to substandard setback, access, parking, stormwater and a myriad of other issues. We believe that the Flag Lot and Serial Partition Code Amendments as proposed in the April 21, 2017 Public Review aft have the effect of codifying these abuses, which instead should be prohibited. Exhibit A in our argument is the flag lot development, which was approved over the objections of neighbors at 850 Cedar Street in early 2015: In this formulation, all eight newly created lots shared one, sinuous driveway. These were flag lots because, according to the developer, lots 1 through 7 were behind lot 8. Furthermore, the city LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 6 OF 8

81 considered that all eight lots were behind the property next door to the west (labelled as Tax Lot 5101 on this drawing). In our opinion, this was an incorrect application of the code. First, since Lot 8 did not yet exist, it was a fictitious analysis. A developer shouldn t be allowed to plan things so that one lot is in front, blocking access to the street, just for the expedience of calling it a flag lot. Secondly, Tax Lot 5101 faced Cedar Street, and the new lots were beside, not behind it. Thirdly, Lake Oswego owned a right-of-way easement extending across almost half of the property, which shows up on the drawing as a dotted line coming in diagonally from the cul-de-sac. The easement was acquired in anticipation of a future extension of Cedar Street, which would have been the proper course and is what should have happened. For the flag lot plans of the builder to be approved, the city had to vacate that easement, which it did. We do not see how our existing codes were upheld in this instance. Neighbors and citizens felt let down by the manner in which the application was examined and approved in the City. More importantly, future amendments to our flag lot code should be designed to prevent misuse of the code, not to codify it. If developers would like to develop a lot, they should be allowed to do so. But they should follow the rules which were designed over many years to yield acceptable results for Lake Oswego, and not use flag lot rules to a purpose for which they were not designed, in order to circumvent the rules and to cut corners. For these reasons, we object to the amendments as proposed. LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 7 OF 8

82 Addendum A. Below are before and after photographs of the Freepons development at 850 Cedar Street. The top photograph shows the original home on 1.2 acres. The bottom photograph shows the development with 5 of the 8 homes constructed. This development was approved as a flag lot. LU EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 8 OF 8

83 McCaleb, Iris From: Sent: To: Subject: Dianne Cassidy Wednesday, August 30, :28 AM Planning Commission Comments regarding Flag Lot codes To The Planning Commission: Re: Flag Lot Code revisions There should be no flag lot developments with more than 3 lots. 4 or more are a Planned Unit Development and require appropriately sized streets (below) and builder-paid infrastructure. If more than 3 flag lots are allowed, the PUD designation becomes irrelevant and the codes can be interpreted capriciously as staff understands it or desires. Codes should be clear and fair to everyone. Newly created access lanes must allow for emergency vehicles. Use of fire sprinklers should be for extreme cases where vehicles would be slowed or big rigs could not go because of terrain, not because of newly built, inadequate infrastructure. Terrain considerations examples: steep hills, within a high wildfire risk zone, etc. Consult with fire department - responses should be independent and politically protected - if that is possible. Small PUDs should not be required to have curbs and sidewalks. If roadways are wide enough for two cars, then people can walk and cars can stop in one direction if there is traffic coming from the opposite direction. Adding sidewalks eats up more land that can be used for parking on graded shoulders (ROW). Access lanes must be wide enough to allow for parallel parking on at least one side of the lane. Each residence connecting to the lane should be able to have a minimum 4 outside parking spaces, including parking on lane. All parking must be accounted for with no overlaps in parking space requirement. IE: 3 houses, each with 2 outdoor parking spaces on the property, will each need 2 spaces on the lane. The lane should have min. 6 parking spaces total, 2 for each house. If no provisions are made for adequate parking, home owners, their guests and neighbors will be negatively impacted. The city consistently fails to consider the reality of life in the suburbs and that homes need to have sufficient parking and this is creating problems chiefly in the town centers. We do not need to extend parking problems into the single family residential areas and upset the natural order of life here. Urban planning ideology does not fit suburban towns. Other: Stormwater runoff has been a problem for newly developed lots, even with engineered on-site drainage facilities. (Hallinan neighborhood was especially hit hard.) No matter how many lots are developed, neighborhoods must be protected! How? If developers can follow code and still create a nightmare for a whole neighborhood, what can be done to prevent this from occurring again? Thank you, Dianne Cassidy 3601 Wren St. Lake Oswego, OR LU EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 1 OF 1

84 From: Jim Standring To: Hamilton, Leslie; Jim Standring Subject: LU Date: Thursday, August 31, :22:58 PM Hello Leslie I have a couple of concerns. With limited opportunities for UGB expansion this proposal may limit net density in the City. I believe that the requirement of 20% open space for site larger than 75,000 square feet may leave us with small open spaces that may be expensive to maintain and frankly that may not get used. Perhaps a fee in lieu might be better? Thank you, Jim Standring th Suite 400 Tigard, Oregon LU EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 1 OF 1

