Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1993-03-15 PM J i• S P• •I im. AGENDA ,; , iiip CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ., :y;..�• ..' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE c, ' • Monday,March 15,1993 G•. 7:00 P.M. L CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • , September 23, 1992 October 5, 1992 October 19, 1992 November 2, 1992 • "'t IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS '•i ' V, PUBLIC HEARING DR 16-92, a request by Blockbuster Video to reopen the public hearing to take additional evidence on '' : access and site circulation only. The site is located on the south side of Lower Boot•�'s• Ferry Road across from the intersection of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 4300 of Tax Map 2 1E SCB). Staff coordinator is ElizabakingsghAssogiate Planner. Continued from January 20, 1993, SD 19-92\VAR 18-92(a—b), a request by OTAK, Inc. (David Bantz) for approval of a major partition . •, ' • involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of Hailinan and Laurel Streets) • t•' •;". to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot parcel. The parcels are both proposed to be 21,256 square feet in area. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the !' r Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a mini.ium of '• ', ' 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, 1." which is a private street, Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC • "' 44.390 which limits a cul—de—sac or dead end street to no more than 1,000;:...et in length. The modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to ► .. terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future, The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required by LOC 49.120, [Note:The '1.,• applicant has upgraded this application from minor to major partition because it involves the creation ' . of a street through widening of an existing public easement.; The site is located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 1E !ODD), Staff ` . ,..:., coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planne . Continued from.ianuary 20, 1993. i` .t r VI, GENERAL PLANNING i ` 1 ' • ' 'w •l:r f ' VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order DR 20-92-993 [AP 92-10]-Clark & Sylvia Wood •DR 13-9011(Remand)-OTAK PD 5-92-Alpha Engineering VII. ADJOURNMENT • P'• • .:` f't The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to '" ', '• . come and go as you please. DRE.Members. Staff: • • Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice—Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner �;N Robert H.Foster Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner +' • Ginger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Martha F.Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner F Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney •' ' ' Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary 1 Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • , 1 • • • • • . r 1 *' p ♦ .t I i . p n w ' 1 yI 4' y i WI<E -Js '.' .. • , ...,, „ , , • . 7 4 ti. Gr)EC..N j d` =.R__ 1 )i i' \I: i \IE•\ I"0I• I'I..\\\I\,c ; .\\ta I)E\'Et ( ,I1• ;c , YI. MEMORANDUM TO: Development Re' ',,:v Board FROM: Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner -yam• : =i; +' SUBJECT: DR 16-92; Blockbuster Video Application , ' .• " TM: 2 1E 5BC TL; 4300 ' DATE: March 3, 1993 '1 1 • _. t^ ' "M: `• The applicants for the above referenced application have requested that the continued hearing ; before the Development Review Board be continued until May 17, 1993, to allow time to resolve -' 0 issues of two—way access to the rear road. • / . r • G • ;r' •+ r • r '. rG , 1: ' p ...fir �I.• L • a• • ' •1•4�� •� fit'`` •, •*N I •• 1 1+ vla ,t '1 • • • fit.' "� . ••{ , ..•- ♦ s• •- ., .. • V.'. t ; ,• i1 1; . 4' ' i '' ` �, •'�^ r i ` } fry , •i ,r 'd, ' MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board '' ' FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Addendum to January 8, 1993 Staff Report; .,,, SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 DATE: March 3, 1993 1i • On January 20,. 1993 the Development Review Board approved a motion to continue the public hearing opened on that date until March 15, 1993. That continuance was granted to enable the ' applicant to explore an alternative Future Streets Plan (FSP) proposal suggested by opponents, and to work with staff to determine whether the alternative complied with relevant Plan policies, '' ' regulations and development standards. The applicant met with staff members on February 9, 1993 to present the alternative. Staff evaluated this alternative and held a second meeting with the applicant and some of the opponents to explain the results of the evaluation, which are summarized below. • Qsi,ginal Proposal &FSP ,•, ....•'.'_ The applicant's proposed two—parcel partition required: • • 4.W, , • Protection of a distinctive natural area located on the site; and • • A variance to the Access Development Standard because the site has no frontage on a public street; and 4'' • A Future Streets Plan linking the site's Wells Street private access to Chapin Way (nearby to the south) in order to provide fire protection from a hydrant within 1,000 feet and to r '`4 `' ''',' assure that the partition would not preclude the future development of other larger parcels ,`' , , in the area. • - The applicant's FSP suggested continuing the use of Wells Street's existing intersection with Hwy. 43 (See Exhibit 53). Rc r,. ;nts of the neighborhood, while not objecting to the partitioning, raised concerns about the FS; particularly; Y . SD 19Y92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 1 of 9 , • ^ N , . • • Pedestrian and child safety within their neighborhood. • t : ,. 0 '' " r • The use of the proposed street connection as a cut-through route for people attempting to avoid traffic pressures experienced on Hwy.43. • • Additional traffic generated through the existing neighborhood by new dwellings '.�`• anticipated in the FSP area. • _ o Impact of the proposed extension of Chapin Way upon existing improvements and plantings on Tax Lot 600 (Lasley). The validity of a future street easement conveyed to the City across Tax Lot 600. Recommended Modification FSP • • " . Staff reviewed the original proposal in its report dated January 8, 1993 and,concluded that the applicant's proposal did not comply with all relevant Plan policies,particularly Transportation •Policies intended to facilitate emergency vehicle access, reduce the impacts of vehicle speed, • , i • through traffic and the inconvenience of vehicles using the driveways to turn around. , ' Indirectly, these policies also address traffic and pedestrian safety, neighborhood character and the environment. On January 20, 1993, staff recommended that the FSP be modified to ° ,' �`'>,: eliminate the Wells Street intersection with Hwy. 43, to allow the extension of Chapin Way to •Wells Street, and to terminate Wells Street with cul-de-sac turnarounds at the cast and west ends �` `� (See Exhibit 54). Staff determined that such a modified FSP configuration would: •• 0 • ,1 ,. ; • Allow Wells Street/Chapin Way to adequately function as a local street serving up to 38 dwellings, with fewer than the 1,200 vehicle trips per day (average), within the �' , appropriate range for this street classification. : .. • Ultimately eliminate the potential for a through traffic loop from the intersection of Cherry Lane, Chapin Way and Wells Street, ending at the intersection of Wells Street at Hwy. 43. • Enable efficient future development of the area currently served by Wells Street at a ` density and level of urban service anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Future development would abut public streets as required by the Plan and the Access Standard. • Provide fire protection to the area north of Chapin Way from a hydrant located at the ' ' intersection of Chapin Way and Morning Sky Court, .'•,. r On January 20, 1993 opponents of both the applicant's original proposal and the recommended , � ' . modification reached a tentative agreement to submit another alternative. The details of this , ' alternative were not disclosed to the Development Review Board or staff on that date, but were ' presented to staff by the applicant on February 9, 1993 (See Exhibit 55). Opponents' Alternati e FSP i r The opponents' alternative proposes to provide access to the applicant and three parcels whose • creation is anticipated by the owner of Tax Lot 700(one dwelling currently exists; two new dwellings would be added) in a private access easement traveling north from the current ' ' �, northerly terminus of Chapin Way, The proposed easement would be designed to avoid existing 4 . . . • plantings and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600. This design would include a centerline L radius of approximately 65 feet, rather than the minimum 100 feet required by LOC 44.385(c). • SD 19-92`VAR 18-92 Addendum , • Page 2 of 9 • z. • ,], The private easement would tray,1 across portions of Tax Lot 600,700 and utilize a portion of the existing access easement on Tax Lot 800 (known as Wells Street). Only four parcels would ultimately be served by this proposal; the applicants' and three future - • parcels created from Tax Lot 700. All other underdeveloped parcels would continue to take °''" access from Wells Street(two dwellings other than applicant),O'Brien Street (one vacant *..' parcel),Gans Road(one dwelling),and Lund Street (one dwelling). `,:',•'' .,. 'a This alternative would not comply with Plan policies and regulations regarding public safety ;':'i: because the proposal lacks emergency vehicle turnarounds on either the private easement(west) `•..'': `�' or Wells Street(east). Also, the proposal would not assure the provision of public services, ` particularly public street access, to the site or to underdeveloped properties within 250 feet of the site, as required by LOC 49.120. On February 9, and again on February 18, 1993 staff suggested consideration of a fourth • alternative (See Exhibit 56). The response to the suggestion was neutral to supportive. '• f Alternative FSF The fourth alternative suggests that an offset cul-de-sac turnaround be designed directly north of the current terminus to Chapin Way. The offset(westerly) design is intended to preset ve the �... trees and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600 which, have been the object of that owner's �'` concern, and yet provide an emergency vehicle turnaround as required by the Code. Also, Wells Street would be designed as a 40-50 ft.-wide right-of-way with a cul-de-sac at the west end to ` enable access to all parcels capable of future development. This alternative would: .' ' • • Formalize the northern terminus of Chapin Way, giving certainty to neighborhood that no additional traffic will be generated on Chapin Way by the area north of the current , terminus of Chapin Way. . . ; • Assure the development potential of the Wells Street area, • Utilize an existing access road rather than create a new one. _ ` • Require the ultimate dedication of Wells Street and Chapin Way cul-de-sac to public for future street purposes. • : a Require an access permit from ODOT for the increased use and improvement of Wells • Street and its intersection with Hwy. 43. ''' ' • Require a concurrent variance to LODS 14,025(8) for the applicant's partition because the • .. new parcel (south) would be more than 1,000 ft. from a fire hydrant. • Require a concurrent variance to LOC 44,390 to enable Chapin Way to exceed 1,000 ft. in length. . • Require improvement of Wells Street to a minimum width of 20 feet for use as a fire .' emergency access road. • Require relocation of surface drainage generally along the existing route of Wells Street, .4 This relocation would include design of the new location, acquisition of required drainage • easements, and construction of the improvements. • Require installation of a rated residential fire suppression sprinkler system in the future ` dwelling on Parcel 2. •Y SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum :. Page 3 of 9 ' `�® , �. M.' • development standards prior to approval. An evaluation of the applicable variance criteria will be found • later in this memorandum. Members of city staff have provided two additional exhibits: A memorandum by Xavier Falconi, , . Transportation Services Engineer regarding the recommended modification (Exhibit 51); and a • • memorandum by Russ Chevrette,Engineering Technician regarding the history of FSP consideration by earlier hearing bodies (Exhibit 52). Now,to amend the original staff report,dated January 8, 1993,add the following: • I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST • Change "minor partition" to "major partition." Also, the applicant is seeking approval of an approximately 800 ft. Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 ft. The propose3 modification to the FSP would extend Chapin Way/Wells Street to approximately 1,800 ft. in order to terminate access to Hwy.43 in the future. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: "" Residential Site Design Policies General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3• Y; Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 • . D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS): •. ,y •._ T1ii-All major development 6.020(1)(b) Park and Open Spa -All major develnr;Went 8.020(1) Landscaping. Screening, and Buffering-All major development 9.020(4) Drainage Standard for Major Developments-All major development 11.020(1),(2),(3),(5) • • Site Circulation Standards-Driveways and Private Streets -All major development • 19.020(1),(2)19.025(1)-(19) Site Circulation Stan da_rds -Bikeways, an Wa kways-All major development 20.020(1),(2),(3),(4) • SD 19-92`VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 5 of 9 f L a:. l • . , Evaluation of Alternatives :`;,,:.:• 40 In the review of all of the FSP alternatives, staff identified the following objectives which should be • ; ': ' addressed. 1.` • Preservation of trees and groves. .'. "5'•,...