Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2000-10-02 PM PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET OCTOBER 2, 2000 01 SANE pstLECO City of Lake Oswego • Development Review Commission Monday, October 2, 2000 7:30 p.m. OREGON Marylhurst Conference Center Commons Building (Room C-106) Members: 17600 Pacific Highway Julie Morales,Chair Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Nan Binkley,Vice Chair Doug Cushing Douglas Kiersey For Information: 635-0290 Sheila Ostly Bruce Miller Dave Powers Agenda This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Janice Bader at 635-0297, 48 hours before the meeting. * I. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Book II. ROLL CALL • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21 , 2000 IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 99-0060, an application by Hallmark Inns and Resorts. LU 00-0069, a request by Schollander Development. LU 00-0074 [AP 00-141. an application by Lois Moore. LU 00-0049, a request by Preferred Homes. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0002, a request by Mr. Donald F. Cameron, (neighbor to the north) for a hearing regarding the applicant's request to remove eleven (11) trees in order to construct a new single family dwelling at 2306 Mayors Lane (Tax lot 401 of Tax Map 21E 16CB). Applicant: JB&B Construction. The staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT • • • • ``(4 of LAKE--- Iti oswfc • ._, s I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum Date: September 19, 2000 to: Development Review Commission From: Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner Subject: LU 00-0002 [JB&B Construction; Roe; Panus]; Revised plan; Additional Materials and Analysis • BACKGROUND This application, regarding requested tree removal (TC 99-0183), was originally heard by the Development Review Commission on February 7, 2000. A staff report was prepared and published on January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, the applicant requested that the matter be continued to the hearing scheduled February 23, 2000. At that hearing,the applicant requested that action on the matter be postponed. Additional memoranda were prepared and provided to the Commission, dated February 18, and March 3, 2000. The original applicant, JB&B Construction, is no longer involved with the application. The new applicant is Len Panus. The property owner has acknowledged this change in a letter (Exhibit 48). Mr. Panus has attempted to respond to the issues raised by staff and the Commission during the previous hearings on the matter. Additional materials received during and since the March 6th hearing are attached to this memorandum: Exhibit 46 Letter from A.W. Geotechnical Services, Inc.; dated March 6, 2000 II Exhibit 47 Composite site plan; dated March 6, 2000 (too large to reproduce) Exhibit 48 Letter from D. Roe; dated September 14, 2000 380 A Avenue• Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Pl,innine hivikinn• (=Nfi)hi�-02Qfl • Ruildine Division (C031 63;41190 • Fneineering Division• (503)635-0270 • FAX(5031 63;-026Q Memorandum Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 September 19, 2000 • Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 49 Revised site plan; dated September 7, 2000 Exhibit 50 Slope analysis; dated September 7, 2000 In response to the applicant's most recent material, please consider the following: APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL The applicant's original proposal was to remove 11 trees in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the site, which was approved as a part of a previously approved minor partition, SD 47-90. The revised proposal will remove only five trees. The following issues were identified by the staff in the February 18, 2000, memorandum: Not All Existing Trees Are Illustrated On The Applicant's Tree Removal Plan Staff noted that the applicant had not illustrated the location, diameter and species of all trees present on the site, as observed during a site visit. Revised drawings were to be submitted, include the location of proposed mitigation trees. A composite drawing was required to overcome discrepancies of previous drawings at two different scales. Extent Of Slope Alteration Proposed Not Illustrated • The applicant was required to illustrate the extent of disturbance that would result from the construction of the dwelling, driveway and seepage trenches for drainage. Accurate Tree Removal And Mitigation Plan Required The applicant was required to illustrate the location of proposed mitigation trees on the same plan and to resolve dissimilar scales of the drawings by providing a composite . Certified Arborist to Submit A Plan With Specific Pre-Construction And Post- Construction Recommendations; Alternative Site Plan Or Other Landscaping Plan Required The arborist report(Exhibit 34)employs a 10-15 foot"critical root zone", but does not say how the close proximity of the dwelling complies with this limit. The applicant was required to reconcile