85 LU EXHIBIT G-5/PAGE 1 OF 1

86 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: S Bullard Hamilton, Leslie Gary Willihnganz (gary.willihnganz@gmail.com) LU : Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes Wednesday, September 06, :29:49 PM Dear Leslie, Hope your summer is going well. Please accept this letter of support and comment regarding LU : Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes from the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association (FHNA) Board. Regretfully, we were unable to gather comment and approval from the board members prior the requested date but hope that you are able to include this communication anyway. The FHNA board supports the proposed amendments and, as a neighborhood with significant past, current, and future development, feels that LU will help to preserve the character and quality of our neighborhood while providing clear and objective standards for development. One comment is to suggest a simplified one step process that enables the city planner the flexibility to apply a 90 degree rotation (while maintaining setbacks) of the designated flag lot front when the decision will preserve the character of the neighborhood. Another comment was that the planning commission consider allowing the private access lane buffer on both sides to be combined onto one side where practicable (i.e. to preserve SL, utility access, or a sharp corner). The entire FHNA Board greatly appreciates the hard work and efforts by commission members and staff on this issue. Respectfully, Scott Bullard On behalf of and as Co-Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association Scott Bullard Taylors Crest Lane, Lake Oswego OR SB2527@hotmail.com LU EXHIBIT G-6/PAGE 1 OF 1

87 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Evergreen Neighborhood Assn. Hamilton, Leslie Bill Abadie, Hallinan NA LU flag lots and private access lanes Wednesday, September 27, :20:56 AM ENA (Evergreen NA) fully supports the comments and recommendations submitted by Bill Abadie for Hallinan NA regarding the proposed text amendments to the CDC amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. Please present our support to the Planning Commission. Thank you. -- Diana Boom, ENA Secretary Find us on the Web LU EXHIBIT G-7/PAGE 1 OF 1

88 LU EXHIBIT G-8/PAGE 1 OF 2

89 LU EXHIBIT G-8/PAGE 2 OF 2

90 From: To: Cc: James Fisher Hamilton, Leslie Bill Abadie; Liz Martin; Donald Mattersdorff; James Stupfel; Sarah Ellison; Suzanne Elstad; Chris & Renee Huettemeyer; christy; Stephanie Wagner; Michael Buck; Jackie E. Manz Subject: Flag Lots: LU Date: Monday, October 02, :14:44 PM Dear Ms. Hamilton Thank you and the Planning Department for considering the following comments on flag lots. The comments are my own and do not represent the official position of any organization. I object to numerous recommendations contained in Planning File LU regarding changing certain standards in the Development Code dealing with flag lots, as listed below: 1. The City should use the common definition of a flag lot. A flag lot is a single lot behind an existing parent lot with frontage on a public street. 2. Any proposed development of more than two new lots should be a minor subdivision up to a total of three new lots. Four or more new lots (including the parent parcel) should be classified as a subdivision. 3. Minor subdivisions and subdivisions should be platted and constructed in full accordance with City Development Code standards, particularly with regard to public streets, setbacks and utilities. Discussion The problem with LU stems from conflicting City Council policies that pit preservation of existing neighborhood character against "unnecessary restrictions on property owners". The inherent vagueness in these policies has allowed too much policy wiggle room for the Planning Commission and Council, thus allowing both bodies and the Development Commission to adhere to "policy" and consistently overrule neighborhood objections to certain controversial developments. One result of the City's approach is that private developers consistently use the ruse of "flag lots" in the current Development Code to construct single-family homes with sub-standard streets that dead end without full code cul-de-sacs. This restricts public access, overburdens existing street parking, hampers trash pickup, and reduces public safety because of restricted emergency vehicle access. Hallinan Heights neighborhood is being adversely impacted by these policies which severely detract from the character of our neighborhood; I reference the recent 8 lot Cedar Street development and the Tentative Plan for 6 lots submitted with the pre-application materials for 1107 Yates Street. No public streets in either development: flag lots all except for the fronting lot on the public street. It was not always this way with City policy: as examples witness the relatively recently constructed full cul-de-sacs on Warren Court, Lamont Court and Mardee Avenue in the Bryant Neighborhood; Cortez Court in the Lake Forest Neighborhood; and Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court in the Blue Heron Neighborhood. City policy needs to change and our neighborhood needs to be treated equitably with other neighborhoods in the City. In summary, the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to flag lots are completely inadequate, inconsistent with previous City policy, and unfair to our neighborhood. No one can argue that these are "streamlined" amendments: the proposed amendments perpetuate the unfair, arcane and complex existing rules and are designed to allow developers LU EXHIBIT G-9/PAGE 1 OF 2

91 to cram more lots into our neighborhood while giving staff and Council the flimsy cover of following policy and the Development Code. I ask that the City stop this process now and adopt simple rules that include the common definition of a flag lot as one lot behind another. Thank you again for your consideration. Jim Fisher Co-Coordinator, Friends of Hallinan Heights Woods Board Member, Oswego Lake Watershed Council Sent from my ipad LU EXHIBIT G-9/PAGE 2 OF 2

92 October 8, 2017 Board Members Cindy Maddox Cheryl Uchida Co-Chairs Will Mahoney- Watson Vice Chair Sandy Desmond Secretary/Treasurer Bruce Goldson Past Chair Jim Newcomer Rett Russell Carol Lavender Board Members at Large Dick Benedetti Kate O Reilly Michael Sorrell Gene Park Art Ostergard Lake Oswego Planning Commission Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner 380 A Avenue, Third Floor PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR Re: LU Dear Planning Commissioners and Ms. Hamilton, The Waluga Neighborhood Association (WNA) Board also fully supports the recommendations, comments and objections submitted to date by the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board regarding the proposed text amendment to the CDC amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. The WNA board also recommends that the recent approved code overlay outlined in the Uplands Neighborhood Association Plan be applied citywide specifically for flag lots and access lanes. We also recommend that no secondary dwelling units be allowed on flag lots and flag lots should not be made smaller in the prevailing zone. The proposed text amendment will NOT preserve the character of existing established neighborhoods where it s residents value and embrace. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit written testimony on the proposed text amendment to the Community Development Code amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. Our written testimony will be presented in person at the October 9, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Sincerely, Cheryl Uchida and Cindy Maddox Waluga Neighborhood Association Co-Chairs LU EXHIBIT G-10/PAGE 1 OF 1