•' • Preservation of stream corridors. • Reduction of traffic impacts on adjacent areas. , • Provision of adequate utility service and drainage. • Street design which provides for safety and speed control. ' • Restriction of direct access to major streets if access to other public streets is available. ,r'. ' • • Maintenance of existing quite residential streets. • Provision of access to abutting land for development. ,., 4 1. % 1- • Provision of emergency services accessibility. • Right—of-way dedication as a condition of development and future; improvement of streets when • ` :, demand requires. , .,' • Diversion of through—traffic away from neighborhood streets, .; The City has a responsibility to plan for all of the functions noted above ..... .. , This application requires ` particular care in the design of a FSP to achieve the latter four objectives. The City has a responsibility to acknowledge proposals which plan for the most efficient and safe FSP alternative that also protects • ' the natural environment and residential neighborhood. • • The recommended alternative and the four alternative FSP's achieve all of these objectives, provided ` ;`�•, ,•, additional conditions are met. The applicant's original proposal does not achieve all of these,objectives because it would encourage higher traffic volumes due to the loop resulting from connection of Wells ',` •`' . Street/Chapin Way/Cherry Lane to two locations on Hwy 43, The opponents' alternative FSP proposal : . does not achieve all of these objectives because it would not adequately serve all future development in " '• the area north of the current terminus of Chapin Way, and does not provide emergency vehicle turnarounds. , ' . , Modification of Application • The applicant has upgraded the proposal to that of a major partition because it involves the widening of ' an existing future street easement. Though this easement is not being created as a part of this application (since it already exists;Exhibit 19), it-,vas felt that it should be processed as a major partition to avoid any procedural errors, The applicant has provided an addendum (Exhibit 50) to the f ` original narrative in which the development standards applicable toga major partition (major . ' development) are discussed. These requirements will be evaluated later in this memorandum, . Also, the applicant has applied for an additional Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits the length of a dead end street or cul—de—sac to 1,000 ft. (Exhibit 50). This additional request is in response to . staff's recommended modification to the FSP and LOC 49.120 which requires compliance with all 0 SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum , Page 4 of 9 �� A , i , . • r. • l: FINDINGS E. Compliance with Criteria for Approval,;, i 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established • *.• that the proposal conforms to: • • b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Development Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) . • The applicant has upgraded the application from minor partition to major partition. With the exception of a required public hearing for a major partition (major development), the Development Code requirements are generally the same for minor or major partitions. • ;' Six additional development standards are applicable to a major development. These standards will be reviewed later in this memorandum. The applicant has submitted an additional variance request i VAR 18-92(b)1 to exceed the • maximum 1,000 ft. length of a cul—de—sac [LOC 44"3901. As per LOC 510(1), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class I variance: • a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; ;, The applicant notes that because on Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) access permit for Wells Street to intersect Hwy. 43 does not exist, properties adjacent 40 Wells Street are not further developable without extension of Chapin Way to the north, The applicant identifies the physical improvements needed for Wells Street to meet City and ODOT requirements, yet concludes that a hardship exists due to the present ownership of Wells Street(Tax Lot 800), its width, and the need for an additional drainage easement to be acquired. . b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; • The applicant notes that an overall increase of 16 dwelling units, resulting in approximately 380 vehicle trips per day(average), would not be injurious to the ` neighborhood. The applicant further notes that this total traffic volume is approximately 25 percent of the number allowed on local streets as identified in a recent transportation study. The volume is approximately 32 percent of the volume of 1,200 vehicle trips currently identified in the Transportation Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. • • The applicant identifies that the recommended alternative Future Streets Plan requires that cul—de—sacs be located at the east and west ends of Wells Street, once it is connected to Chapin Way, and that, because of the current condition of the road and its authority to access Hwy. 43, the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship, • in order to make reasonable use of the applicant's property, and other underdeveloped e property in the vicinity. SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum • • Page 6 of 9 . . 1 ' ,�..; d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. r, •'' 0 The applicant notes that an evaluation of applicable Plan policies occurs in the original narrative (Exhibit 2). The recommended modification to the FSP, which prompts the need for this variance, does comply with the Plan policies regarding Transportation, ' Quiet Environment,Distinctive Natural Area, Stream Crynidors and Residential Site �'` ;'` }' Design [See Discussion of the four alternative FSP's earlier in this memorandum]. • c. The applicable Development Standards - Transit(6.005—6,040) This standard requires major development to provide transit facilities based upon an • analysis of existing facilities and the site's proximity to bus routes. Tri—Met Route ,,,,. ' Number 35 travels on Hwy. 43, but there are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site , which must be extended as a part of this application. The standard is therefore met by the proposal. Park and Open Space (8.005 —8.0401 This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space equal to �. at least 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. The site's 42,512 sq. ft. "_. requires 8,502 sq. ft. in open space. The applicant proposes to comply with this standard by establishing a conservation easement to protect the distinctive natural area and stream corridor associated with the site, an area of approximately 20,000 sq. ft. or 44 percent of the site. The standard is satisfied by this protection. .. Landscaping. Screening and Buffering(9.005—9,040) This standard requires all development abutting streets to provide street trees at the proper spacing for the species. The applicant indicates that street trees will be planted ` 1 along Wells Street. The species or spacing was not specified at this time. This ' • , demonstration may be appropriately deferred until application for a building permit for . Parcel 2 is sought. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Drainage Standard for Maior Develovment (11.005— 11.04(1) ,,,., This standard requires that drainage alterations not adversely affect other properties. The . ,. applicant identifies that construction of the proposed Chapin Way extension and • driveway to the site will include drainage improvements to direct a portion of an existing .R' ditch to the stream corridor to the north. Review of the design of this improvement will be required as a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action, g • • ,: if approved. Site Circulation Standards —Driveways and_Private Streets (19.005 — 19,040) ' ' This standard requires that the minimum width of a two—way street be 20 feet, with a • • ' turnaround designed if the street is longer than 300 feet. The maximum driveway grade for a single—family home is 20 percent with a maximum cross—slope of 5 percent. The applicant notes that impros ements to Chapin Way and Wells Street (west of its i. .,.. . ipntersection with Chapin Way) will be 20 feet in width. A turnaround is proposed at the west and east ends of Wells Street, but will be constructed as development demands and .... . . . SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum •• Page 7 of 9 , u y r . - 1H n• , a M• is abutting each proposed terminus. The grade of proposed Parcel 2 is approximately eight percent and will enable compliance with the standard. ' Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways and Walkways (20d1Q5-20,040) 0 This standard requires oikeways and walkways to tie to public streets. While the ' Comprehensive Plan and the Pathways Master Pan specify the location of future and existing pathways, neither Chapin Way (north of Chapin Road) nor Wells Street are among them. Highway 43 is the route of an existing pathway. "; F. Conclusion: . _ • rI Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant(Exhibit?,2 and 50), staff concludes that provided the proposed Future Streets Plan is modified to comply with applicable : '' Comprehensive Plan policies, the applicant's requested variance [VAR 18-92(b)] would satisfy all applicable criteria. The applicant's original variance [VAR 18-92(a)] was • found to satisfy the criteria under the same conditions. Staff also concludes that the proposal can comply with all applicable development standards through the imposition of certain conditions. III. RECOMMENDATION • Provided the modifications noted in the conclusions in the original staff report (dated January ; 8, 1993) are made to the proposal, staff recommends approval of the proposed major partition [SD 19-92], Class I variance to the Access Standard [VAR 18-92(a)J and Class I variance to 4. . " . .,'. LOC 44.390 regarding cul-de-sac length. Staff also recommends approval of the modified Future Streets Plan discussed in the January 8, 1993 staff report and further reviewed in this memorandum, Those approved applications and the modified Future Streets Plan shall be 0 subject to the following added or amended conditions [Note: added text is in italics]: `' 1, The applicant shall design to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, a storm ,; drainage system along the east property line of the site from Wells Street north to the .:•. stream corridor channel. This design shall comply with the provisions of the Drainage ' ` Standard for Minor Development (LODS 12.005 - 12,040) and Hillside (LODS 16.005- a. ' 16.040), This design shall be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval, 4 , 3. [Delete entire condition due to the addition of VAR 18-92(b), Remaining conditions not •; renumbered.] ' 14, The applicant shall install three street trees along the frontage of parcel 2 on Webs `, .. Street, These trees shall be installed at 40 feet on center and comply with condition - .! number 7 above. EXHIBITS . ' [Note: The following exhibits have been received since the public hearing was opened on January 20, 1993.] 44, Letter to G. Hunt, ODOT from L. & E. Harriman requesting access permit; dated October 21, 1992 45, Letter to L, Harriman from G. Hunt, ODOT, regarding access permit • 46. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 734, Division 50, regarding approach roads • is SD 19-.921VAR 18-92 Addendum , • Page 8 of 9 . • 47. Request for continuance by E. Sullivan,attorney,dated January 20, 1993 48. Letter from M. &R. McCrain,dated January 16, 1993 49. Letter from E.J. Sullivan,attorney dated January 22, 1993 50. Addendum to applicant's narrative,dated February 22, 1993 51. Memorandum from X. Falcon,Transportation Services Engineer, dated February 25, 1993 52. Memorandum from R. Chevrette,Engineering Technician; dated February 25, 1993 53. Map: Original proposal (prepared by staff) 54. Map: Recommended modification (prepared by staff) 55. Map: Opponents' alternative (prepared by staff) 56. Map:Fourth alternative(prepared by staff) " . 57. Letter from A. &B. Banach,dated February 26, 1993 u. 58. Memorandum from J. Condit, City Attorney; dated March 1, 1993 59. Letter from R. &J.Hinzdel,dated March 2, 1993 • • • fa • SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum • Page 9 of 9 �r a • . . • '' , • • I• 0 • 0 • 0 r .. . . • . . . ' r • .M ' - . 0 , . ' .I • • • • lMIMI , . . . ilIlI'A } -.... • SAN-06-'95 16:40 ID:DISTRICT 2A HWY DI'.) T[rL N0 s 5032976056 „— !!74 pet .r Leland Harriman P .O. Box 562 " Lake Oswego, OR, 97034 Gary Hunt Oregon Dept. of Transportation P .O . Box 25412 .. Portland, OR. 97225 October 20, 1992 Dear Mr Hunt, , I am the legal owner of Wells Street ('Pax lot#800) which accesses tax lots 200, 700, 900, and the south side of 1,000. Per your conversation with Dina McNally, I am requesting •r an access permit for a road oonneotion to the State highway which will subsequently be improved per your zspeoi£ioations by the McNallys , Phase remit the permit to me by October 31st for use in the McNally 's application for a minor partition on Tax lot 1,000 . Your prompt reply on this issue would be most appreciated . ' Sincerely, e ��e , 2/I 19 c z-- r, . . Xiiit-xm4"4-4o; Leland Harriman . ! f.. ."-e--e-?-21.-)42.4.--re--$4.1 .rlll�.li 6 „,I.., t EXHIBIT _ `. ..�..wr.0 6....•.a.*,�... ..........• C.) DISTRICT 2A E3 •,, • 0104 aoma , .M 1 OCT 2 21992 C3 , C.: '`l3 t2 .. J . HcA Tit gp:,o -I. ; • , . , .,,,, • • f • ,-„,.,„.,..', ,"••,; ••••.•,.„...-• •, .';,..-,••..,•.•„.. ,..•. . ..y.. .,.;;.,i,z`,„.."' ... .•••...,...•2:i. •.;•'.. . ''.:''..,•••• ,,,,.-1',' -*:.'...,.:-.. . „ ...-:•,-. •.?.. ••.:. ,-,,.•• ,,••• -„.., • •.._ . •., . , •, .. -. - . . •.;.: i • 1- ', .. • '.".' ..".•:'': '.•'.. . . . • ..• . .• _ .^ .. • „.. .. ... . ,;..'.. . ••!. '',01'. . 0 • ' ) . , • •..... - , . • , .. . .. . . • . • . . . . • . . . •,.. . ,... ' ' •..• _ . . , . •, • .' ''': ' .: . ., L' ', ,I.' ...: . ',..••..'"'" ' '*,..„,1„; • . , • • k.:••••-.' ;. '..•...•',.:, :;:..-. .„ •... . • • , . . 0 . . ,. . . . . •. ,. . .... • .. :.. . . •••••.. .. ..-:-:•.• '.