this discrepancy. APPLICANT'S REVISED PROPOSAL The applicant has amended the proposal, shifting the dwelling slightly to the north to avoid two additional trees. While the applicant originally proposed 11 trees for removal, through adjustment of the dwelling's location and a reduction in the size of the driveway, only five trees are currently proposed for removal. • Memorandum Development Review Commission • LU 00-0002 • September 19, 2000 Page 3 of 8 ANALYSIS The applicant has addressed many of staff's expressed concerns and material needs, as follows: Off-site Impacts Have Not Been Properly Illustrated and Considered The applicant's revised drawing illustrates the location of trees and proposed improvements on-site and off-site, as requested (Exhibit 49). The plan illustrate the location of all of the existing trees and those proposed for removal in order to construct the proposed dwelling, and those whose removal will result from the construction of a public turnaround required as a condition of the previously approved minor partition. As a result of the inclusion of all trees affected by proposed improvements, staff concludes that five trees (ranging from 12- to 20-inches in diameter)will require removal. This is six fewer than originally proposed. The applicant has addressed staff's concerns regarding the impact of the construction of the proposed driveway on trees abutting the site to the west. These trees are now illustrated on • the revised site plan (Exhibit 49). Abutting to the west, removal of nine trees will be required in order to construct an emergency vehicle turnaround,required as a condition of the approved minor partition (SD 43-90; Exhibit 16). This tree removal is the subject of a separate permit(TC 00-003) for which no hearing was requested. As a result, the seven trees are not among those under consideration in this hearing. The applicant's arborist previously recommended measures necessary to protect the remaining trees from the impacts of construction. These include maintaining a distance of 10- to 15-feet from the trunk of the trees proposed to remain. The impacts of the proposed development are proposed to be minimized through the revisions that have been made, and through implementation of the arborist's recommendations, as required by the Tree Code. Adiustments to Orientation of Proposed Dwelling The applicant's revised dwelling location has positioned the area of disturbance of the dwelling three feet from an 28-inch Douglas-fir on the south side of the dwelling. The applicant has pivoted the footprint of the dwelling to the north, holding the position of the northwest corner, in order to increase the "critical root zone"protection prescribed by the applicant's arborist(Exhibit 34). The distance proposed is deficient of the 10-to 15-foot critical root zone" suggested by the arborist. Similarly, a distance of only six feet is proposed from a 14-inch Douglas-fir on the north, and 4.5 feet from an 18-inch Douglas-fir northwest. While the applicant is to be commended for the adjustments proposed in order to preserve more trees, the distances proposed do not appear to be sufficient to enable the S survival of these three trees, based upon the arborist report (Exhibit 34). Further evaluation by the applicant's arborist is required to reconcile the effects of the revised proposal. Memorandum • Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 • September 19, 2000 IP Page 4 of 8 The applicant's arborist was to have been critically involved in assessing the revisions proposed to the applicant's site plan. While this point was not highlighted in the memorandum dated February 18, 2000, it was heavily implied. While the applicant has spoken of the arborist regarding the case, he has not submitted a report from either of the arborists In the record to account for the proposed changes and to assess their impacts. Width of Driveway is Excessive The applicant has reconfigured the proposed driveway, reducing it to 15 feet in width at its intersection with Mayors Lane (Exhibit 49). This reduction in width is intended to avoid the removal of two 10-inch, two 14-inch, and one 18-inch Douglas-fir trees at the entry to the site. This reduction addresses the issue that had been raised by staff, demonstrating that access can be achieved while still preserving the large specimen trees on the site'. Staffs expressed earlier concerns about a cluster of eight Douglas-fir trees west of the driveway, and one 26-inch specimen Douglas-fir. While the applicant has diminished the width of the driveway at the entrance to the site,the 28-inch Douglas-fir will be impacted by grading (i.e., cut) on both the east, from the construction of the driveway, and on the west, from the construction of the public turnaround. The cuts appear to be two-to four feet in height. The distance from the tree trunk to the cut is as little as three feet, far less • than the 10-15 feet prescribed by the arborist as a"critical root zone". The applicant has not adequately addressed protection or the need