93 Wendie L. Kellington Phone (503) P.O. Box 159 Mobile (503) Lake Oswego Or Facsimile (503) Via Hand Delivery Lake Oswego Planning Commission 380 A Ave. Lake Oswego, OR RE: LU October 9, 2017 Dear Lake Oswego Planning Commission Chair and Members: Thank you for your time and the courtesies of City staff concerning this matter. This firm represents Stuart Bingham, who owns either individually or with his wife, three (3) existing R-10 zoned lots located at Phantom Bluff. in Lake Oswego. Phantom Bluff. was previously a public street, but was vacated in 1959 and thereafter became a private street. Mr. Bingham acquired his lots for investment purposes in 1973 (2.36 acres and developed with a residence and outbuildings), 1983 (.46 acres - undeveloped) and 2003 (.50 acres - undeveloped) respectively. 1 These lots are part of an existing 1920s vintage subdivision. When Mr. Bingham acquired these lots, they were and still are simply pre-existing residential lots. The Bingham lots abut Phantom Bluff. and do not appear to meet the definition of a Flag Lot because no building site could be located behind another lot. 2 For information 1 There may be two other platted lots. As you can see from the attached Exhibit 1, two lots have been consolidated for tax assessment purposes. The effect tax consolidation on those two additional lots is beyond the scope of this letter. We simply note that it is possible that there are two more preexisting subdivision lots (for a total of five (5) owned by Mr. Bingham, with frontage on Phantom Bluff. 2 LOC defines Flag Lot as follows: Flag Lot A lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 1 OF 8

94 purposes, a map of the Bingham lots is attached as Exhibit 1. However, city planer Leslie Hamilton has stated that she understands that all lots abutting Phantom Bluff. are flag lots as defined. We are also advised by staff that it is not intended that the proposal affects existing lots that were not created as flag lots. Respectfully, we think that it is fair to say that the proposal is confusing and could benefit from some clarity concerning its effect on preexisting lots abutting a private street, including where those lot s boundaries are adjusted via lot line adjustment later on. All of Mr. Bingham s lots were created by land division principles and not as flag lots. Mr. Bingham is concerned that the proposal makes his properties, and those that his wife and he own together, undevelopable as an unintended consequence, even though they are zoned residential and meet all dimensional standards. The proposed new language imposes new restrictions on existing lots and parcels that were created before the existing or proposed flag lot standards were ever adopted. It can be read to make essentially any existing lot or parcel undevelopable if it now meets the definition of flag lot because most neighborhood streets will already have 4-6 primary dwellings on them. There are a surprising number of private streets in the city, and as we understand it, the city does not have a list of all of them. Accordingly, the impact of the proposal if its apparent unintended effects are not addressed, are unknown and are likely to be far more severe on the city s ability to comply with its state and Metro region housing obligations than is presumed, and would require a specific evaluation that has not been undertaken to determine compliance with state and regional housing standards. Thus, we suggest the planning commission recommend the addition of new language to the proposal, to clarify it is intended scope is to only to apply to new lots and parcels created as flag lots, not to preexisting lots and parcels, and not to lots or parcels the boundaries of which have been adjusted via lot line adjustment. Relatedly, because the proposal is designed to clarify previous flag lot ordinance amendments, a global clarification of the rules applicable to flag lots versus the rules that apply to existing platted lots on private streets, makes sense, avoids confusion and avoids needless controversy later on. Suggestion The planning commission should make clear that the proposal applies only to newly created lots or parcels that meet the definition of a flag lot, and that the flag lot standards are not intended to, and do not apply to, existing platted subdivision or partition lots or other parcels predating flag lot standards, or lot line adjustments to them, merely because they are on private streets. In this regard, we suggest an additional Exception to be placed in the appropriate part or parts of the code by the codifiers, to say essentially: ii. An access easement. LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 2 OF 8 2

95 Exception: The city s Flag Lot standards do not apply to existing lots or parcels created by subdivision or partition or deed that were not created under rules applicable to flag lots. An existing lot or parcel not created as a flag lot, that is reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment, where no new lot or parcel is created, shall not be deemed to subject such lot or parcel to standards applicable to Flag Lots. The above general suggestion extends the policy embraced by the language in the proposed new exception to the Land Division standards of LOC (2)(a)(ii), more broadly. See aft 09/29/17 Corrected Attachment 2, p 6. In addition to that general suggestion, we have four specific suggestions to accomplish the objective of limiting the scope of the proposal to that which we understand is intended: FIRST RECOMMENDED ADDITION (LOC (2)(a)(ii) 3 ): Exception: These provisions do not apply to existing flag lots including those that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot s creation remain applicable. 4 SECOND RECOMMENDED ADDITION We suggest the city modify the definition of Flag Lot to include the yellow highlighted language below: Flag Lot A newly created lot that * * * * * * An existing lot or parcel the boundaries of which have been reconfigured without creating a new lot or parcel, is not a newly created lot. THIRD RECOMMENDED ADDITION The proposed language at aft 09/29/17 Corrected Attachment 2, p 2 & 3 & 4, at d should be revised to make clear that the proposed new restrictions there only apply to newly created flag lots. Specifically we suggest adding the highlighted language in yellow below, that: 3 New suggested language is shown with yellow highlight. 4 See aft 09/29/17 Corrected Attachment 2, 6. LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 3 OF 8 3