••11' ' : .,' , '••• - , ..,... , • 1.. *,• •-. . '.': . '• • • •. . ., . , , .• " '" • .. . . ., „ , • . . . „. . , • . ... • , _ _. • . •.. , .._ ,, .., „ . . . , . . , . .. . .. . • • ^.' ,, . .. • . • . . • : • . . • • • .. , . .. ... • .' . . • . , , . . • '1 0 . •• .- •• , . .. . . .., .. • . , . / „ • '.• .,',„. .. . • . , . •. - . . . • -, . ' . .. . • • . . . • •. . . • • • . I , • . . ,•• , • • • ' , . ' , A, . , ,. . .. •, , . • . • .t • ' • .. . ,. • . • . . . • . .• 1 • • • • • I• fib .47 .. L" . ,' , • .. ,. ,_. •`i . • JAN-)6-'93 16:38 ID:DISTRICT 2A HWY DIU TEL NO:5032976058 ts974 P01 r. ,,. .:11 . ,. .en . ..:, . . , . . . , . P''...%, .., AO oet•it"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I of mos► # 9{{i.n F•xM -.1r 7.. f, t'� DEPARTMENT OP '),I.tS 2. q�1? TRANSPORTATION ' 1t October 23, 1992 r,. ,.' ` HIGHWAY DIVISION District 2A r' ts•latnrenance Supervtaor • v ' It • LELAND HARRIMAN PILE COOS PO BOX 562 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 Attached is/are your application(s) for Approach Road Permt.k The application(s) must be signed by the owner or contract purchaser and a local government .;T official. Please obtain the appropriate signatures and return the application along with the items checked below for further processing. Administrative Fee Amount $ 50.00 n/a Inspection Fets Amount $ .. , • Certificate of Insurance (of the contractor who will be performing the work). h , •' nJ Permit Performance bond Amount $ .. , n.La Advance deposit of$ , striping costs. •, /•' Please keep in mind that this does not constitute an approved permit, An approved permit will only be issued after receipt of the signed application(s) and completed forms. . If you have any further questions or wish to discuss any provisions of the permit, please feel • free to contact this office, + ii EXHIBIT Sincerely, 41111 Zelikt I Permit Inspector ..z ' „ 1'4* it. .![•11w . • • Portland,Olt 9.:%V. .1 t.: 1,.' ' ► JAN-06—'93 16:39 I D:DISTRICT 2A HWY D I U TEL NO:5O32976058 4974 P62 • 4 ,« APPLICATION AND PERMIT TO •,,,::— . ., _ _ CONSTRUCT APPROACH ROAD PERMIT NUMBER Q. e'alloA'` HIGHWAY DIVISION, NIO$WAY rime MI EPbINT' .. ENGINE AS STATION . OSWEGO 6.98 230+73 '1 '• HIQ►1WAYNUMICR COUNTY SIN OF HIGHWAY APPROACH TOSERVE ❑ NORTH ❑ EAST 3 Clackamas ❑ SOUTH )0 NrEpT Residences/ WELLS STRRE; ' DETWEcN OR NEAR LANDMARKS HIGHWAY REFERENCE MAP AND ATTACHdo DRAWING NUMBERS a' • i. Laur/j its rat AND Cherry Lane 4B-5-1 / Tlix Lot '+?LPN APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS B RE OND oU se AM0UNTOM e0N0 REFERENCE ❑YES Xx NO OAR 734'60'025 0! $ • INSURANCE REQUIRED Aq3 AOMINISTRATTE FEE la YES 0 NO O7"002pS) 0 TEMPORARY DEPp$IT LELAND HARRIMAN AMOUNT CHECK NUMOfiR `•.;:;' PO BOX 562 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 DISTRICT MAINTENANCESUPERVIfoft I DATE COMPLETE v APPLICATION RECEIVED ' .-rt REGION eNGINEOq I DATE X UTILITYPERMITSUPERViSOR I APPROVAL DATE •. x .fPPI tcAwT 11�pPL1CATION DATE APPFIOACH nOAD COMPLETION OATS: X REFERENCE.OAR70AS6060f4i Mall 1. 1993 TAe epoiIcent dictates mat helsho is the owner or toeae of the real property agolnwg the aooVe aaalbed highway and hie the lawful Authority to Apply lot mla permit.Whin Mit lip. Y ;..; pbcaloOn Is aooroved by the Decenm. t of Transporteeon.INe applicant itsubieet a the tetma and prows;.ne eontnlne Wmt heroin and anaanad Webs,and the of Oregqon Ad- . mtnlorathM nWe,cam.734,Ohfegn 60,vinicn is by t se relerenvs made a Dart of this permit.Codes of the Rule may be obtained from the mend Mpinfenanoa Supavlaa•,of ic.. ;' issuing of bantam urnder these regulations Is not a fmdrnq of compaanoe wan to.slalewide planning pale or the acnnowledged oomorehencWo pen for the area.Formes are issued euW Er to the approval of city,C lo ounty or cow governments/comae*Having either joint suoervlslon oval me section of highway or autho'Ily to regulate lane use by moan of toning and/or p, • „ acting regulation,.II Pail by the applicant a reeDonaa•cy to obtain any Burn approval Including,where applCable,local government e W pl atennatan or comaned w,th Ind peMnmggoiie,tOAR73140.0 51 d emtewl ,;:•i. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1—If the proposed application requires traffic control devices and/or special road construction,the applicant shall provide a copy of this application to the effected local government.The ongtnel application must be signed by the local government official, �� LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SIGNATURE (Tlfl. ,, i DATE x I .' 2—The applicant or his contractor shall notify me District Maintenance Supervisor's office at least AA hours In advance of commanclnq Wok end • • ' atter completing the work covered by this permit.(OAR 734.60-040)701ephon0 Number: k; • 3- This access shall serve tax lots 800, 200, 700, 900 and 1000. 4- Applicant shall submit a recorded cross-over easement for the adjacent property to the .� , south, In the event the adjacent property re-develops, one common access will shared to serve both parcels. •• '•' " ` 5- Applicant shall complete a non-remonstrance agreement with the City of Lake Oswego for future improvements on Wells Street. ' 6-Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 450' of eight distance in both directions. ~,N ' . 7- See attached General Provisions, , TYPE 2 APPROACH ROAD — PAVED I NOTE:All malarial and workmanship shell be In accordance with the cur. rent Stall of Oregon Stendrr0 Spoclficetion for HlgnWay Construction, R/W LIN. W W 20' IR.h• 15' R,- 15' A- 90° ." 100, 20 I De- 6 i Oruw4.0 I . . /: . .) f CULVERTP1PERECUIREDT Ditch LIn Q`a, DR/Ty K1 YES ❑ NO Od Culy. pipe �' I TYPE , Concrete Or CMP ' j �•E d g s of w v m t. OIAMETEN(INCHES) LENGTH IrCETI .. ^+� Match Existing I2' (back-fill �;ap, \I Op STONE BASE 912E ANO TYPE COMPAC!EO THICKNESS nN ' In-0 8" C;oU" H W f. ` SIZE ANO Tv" PACTEO THICKNfi58 t'NCI,E3l —" - — IDOURSE STONE LEVELINtJ /4f1-Q 2" 4 PLAN ASPHALTIC CLASS COMPACTED tHICKNESS IINCHE91 ICONCPETE �.�,� .�,°. ,i PAVEMENT. S o r C 4" (two ;i f t s) . __ __. _w, ,. ` ` i• x . . • GENERAL, PROV)1tONS FOR ROAD ,ArlaQACH . APPLICANT Leland Harriman , I-IIGHWAY 3 M.P. 6.98 F 4'• ti _ X 1) The work area during any construction or maintenance performed under the permit provisions shalt be •`'';•'' t' protected in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Higtlways, r, US Department of Transportation,and the Oregon Department of Transportation Supplements thereto. "':'` •�, Contractor shall maintain all existing Traffic Control Devices during construction, then re-install +' permanently per MUTCD standards and District Office specifications. Flaggers must have a card or ;,;,'• certificate indicating their completion of an approved work zone traffic control course. .. r',` �.• _____-2) Ali construction operations will be performed off limits of the highway travel way. ., 3) The access control fence must be maintained during construction and restored to its original or better condition after construction is complete. ' X 4) No work will be permitted on the roadway during the hours of darkness, nor between 6:00 am to 9:00 Am, • or between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. • a 5) On site storm drainage shall be controlled within the applicant's property, No blind connections to existing - state facilities. X_6) Permittee to verify all utility locations for relocation prior to construction,should any be in conflict with � .. -,..„, , i) the proposed construction, X 7) The spreading of mud or debris upon any State highway is strictly prohibited and violation shall be cause ' v -• 4 for immediate cancellation of the permit. Clean-up shall be at applicant's expense. a) Applicant will install and maintain landscaped areas as shown o the attached drawings. Planting shall be limited to low growing shrubs,grass,or flowers that do not attain sufficient height to obstruct clear vision in any direction. The Commission or Engineer shall have the right to remove said landscaping at any time . such removal may appear to the Commission or Engineer to be in the public interest,without liability for ' loss, injury, or damage of any nature whatsoever. -,.'�4. X 9) The permittee shall not use the right-of-way to display advertising signs or merchandise of any kind. • X 10) Grade and pave the highway shoulder and approaches with (___II )of 1 1/2" •0, 2"of 3/4" • 0,and - A 4" of AC placed in two lifts, �„ I t) This Is a temporary permit and will automatically expire on ( ), 12) Permit inspection fees are estimates to be (Order to Render Service). A deposit of this amount with the District office at 2131 SW Scholis Ferry Road, Portland, will be required prior to the start of construction, Charts will be made on an actual cost basis, 13) A copy of this permit and all attachments shall be available at the work area, • Applicant's initials f.. r M ♦ li , • f, - f 9� _ .• f1 j.l �ae. •t c • • • • • • • s • • 41 " - -• a • r •'i + ,,f a .' b a� ` 1 •�' y, A .. - -----.--JAN-nF-' a }E:s0 I D D I'3TR i+cT A NWY DI V TEL NO:5032976058 49 g97 . . 4 Pr?4 �q',• _ `' : EXHIBIT .L.0 t)1tl,t;tns AltNltS1N't'1:.s'Yit7"a:l i CI! ti'i t'It ;,t), ltl�'ist<)�St1,..1tu.iI\% ti', ilia t.It,.; - ,3? lq'ci -413-`tom= f ; i)t\'lSflip!xtO t:4lt,llli CI 1,;I.i�a..IJ P,I Ill.....HI. 11.11 ...I,1, '> '' (2) 1'u f.1e'11ttiltl: ails re:Vigw, ,Applicant Shall place m.ntwo. /much a.: lath Of a;rl:cs at the right of way line where tt intersects ' '', IliCil yAY APPitOACII.ROAD-St ppptlr.ant's property' lima, and the center line of the proposed ' `° ''\ q.CROS'S1NCS.ACCESS Cd1` MOLAN,Cr approach road and furnish the District Engineer the approxi• .• . : •WEuantitCStIt!CTIONS mate distance in feet from each property line to the approach .u'weanr+a1.•fuamJ d road center tine. If this distance Is in excess of 300 feet, Approach Roads and Private Road marking of the property line may be omitted, ys Cru.ant:; Upon State Private (•1 No pet nut is .alit) until a copy, approved by the linfint•J:r, ht been furnished the ., phc:Int. Nu work on `` highu.my right of way is to be staricd until the applicant ot)iainS Scope a valid permit. •t :✓ 734.SO-005 This rutc shall apply to and govern the location, (4)An administrative processing fee of SSO is required for .1 t r'. " ^ construction. maintenance. and use of approach roads end ,each permit and must accompany the permit upplicahon.The private road crossings upon state highway nghts of way and :cdmintstrative processing fee of $50 will not be refunded properities under the jurisdiction of the Department of subsequent to the issuance of a permit. Transportation. 1 (5)The district engineer may waive the fee provided for in °*g.` ... "i \: Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch.374 section (4X ctt,this rule if the applicant is a state agency, city. ,, ' `� Hie 1 OTC 20-t950,f.b•cf.10"7Z-60 county or.ot `r public body. . , (6) t rmit fee shall be charged where the approach Definitions road is'constiueted of reconsiruetcd by the Division or us 734.50-0t0 As used herein, unless the context requires contractor as a part of a road Improvement or construction • otherwise: project:i.i 1 (I) '"Applicant" means the person, firm or corporation , z N !x 'Slat,AUtk ORS Ch.374 • • having the legal right to apply fora permit. Such legal right is War rLgTC 43,f. 11.26-74.of, 12.1.74:1 OTC 20.1980,I.&cf. ` ?I vested only in the owner or lessee of the property abutting the - ,-,q t0- 2-50:21-ID 13.1481,f &cf. 10.2431 highway or the holder of an easement or similar right to ' :t'A construct and use a far:1112ay Upon the abutting properly: ''s ' ' providing the Division has not acquired the tights of access Atlexaltoit.og, oats from property. 734-•Sir-02 (i) The entire expense of constructing the facility shalt 'borne by thlicant This shall include the • (2) ."Approach road" means a roadw,:,�, or driveway .. orne e app, ' connection between the outside edge of the shoulder or curb cast of,;ai 'fnaterials, labor, signing, signals, structures. N.; line and the tight of way fine of the highway; Intended to equipmezt� tic channeliz ttion and other permit require • , • +' • provide vehicular access to and from said highway and the menu. : ` (2) f any Items,or portion thereof,described under adjoining _.r property,(3), "Commission" means the Oregon Transportation nsportation s4ction.irei:' this rule may become the responsibility of the • ,~. 41r' Commission. Divisia ed they area part of the terms and conditions (4) "Department" means the Department of Transport*- of a y acquisition obligation or ether contractual lion of the Sta:e of Oregon. I , aerccr (S) "District engineer" trar-ans the engineer in charge of (3)vie cnt rlt:oonstnsctlon or widening of any highway each of the 16 Highway Districts thm ghoul the State,or his requit tr•,tfa ` movat,alteration or nuconstructian of a facility , designated representative. eon cr authority of a permit or constructed prior to • ' (6) "Division" means the Highway Division of the August ., 7e the cost of such t emotml or replacement to a • •_• Department of Transportation. like width condition will be borne by the Division. Any • (7)"Engineer"means the State Highway Engineer or such widening r improvement of the facility at the applicant's person as he shall designate In writing. • request sht►tcj, done only under authority of a new permit and , • either,tl) "Facility" means an approach road or private at the expcsi of the applicant, road crossing. (4)11loc t of mar tcnancb of the approach road from the (9) "Permit"means a fully executed form-entitled"State - outside cciTACAC the highway ahottlder or curb One to the right of of Oregon, Department of Transportation. Highway Division. Way linos!naptr a the responsibility of the applicant,The coat of �.: application or permit to construct approach road or private maintettaricq ,a private read crossing within the right of way road crossing", all special permit provisions Included In the shalt be th" pousibility of the applicant. • , permit rut deemed accessary by the District Engineer and All srw g r_ ORS •Cba 374 . • attached exhihlts. Rutz. C 43.t, 11.26.74,ct.12•t•7411 OTC 20.19t O,I.