to remove this specimen tree. An arborist report is necessary to achieve this objective. Floor Plan of Dwelling Could be Reversed The applicant has not chosen to reverse or diminish the floor plan of the dwelling, suggested as an alternative by staff. Instead, the driveway length has been maintained, but with attention to the preservation of a 26-inch specimen Douglas-fir tree located on the west property line. A cluster of eight Douglas-firs located on the abutting site, on Parcel 1 of SD 43-90, is not affected by the reconfigured driveway design. The construction of the required turnaround will result in the removal of nine trees,which were processed under a separate permit (TC 00-0003). Impact of Current Proposal on Off-site Trees As noted in the previous item, the applicant has illustrated the location of trees on the abutting the site to the west. The applicant has demonstrated that the construction of the required turnaround in the public right-of-way west of the site has will result in the I While the trees are intended to be preserved,a storm drainage line is required to be installed in a storm drainage easement along the north line of the site,to accommodate surface runoff from the turnaround,which will be constructed prior to final inspection of the proposed dwelling. See the discussion on page 5 of this memorandum • regarding the impact of construction of this utility on the trees proposed to remain. Memorandum • Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 4110 September 19, 2000 Page 5 of 8 necessaryremoval of nine trees. The applicant has demonstrated through the composite PP P site plan that the number of trees proposed for removal in order to construct the dwelling is not increased by the proximity to the required turnaround, nor is the number of trees proposed to be removed to construct the turnaround affected by the proposed location of the driveway. The method of tree protection recommended by the applicant's arborist (Exhibit 34) will be required to be employed prior to, and during, construction of all proposed improvements. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Additional Considerations The remaining areas of concern regard the required installation of seepage trenches (north and east). One is to accommodate surface runoff generated by the paved surface of the required turnaround, situated in a public storm drainage easement reserved for that purpose. The improvement is necessary, but its route is subject to refinement. The applicant has illustrated the location of the storm drainage line near the north property line, running downhill from the catch basin to the west, through the four nearest Douglas-fir trees, to a 5 by 10-foot gravel-lined seepage trench(Exhibit 49). Staff believes that the alignment of this storm drainage line can be adjusted in segments to run farther south, and • going between the 12-and 18-inch Douglas-firs, which are spaced wider apart than others in the cluster. Staff also believes that this short utility line should be excavated using hand tools, and that care can be taken in doing so can tunnel beneath the affected roots of the Douglas-fir trees. The applicant has indicated orally to staff that this is his intent. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. The second area of concern is the location one of the seepage trenches (south)to be constructed to accommodate runoff from the dwelling. As proposed, the southern trench is proposed to be within the dripline of a 28-inch Douglas-fir, and will adversely affect the roots of the tree located below the trench. Staff believes that this trench, or both, can be positioned closer to the dwelling, reducing the impact to the tree. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. CONCLUSION With the exception of the need to provide a revised arborist report, the applicant has satisfied the material requirements and concerns identified by staff in the January 26, 2000, staff report, and the February 18,and March 3, 2000, memoranda regarding LU 00-0002. Staff finds that the applicant's revised proposal now satisfies the applicable tree removal criteria. • Memorandum Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 September 19, 2000 • Page 6 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Since the applicant has revised the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway, which location is intended to minimize disturbance to existing trees, staff recommends that LU 00-0002 be approved to remove only five trees, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the Issuance of any Building Permit,the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Submit a revised site plan substantially the same as the revised site plan (Exhibit 49), except as modified by Conditions A(2)—(3), below. 