96 Access lanes serving lots and parcels created as flag lots, shall serve not more than eight primary dwelling units and shall meet the following minimum standards * * * This provision does not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot s creation remain applicable. FOURTH RECOMMENDED ADDITION We suggest you make clear that the proposed new restriction at aft 09/29/17 Corrected Attachment 2, p 19 applies only to Flag Lots and accordingly be revised to add the highlighted language below: vii. Lot Coverage and Floor Area For the purposes of calculating lot coverage and floor area on a lot created as a flag lot, the area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. This provision does not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot s creation remain applicable. Additional Evidence that these Clarifications Should be Adopted Strong evidence that an exception to the flag lot rules is intended for existing lots and parcels not created under flag lot standards, is the staff report analysis of the impact of the proposal on the city s compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and Goal 10 (Housing). As noted briefly above, the Housing Needs Analysis evaluation in the staff report contains no analysis of how the proposal would impact the city s needed housing stock if it results in existing lots and parcels, on existing private streets, becoming undevelopable. This significant (we think unintended) restriction on the developability of the city s existing housing stock, cumulatively with the other acknowledged limitations on further division of oversized residential lots and parcels on private streets under the proposal, has not been evaluated and would have to be under Goal 10 and OARs, as well as Metro Functional and Framework Plans. Specifically, in the staff report analysis, there is no identification of the number of private streets or the number of currently residentially developable lots and parcels that will become undevelopable under the proposal. As we understand it, the reason there is no such analysis, is that the proposal is not designed to make existing subdivision lots or partition parcels or other preexisting parcels on private streets, undevelopable, regardless of whether there are already 4 or 6 primary dwellings developed on the private street. This issue is further reason why the proposal should be clarified to make it clear it only applies to new lots and parcels created as flag lots. LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 4 OF 8 4

97 Our Proposal is Consistent with City Practice and State Law As noted above, we are advised that the city s practice is not to treat existing subdivision lots or partition parcels or other parcels, including those subject to a lot line adjustment, as flag lots. In other words, if lots or parcels were not created under flag lot standards, they aren t considered to be flag lots by the city, even if there is a subsequent lot line adjustment. Thus, the standards applicable to flag lots simply do not apply to those lots and parcels. Rather, existing lots and parcels are developable under the land use standards that apply to such lots or parcels, not flag lot standards, even where their boundaries are adjusted via lot line adjustment. Mr. Bingham s lots appear to be conforming lots in all but the flag lot standards. They are not considered nonconforming lots under LOC because they meet all dimensional standards that apply. A nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located may be developed as permitted in that zone; provided, that (i) the structure complies with all applicable Code standards or (ii) the applicant obtains a variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances. LOC (5)(a) What the Bingham lots could not meet are flag lot specific standards (again if they were flag lots which with all due respect does not seem to be the case under the existing definition): Phantom Bluff Court already has well more than 4-6 dwellings with primary dwelling. Phantom Bluff Court lots and parcels have never been developed by having their Lot Size reduced by the amount of acreage consumed by Phantom Bluff Court. Phantom Bluff. is considered an access easement and it is a reasonably long street. Without clarification, under the proposal, the area of the entirety of Phantom Bluff Court would have to be deducted from the lot area of each of the existing lots (which makes no sense) likely making the existing lots not meet lot coverage and floor area standards (Attachment 2, p 19) for any development. The city s practice and our requested amendments that the flag lot standards don t render existing lots and parcels undevelopable, is also consistent with ORS which provides: A lot of parcel lawfully created shall remain a discrete lot or parcel, unless the lot or parcel lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided, as provided by law. LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 5 OF 8 5

98 For all these reasons we respectfully request that the proposal be modified to make clear it applies only to newly created flag lots. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Wendie Kellington Wendie L. Kellington WLK:wlk Enclosures CC: Client Leslie Hamilton, via Evan Boone, Esq., via LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 6 OF 8 6