&et. • (10)"Priv'ate road crossirng"means the crossing of a state v .40 • • highway by a privately atoned road which is designed for use by vehicles which are prohibited by law from using state l Uabtit tmtarol highways.county roads.or other public highways, . - (11) "Right of way" means the entire width between the 7 (1)'flne applicant shall be responsible and liable exterior right of way lines including tax paved surface. for all a or injury to any person or properly resulting - from the ruction,maintenance,repair,operation or use of shoulders, ditches pad other drainage facilities In the border the taoility'C which the applfe:ant has been granted a permit ° • ' area between the ditches or curbs and the right of way line, and for,gwhi' the applicant may be legally liable, and the Stat.Auth.t ORS 01,374 applicant',l.SEI 1 indemnify and hold harmless the State of Itttttt t OTC 43,f. t t-2A-74.ef. 12.t-74t t OTC201900,f,A ef. Oregon, the; mmission, the Department, and all offieere, t0-2240 ,employees or agents of the Department against any and all .• • ' 1 damages,'ctai s,demands.+lotions,causes of action,costa and ' Permit Application Procedure expenses of 1/4tritsoever nature which they or any of them may , I . 7;u-50.01$ Application shalt be: made on the form de- sustain.by.re sans of the act!, conduct or operation of the •• scribed under rule 734-SO.010(9), to the approptinte District applicant tt' agents or employees in connection with the 1F�� ` • k 1-Div.3n ,it t (Nnvemh',.•r, 1942) .• � ,i�,, , - , • , , rtat l-015-'973 .1 f,:a 1 I D:DISTRICT :A HWY DIV TEL ' 5032976058 a974 P05 • r • t 11ki.;1 ltil,l tl;\•t'.irl\ ;.0 . IilI,lltV,^tI.f I' I.11• •11. onstruetion, tit:iiiiien:tiiee, repair, pt'eration or u,c of satin (u+ther:Ince Ork, ray bit,ilia'. tran�:ic2iOn 0r commercial fruity, est.iblishiucnt;';u n male hit;hw,,y right of way is Strictly (2) The applicant shall be responsible for relocating or prohibited. 1';,;; :^.T djusting any utilities located oft highway right of way as (10)The ippl ••ant shall be solely responsible for providing equired to accor'nmodatc the facility applied for,Construction correct and cam etc information as may be required by the -`: f C the facility by the applicant, his agent or Contractor, will be permit form or t District Engineer. If the District Engineer ' ' : assisted only after the applicant has furnished the District should determine hat any fact required of the applicant which ' " •., ••r r sneer evidence that satisfactory arrangements for said i, ' � Y 6 malarial to'tl'I assessment of tar, facility's impact upon • .. clocation or Adjustment have been made with the owner of the traffic safety,; cnir•,ncc and/or the legal or property nphta !tectcd utility facility, of any person(in' uding the State of Oregon)is false,incorrect (3)�1r1)en requested in wiling by flit District Irn;,ineer,(tattle or omitted, the is iict Engineer may dcny or revoke the 7 h�ttt or his contractor shall during the riod that an permit and may i 'uice the applicant to remove the facilityand pproach road is being constructed, in order to assure respon- restore the facilityy area to a condition acceptable to the Ditrict `' + ibaity under section (1) of this rule, file with the Division >rrrgineer at the applicant's expense. In such cases the District viCrstce of insurance in the following minimum amounts: Engineer, in his lstdgmtnl, may also require the applicant to 50.000 for property damage resulting from. any single provide, at the applicant's expense, any additional safeguards Knee;said S100,000 for the death or injury of any person, and/or facilities required to protect the safety,convenience and ubicct to a limit of$300,000 for any single occurrence. Said rights of the traveling public and persons(including the State),• olisy or policies shall include as named insureds the State of if such additional requirerhents are adequate to achieve those )'regent, the Commission, the Department, its officers, agents purposes, as a; ondition of the continued'validity of the ad einptoyees. except as to claims against the applicant. for permit. •crsenal injury to any members of the Commission. Depart. ,(I I) If, et an time after a permit has been issued, there is lent,or its officers, agents, and employees or damage to any a significant line in the volume of traffic using the f its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a certificate approach.roa o; change in the character of the traffic using `)awing evidence of insurance, shall be it7cd with the Director the approach oa and tt is determined by the Engineer that •f Frst'nits. 2960 State Street, Salem, Oregon 11010, prior to additional trafgei ontrois are nerr.•rsry for the safety of the • orturencement of any work. . traveling putitic e,g., acceleration or deceleration lanes, (4)On each private'road crossing during such time as it is widening of'thee,ii ghways to provide left turn refuges, traffic `.,. ads construction or in existence the applicant shall,in order warning light(, traffic signals, etc,). applicant shall either , .' • > '.sure responsibility under section(1)of this rule, file with constructat itsca nsc or reimburse the DIvision for the entire 7ivision evidence of insurance in the following minimum cost of d'csiiiii " constructing or installing, such additional ., # . -arras: S50,000 for property damage resulting from any traffic contidl1 tt the option of the Division providing, . ingIc occurrence: and S100.000 rot the death or injury of any however, that ifithe applicant is a lessee of real property • esson,subject to a limit of S300,000 for any single occurrence. served by the approach road,the liability of the applicant shall _ Laid policy or policies shall include as named insureds the be limited to the cost of constructing or Installing the additional 'ta.te of Orion.the Commission,the nt,Its officers, traffic controls,which*reconstructed and installed during the gents and employees, except as to claims against the appli• time the lease is in force and effect. •• ant, for personal injury to any members of the Commission, In making a determination whether additional traffic apartment,or Its officers,agents,and employees.or damage controls are rea onably necessary, the Engineer or' his • • a any of its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a designated rep`It tattve(s)shall: • , ertificatc showing evidence of Insurance, shall be filed with (a)Inspect site of the approach road 're Director of Permits. 29d0 State Street, Salem, Oregon (b) Investigit the extent and nature of the change of use • ' ' 7310.prior to cornmencernent of any work. • of the approach road;and . ; . 4'. (5) If the highway surface or highway facilities arc (c) Detcrutind, In light of current and projected traffic 0 ' .amagcd by applicant, applicant shall replace or restore the conditions, traffic speeds, sight distances, and the road • highway or highway facilities to a condition satisfactory to the conditions additionalonttraffic to highway and the approachwhich (6)When requested In writing by the District Entgineer,the controls or combinations thereof wocontrols are uld be necessary, to • pplicant or his contractors shall furnish for the period of time adequately insure the safety and convenience of users of the ' ecessary to install l a Facility and w irtstrcx that say damage to highway and approach road. hetughway'.has been corrected to the satisfaction of the CPubitations: The publication(,)'referred to'or Incorporated by • grief Engineer, a cash deposit or a bond in the amount reference In this rule An evsfabtc from the office of the highway pcafied by the permit written, issued by a surety company Division,) • t i tensed to do business in the State of Oregon, 'io work shall Stat,,tuth,:ORS Ch.374 ' c performed until the deposit or bond has been filed with the fifst; I OTC 43,C. I1.26.v4.et. 12-04;f OTC 20 19a0,f. &ef, ` . hrector of Permits,2960 State Street,Salem.Oregon 97310. 10.2240 :' (7) No unauthorized signs shall be permitted upon any onion of the right of way,Where standard Warning tufts such Location •• 0,.. s'Trvcks"arc required by the permitor otherregulations,or 734-SO-030(1).No facility shalt be constructed at locations. 'e ordered by the Districts Engineer to provide Warning of the- where Hots or acecss to or from the ,bulling property have au'f;ly, such signs shall be furnished, placed and maintained been acquired by the Department. y the Division at the clrprnse of the applicant, • (2) The number of approach roads to a single property ' f8)The worst arcs during any construction or maintenance shall be limited to one except where in the judgment of the + armed under the permit provisions shall be protected in District Engineer additional approach roads arc necessary to 0 2 '' .. .ontattee with the current Manual ran Uniform Traffic accommodate and.service such traffic as may be reasonably erupt Devices for Streets and highways" as amended or anticipated commensurate with the safe/ of the traveling ippicmented by the Commission. public,' (9) The stopping nr parking,of vehicles upon the stale (3) Facilities thrall be located where they do not create .' . gliway right of way or the servicing of such vehicles or the undue interference or Itai ird to the free movement of normal L `? 4Ovemleer, 199:) 2•Div 50 0 - . P/4—Or—1 9 1,6:42 I I):L'l i•STP I CT 2A HWY D I V TEL NO:5O329;6058 14974 P06 • ('1lnl'1 Oltl:(;t);' A1t1111IA'1it-\ Il\'t. Ut'I1.• _.�._ 'I;it 7ta, 1)t\'itilON SOIlltal\\A1' ()I' tSIOti' highway or pedestrian traffic. Locations oil • sharp curves,sleep (9) 'liar maximum sizz, gross weight of vehicle and tried, . I;radcs, areas of restricted sight di tance or at points which gross :axle kcightS and types of vehicles using the private interfere with the placement and pieties functioning of traffic erasing, shall be shown on Exhibits attached to the permit control signs, siftnuis, lighting or other devices that affect application, Tile exhibit(s) attached to the permit application traffic operation will not be permitted. shall include diagrams showing type of truck and trailer Sac,Huth,: ORS Ch, 374 combinations. maximum width and overall length, distance I ist" I OTC 43,f, 1 1.26-74,cf. 12-I.74;i 01'C 20.1980,L&.cf, between axles.maximum axle weights,and size and number of 1042.80 tires fv:r axle, . ., (10) Structural details of separation structures shall be t?csign attached to Inc permit apphcauon, '',, ',,•::' 734-50-035 (I) Facilities shall be designed to allow (II) Upon request by the Engineer the applicant will at its movement to and from the highway of the vehicles which can sole expense supply an operated test vehicle of the type surd reasonably be expected to utilize the approach without undue dimension to be used at the proposed private mad crossing. conflict with other tr7tffie. Stat.Auth,:ORS Ch.374 r•' ' (2) In most instances, these requirements can be satisfied Him i O1 C 43,C.11-26.74,cf. 12-1.74:1 OTC 20-1980.f.&cf, by using approaches designed in accordance with Types 1 10.22.80 f through S as shown in Exhibits I through S and/or combine- }'�I, ' bons of the same into dual approaches as described in Exhibit Construction S.Alternate designs are subject to approval by the Engineer. 734-50-040(1) Applicant or his contractor Shall advise the ' (3) Dcfinittons of dimensions and desirable limits arc District Engineer's office at least 48 hours in advance of • • • shown in the general notes for Types 1 through S as shown in c ommericing construction of a facility approved by permit. .";,; ^ Exhibits I through S and the method of establishing widths as shown in Exhibit 6. C2) The facility shall be constructed is conformance with (4)Approach roads which serve a business or commercial the terms of.the permit inefudiuta the Special Provisions of the ' activity which can reasonably be expected to generate traffic permit and exhibits attached to the permit, of the volume and character requi (3) Applicant shall notify the District Engineer when • ring additional traffic •• controls necessary for the safety of the traveling public such as construction of the facility has been completed. The District channetizati3n, signalization or the like, arc special problems Engineer shall Inspect the completed facility and advise ' . •, -' 0 which must be designed on an individual basis.When this type applicant in writing whether or not the facility has been of facility is required the Division may construct the entire constructed in a satisfactory manner and the applicant shall ' facility in accordance with its plans and specifications at the promptly Lorrect any deficientics set forth by the District • applicant's expense. Facilities other than signaltzation may be Engineer. • • constructed by applicant In accordance with plans and (4) The planting or placing of adornments not prohibited specifications approved by the District Engineer if in-the by law on the right of way by the applicant shall be limited to judgment of the District Engineer the facility can be properly low growing shrubs, grit. or flowers that*do not attain and safely constructed by the applicant. sufficient height to obstruct clear vision in any direction. No (5) ,Applicant may be required to constrtrcectubing along curbs. posts, signs or other structures shall be placed on the its frontage. base end pave the area between the existing highway right of way unless applicant has obtained approval of • • highway pavement and the curbing, and Install necessary the District Engineer. drainage facilities as a part of the road approach when said stet.Ruth•ORS Ch.374 approach is to a high traffic volume section of a highway In an Htst: I OTC 43.f.11-26.74,et. 12.1-74t I arc20.1980.f.1tt cf. • . urban area. In other areas, the applicant may be required to.. construct cxtrbing, guardrail, ditches or' plantings limiting ta22-t,G , access to the abutting property to the distances designated In ' : the approach road permit. Maintenance • (6) Permits for approach roads serving large blIlding% 734-SAS(1) Prior to perfocmino any maintenance work and/or paved areas may Include.provisions for storm drain on the highway facility which will interfere with or Interrupt , facilities connecting to the highway drainage system if In the traffic upon or along the highway,applicant shall obtain prior judgment of the District Engineer the highway system is approval from the District Engineer. • adequate to handle the accelerated run-off. It In the judgment (2)Applicant may perform minor maintenance work which ' ' of the District Engineer the highway system is not adequate to does not interfere with traffic upon the highway without handle the accelerated run-off. the applicant shalt make obtaining approval from the District Engineer. ' suitable provisions to prevent surface rvn•off from the paved 0) In aU cuts where traffic signals have been required all areas into the highway drainage system.All costs for providing . maintenance will be performed by the Division at no cost to the drainage from the property shall be borne by the applicant. applicant unless the Special Provisions In the permit require • (7) private,crossings.shalt be made by grade separation the applicant to bear the cost of signal maintenance.On private r. unless separation Is determined by the Engineer to be tumoral, road crossings if the signal,is damaged or destroyed by the tally Impr5ctk.