2. Submit a utility plan substantially the same as the revised site plan (Exhibit 49), showing the following information: a. Location of the storm drainage line near the north property line to a 5 by 10-foot gravel-lined seepage trench running farther south, and going between the 12- and 18-inch Douglas-firs. This design shall note that this short utility line shall be excavated using hand tools, and that care shall be taken in doing so to tunnel beneath the affected • roots of the two Douglas-fir trees. b. Location of two proposed seepage trenches (east) closer to the dwelling, reducing the impact to an affected 28-inch Douglas-fir tree. c. Location of the foundation of the dwelling no closer than 10 feet from the trunk of any tree proposed to remain on the site. 3. Submit a grading plan showing minimum excavation and fill around trees to remain. The applicant/owner shall remove and dispose of excess excavated materials away from the site in order to minimize damage to remaining tress. 4. Submit a final landscape plan identifying number, size, and species of trees, substantially the same as the tree removal/planting plan(Exhibit 49), for review and approval by staff. This plan shall illustrate mitigation trees measuring a minimum of 2" caliper deciduous trees and 8' — 10' tall conifer trees(excluding the leader). All vegetation shall be selected from the City's native plant list. • Memorandum • Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 • September 19, 2000 Page 7 of 8 B. Prior to the Removal of any Tree, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. protected. This Install flagging on trees to be protec a flagging shall be bright flag ribbon, distinct from the flagging used to identify trees to be removed, and tied securely around such each tree. 2. Retain services of the certified arborist, whose report(s) is a part art of the P hearing record(Exhibit 34), to supervise removal and protection of all trees on the site throughout the entire construction process. C. Immediately Following the Removal of the Trees and Prior to Commencement of Building Construction, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Install erosion control measures. These measures shall be maintained throughout the construction process, and until landscape installation is complete and established. These measures shall include broadcasting hay or grass seed in bare areas, and silt fences along downslope property lines. 2. Install and maintain tree protection fencing. This fencing shall be a 1111 minimum of six-foot-tall chain link fence attached to posts driven into the ground at maximum 10-foot intervals at the edge of the tree protection zone, or dripline,whichever is greater, for review and approval of staff. a. The bottom of this fencing shall be flush with the initially undisturbed grade. b. This fencing shall be maintained until final building inspections are approved. c. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manger and arborist for the project. d. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil,waste items, or parked vehicles or equipment. e. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,or run-off. Memorandum • Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 September 19, 2000 • Page 8 of 8 f. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, unless directed by a certified arborist present onsite and approved by the City Manager. D. Prior to Approval of Final Building Inspection, the Applicant/Owner shall: 1. Install all landscaping per the approved landscaping plan, as required by Condition A(4), above. 2. Install the storm drainage line(north),and two seepage trenches (east), as required by Condition A(2), above. /MRW [1:lmike_w1workspaclreportsM u000002100091 3 me.doc] • • 1 MAR-06-00 04 :31 PM ,AWGEOTECMNICAL SERVICES 5036360427 P. 01 AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. • S1470 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (503)-635-3146 Fax. (503) 636-0427 FAX TRANSMITTAL March 6, 2000 TO: City of Lake Oswego EXHIBIT 46 LU 00-0002 Planning Division Attn: Michael R. Wheeler FROM: Anthony J. Wright, Geotechnical Consultant Fax: 635-0269 Re DRC Hearing LUOG-0002 2306 Mayors Lane, Lake Oswego Presented herewith is supplemental information with regard to my recent letter to Mr and Mrs. Huntley of February 29,2000. Since 1 will be unable to attend the DRC meeting this evening (as anticipated by John Barnes) due to scheduling conflicts, the next best thing is to provide supplemental comments which appear to be needed. The data presented on the Site Plan with regard to dissipator trenches g p is as stated a preliminary and not intended to be binding upon the applicant. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that the proposed preliminary system dissipator trenches would necessarily be the best and fai only method of disposal of stormwater over the steep hillside. Although the use of dissipator trenches appears to have some merit, an approach currently mandated by the City of Portland for steep slopes is to utilize detention storage tanks (usually 1 ''A or 2 ft diameter CMP pipes) that detain the 10 year design storms with an external orifice to discharee water at a cnntrnlled deeinn rare - - ", -. ..rr.