99 (f) CD " N <.O. -'1. 0 N N Ql ClJ ::J (Cl :::r Ql 3 (.J7 0 (,) N N.p.. N CJ) -'1 <.O " N Exhibit 1, Page 1 of 2 LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 7 OF 8 lf 5,87'- '.,' t,v /f';t{!- I ;,l tt-/, f) '19 f!, O p'{, "'o 6r,,- - dl... - u;,,4l- 4, ' 1600 \0 50Ac. I r:i, /_,,. ;'.' f.j..i 6 rt f'-- v1 1 {J ft' I.Jfl 1 1 0:C'V -- f (,.) 4( ;/0 5 & B i,. r; 1,._,o _-:r.,..,,), \ ;;-"',/ 0.P. 'v - 0 'fj,- lj)' v:- - - ' ;,._ f; 6'30 C>i,P 'IJ 13 <f' >-.._ 0 I VV k_ 0 'U v (/ _ 0 0??j;,C1\ <S; E, 0,i;fl,,w I 2.36Ac,,J\,. s (i\ti : i!:(4i / i!;f/ f '-i,i)) 4?' - I o 01,i I C)<, / (.,; t a"\ (.Jo 1- I - \lei, 'h i 1 "!',..Y" S rz, N 1 r 1 I 'W \l,l'i. I 1500 I /.J\ c. I,'v / C)I rn; 1 1 / tj.).,,,a, '??,,., \. '- ':.. \.I.JI '('),o,, \I.\.\,... ; () V _ 0 i.i ' -,:,. \ /,/ r/j I ' " & r )C 't,'f {JJ \ / / \'IJ 'li "'I ;p iq,,,_, o5f "37, c;l!/'-, r /B I r()_ -4fJ =29 1, 3-1. "36 i, t -1 '-' I or.,,, 0' '? <-'!\\,; 7 <.. ;;o ' '{ /..-," -, ti >;) 38 I - 4,j_G - - ' t c., '1 i, - I ec\il <.;,, \ 6 / n io / -l' ---(;) 'h (''.,a/,(\, \..,. tj \ \,l,b - - '( 3 5 -z,.._ \,v /8 : L "' / '-. :'.\- r , " J' r/_r /lo-\ - fi -- 2 ' 341 f\zo!,ti !fl "' -,..-.- \ 33 /.26!fl '-t ;? f., <: soo ,- -S' 6):,_ l" 1}) 4 t :Jo '2-_;: --- &:1 3 ' \ z. ''?Ji >, ;., i:.._;, I 4 / /J 6 / c -, (;:-'! <_0 \ 2 \ f-, J(}.-' 0,87Ac, i\, \._ \N It Ac. \. t 1 \. hgly c>a-t,f, c-e g.35 \..:,,-s-s-i;.>;,., \l 0 75 Ac.. 0i f 1 ' I.\ J P, -L 49,bq. 1' 2?oo --' \ l. I I I ' -. Ri \ \ - - \ \ / - It) \ I N 3/ ¾, t,j.-,, o \ \ 120.z. 10-% I B - 5. \2129j \ 75..Sa C,s. C" T- /0/ &' " J I) \) I J :-'\ r G Q,'/4 -, j

100 - - - I ' I - _, I Exhibit 1, Page 2 of 2 I i:z. \ '"' "' I '"-.\ COUNTY ri1 ":j: OFfi{.,y PS-1003 LU EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 8 OF 8 )AL/5ADES : D IN T2S. R.1 E..SECT ION s 8-3 WM. ACKAMAS COUNTY,OREGON, " I' SCALE 11nGh = /00feeT 'b'' Ind,cc:1+e.s Ir-on Pipe LAKE OEGO I 7z3 A ,.. --' 242 3<,' \ I I ' I - S7.3 oo' R -_ 33 os' : ,=170. l8 ',..,.. er:::: /.!J,?40; D = 4,0 4 = 7.S/. T.:- d.,?7 I... = / z.s, 9 N.00 /6

101 LU EXHIBIT G-12/PAGE 1 OF 2

102 LU EXHIBIT G-12/PAGE 2 OF 2

103 LU EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 1 OF 4

104 LU EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 2 OF 4

105 LU EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 3 OF 4

106 LU EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 4 OF 4

107 LU EXHIBIT G-14/PAGE 1 OF 4

108 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LU EXHIBIT G-14/PAGE 2 OF 4

109 CITY OF PORTLAND OREGON - BUREAU OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Flag Lot Regulations, Ch , and Flag lots The Portland Zoning Code defines a flag lot as, a lot with two distinct parts: 1. The flag, which is the only building site; and is located behind another lot; and 2. The pole, which connects the flag to the street; provides the only street frontage for the lot; and at any point is less than the minimum lot width for the zone. Purpose of flag lot regulations The flag lot regulations allow the creation of flag lots in limited circumstances. The limitations minimize the negative impacts of flag lots and additional driveways on an area while allowing land to be divided when other options are not achievable. When can a flag lot be created? The location of an existing house or attached garage that has been on site at least five years precludes a land division that creates lots that meet the minimum lot width standards for the zone; or The site has one of the following dimensional constraints: In R2.5 zones, a site is less than 50 feet wide if two lots are proposed or is less than 75 feet wide if three lots are proposed; or FLAG LOT REGULATIONS FLAG LOT DWELLING UNIT Main entrance STREET 1900 FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON POLE PORTION 12' min. INFORMATION GUIDE FLAG PORTION SIDEWALK Landscaped buffer area In RF-R5 zones, the dimensions of a site preclude a land division that meets the minimum lot width standards for the zone. In addition, the following requirements must also be met: Up to three lots are proposed, only one of which is a flag lot; and Minimum density for the site is met; and In the a overlay, flag lots averaging 2,500 square feet may be created in the R2.5 and R2 zone (see Zoning Code section C or Options for Land Division in the a Overlay Zone handout for specific standards). Standards for flag lots Flag lots must comply with the standards of the base zone unless otherwise specified. Generally, new flag lots may only be created in single-dwelling zones. Standards for multi dwelling zones apply to flag lots created before July 1, 2002 and are found in Zoning Code Section I. Standards for flag lots in single-dwelling zones are outlined below. Flag lot access pole A 12-foot width is required for the entire length of the pole. The Fire Code standard that requires access to the house within 150 feet must also be met unless fire suppression sprinklers are installed. Contact the Fire Bureau for more information. The pole must be part of the flag lot, connect to a street and be under the same ownership as the flag portion of the lot. Access easements to allow for use of the pole by another lot may be required. LU EXHIBIT G-14/PAGE 3 OF 4 Porch GARAGE lu_ld006_flaglot 04/25/13