►ble. Applicant or a third party,the applicant shall bear the cost of (8)If a grade separation is not required the applicant shall repair or teplacement over and above any amount which may • ' • install any such signing,signalization,or combination of traffic; be recovered from such third party by the Division. safety devices as may be determined necetsaiy by the st.t,auth,s ORS Car,374 • • tngineer, When these facilities arc required the Division may ttlul t 07C 43.t.1l•2674.at. I14-74;1 OTC 14e0,f.&cf. ' construct the entire facility in accordance with its plans and ,042.80 0 specifications. If the facility Is other than signallzation the ' District Engineer may authorize the applicant to Install the facility in accordance with plans and specifications approved Elective Period by the District Engineer If in the judgment of the District 734.s0.oso (I) Unless otherwise provided in the Special . • Engineer the applicant can install the facility adequately and Provisions, the permit shall be in effect for an indefinite period • • safely. of time from and atter the date Issued, unless sooner revoked • • • 3-r v,30 (November, 1482) .. . • . ' EGON f,+ t . r...•-tbltt7. .itivyiStONt so l ,ltiC•ilN'`1\'t111y.INt[lti._..._._....... .. _ by mutual consent, or by the E'i : ar failure of the ,%u.cati Control Policy • applicant to abide by the terms and, :.;• ut the r,ermit,or `' by operation of law, Categories of Aceess Control • lM, (2) Failure of the applicant to pith any of the 7.34-$0-070 Access control is divided into three catcgcries: terms and conditions of the permit oh 'icient cause for (I) "Complete control" allows access only at specified t_ cancellation of the permit and may .removal of'che% public road at grade connections or at interchanges, facility by the Division at the applic tse as provided (2) "Limited control" allows public And private accesses • • in OR::374.320. al specified toc itior.>:identified by legal t,grccmcnta or ducds. .. (3) The permit. the privileges tercet and the (3) "Uncontrolled" access is where there is nu specified obligations of the applicant thereby nding upon the restriction of access. Future accesses could be allowed under successors and assigns of the applica the Road Approach Permit process subject to the appropriate .•. ; (4) If the applicant fr.ils to col allation of the Oregon Revised Statutes. ' ' facility covered by the permit within specified in the `.• Permit. the permit shall be deems i void and all Son.Aum.;OR5 Ch..t.Jt 374 I:ivilegcs thereunder forfeited, unit a extension of : 1Orl'C!9•t980ldtef,10.22�80 _ • time is obtained from the District Ent • (5) The constriction, maintenar ,on and use of General Policy the facility is subject to the paramo• . of the legisla- 73440-075 It is the policy of the Oregon Department of ' sure over the State highway system ht or privilege Transportation to control access to the highway facilities of the • • granted by the permit shall be dee anstrued to be state to the degree necessary to maintain functional use, { , beyond the power or authority of the to control the highway safety, and the preservation of public investment,The • stabs highway system.,Applicant tg the permit • Department rocognims that access control management varies .. • acknowledges that the rights,and p anted thereby for each of six existing access management conditions• w may at any time be changed or abroga native action. Stat.Matt.:ORS t h,184 do 374 Seat.Atetts.:ORS C3i.374 Histt 1 OTC 19-1980.f.&el.i0.22.80 Hit: I OTC 43,f. 1 t.26.74,el 12.1 `.0-I980,f.do cf. 10-22-80 Access Management Conditions 734-50-080 (1) Grant of access to private property where rA eoeia We have previously established Limited Control access: • ° 734 50-0ffi5 Issuing of permits Ur regulations is Access may be allowed If all the following conditions are met: 40 tot a finding of eomptiarce With the planning goals (a) Current geometric design standards can be mct which ' is the acknowiedgc d comprehensive r .area.Permits consider such Items as safety,capacity,alignment.grades,left ' Ire issued subject to the approval o tray, or other turn lanes,signals,etc. • ' ovearmerttad agencies having either j islets over the (b)'Itie terrain is such that It Is not practical to construct a eetion of higlttrray oc authority to tq use by means frontage road or some och t means to proWdc alternate access •f zoning and/or building regulations, he appikant's to the pmperty. ., ,, esponsibility to obtain any such ap fading. where (o Is not in conflict with local compreheruivo plans for pplic abic,local government determin mpliane:e with this class of highway. he statewide planning goals. (d) Payment is made to the Oregon 'Il•ansportation, Commission. on the difference of value of the real property + .._.. • . .. .. t ,. ., • N.r •..•. ...•rn. •re.i. r. /,. t•,., ... a••"j•�+ W M1lalltiit 7.ZFo,'Wt1fCf1 Is by this reference(nCGf7fC0 In[O o.•d-, Wni.I m.I,i ,� s ill I�rri`•U'd04J1�•I�, �. �' uo ra env i guanntoo its removal by'the app .r before theft rom which highways r' • carat expiration data If no expert.. neat by the control•owas "at p property and,does not abut the oper tzght�of-�vay:lZul property which not a putt of the property • ~vision in the satisfactory removal of the oath road,the from which access control was purctasod and does riot %but • hire amount of the deposit will be refund the applicant. the highwayy .�tight-of-way.vvill not be considered for any grant • expenses are Incurred by the Division, t pliant wilt be of access. Thew properties must depend Upon the county or ' lied for,the amount In excess of the at deposited or city road system for access to the State highway System. .funded the difference If said expense it than the said (3)Requested change lit use of access from a private party • - ~~•-' JAN-06-'93 16:50 I •I STR I CT cA HWY D I tJ TEL N0:50 2976058 n976 P01 ._._- , • . • �; I . �' - '�5l• �' '' r. ', .Alt - . ' ,, • • / ' (11:I•( ()\ ,\11\it%'1st1:•t1ItI I:t'I.I.`• ." . . - - ('II•\I'I I R 9,(,1, I)I\'1S10,N 51)..•-• 1Il!;1I1''.\\ 111 V�`tl).4. .... ..-.' . . .. .t' • (5) Giant of access to a public entity such :As e city or (h) An engineering evaluation has been patentee!and the .. , outtty for it city street or county rued where the Oregon cafe loud uarryin(t capacity of the highway or section thereof , r' l'rineptslt•ition Cuntn-tiesion has previously established tintiied has been deterntitted, d '' ♦ control aeecsx: A new connection udder the above condition (c) M4Sinutit)allowable weights consistent with the finding may be coneidercd after all following provisions or require• of the ctiginccring evaluation has been eetebtished for vchiclet. ,, ' meats are met: 3!: ' 't. . or combinations of vehicles traveling upon the highway or (a)Justification for the connection must be made based on section thereof, the following: (2) Upton fulfilling the, requirements t.ct forth in StrbSee* :' , .`'• (A) is not in conflict with local comprehensive pions for (ions(I)hi) tln%nil:A(CI of this rule, the State Highway Engineer ' this class of highway. shell prcr,Ire:a wrtiten order which: (13) The county or city has explored all possible atterna- (a)Describes the highway or section of highway which will . be affected; ; ' (• . ' fives to the connection including parallel streets which might , include the purchase of additional right.of•way, (b), Discloses the r atutm of the acquired inspection and (C) Current geometric design standarde can be met with evaluation:and consider such items as safety,capacity.alignment,grades,left (c)tndicatcs the restriction to be imposed. turn lanes,signals,etc, (3) Upon the signing of the order by the State Highway (b) Plans and specifications which adhere to the geometric Engineer. posting of signs and enforcement of the restriction • t design standards presently or contemplated being used on the shill teas provided in ORS 487,905(3)and(4). • facility must be prepared by the applicant. Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch.487 ((ha: t OTC 12-192B d(Temp).f, .cf. 12.19.78: I OTC 7.197e,f, (c) An agreement detailing responsibility Is prepared and .:c( 4-19.79 executed before work begins. s,' (6)Access control acquisition:A project for access control (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the tr acquisition may be proposed to preserve integrity of the Oregon Administrative Roles Compilation. Copies may be obtained ; i from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.l •• present system. It will be the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team No. I.as defined in the Oren Action Plan,to delineate areas Weight Restrictions fur Reeky Creek Bridge , where limited access control should be a part of project 734-50495 (1) It has been determined by the staff of the •. development, Oregon Department of Transportation that severe cracking and (Fhsblicattans: The pubticatlon(a) referred to or incorporated by spatting of the concrete due to corrosion of the reinforcing reference in this rule are available from the office of the Highway steel has deteriorated the structure of the Rocky Creek Bridge 1 Division,) beyond economic repair. Further„ the Department has , ' ' Suit.Auth,:ORS Ch. ta.t 44374 determined that weight restriction of 6,000 pounds is necessary '. 40 U1 It I OTC 19.1980.f, cf. 10.22•80 to protect the bridge from being unduly damaged and to insure • '• • $, the safety of the traveling public. v. l (2) Vehicles weighing in excess of 6,000 pounds shall not Administration of Policy use the Rocky Creek Bndge on the Oregon Coast Highwey. ' 734•:30.085 (1) Costs incurred by the Department of (frontage road)in Lincoln County at M.A.F130.03, '• ` ' • Transportation in processing a request for access modification, (3) The Highway Division dull immediately post this fir . shall be paid by the party requesting the modification.These weight restriction in a conspicuous manner at both ends of the ; costs will be based on actual documented costs Incurred plus a Rocky Creek Bridge and at such other places as may be 10%charge for general administration. necessary to inform the users of the Oregon Coast Highway of (2) Written agreements otttlining the details of construe• these restrictions. tion and cost responsibility mutt be approved by both parties •• Auth •'ORSt .d89 %` . . prior to the processing of any documents. Isla; 1 aro ri(Te ), f.mp k of M31•77, t OTC 93, f. +& cf. (3)A grant of access constitutes the transfer of a property (2.3o-77 right. It does not excuse the recipient from the duty to obtain end comply with the conditions of any road approach or road (F,a. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the • crossing permit that may be required under ORS 374.310 and Oxon Administrative Rules Compitation. Cvpi¢i may be obtained rules adopted by the Department pursuant thereto, from the adopting agency or the Sacrcutsy of&utaJ . • Stat.Au1h.:ORS Ch. 164 t 374 Weight Restriction tor Deschutes River bridge Crossing,Shensi ,_ • lass: t OTC 19-i9L0,t,It et,Itl�-t♦0 ' Bridge Highway ' 734-SO.100 I I OTC 11.I978(Temp),f.R cf. 12.14.781 , • 1Yelgttt Ream: lode for Htghwaas ." Land Use Permits , '• • . • Procedure for Cleslgnating Highway Weight Restrictions • • 734-50.090(1)Tate State Highway Engineer may designate Fee Schedule for Land Use Permits .• �"' e any highway or section of highway(including bridges and other 73- . -o-t0S When, hi the determination of the Division's structures)which,in his judgments should be subject to weight Right•of-Wny Manager that use restrictions exist which restrictioni, The State Highway Engineer may impose such prevent charging ccongmie rent for lands under the jurisdiction a • weight restrictiuns as he considers proper subject to the of the Division, the Division may Issue a land use permit and following conditions: shell charge the following administrative processing fee: • •. S. (*)(A) An inspection has indicated that a condition exists (I)Ostia—The monetary benefits to the Division exceed • which requires action to prevent or reduce damage to the the cost of permit preparation and review; highway or section thereof,or (2) S50 for a simple permit prep ratitm with little or no . . (13) An inspection has indicated that a condition exists field inspection and no plan review;or . • eh may jcnperdize the safety of motorists on the highway (3) 5130 for a complex permit preparation rcquireng a plan : • cction thereof. review and continuing inspection. 1111 • Stilt.Auth,t ORS Ch,346 • I S•Div.50 itittt MD I•iWN:,Let et,S•.(+41; (Nnvesnitur, 19112) . • ' q. • • ' I • • , • • • ', ♦� ... :gin V • • • • • • • • • •,� • ,• • • • • • •• • .$ • $ e , • • • . • • ' • • • • 11 0 I (� I ..._.... G ) ) ,(\12 I'°C. . i .„____ y , ‘ . 1/ 141V1*41 4 A il/A- 1') ‘-.4-81Vel/ir\ 01).(4 A07,44, . v.-.' .. w4„ e241 ✓. .-eli--(-7.0.2. 7// / / (_________---)/L,,,z,, I/ / ,\./..., 1,4_,(L, , - -friy.... . , ., ..----- 7; . ...0 .,, .. . .t. ,, ., 0 .. . r- • ("JAN 2 0 1993 J .. , 1 EXHIBIT ..• 0 • • • January '1.6 , 1993 177"..' y I� Y '.