• --•• L.) tit, vi t viilulliu lvl JLccp JIVtJGJ is to utilize detention storage tanks (usually 1 '/z or 2 ft diameter CMP pipes) that detain the 10 year design stonns with an external orifice to discharge water at a controlled design rate (usually to a city sewer). • • • MAR-06-00 04 :33 PM AWGEOTECHHICAL SERVICES 5036360427 P.04 Page 2 • March 6, 2000 though in this case to somewhat more limited a surface dissipator trench similar to that shown on the Site Plan of my letter February 29,2000. There is a tendency (although not consistent) by the City of Portland to mandate such systems since the mid 1990's. Another method that seems to be gaining recent acceptance (and considered to be environmentally compatible) is the use of shallow landscape infiltration trenches 6 to 18 in. in depth (refer to 4-9 of Storm Water Management Manual 7- July 1999, Environmental Services, City of Portland). The above methods along with others are suitable for storm water disposal over steep hillsides. It is incumbent upon the applicant to direct storm water "to a positive storm drainage system on site without adversely impacting the adjoining properties" (ref. LU99-0066 Page 6 of 10). • It is noted that the McDonald Engineering report of July 1,1999 provides for a series of 10 ft long 3 ft wide soakage trench segments which appear to be 3 '/2 to 5 ft below original ground to provide temporary detention of storm water that would ultimately seep vertically into "gravelly soil". The soil description presented in the recent Carlson Testing Geotechnical report of December 9,1999 indicates an upper soil sequence of dark brown medium stiff to stiff silty sandy clay containing scattered organics grading with depth to orange brown sandy clay which contains sand sized rock fragments. (Unfortunately the detailed boring logs were not available to the writer). Groundwater was not encountered in the Carlson test borings. However it is noted that "based on the soils encountered, saturation or perching of rainfall should be anticipated". It is further noted that Geologic Hazards Mapping of the Lake Oswego and Gladstone Quadrangles, Oregon contained within DOGAMI Bulletin 99, 1979 depicts that the site being within or immediately adjacent to a fringe area of wet soils with high groundwater tables that rise to within 1 '/2 ft of the ground surface, 40. (which condition might be reasonably anticipated during the seasonally wet months of November through February). If it can be shown that the soakage trench segments indicated by Mrnm►,ai O a�r_ .• If it can be shown that the soakage trench segments indicated by McDonald would definitively encounter gravelly soil of relatively high permeability then soakage trench segments along the cut trail may be suitable for the disposal of storm water. , • • rat-ik-06-00 04 :33 PM AWGEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 5036360427 P. 03 Page 3 March 6, 2000 From a broader perspective it would appear that the whole issue of storm water disposal system should be referred to the Building Department of the City of Lake Oswego during or even following the normal permitting process. In any event, a detailed evaluation of a suitable design storm water disposal system (including plumbing details) is premature since the final residential and driveway footprint does not appear to be available at this time. It is hoped that the above supplemental comments provide an appropriate perspective and will lead to the DRC to the normal procedure of delegating approval of a storm water disposal system 1111 to the Building Department during the formal permitting process. IMR—YJb-10 YJ t1y :Jc r HWIatU 1 t1.1"'7 fY 1l.HL btKV 11.t`� �t7Jb JblDNG f ,-' bG 03%03/2000 11:23 0000000000 IRS PAGE 01 • FAX Date 3.3-00 INumber orpooes including cover sheet TO: Tony Wright FROM: John Barnes 1470 Horseshoe Curve JB & B Construction, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 P08 1784 Lake Oswego OR 97035 Phone 635-3146 Phone 503-635-9446 Fax Phone 636-0427 Fax Phone 503-635-8541 CC: REMARKS: El Uryent ❑ For your review 0 Reply ASAP 0 Please Comment We are in receipt of your report dated 2-28-00 regarding LU 00 - 0002 for 2306 Mayors Lane. We look forward to meeting you at the Meeting in front of the Development Review Commission on Monday night. We will be bringing in additional `experts in the field " to refute your report. Please remember to bring all your field note 's and research material as it appears we will have several questions for you on the methods used for your Sconclusions and any research material you may be able to provide to substantiate your findings. Thank You. Thank YOU. • Note: This exhibit is too large to reproduce. 0 0 EXHIBIT 47 LU 00-0002 01-01-1900 07:09PM FROM TO 6350269 P.02 SEP-14- MA0 11 I r+n - a • September 14, 2000 Mr. Mike Wheeler Planning Dept City of Lake Oswego,Oregon Subject: Proposed Sale(Roc F operty)Tax Lot 401 Palisades Crest Drive,Lake Oswego R21E16CB00401 Deer Mike, • Please be advised that we intend to sell Tam Lot 401.Palisades Crest privy to Mr. Len Panes. Our prior proposed sale to JB &B Constraetlou(John Barnes,President)was never completed due to John's death. Sin , David R. Roe EXHIBIT 48 LU 00-0002 • TOTAL. P.02 0 0 p„,.. _- • M .l ..... v.r., 11 ' n... i 1 CITY or LP.'