110 CITY OF PORTLAND OREGON - BUREAU OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Minimum lot area and dimensions Only the flag portion of the lot is included when calculating minimum lot area. Minimum lot width and depth is 40 feet measured at the midpoint of opposite lot lines of the flag portion of the lot. In the Glendoveer Plan District, the minimum lot width and depth is 70 feet. Setbacks Flag lots have required setbacks that are the same along all lot lines. Required setbacks are: RF, R20, R10 zones and Glendoveer Plan District 15 feet R7 through R2.5 zones 10 feet Building coverage Only the flag portion of a flag lot is considered when calculating building coverage. Height In the Glendoveer Plan District, the maximum height for all structures on a flag lot is 25 feet. Landscaping In the R7 through R2.5 zones, when the flag lot area is less than 10,000 square feet, five feet of landscaping will be required along the perimeter of the flag portion of the lot to screen the flag lot from neighboring properties. The required outdoor area and detached accessory structures may not extend into the landscape buffer. The landscaping must be installed to the L3 standard (see Zoning Code section , Landscaping and Screening Standards for specific requirements). Vehicle area A flag lot is allowed at least a 12-foot wide vehicle area. Where the width of the flag pole is greater than 30 feet, no more than 40 percent of the land area between the front building line and the property line at the street may be paved or used for vehicle areas. Where practical, shared access via easements must be used. Frequently Asked Questions Q Where are the flag lot regulations located? A Most regulations for flag lots are in the following sections of the Portland Zoning Code: Section F, Single Dwelling Zones Flag lot development standards Section I, Multi Dwelling Zones Flag lot development standards for flag lots created before July 2002 Section , Lots In RF through R5 Zones Flag Lots Section , Lots In R2.5 Zone Flag Lots Section , Glendoveer Plan District Section , Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone Q Flag lots are created through which land use review procedure type? A The creation of flag lots are normally processed through a Type Ix Land Division procedure. If any portion of the lots, utilities or services are located within a Flood Hazard Area or Landslide Hazard Area, then the application is processed through a Type IIx procedure. If an Environmental Review is required or any portion of the site is in an Open Space Zone, then the application is processed through a Type III procedure. Q Can I move my property line to create a flag lot? A No. Property line adjustments cannot result in a flag lot. Q Are flag lots allowed in commercial, multi-dwelling and industrial zones? A No. The creation of new flag lots is restricted to Single-Dwelling Residential Zones. Lots created in other zones must comply with the lot dimension standards of the applicable zone. An existing flag lot in a multi dwelling zone may be developed under the standards in I. For more information visit or call the Planning and Zoning staff at the Development Services Center at th Avenue, Suite 1500, For current Portland Zoning Code visit Information is subject to change. FLAG LOT REGULATIONS LU EXHIBIT G-14/PAGE 4 OF FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON lu_ld006_flaglot 04/25/13

111

112 Siegel, Scot From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Adkins Monday, October 23, :13 AM Siegel, Scot Ed Brockman; Jim Standring; Paul Grove Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC or City code), amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes Hi Scot, On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Development Code. We are reaching out to you to reiterate our concerns with the code updates presented to the planning commission on Monday, October 9th in addition to the new policy direction that is now being pursued after that meeting by the planning commission. Our concerns pertain to the requirement for a public street as opposed to a private lane for developments of more than three lots, the additional parking space required for flag lots and the proposed reduction in allowable total flag lots from 8 to 3. With regard to the public street requirement, this presents a range of obstacles to realizing any lot development of smaller parcels in general. Small parcels of land and skinny lots will most likely be forced into smaller partitions than currently available under code. Serial partitions would most likely become prohibited if future partitions would now require a 50 ft. right of way, where the land allotted for future development only planned for a 20 ft. access lane. The new parking requirement would require an additional easement and would encroach even further upon net buildable land for any future partitions. Additionally, the overall engineering requirements are much greater for public roads standards in contrast to a 20 ft. access way. With regard to the reduction of allowed flag lots, we believe that had the Planning commission included this proposal in the notifications to the public, a greater deal of input would have been delivered to the Planning commission by your citizens and neighbors. It would also appear that such a policy decision could cause measure 49 claims moving forward with this proposal. The HBA values its long standing partnership to support the economic and community development goals of Lake Oswego, while ensuring residents have access to a wide range of housing options that meet varying needs and income levels. The HBA and our members are here as a resource to the City of Lake Oswego as the conversation on these code amendments develops. I hope this is helpful perspective from our members. Please share this with staff and others as you see necessary and feel free to contact me any time at this or on my cell number below. James Adkins Government and Political Relations Coordinator Home Builders Association of Metro Portland t c f hbapdx.org LU EXHIBIT G-16/PAGE 1 OF 1 1

113 EXHIBIT G-17 LU From: Bruce Brown Sent: Monday, November 27, :07 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: Flag Lot Private Streets (LU ) Leslie: I will not be able to attend this evening but I would appreciate if this could be entered into the record. To the Lake Oswego Planning Commission: In response to the current re-review of the Flag Lot Access Lane / Private Street Standard currently before the commission, I offer the following comments. I do not have any particular issue with the proposed standards. However, I do think allowing private streets within otherwise public neighborhoods will have a significant and negative impact on the cohesiveness of the neighbor. Private drives serving 1 and perhaps 2 flag lots may have minimal impact, but a private street serving 4-8 lots could be devastating to a neighborhood. Private streets smack of gated communities and placing a gated community in otherwise publically accessible neighborhood fabric will likely have an ill effect on the overall neighborhood character. I offer two possible alternatives. First, any street or lane serving more than 2 lots must be dedicated to city for public access. Or as a second option, any street or lane serving more than 2 lots must have a public access easement. That street or lane must be allowed to remain in the public access realm. Neighbors have a hard enough time meeting and communicating without adding another layer of us and them with private streets. Thank you for your consideration. Bruce Brown, AIA Uplands Neighborhood BRUCE BROWN, AIA / CSI Principal Oregon Registered Architect, LEED AP GBD Architects Incorporated 1120 NW Couch St., Suite 300 Portland, OR Tel. (503) LU EXHIBIT G-17/PAGE 1 OF 1