• r. Mr . Michael R. Wheeler y City of Lake Oswego ;r:,; . • 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 kiA N 1993 Dear Mr.Wheeler :• 2 .1 This letter is in response to "Notice of Public Hearing" - case file number SD-19-92/VAR 18-92 . :. We have a few complaints about the whole process .; . of how this was handled . Why would you put the sign in the front of the Lasley ' s property and not at the entrance of Chapin Way? Most people who saw the sign thought that perhaps the Lasley ' s wanted to install a fence or something else on their property. Also, installing the sign over the Christmas holidays made it hard for most residents who were • away over the break to respond to this change to be included • in the staff report by January 7 . Also , it was ridiculous to only notify by mail the • residents who land fell within 300 feet of the proposed change. This change affects all who live on Morning Sky 6 ' :,::: Court as their children would have to cross Chapin which would no longer be a cul-de-sac, in order to go to Hallinan School . r We would like to see Chapin Way remain as. it is . There •411 • is no need to build a through street in order to accomodate �'' ;. one extra home . The city must have plans to lee developers come in and build other homes in this area in order to ' • generate more tax dollars . To take down as many trees as " would have to come down and to inconvenience all the 4. . neighbors with trucks coming through this neighborhood to accomodate one house is unnecessary. There should he a way to access this home either with a pipestem lane from the ' ` main house on Gans or to make Wells a cul-de-sac . The traffic that would be generated through this quiet neigh- borhood is also unnecessary . Cars would turn right off of Hwy . 43 to access the Hallinan areas . We will be present at the meeting on January 20 to •'.41 ,', ' . protest this proposal and will do all that we can to protect ;��•.,•: our neighborhood from this intrusion . , ' ' Sincerely , Aliii , Michele M. McGrain Robert J . McGrain • • • 146E Morning Sky Court ` '• Lake Oswego , Oregon -y EXHIBIT 63 -a 07 Ile ' 1 <• r �' • • ,, PRESTON 3200 U,S.Dancoip Tower • THORGRIMSON tlr d,O 972 Ave688 •,;, Portland,Ok 9720d•3GAA SH I OLER •�'"' �••' Telephone:(503)229.3200 • GATES & ELLIS Facsimile:(503)2413•9085 ,.•. ATTORNEYS AT LAW , •1993 EDWARD J. SULLIVAN Voice Malls (503) 229-3899 • 6• January 22, 1993 • Barbara Anderson Planning Department City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 . Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Anolication of OTAK. Inc,. for Annroval of Minor Petition Involving_a Distinctive Natural Area and a Class I Variance (City of Lake Oswego File SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 (A-B)) • Dear Ms, Anderson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the persons I represent in the above matter, Sincerely, Edward J. Sullivan . , ' EJS/lw ' SOK.LO\SYLANDI:R.3133 Enclosure ' cc; Clients N I • EXHIBIT 4 ( • • Aneholugc • I3ellevue • Seattle • Spokane •Tacoma • Washington,b C. - ,,, I Anon'•ship lin 1ptllllq '1 1'1.11'gs:tow!('.fl' t uion , • ` r � r,i1• ` tr 4 • • • a• ` �r 1 1' { r\ • • • t•f . y + t; ,� • t ' r . r r Y't J t • r r .• A r •' t ` r a ax980 POOL ,t ************************r**i*********gyp*****r**i******* 1******** ***********************M***#�*k*r COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT .`". : ' -' 0. 5032489085 PRESTON LAW FIRM 01-21-93 03: 17PM **ra********************************************************************************************e I PyLEI DATE & TIME FILE TYPE IDELAYEDI DESTINATION/TO:/FROMt PAGEI REMARKS I 8 Lt1L :5 01-21 03:09PM MEMORY—S 1 `TO :6350269 102 I 1 100K4 " ' 1 ric. I PRONE / TT I NO, I COMM MODE] RESULT I NO, I PRONE / TT I NO, I COMM MODE I RESULT t''. 'COI 635 I 0289 !GOOD •. 3200 U.B.Bancorp Tawair 111 S,W Pilt Avenue .,..: P��$��� Poadend Oroacm D7ZW-38� ;.;, r1ORGRIMSON S-IDLER Tolophone: (503)228-3200 RATES & ELLA& ge rdla: (I O3)245-90 5 "., " AtrTORNEYS AT LAW �a ".`. * FACS%M&IE COVER PAGE • January 21, 1993 @$rbar�Mdt nn From: etiWari,l..$ljliht�� TO (trdNtdusn •�' Lake Na 410 Of Pogo: (Yw lots np oa.t Pogo) —SWIM Cltunl/Matter Not ' (T.boowy NO.) a.' pkant/Matter Name: •.41.ldke osv .r.. ° on No.) it you do net waelw as 6t Ins patass,Ono Contact out'1400py 020ltior M 0dpinal v,'lll not bo NM. ©: Otlpinel slot by t1.6.mr 0 Original writ by awtmlpM mall. COMMENTS: p. 4' m ' •d • e1' _ • Ma Intorolaalon wnbinad In this 1aCeimlle is ennfidoMlnl end meV also be sNPtnatpdvihkoed, the Inlotmatlhn Is Intended Writ,/toe Ns WO Gt 0;e in141 e14„«1 he Nt,w«•*.%e4,1Art It idll Y M ridieeeed' Mt Or l+et the intim!ad t.rlplehl,nt the employes of anent teepanebe 10 dsUaedd0 It to tits Wended + ` r �« , II Ar r.• }. • Opponents represented by Edward J. Sullivan in Lake Oswego Planning file no SD 19-92/Var 18-92(a-b) 40 .. U. • Michele McGrain Arthur and Garda Bode • 1465 Morning Sky Ct. 16820 S. Chapin Way Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 • W• Jack and Virginia Wilborn F. Michael and Sharon Nugent 16521 S. Chapin Way 1385 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 r• • Rosemary and John Galmiche Edward and Sandra Levesque • 1500 Morning Sky Court 16205 Matthew Court 'y- Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Scott Taylor Daniel and Betsy Reis •;'`. • Sophia Kondoleon 16850 SW Chapin Rd. 1425 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or, 97034 • ,. Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Charles and Sandra Dunnweber 16431 S. Chapin Way Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 • • .I: l.• 4 b • ,•e • • 1. • .`- h. Addendum to Narrative for SD 19-92/VAR 18.92 t ,FEB 2 2 1993 It has been determined that our application for a two-lot minor partition may be considered a.Znajor. i;'i ... v partition. If this is so, the following are responses to the additional Development Standards which would be applicable to a major development. 6.020 Transit - Standards for Approval 1. All major developments are being required to provide facilities to serve multiple-passenger transit. . y,• a. The extent of the facilities required for a particular site shall be determined based on the analysis of: i. Existing and projected adjacent transit facilities. v.":`:. ii. Proximity of bus routes. •�. ,.. .. 3 . .. , . „r,., . -' EXHIBIT ' J iii. Proposed development, _ p. ,on5) tiJtJ iv. Expected patronage, 11421va21S-i2= • ,•`, gild. ,I III.-I 1111.1.u.! .Id n, hl III III • `V '- '': • b. Hard surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: i. The nearest adjacent nultiple-passenger exchange facilities, 1 or �'00; il, To adjacent paths which lead to nearest loading/unloading =r" facilities. c. Transit facilities may be installed on site or in public right-of-way, at ,:,' the discretion of the City Manager. • • ``'.'.; • Findings: The nearest multiple-passenger exchange facility is located on Highway 43 near S.W. Cherry Street, Approval of this project will result in a 20-foot wide paved roadway connecting to S.W. Chapin Way, which is also a 20-foot wide pave roadway. No , transit facility is proposed any 4luset• than Highway 43, 8.020 Park and Open Space - Standards for Approval . 1. All major residential development and office campus development shall • provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate F amount equal to at least 20-percent of the gross land area of the development. Commercial and industrial development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 15-percent of the gross land area of the development. • ;,' 2, Open space and park land in commercial, industrial and office campus areas may be provided as a combination of reserved land and landscaping. Where rt ""• , 1 no Distinctive Natural Area. . '• Findings: There has been approximately 12,63u square feet ( 29 acres► shown on the proposed ' 40 ' . .. 454tS" dd,mr 1 . 4 1 .� ; r li',a t" :;,:i.• '• ••• •: partition drawing (Exhibit 4) as being within the "Stream Corridor Buffer Zone", This area will remain as undisturbed open space. The open space equals approximately 29-percent of the gross land area, 9.020 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering - Standards for Approval k• 1. Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus Zone, shall provide 15-percent of net buildable area in landscaping and/or . , open space, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. ' , Office campus developments shall provide 20-percent. ' • 2. Multi-family and mobile home park development must provide 20-percent of +. ..: � net buildable area in landscaping in addition to the park and open space requirements. 3. Public and semi-public use must meet 1 or 2 above, depending on use. 4. All development abutting streets shall provide street trees at the proper ,4 ..i: spacing for the species. 5. Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot from ' the street at several points. 6. Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, lighting or other impacts from adjacent • • ',` • transportation routes or dissimilar uses. b. Screen public or private utility and stort.ge areas; and parking lots. • c. As a separation between dissimilar uses. • 7. The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments: a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in : % ' an R-0, R-3, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed a . single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75-percent of the '``, minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone. b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a. shall be ' A single-family, zero lot line or duplex dwellings, except three attached . dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being a corner lot. c. In a PD or cluster development located In an R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone , •' ' '., • • which abuts an R-7.5, It-l0 or It-15 zone and which does not contain . >* ' separate lots for the dwelling units, the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the development is located. ' . (Res. R-84-19, Sec. 2; 4-17-84.) } ' 8, Group care homes which include paved outdoor recreational space shall provide screening for adjacent properties, (ices. It-84.20, See. 4; 4.17.84,) .•, ;: 411 ' . 4344add.rnir 2 • I' O"20;3,17 • Yy , s ' i. • • Findings: Street trees will be planted along the frontage of the property adjacent to Wells •;' '` Street. ,.: 40 No screening or buffering is required, 11.020 Drainage Standards for Major Development 1, All drainage management measures, whether located on private or public _.. •• property, shall be accessible at all times for City inspection. When these measures have been accepted by the City for maintenance, access .,.. easements shall be provided at such a width to allow access by maintenance and inspection equipment. ' 2. Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall Include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, and ', other objectionable material in storm water runoff, ''• • ' 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and , t., surface runoff) do not adversely affect other properties. 4. Storm Water Detention. Sufficient storm water detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipate intensities and durations of rainfall and provide necessary ... . It detention to accomplish this requirement, b. Required Storm Water Management Measures. The applicant shall provide :.:'� �. : 4110 sufficient storm water management measures to meet the above storm .. . \,, water runoff requirements. The applicant shall provide designs of these measures taking into account existing drainage patterns, soil properties (such as credibility and permeability) and site topography, Findings: As shown on the Partition Map (Exhibit 4), storm water will be channeled under the proposed extension of Wells Street to the drainageway which bisects the property, No detention is necessary, •''. .. 19.020 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets - Standards of Approval 1. Private streets within a major development shall conform to the following ;', requirements: a. The minimum width shall be 20-feet for two-way streets and 15-feet for one-way streets. b. In those locations where a fire truck may be expected to be positioned at the time of a fire, leaving no room for passing, - minimum street width shall be 24-feet. Y, c. Where conditions outlined in b,, above, do not apply and where ' , ...:\ conditions such as street alignment or traffic volume do not dictate otherwise, the width of streets may be reduced, This reduction of 0-„, \ a width must be specifically approved by the City Manager, i• '...: *: ,.. : 4345\ndlintr 0 . ,',,,,F 0203,17 .. a Y • 4 ' ' 1 • • t. , •1';. .;• + . r` a .•r4 , i . • .v d. The width of streets serving as an aisle between garages or parking spaces shall be governed by Parking Standards. Accessways in .% ° parking lots are allowed in required yards. e. All private streets shall be declared fire accesses, either in a deed or 4 ,A; on a recorded map and shall be so signed. Vehicles parked within fire accesses shall be subject to towing away at the owner's expense. • f. The layout of development shall be such that fire trucks will not • , have to back out. Deviations from this rule must be specifically ' • approved by the City Manager prior to the final design of the development. g. Except for cul-de-sacs where fire trucks are expected to turn or turn around, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: ' outside front wheel radius of forty-five (45) feet; Inside rear wheel 4' • radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs with unpaved areas or islands are used, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: outside front wheel radius of fifty (50) feet; inside rear wheel radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs without unpaved areas or islands are used, the ' • outside front wheel turning radius of forty (40) feet shall be provided. (Res, R-87.15; 3-17-87.) Dead-end streets, other than where fire trucks are expected to turn, mustprovide for either passenger vehicle turnaround or a delivery p g � • vehicle turnaround. The type of the turnaround to be used must be approved by the City Manager. . • The layout of the turnaround must comply with the current standard • details available from the City. i. A dead-end street of more than 300-feet in length shall be designed • with a turnaround unless otherwise approved by the City Manager prior to the layout of the development. j. Schools with over 25 students enrolled shall provide an on-site L • driveway for the continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for • • the purpose of loading and unloading children. 