<.E OSWYdEGO Dopt.of Planning&Development — — — — — :.r ` — — — t .nioo 6 _ u. WrNO r'mrA1 �rYN ,,qq 1` ..n bl.r..t M'mrr.N a_ MAP Ammo ir boo. °• t/' / , 1['• , ,� III•,• Ie�O1MI k . A�. „,,. ... C / /• CI ! 'a o+IY ,. _. -,:-..*,,..s_.s., M. '' ''''',,........., ),,iii7t,t-Vk 1;-.\., .i,, —t, _I..C. 'i,., it 4 1\,.:. L _ E ..°rota r•°mrraur erG \ y6 1 1 ; _ 7 .....„ sj` t ::y •';'• y�` ••' 1.' [K.wlrbr Llllrl00�� 11 s ry'' ((4114i.?'" ''`' 4 `3"`— -- •-'''- L. \,.... eS\ \ ''-. .'lilt 4(iN ,...;;:f.::::g•P':'' 1, 1 ..°ar°.Nrrr vta ''''' . . ...'''').'• \Ilk.4i•fik.P'''' 1\ s?" 1 1 c�r, �';••�R%�. .. . • ` �' .1 PPP R\? 1 1 / \ .iip � lks :� ' 1 lit \ '&5....,., \-4 , - 1 ., q... „A. ,-1 V:i),'•!::::,a;C::•••0; _.•::::i:C:i:14:••• , % ‘ 41, E-1 ...::::::::„.::::.... \''I E-1 \\ \ \'s ;.-- ..,r,„'*,%", .r �• .:.Y. \ 1 Ca. QV LOT 17\ \\ 1'4v \‘""ippl :•.�, '.``' ,. ,, . s PARCCC 1 \ \ w' s.�•r. "'`�1 �1 W w \ \ yq :q• O Cr :* _ .\ s e /I 0 1.../ W \ \ s., 1` t.::" I 1\ I. 1 1 O a 1 EXHIBIT 49 \\ ,. , 11 = ....... . ti If . pin 4111-4116 LU 00-0002 \ 1 ' 1 . NOM( .\ \\ � 11 TREE-1 I CITY Cr LAY.E CISW7.f,0 Dept.of Planning&pr:;<L1+'prnent ‘II •� \,'', il )I, ii i1� TRY AY4.628 SF "�"u�ill 1, ,'' �� , ,�I,` HOUSE/DECK 4,828 SF u�. ii {�I 1 q , 1 Ifili I' i 'E SEEPAGE TRENCH 7&1 SF n.r• u,.. 461 .1 Ij l .p• i!' , I.h \ 7.965 Sf �p11 p, III x O. o :o • G�I Ilu,h6y lc I I h:1 I ry •?.:•.1,,,. rot,I', ! ,JW AREA , rj'i.k4.1r - 'l 1� n irtV r. Uc 3.3ae sF S� I 'I,I I N, II 1 I,I III 17 r1',OIr1 ENTRY/DRIVEWAY 1,431 SF !` 1j1. P III II I I r !'� �Il�il l�I 4617 SF 1 I g, I�I, II. ,II,I •I .fly �'�II „ s�' 4 1" I'' l ,' Ill 1 h 11 I�11\ I IR^ \ II. I I� �• IMPFRVIWS/TOTAL SITE•23%<30%OK. �\ \` R'�,+e+u y ,�1,..P.,:".;. V'i \ IL. ,6 DISTURBED AREA AREA`•65 1/TOT 0 AREA(20-54%)• r _ \ a. !.. r NI w I, Sip I I�,Im. , �� r \'•� � A �;�\\ 1 ,���, II( i� f�ll�l � �� �,� Ili Ir,R � �1 � �"' ' i h l p I 9R,GF7 \� ` -,` �`\ , F j ?: '"" i,:, ,Y+' mot' i ' v.\_. .. . \ -� ?III y V l' s '.., ''� 41,0,.:b i.N- 1ii L...> I r,�'I 1 R AI t.` ^''•"a �jy :?,::"1 iill, -,,q9•::::i:::.. , It,• , , '''.:',. c I ‘,' ' . I g'i R ' \ r •' VI. 1Iy , r I,J6 rl, rl;, .;`. .,Y.:•. •\ • 1 $ ZIN , , /�4.`��. \ � i;��� /f. •_ I• "�'� dp� ti ��a\I• �I� I IA,`Tj,1..,{i q�A1+I�Ir l .; `,� t�$. _ • :� /�, A\�- - �,- ���b•;� ��T\ " • •; • "7.it •. ' 01�l 1' ••" v • II'Ih� u, . ' ...,‘ + • Vi.,A , k C -��`1 \ \ R-\`, f ,,,��� .\ ♦ 1 .1Y tj, r it 1 ih \ ' A' fark q• • \ \ \••IF�j. 1.Ya` 'f C y^ �' 4,11;OW 1` ` y ,- -''''t 9•�`Aii...01:'....-..j11:te q S -. .,,�^'.''- 1 Z. 1!pi5Y. 1 •yTlT1 q� 0. may., \ -, 1 1 Iv 1..,16 i, `�.: .,p 11 11,; I I1 I`� S y + a {' F 1 I ; �I �V 1 \ \N. I I \\ SAI :*11 f< i 1 III ulit , 1`',c' �'1 .. it vi \ \ R \ i ‘F„• •rN 1 �r II y Ili',,4 i►� �rf Ni `'1 yyf��i� r 1% Q: \ \ ;\ \ •••,+. •' '1; � T, 1�. �. ',� 1,it 1 • T yf,,', f r` 1 y, . ` . I w a L 0 I 1 7 \\ \ •' , r n :A.\ " ip IA , I :01,1 ! •Iw i'' pT'-t1, '", y 'J w5,'4• 7' ,�"'' ", N w PARCEL I \ \ •� 1: 4 f 1 i. II T I. �I I a�l�,. y {{^r�� rG' ,�''� I w 1., \ .1., ' 1 �a� ^ I t ,,,, 1 w a 4 I lltl Ir 1r r �r 1I) ex: 4 i o \V A •is„+ %'L;% ,, �. 4'1 •.. ter,, , V {� 1..1, L r �1.1!:.: 'r-', A). �� 1 \\ \ I,,. .'a•. \ 1. �C. >', y `,y�.` � �f•.,' , .- 1 Ural. \ \ ;+ - t, .;:'1 V 1 r ,\.. :',...� . / - - DISTURBED ARP „W� EXHIBIT 50 \ "��"�' W. ;� 7p!' \ slrE O1STURBEO -4"' L V I 000Z \\ \ • n• 0-2sLo '00O AREA s I' �• 0-20X I,J00 SF 800 SF t07.� \\ ♦ r .: Q 20-50IS 12,000 SF 4,985 SF ....arm. \ SOz I 8,000 SF 1,396 SFn. =• � \ '� • '�� rOrAL 1 21,J00 SF 7,181 SI i_40 1 r r STAFF REPORT 4111 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO: JB&B Construction LU 00-0002 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: David Roe Michael R. Wheeler APPELLANT: DATE OF REPORT: Donald F. Cameron January 26, 2000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF HEARING: • Tax Lot 401 of February 7, 2000 Tax Map 21E 16CB LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: 2306 Mayors Lane Palisades COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 R-10 I. APPLICANT'S REOUEST The applicant is proposing to remove 11 trees in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the site, which was approved as a part of a previously approved minor partition, SD 47-90. O U II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Emergency Tree Ordinance, (adopted on September 28, 1999) • B. Lake Oswego Tree Code: LOC 55.02.020 Definitions LOC 55.02.030 Tree Removal Without Permits Prohibited LOC 55.02.035 Tree Removal in conjunction with Major or Minor Development Permit LOC 55.02.041 Prohibition of Tree Removal of Trees Greater Than 12 Inches, Exception LOC 55.02.042(2) Classification of Permits (Type II Permits) LOC 55.02.050 Application for Permits LOC 55.02.075 Notice Requirements for Type II Tree Removal Permits LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Permits LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Permit III. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. No historic designation exists regarding the site. • 2. The subject site is composed of Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1994-77, approved by the City in 1992 (SD 47-90; Exhibit 16). The parcel is approximately 21,491 square feet in size, and zoned R-10. 3. The site's inclusion within the City's Sensitive Lands Overlay was contested by the property owner(LU 99-0001). Findings regarding the matter were adopted January 4, 2000, by the City Council, incorporating the site into the Overlay(Exhibit 14). However, since the previous minor partition (SD 47-90) was approved prior to adoption of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (LOC 48.17), the requirements of this standard do not apply to the site [LOC 48.17.015(2)]. 4. The resource protection issues (e.g., protection of trees) were addressed as a part of SD 47-90 approval process (Exhibit 16). 5. A building permit for the site (BP 99-1796; Exhibit 8) has been reviewed and is being held by the Building Division,pending approval of the tree- removal permit and compliance with conditions of approval of SD 47-90. Exhibit 9 illustrates the location of the single-family-dwelling proposed to be constructed on this site. • LU 99-0066 Page 2 of 10 6. The subject property is generally a rectangular shaped lot (Exhibit 1). • Access to the property is from Mayors Lane. Properties abutting the site are zoned R-10, all with single family dwellings upon them. 7. The site is on a steep slope with approximately a 31-foot difference in elevation from the front of the proposed dwelling where the garage will be located, down to the rear of the house, below the proposed deck. The front, southern portion of the lot is approximately level and the highest section of the site (Exhibits 6 and 9). The northern portion falls off severely into a ravine that is protected by the Sensitive Lands Overlay (Exhibit 15). 8. The site was the subject of enforcement of a tree removal violation on January 12, 1999. The owner had removed 30 trees(i.e., 328.25 caliper inches) without a Tree Removal Permit, and had topped numerous others. The owner was required to apply for a retroactive permit, and was required to pay a cash amount to mitigate for the loss of the trees on May 24, 1999. 9. Trees illustrated near Mayors Lane on the applicant's tree removal plan (Exhibit 6) are inaccurately located, based upon a site investigation by staff. The applicant has provided a tree removal questionnaire (Exhibit 5). 10. In addition to the 11 trees proposed for removal, the site contains other • trees, which the applicant has not yet illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 6). The predominant trees on the property are Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) followed by Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Red Alder (Alnus rubra). The applicant has not illustrated all trees located on the site. Numerous trees are located along the north,east and south portions of the site. At least one additional tree is located within the building envelope of the proposed dwelling, but which has not been illustrated on the tree removal plan (Exhibit 6). This tree, a double-trunk Maple, is located approximately 50 feet southeast from the common corner between the site and the abutting property to the north, at the east end of Mayors Lane. 11. While the applicant originally submitted this tree removal application on September 9, 1999, the application was not made complete until the site was posted with a public notice sign regarding the tree removal and a letter was sent to the neighborhood association on December 14, 1999. The application notification period commenced on December 15, 1999, (Exhibit 4) and concluded on December 28, 1999, as required by LOC 55.02.075. 4110 LU 99-0066 Page 3 of 10 12. Mr. Donald F. Cameron, a neighbor to the north, filed a request for a public hearing regarding the applicant's proposal (TC 99-0183), along • with the applicable fee on December 22, 1999 (Exhibit 7). B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: Because the trees proposed for removal are between 10- and 24-inches in diameter, the applicant must comply with two sets of criteria, per LOC 55.02.080 and the requirement of the Emergency Tree Amendment, LOC 55.02.041. Tree removals proposed for housing construction purposes must meet the criteria of 55.02.080(3). On September 28, 1999, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Tree Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55)by adding section LOC 55.02.041 in order to address removal of trees that are larger than 12 inches in diameter. This amendment affects both Type I and Type II tree removal applications. This provision will remain in effect until other, more recent amendments take effect on February 17, 2000. The provisions of LOC 55.02.041 are reviewed later in this report. LOC 55.02.080(31 -Trees that are Not