114 McCaleb, Iris From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Stupfel Monday, November 27, :58 PM Planning Commission; Siegel, Scot; Hamilton, Leslie Barbara & Jim Fisher; Bill Abadie; Christian Huettemeyer; Christy Clark; Donald Mattersdorff; Hallinan Heights; James Stupfel; Liz & Jeff Martin Hallinan Heights Testimony for Hearing on LU (Flag Lots AND Private Streets) Below is the official position of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association (HHNA) as unanimously adopted by the HHNA Board of Directors as part of an emergency Board meeting called specifically for this purpose. Please note that this testimony may also be read at the hearing tonight by a member of the neighborhood association on behalf of the neighborhood. HHNA does NOT support the addition of private streets as proposed by staff in the latest proposed change to the Flag Lot Code update process (LU ). Private streets have no place in most of our neighborhoods and the Commission has received testimony regarding the negative impacts created by larger existing flag lots that have private streets: there's exclusivity brought into neighborhoods that does not allow neighbors outside of the development to walk, drive, or otherwise access these streets but still brings on the burden of additional traffic, parked cars, and other uses on the existing surrounding infrastructure that the new homes (on the private streets) are free to use. Standard streets were created for a reason and large flag lot subdivisions, private streets, or other complicated loopholes should not be allowed just to give developers a way to develop property beyond what STANDARD would dictate. HHNA believes that the code changes should eliminate all proposed private street text and limit flag lot to developments consisting of 1 parent and 2 additional lots at most, as recommended by Planning Commission at the November 13th meeting. In addition to providing this testimony against the adoption of the new Private Streets proposal, HHNA would like to request that any decision that changes the Commission's November 13th decision in relation to flag lots be postponed until sufficient notice can be offered and proper public outreach completed. It's a travesty that such substantial changes that clearly go against nearly all public testimony and discussion thus far were proffered on such short notice- mailed notices did not arrive to HHNA until November 20th. With a hearing scheduled for November 27th on the issue (the Monday immediately following a long holiday), there simply has not been enough time for adequate review, discussion, and discourse among the multitude of people and groups who provided testimony already, including the neighborhood associations and other groups who have commented and officially supported HHNA's position. 7 days to review, prepare a position, meet, and vote is not enough. This Flag Lot review process has been going on for the better part of a year and the public's response has been a solid NO to large flag lot developments, including the private streets that go along with them. This change would undermine all of the citizen involvement to date. -James Stupfel, Chair Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association -- Find us on Facebook:Hallinan-Heights-Neighborhood-Association LU EXHIBIT G-18/PAGE 1 OF 1

115 LU EXHIBIT G-19/PAGE 1 OF 1

116 LU EXHIBIT G-20/PAGE 1 OF 3

117 LU EXHIBIT G-20/PAGE 2 OF 3

118 Exhibit to Torkelson Written Testimony a\ illi5ion Financial Group com ny ompany WFG National Tille Customer Service Department th Pkwy # 350 Portland, OR Phone: Fax: cs@wfgnationaltitle.com N Parcel# I 21 E04BD '< This map is a copy of public record and is provided solely for informational purposes. WFG National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements. LU EXHIBIT G-20/PAGE 3 OF 3

119 0... _, --' November 27, 2017 Renee M. France VIA Lake Oswego Planning Commission c/o Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner Planning & Building Services City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue, Third Floor PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034,._ 0 ~ I Re: Lake Oswego Planning Commission: Private Street Standards LU N O"> " z 0 \.'.> w ll: 0 ci z <l: _, I ll: 0 a. 0, 0... w t: :J If) 1- w ll: I I/) ::; (IJ ::f: :J _, 0 u 5 If) This office represents Teri and Saul Caprio, the owners of property located at 5570 Neff Park Lane (the "Property"). A map depicting the Property in red is attached. The Property currently supports one single family dwelling and a multifamily structure with eight dwelling units. The Caprio's have been working for years on a phased partition of the Property to create 10 single family lots consiste nt with the zoni ng and surrounding area. In 2014, the Caprio's received preliminary plat approval to divide the Property into 3 lots. While they have not yet moved forward with the final plat for the initial partition, the preliminary and planned lot layout is based upon the existing code provisions for flag lots, as 8 of the 10 lots would be served by a newly al igned Neff Park Lane. The designed and engineered access lane approved in the preliminary plat is cons istent with the existing requirements for access lanes serving up to 8 lots. Teri Caprio testified at the October 9, 2017 hearing in opposition the proposed text amendments. The Caprio's continue their general opposition to the flag lot and access lane text amendments. However, the Caprio's appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts to consider a private street option as an alternative to public streets, and we offer these specific comments on the standards for private streets serving 4 to 8 lots included in proposed Table It is important to understand that this Property has unique access limitations as a result of surrounding development. The Property is surrounded to the north and west by existing single family development with no through street access capability. lnverurie Road is located directly east of the property. lnverurie Road dead ends into the railroad tracks and associated railroad right-of-way located south of the Property. The area east of lnverurie Road is also developed with existing single family deve lopment fronting lnverurie Road creating no opportunity for through access from the east. Furthermore, the property is already developed with residential uses. A single family dwelling and 8 units of multifamily dwellings are currently located on the Property. Therefore, the planned land division to create 10 single family parcels would only increase the total number of dwelling units on the Property by one. LU EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 1 OF 3 { ;1}