2. a. Only one driveway per lot is permitted unless the lot frontage is greater than 75-feet, For those lots, a circular driveway may be • approved by The City Manager upo; finding that the additional intersection will not cause a traffic hazard. b. Driveways en corner lots shall begin a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet along the property line measured from the property corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City • Manager. 4 345\add tar 4 • ' O'291.17 • • ♦ 4 • 19.025 Standards for Construction •'' 1. Pavement of private streets must consist of a minimum of two-inches of asphalt over a total of six-inches of crushed rock. Heavier traffic in a non-residential development, or an inferior subgrade, shall dictate a different payment section. 2. Edging of streets in those locations which are critical in terms of drainage or physical impact of a vehicle must be cast-in-place concrete curb. In non-critical locations extruded curia, affixed to the surface of asphalt, may - be used. In locations where drainage or unrestricted movement of a vehicle ` are not a problem, the use of curbs may be omitted, by approval of the City Manager. 3. Construction of extruded curbs, affixed to the surface of asphalt, is not ' • allowed within public right-of-way. ' • 4. The use of inverted crown (i.e., where drainage is conducted on a surface other than along the curb) is allowed in parking lots and by special approval of the City Manager. , 5. Cross-slope of any driveable area shall be a maximum 5-percent. 6. Maximum grade of a private street shall be 15-percent. Any deviation from " this criterion must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to the final design of the development. Street grade of that portion of the street ;+ adjacent to a public street shall be governed by the conditions outlined in ,, •'' • item "7" below. ` 7, That portion of a private street or access adjacent to an Intersection with a public roadway shall have a maximum grade of 5-percent, to facilities the exit of vehicles. The length of the area restricted to a 5-percent grade may • vary depending on the size of the project and the traffic In the public street, . ` but shall be a minimum of 25-feet. .• • t f 8, Drainage of private streets shall utilize pipes with a minimum 10-inch diameter and catch basins of an adequate capacity, as determined by the , . City Manager, 9. Where a slope is adjacent to a paved area, minimum of 2-feet distance must , be provided between the curb, or edge of pavement, and the toe or top of -. . , the slope, to protect the edge of pavement. If sidewalk or utilities are expected to be adjacent to the street, a wider separation must be provided between the curb or pavement and the top of toe of the slope, • 10, Within public right-of-way all driveways must be 6-inches thick, 3,000 PSI , ' or ' concrete. • 11, All driveways must be "sidewalk type" as per standard drawing, unless •• otherwise approved by the City Manager, • . 12, Where specifically approved by the City Manager, driveways may be • 0• "no-sidewalk type", as per City standards. ,• 4345vadd,nar 5 k 1 O293.11 - • i ♦ i . .r 4, 13. If asphaltic concrete driveway within public right-of-way is approved by the City Manager, it must be minimum 3-inches thick.on minimum 6-inches Aft • crushed rock base. A 14• . Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager in writing, maximum gradient of driveway over private property at any point must be as follows: For single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes - 20% • For multi-family projects larger than four-plexes - 15% • ` 15. Where break of grade is used with the algebraic difference between 'N .' gradients exceeding 9-percent, vertical curve must be Limed as per Standard y Detail titled: "Vertical Curves for Driveways." (, •` 16. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, maximum width of • , •. driveway measured at property line shall be as follows: for residential •• • driveway - maximum 1/2 of frontage, but Hit to exceed 24; for commercial driveway - as approved by the City Manager. • , 17. Where turning must be done to enter the garage, driveway moat provide for x - ' • an outside front wheel radius of a minimum of 25-feet, 16. Where a driveway is adjacent to a bank sloping away from the driveway, a • minimum 2'-0" shoulder must be provided between pavement and top of slope. • 19, Where steep slope or curvature may cause drainage problems, or cause v vehicles to run off the driveway, curb or asphalt berm must be used along gi) 'the edge of the driveway. � Findings: Both the extension of S.W. Chapin Way and S.W. Wells Street will be improved to a '' i '• 20-foot width. Wells Street will be declared a fire access westerly from its terminus with Chapin Way. • .... The modified future street plan, proposed by the City of Lake Oswego, will provide cul-de-sacs at the easterly and westerly terminus of S.W. Wells Street, , • • Only one driveway is proposed for the newly created lot, Both the driveway and the public and private streets proposed will be constructed to the applicable standards, • ' 20.005 Site Circulation Standards • Bikeways and Walkways • Standards for Approval 1. Bikeways shall be public, 2, Walkways may be either private or public, depending on their location. - • . • 3. Bikeways and public walkways shall be located either in a public easement , or over land dedicated to the public, The design of bikeways shall conform • ,. to City standards, ' 4, Walkways and bikeways shall tie to public streets at locations determined by •,, the City Manager, - • 0 i r l `� . . • • • 43461ndd•ttnr 6 ' ' •• 0293.17 i}I 1, l • - • • t• t1 • • Findings: Neither S.W. Chapin Way, S.W. Gans, nor S.W. Wells have been designated at 410 bikeways or walkways. Highway 43, to the east, has been designated as a bikeway/walkway, • • • ni,• •r. •' 1 • • • A A •4• ., t ` • r 1 w o' 4345\ndd.itnr 7 0293.17 1 • 1 t , I. • • • JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE Z �Y�y" F EB- -- : - ,,,\ An additional variance is being requested from the maximum cul-de-sac length found in S?ctvican 44,390 of the Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance, This section limits cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to 1000-feet in length. \ .„•:, The criteria for obtaining a variance are found in Section 49.501 of the Lake Oswego Development. The criteria are listed below: a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, ..: c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of . the property; and, , ' ; d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The requested dead-end street length variance meets the above criteria in the following manner: a, Without the variance the subject property and other properties adjacent to S.W. Wells ••`, ,'• ";'• „•'- Street are not developable. Currently, S.W. Wells Street is a private street not }' constructed to City standards. In addition, no permit exists for Wells Street to access Highway 43. In order to utilize S.W. Wells for access, a permit would need to be obtained and improvements would be required to Wells. These improvements include E )., widening the roadway to 20-feet and installing a drainage ditch along at least one side •''' of the roadway. Both the application for the permit, and the necessary improvements 1 require commitments from others since S.W. Wells Street is not owned by the ', applicant and S.W. Wells is located within a 20-foot wide easement which is no wide 411) . f• ,'' • • • • enough for all of the necessary improvements. This creates an unnecessary hardship , • on the applicant since conditions beyond their control are required, However, Chapin Way can be extended as 28-feet of access exists and additional access can be obtained for its extension, Additional property can also be obtained for the necessary drainage ditch adjacent to Wells westerly from where it will intersect with Chapin Way. . • b, By allowing S.W. Chapin Way to be extended beyond its current terminus, approximately 16 additional dwelling units would eventually utilize Chapin Way as ' their access, This would bring the total dwelling units utilizing Chapin Way to S '� approximately 38, vl.-4'h would result in approximately 380 vehicle trips per day, The 380 possible trips r er day equals approximately 25-percent of the 1500 trips per day allowed on local/ret;dential two lane streets by the Lake Oswego Transportation Study dated April 1992. The lot proposed by this application and those lots which may occur in the future •. along S.W. Wells Street will be of comparable size to those within Hallinin Woods , which should result in houses of similar value being constructed, ' ' • • c. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the ' subject property and other developable properties abutting S.W. Wells Road, The . • variance could be less if only the subject property was being considered, However, the . . future street plan provides for the cul-de-sacs at both the west and east ends of S.W. . , Wells which mo•.es the cul-de-sacs beyond that necessary for the subject property to be developed. 4345\add,iwr� 8 S 0293,17 • . 6 ►. . • 1 1 • d. The applicable Comprehensive Plan sections have been addressed elsewhere in this application. Approval of this variance will not result in any conflicts with applicable - Comprehensive Plan sections. • In evaluating a request for variance the granting authority shall consider the following Y...' factors when determining if a hardship exists: • ' • 1. Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved. • 2. Whether a reasonable use similar to the like properties can be made of the property without the variance. 3. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 4. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the • request is denied. The requested variance meets the above-factors in the following manner: The subject property can only be accessed by either S.W. Wells Street or S.W. Chapin Way. The property is approximately 250-feet from the north end of Chapin Way and approximately 750-feet west of Highway 43, S.W. Wells Street is a graveled private • ,.- street with no approved access permit to access Highway 43 and S.W. Chapin Way is a public street built to Lake Oswego standards. 2, Reasonable use of the property is not possible without the variance. If S.W, Chapin Way is not extended as a public street, the City would require a cul-de-sac to he provided atthe existing terminus of Chapin Way. This would require the cooperation' " 410 -f of the owners of the two lots abutting the terminus of Chapin Way which is not expected. The variance would not be necessary if S.W. Wells Street and Chapin Way • were both developed as public streets and access to Highway 43 were permitted. This however is not desirable by the property owners within Hallinin Woods, 3, The hardship, which is obtaining access to a public street, was not created by the owner of the subject property. The same hardship exists for other property owners abutting S,W, Wells Street. The extension of S,W. Chapin Way as a public street will remove the hardship from the owner of the subject property as well as other property owners abutting S,W, Wells Street. • 4. If this variance is not approved, it will he impossible to meet the required conditions •' . suggested by the City of Lake Oswego staff in order to utilize S.W. Wells Street as • :', • access, This would result in the inability to divide the subject property as proposed. Section 48,650(3) of the Lake Oswego Development Code States: -' _r + •, No variance may be granted which will permit a use not permitted in the applicable } zoning district or which will increase the allowable residential density in any zone, " ti.'' ''' Granting the request variance will not permit a use which is not currently permitted within the R-15 `. residential designation, nor will it increase the allowable residential density of the R•15 zone. • • , •+•4• 4346\add,aar D293.1/ • h. • • . „. • • • • • • • t • , , • ai. i • ,.i.; .„l.. �.I..,. .._. i.la,...Id� � A= EXHIBIT MICMORANDTJM /' . . IJ „..Lk.: 0 .11 Lo 195-112 Do't.19-9 ,.4 `�\'Y.o .t.ih,Il lnrL. .e.Vuxi.a.x.u.d t•iP ( P • TO: Michael Wheeler '. Associate Planner - '.. ; Planning Department FROM: R. Fa coni, P .E. Transportation Services Engineer r EB 2 J ���� •v. • ',,{ Public Works Department SUBJ`TACT: Wells St , at State Highway 43 City of Lake Oswego Clackamas County Upon your, request, I am writing this memo regarding the proposal , ` for the connection of Chapin St . to Wells St . , the impacts that this connection would have on the neighborhood traffic and the effect of the closure of access from Wells St . into State Highway 43 . The main reason to implement the proposed connection of Chapin St . `''' ' Q'l - to Wells St . , is that it would provide safer access to the :< ..~ properties now located on Wells St . , by allowing the use of the intersection of Cherry St . at Highway 43 which is recommended in the Lake Oswego Transportation Study for future improvements . • The connection would not create any conflicts with the existing or future use of the street system in the area. There would be a minimal impact on the amount of trips currently assigned to Chapin '" St . and Cherry St . Furthermore, with the proposed closure of Wells St . onto State Highway 43, there would not be any traffic cutting through the neighborhood. In previous meetings with ODOT' s District 2-A Office, they indicated that there isn' t a record of an access permit for the y s . Wells St . access . Any time that there is change on the use of an access, a new access permit application is required by ODOT . In ' reference to Wells St . , it is obvious that there have been changes in the nature of the use, consequently, a permit application would be required. At this time ODOT has the option of closing the « a. access . The legal issues concerning access rights can be complex, but in • any given circunstance, it should not be assumed that a property owner has an unqualified right to access a highway, In conclusion, I strongly recommend the connection of Chapin St , to Wells St . and the closure of the Wells St , access to the highway. Please let me know if you have additional questions on the subject . i - • at . , ` . t , P. • .fir l sr, , r .•�",,,! + '•,i. �.,. ... • • • • • .• • • • . rI y!. z . r '> 1• • l� .•r i . • r.. ., .. • • .. • __.• • • • • • • • • • , k i �` ' • ,�y y- ' Li - if 1 G r ,� s�. O� �(E0 I , ..' ; ' — . 0 ..zw 4 0REGON .. fH \k•f\11:y1' 01' P1.131.1c' WORKS • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner : .{ FROM: Russ Chevrette,Engineering Technician ��' '' SUBJECT: History of Chapin Road Extension,Future Street Plans, etc., 'ft ^' s C'ertinent to , Skowron Partition DATE: March 1, 1993 The attached sheets are a sopsis of events gleaned from an investigation of old n •1. =•, 0 planning and engineering; files regarding previous proposals to plat the property now ' ;, 0. known as Hallinan Woods and.Hallinan Woods H. Transcripts from Planning _ ;.`' Commission meetings are available in these files. The surface improvements and the decision to use the original county road, alignment to its northerly terminus was made in the Hallinan Woods decision after several aborted attempts involving future street layouts for the properties north of Chapin Road. - �` There appears to be a gap (inactivity?) between March of 1979 when preliminary plats , for Hallinan Woods and Hallinan Woods II were submitted and their final approval by • `. the Planning Commission and City Council it February of 1981. In any case, the record shows that all representations made by staff between 1978 and 1981 veryclearlyprovided for the future extension capability of Chapin Road when propertis to the nrth were ready t'or development. �. RC/kaa ', .1 Attachment (Ruaa93'11<mer uChaWOW/2-7.5 • ,,' !• EXHIBIT c• .r- 1'' fil 71 <,h L 0 ." . l 4. Y.i.✓.JAM try' , - e : ' ' 11�, ., ,..,. . .,......... ,:,.., • r L./ R q J II • * I ' 0 ,. , • . - • .• . ,. . . %,- \ ., . '"..?, : - '., 4141priv7 i., - • ;. . 1 '. • Synopsis of Events .'. • Chapin Road Extension . v • 1., 0 " e" \.. 4-1-78 Staff Repott_for D 6-78, Morning Sky Subdivision Recommended denial without prejudice pending draft of the . •" Comprehensive Plan which could result in an open space designation on the land and subsequent movement toward City purchase of some of the property. 4-3-78 City Engineer's memo to Planning Commission • 4'':.• Recommendations are made regarding the width of the proposed streets , and the extension and availability of utilities. Mention is made of a I. forthcoming site circulation plan that will be recommending the • • . `'` "' connection of Chapin to O'Brien. • 4-10-78 Planning Commission public hearing for SD 6--78, a 161Qt. jiudivision and P• prop_sedsirc tla ion and street pattern which would allQw_13 possible • . future connection to Lund and/or O'Brien Etreet A petition of 23 entitled "We the undersigned register our firm opposition . to any extension through of south Chapin Way" is submitted by Larry • Sokol. Proposal was denied because a portion of the subdivision was in an area • designated as open space in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, ..' ' ' ; 5-3-78 City Engineer's memo to Planning ommiss_i r on - •` `; Revised plat was turned in, Reference is made to a planning/engineering •• street plan that is not being represented on the new proposal. Decision to • be left to the Planning Commission as to whether or not to end Chapin Road in a cul-de-sac. • 5 8 78 Planning Commission con d ca testeLprQceeding for SD 6-78, a 16 lot ,, ' ,: subdivision on both sides of Chapin Road Chapin Road was projected to connect,to O'Brien (,staff proposal). ' Subdivision denies(due to local opposition of subdivision itself, due to • .' • connection to O'Brien which would funnel traffic to Laurel at Hwy, 43, and due to pending possible acquisition by the City of part of the site for open space, At this hearing,Planning Director Pat Barnum stated: . "The internal circulation pattern within the subdivision has been developed with reference to an overall circulation pattern for the • entire area which was revised by the Planning and Public Works staff . following testimony at the April 10th Planning Commission meeting, : .• + •. The new proposal, which I'll explain here in just a moment, would Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page lof3 . , b • } . i t.. allow for a possible future connection between Chapin Road and • O'Brien Street,as the prior proposal did,but would slow traffic by inserting two right-angle corners and would also allow a connection to Highway 43. 'These two changes provide a response to 4111 ' neighborhood desires without sacrificing the concept of overall transportation planning. We would not now recommend additional changes. The modified plat before you does not conform with the ' modified circulation plan. : :•• As the new plat proposal does not adequately relate to the proposed circulation plan,we recommend denial." , Further testimony by Bob Amptman,City Engineer and Pat Barnum +. . (pages 7 through 12 of the transcript) recap the thinking behind the future street plan. Regarding the extension of Chapin, Barnum concludes: If it ever takes place, it would be in response to requests for • : '.�;, development by the adjacent property owners and the dedication and improvement would be requested at their expense at the time that , ' t . they would try to develop. If it should never happen, of course, the road would never be cut through, but we are assuming that at some time there will be further development there and making allowance • +': for that." • Meeting ended with motion to continue for two weeks to resolve • • questions on potential City acquisition of open space. • >,. 5-22-78 Subdivision proposal denied on the basis that a) City Council officially designated part of the proposal as open space, and b) that the circulation plan was not responsive to staff suggestions (it intended to vacate the north end of Chapin Road which was not found to be in the public interest). 0 , • •• 5-30-78 Waker Associates prepares new utility plan and lot layout showing ".• development on east side of Chapin Road only, abandoning earlier "west • •. fork" of Chapin to O'Brien. •. . ,. 6-9-78 City receives new application for Morning Sky Subdivision, Chapin Road proposed to be improved to the end, 6-22-78 Waker Associates submits letter appealing May 22, 1978 denial of the „• .+ Planning Commission (withdrawn September 5, 1978), 7-78 City Engineer's Memo to Planning Commission . Improvement of Chapin Road in its current dedicated alignment is stated to be in conformance with the proposed circulation plan designed by • Planning and Public Works, 3-9-79 City receives preliminary plats for Morning Sky Subdivision and Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision together With an application to modify the . Comprehensive Plan designation on the No. 2 plat from open space to residential, Both preliminary plats show using the Chapin Road right-of- • . way to its northerly terminus, with no mention of extension in the future on the exhibits, S • Synopsis of Events- Chapin Road • Page2of3 .t . iL'• r • • (Break in records,probably due to lengthy process of modifying Comprehensive Plan) 1-26-81 Planning Commission hears and recommends approval of Hallinan Woods II(formerly submitted as Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision) to the City Council. This meeting also considered and recommended the change to the Comprehensive Plan. No testimony was taken regarding the Chapin Road issue. ' 1-28-81 Memo from City Traffic Engineer to the Planning Director stating that "with access onto Highway 43 undesirable,it appears that the most feasible access to that property to the north would be the future extension of Chapin Road". This memo is Exhibit "G" in the staff report that went to the City Council for final approval. 3-24-81 City Council public hearings.(three related hearings) A. The Council approved Hallinan Woods with the street improvements of Chapin Road to its northerly terminus,denying the applicant's request to eliminate sidewalks. B. The Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the open space designation on the west side of Chapin Road, north and east of the Hallinan School, 1 C. The Council approved Hallinan Woods II unanimously, imposing a 8) condition that a sidewalk be constructed on the west side of Chapin .r Road to its northerly terminus. RC/kaa iRuaa93.11«wra>ChapInRoad I• ; • • ' y • •' r • 40 • . . . Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page 3of3 • ,. . ay... • • • . • . . •. . • . . •. • • . • ••• • ..• , ,.•., . • •1 r ~ • , f • • , „•... . • . • • • • S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Y . 007 ik ` '� . M ' , I 91 43 930' . I i o ( «t 1u�ti a ._.J ' .-.f .. . ' .' ._, _- aw_•M_•_ _•1i _•_,.-_. _1 .— .I .•...._ F78 .._ - - la/6 r . g I I . i V &I. N tI V I iWi NW I + �° 98( - Q 1 V +w LAUREL STREET ',:1P _ ' •' _ . •1 P 1001 N1►I 13 No I o W , uy ' W § 4. I n • N I N d .: �00NW �a 11:1. r; .-»- 9023 1022 1033 1024 Q' 1023 I 1024' 61 1023 i 102 e., 1038 ® _ -c ,,'• �j �� 10 3 1032 y� _ ow -.._:J_..... �' _ 1023 O _, 1436 Z • ' �a 1043 1042 T 1042 _ -4 1038 1043 1048 _. ,-- , I.,• GiV '..`• '1053 1063 1044 Z 1 _ j--^•'^1� • "�° f'4! { , ' 1052 1 CI j ;4T0 "1073� •r,..`, "'''''-� T o i g _ rd ob 190 .1195 i o I _ N I a • • 13piI. 122G r 1226 i i J- - - - i _ i t ,�' A 1240 Z — l r - jr 1 1280 Z. 1285 ._.-• --' J goo�„„e,a► ',ntelW,,,, U.,� :, ' . •• • ►-r-'°c-.- - -•-•--. : .. _'- � -' �' y I 1280 1285 i �, y . ' L I .,.--• _ .41) i 1 • 1306 i - 6300 CHAPIN_ I --®- - , .. ' '‘..) 1 1 • . .- " . I-w I . "S 380 ^1 I s I L•- _ 18400 I N W 1. I . .., .,. •. • ': ch I n ; `� I °1 HALLINAN i i I a J•-..— ~ I 184:i Y M GK =�� I oRNIN0 s __ 1425 GRADE —. w I \ "'I 0 6 o 0ao 1 « 150 • .....: . I 1e461 0eai 1466 • SCHOOL 1459 1460 � - I ' -- __ _- , "' L 1489 1490 1486 ( •• - 16756 • � - i O 16820 • Zi639 �1630 5 I Z • i _ � � ( 16621 A - r - 116 69 580 .r -� ' J - Z � • . O - — 1675 ; I • Z 1689 i 1590 M-•—•-1 I 18820 y . 8r_._ _ -i 1816 i _ ` .. o�I �- , 16!1 4 h\ - •, - 3183rr _ • y 18830 O _ . — r 1846 �. — . -I � r Z 1861680 E � 6 * _ I _ � - (----' .~ N — a187I r I A • - -1 1690Z i ' I 1896 I I N A a a 1 8 A �E � i1VE '' 1 a1' LANE • . \ 25 ; w ` S 6 • II if..A iA ` r p I. . ... , 10 5 ,; gyp ,�S• 1 9 ��8 b. aj vP 0 ✓ ` To 04 EXHIBIT" _ , . r / tL \ • ,mil ti �� �'�p1 �' • f •\ / \•\,(r O� r/ i . I ec�Lei :J 91 0 43VI- f901 i 93 _.._ -)-._ ..__ _. LL_T_T41 _. 916 •F.. i tr # I I N I w 98 976 I 96 �► w i -4 i I i iCC' b •LAUREL. STREET • . 1oa� A� N �. w� w >u as w I a wl +. I � • o1 CO a i o � I001 i i , solo _Ill__ _i_,_. _..J i _ _ e ::� li 1023 1022 1033 1024 'p 1023 102f. .._. f: _.t.-.- •, . ` ` p 1033I.1032 W 1 �_� 1024 p 1023I �-. 1023 10J6 p \ c, 4t. 1043� 1042. m ���•1042'. 1033 j 1038 1043� 1048 Q�' ,J . _1... '-:-'-'' �, �G � 10t33 I10Q2 1053 i 10 'a° 1' -I _:: -I "'• -�=� �I�er�'m '� Gv f,07p -1073 T ii ,43\ /1100 1195 I o I I I i ' i' ,► 1 1220 1226 i I H • . I 1 1240 1246 _I ? N F s ;481 . , ys �1280 1286 _ �'•1 w �-�a��w��•� _ ,. . • O ,--' tars . _..•-.-a me asp • .. •1 y I 1280 1286 -'`vi i I a11Yi . 1306_I I - .. .. _._. _.. _ �6300 CHAPIW -- o l�ty4 1! i. _- . .__.• i t6401 �� I 18626 „� y j � It 390 �� I � � _ _.___ _ 1640o I ro A A I 5-7 18431 C ;MLOCK ' ": 'MORNING SK'Y /, ' ''''s I" ''. . a' ` co I w 1426 GRADE r- --- -- - ro 1 I 7- _._.._.- — •-1— ,. f 1846t o o 1600 1469 L1460 \ 4654 SCHOOL 0 1 _ 1489 I 14teo_ r...� I '• 7 11b30 1605 , �� �. \16820 I 16766 . 1639 _• � 1 p1669 1680 fey..,,,,_,......,1 18621 . .. I \ . 99 1590 m _.� I 28 9 011 ",.• _.o _ -� 1816 I ' r .. i_ ..... - -- '1&'14�'.# I -,O 183-91. 163 r- 1846 _ _ - - _ .I o 1002b1 830 - I 1 "4:)t? 1 fay __�.�S 18761- ,I,,. .,, ,.�,-� _ - .r - �e ,),,,,. " 1 -t ono 11690 z _• •-, _; I D '.q 1 6, �.,„.. „ • . . r, ' ^ I 1696 ! �I 1 I ro I A \`• . a 1 U • 1. n co ` I NE 1680 -4) . i 1 1726- 11VE I ' m ._� I LANE ,\ • + � 1 � 1 �\ C \\ RaCitzeteldiraq' ). ice . •' : .. ..,. . ;:. Iv r \ fol \ co A I 0 .. ` ✓ 05 . -„ . . , .....L.i...".........i....H,„ _LA_\ 31...,, 4,1 •+ Si 1+z0 ..\ ` �GI 110 A/ A0 Y ��Ti�, ��� �I..e , • 1�0 \ O 06 , y EXHIBIT \l'' . .: :, : 0 /.� /�Sao 4v0�" rs / / �" -✓Al 111"� _•E6Dl1-'i CArt ie-•`l'? ! d p- - i71 43t!iJ ._. EL;alb;lfii ;; 916 976 AE<o m—i t. i I .4I � I � i i 1iaii " i 1 a � .+ a;� _.._,..». LAUREL STREET • I00 Ai o C ( o - OD d' I N O o0o O i fi {ooi I IN 4.;�•,,", ,. iolo _LA__ ' . , 1, '— —.- 1023• 1022 4 '0 10231.__ . 1023 102E 23� 103o r' `+ ','s4"r t'te, -- .......��. 1033 90a1024 r- ld O - >' •' %i r'.;;,, ' yDy, 90331 1032 R1 _._.:� I __ C _.. i n •- 1835r� • }, . t,,;,,V;:; ' \A.yDQ• i+ 10431 104 m --.T 1042 f� 1033 j 1038 10+13 Y 048 Z c ��"°"=' ar,r+ Gi • 1G10 10611 1062 1C163 i_ sr. • i i i ,r„ '; +y0 i90 11 t95 i c i N I i - - r _ ;. . •„ , �r�0 122C 1225 t• • :2: ' 71 ` 51 _.-i 1240 a 1245 _.i I .• a l :.;ti-0.7 � 11 ;J 1cA +1oeYe 4• ; 'yD f1280 Y288 +-• .Iiill�+ '�' „+" „', 16496iTn� 12801 1286 .fir / I i _ ,1306 � ` 91.�.._.� ! f I !1ti..t8.'lODCHAP 1 1365 1 _ . I��-- �� .9.d,. t�'' 1 p' i o _ . y 10401 �' 1882" r ( ( isaoo 0, + N I A. . , , Oi i , (1390 ` •� a. . �+ �,I N , i Q1 HALLINAN t843t i 1 1 aY ..".' * 4:4 • CK - I MOE4NINC 3KY .�/w 1 w1426 tGRADEPIP r—. ._ w 1 a I `�. /�- 1640 010�• . , . „ • 146A 1460 1466 , SCHOOL I1 p 14891 1490 1485•� I 1 18755 163A ' i63Q taoa 1 1682O 1 7 , . ._.�" /� 1646 16621 'r.• O -- -- m 1675 _ ryl 8 w, . 95e9 rt6Ao m-•— 16e2 1 i1 . .. ., _,I 16391 1630 F. .—. — — — I ..� 16825� 18830 ._- p _ 1845 �. _. . 0 ` — f •, a t z 1858 1880 ,, --1—" 0 '� 3 -• , \ Nitrs, . . . a. ; 1696 ! =i —I 3 •1 N 1 0 I w , JE 1ge0 _�f y NE Y r I'VE r 1725 ; co LA N i \ 89 .di* .i00; '* 'ds ' iv -0).... 14;r 0 j 1.11...A.......:" ft":. i 12.514 / , •... . • ��--, / ����, ��� �� 0 I.�.�.�.��E,�X H I B..�I'T �.�, �� � . Ir en, �`` .�' e� _�,iih��':./�iN�l -1� z A . • .i,1