120 ~ 3 W < Q ;::'. z :;, <( ~ >< z _, ~ w "' <( < "' ~ ~ <( 0.. w!:: ::c ~ a:: w _, c <( 0::: November 27, 2017 Page 2 Once again, the Caprio's appreciate efforts to develop private street standards as an alternative. However, the proposed standards would result in a private street on the Property that is not proportional to the anticipated impact of the planned future development and would include features that are not consistent with the location of Property. Specifically, the proposed private street standards would require 38 feet of total width with a 14-foot travel lane, two 8-foot parking lanes and at least one 5-foot sidewalk. Because of the location of the Property and the lack of existing or planned sidewalks on lnverurie Road, a sidewa lk on Neff Park Lane wou ld create limited, if any, pedestrian connectivity. Additionally, there is no evidence, based upon the existing dwelling use on the Property, that two full lanes of parking would be necessary to serve 8 single family lots on the Property. Therefore, if the Planning Commission elects to recommend private street standards, we request elimination of the sidewalk and dual parking lane requirement. That would reduce the total width to 25 feet, but retain the 14-foot travel and one full lane of parking, as well as the shou ld er areas. In the alternative, we request that the Planning Commission and City consider an exemption process that would allow planning staff to evaluate site specific factors at the request of an applicant and exempt certain land divisions from elements of the private street standards such as the sidewalk requirement and the additional parking lane where appropriate. Creating some flexibility through a site specific exemption process could avoid inequitable impacts on land owners with uniquely situated properties and situations, such as the Caprio's. Best regards, RADLER WHITE PARKS & ALEXANDER LLP Renee M. France Attachment { ; LU } EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 2 OF 3

121 .i i { I I I I I i 1 I LU EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 3 OF 3

122 LU EXHIBIT G-22/PAGE 1 OF 4 tll f.y/1.r.ljs.1111~ l'tntflk/. 1J, ~~ ;~.L J' ()I 7 3 A --'1Mtf ;r!yjfo ili11r.y ;:;a..~~~+-"--- 61_.!fa 19; ot 1v 'Tl - I 1ot..JN l wg.f'y7?i~ :I q7.j~w-i 911J' If 'Jt8f :, ~' K,-tt.I

123 - l~' l /~HJ 'x tjfl' ~ g 71 ~SI.f tjpf,llacr 0 r~a ''clls-tmt/\/t LU EXHIBIT G-22/PAGE 2 OF 4

124 LU EXHIBIT G-22/PAGE 3 OF 4. f:l:ji'ij' &/.// ;f>ip'"/ 'I' I. T,, ;11f7 ://'1116 t- --~ I u I J - l \J' I i " I ~J \J'... -l I L - ~ I ~-~' --..LE!.!...--,JI/ -- l ' - ' \r ~ b:...-1? -+!_...LI _

125 LU EXHIBIT G-22/PAGE 4 OF ~- 11'- '"1..J.:3 J\ i - J1_ Ml J j -.,., i..i- 1 Ut- ~- ~ I -"9 J\ ,' I -~,.1 t 01 JI_ i -c::::::::: I \} ) - -l J\ - ~ r ~,.o-~ '. '. ' ' I. ' I ~ol ~. J '---.J r '... - r - I I<"" ~ -.J -- - J\ I '. ~- ~ 1.o', I<... ; , io_.. :!\ 1 9- IN'. -- f'' Ell~-,., ~ I - r - 11~,r I I I "[>- J L.,::7 -if::>.... ~ : u. "~'. > I - l ,If; - - _7: ~ I[:/""... "IT I _If; J /tjd' --?-~F' Tt!. ~~5',EXA-f11r-i~ I /I: "1'tJ, ').f'x ~ 7f.: 5"~1'ftl IPA-Cr f'.e~ ~o. TA-/MrW /f ptll!tbc/fs lp-c/

126 Leslie Hamilton Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR RE: Flag lots RECEIVED OCT PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES Leslie, At our October Board meeting last Thursday the Lake Grove Neighborhood Board discussed flag lot policy. This is certainly an important issue for our community as infill changes the look and feel of our neighborhoods. Lake Grove Neighborhood has seen the creation of a large number of flag lots and seen the side effects of increased traffic, declining safety for walkers and a loss of street parking on recycling pick-up days and, most notably, a loss in our tree canopy, especially from the declining numbers of large trees from the increase in hardscape. While we love the simplicity of restricting flag lots to just a single lot behind a lot on the street, as seen in the overlay for the Uplands neighborhood, we would have difficulty imposing that in Lake Grove where we already have a number of two flag lot sites off a main street. Our Board does support the following: 1) No more than two flag lots behind the frontage lot on the City street. 2) Requests for more than two sites behind the lot on the street should be considered a minr subdivision and developed under those rules and restrictions. 3) Flag lots must have on site parking for at least two vehicles and pole driveway cannot be used for parking. 4) The pole in the flag lots cannot be counted in the required minimum lot square footage for either the site on the street or the flag lots themselves. 5) Concern and attention need be given to lot coverage ratios on the flag lots for appropriate tree mitigation and planting. Flag lots add by their very nature and design add more impervious surface to neighborhoods; and the access roadways ("poles") have buffers that are too small to accommodate large trees. Best regards, Jerry Nierengarten Lake Grove Neighborhood Chair LU EXHIBIT G-23/PAGE 1 OF 1