Dead.Dying. or Hazardous "The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not dead, dying or dangerous if the applicant demonstrates: • "(a) The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulation;" The applicant has submitted plans for construction of a new home (Building Permit Number BP 99-1796; Exhibit 8). Building permits for new home construction on residential lots are classified as ministerial development per LOC 49.20.105. The plans have been reviewed,but do not yet meet applicable City Codes in regards to building height(Exhibit 27). The proposal complies with applicable setbacks and lot coverage (approximately 18 percent). The applicant's tree removal plan (Exhibit 6) illustrates the trees the applicant suggests will be impacted by the proposed development. Only 11 trees are illustrated as being proposed for removal due to construction impacts generated by the proposed dwelling. Related to the building permit application mentioned above, the applicant is required, by Condition Number 15 of SD 47-90 (Exhibit 16), to construct an emergency services turnaround within the right-of-way that was dedicated for that • LU 99-0066 Page 4 of 10 purpose. The dedication was required as a Condition Number 3 of that approval. • The applicant has not submitted final construction plans for these public improvements, which will include pavement, a retaining wall, grading and drainage improvements. Under a separate tree removal application,the applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan for this facility, a plan indicating the trees proposed for removal, and a plan illustrating other trees within the vicinity. While the construction requirements for the public improvements mentioned above have not been fully satisfied, the applicant has submitted a tree removal permit for the area affected by the improvement (TC 00-0003). An administrative decision by staff is pending, and is not a part of this application being considered by the Development Review Commission. Staff finds that,because the proposed tree removal is for the construction of a single family dwelling, the application meets the intent of this standard.1 "(b) Removal of the tree will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;" For the purposes of tree removal requests, two time frames need to be examined: 1) immediate (during the project); and, 2) long term(after project completion). For the immediate term,Lake Oswego Code Chapter 52 governs erosion control • when more than 500 square feet of soil is disturbed. This chapter requires that erosion control measures be included as part of the home construction. These measures are to be put in place prior to and during activity that disturbs the soil, to prevent sedimentation and soil migration. The applicant states in the tree removal questionnaire (Exhibit 5)that"removal of the trees will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The building pad where excavation will occur has a moderate to steep slope. Erosion: Extensive understory growth formerly existed on the site; the absence of some of that vegetation will accelerate erosion, unless preventative measures are employed. An erosion control plan has not been submitted to the Building Division, nor to the Planning Division staff, indicating where silt fence would be installed to prevent any possible erosion. No indication has been made of whether excavated soils will be removed from site(Exhibit 6),but staff recommends that this be done so that erosion will not be exacerbated by the soil relocation on the site. 1 Staff notes that because a single-family-dwelling is permitted in the underlying R-l0 residential zone,the applicant has satisfied this specific criterion. However,while the use is allowed,the configuration of the dwelling currently proposed by the applicant does not meet all development requirements. As noted elsewhere in this report,the • structure does not comply with the maximum height allowed in the zone. LU 99-0066 Page 5 of 10 The Building Division administers the requirements of LOC Chapter 52 in • requiring an erosion control plan. Staff recommends that this be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Staff will monitor the site during the entire course of housing construction to assure compliance with the approved erosion control plan. The applicant has proposed to install mitigation trees at a rate of two-and-a-half to one (Exhibit 6). However,because not all existing trees are illustrated on the applicant's tree removal plan, staff cannot determine whether their number and placement is appropriate. Staff recommends that an accurate tree removal and mitigation plan be required to be submitted prior to a decision on this application by the Development Review Commission. Following this action, staff will recommend that the required tree removal be confirmed prior to the issuance of the building permits, and that mitigation trees be planted prior to approval of final building inspection. Soil Stability: This standard is typically applied to areas of extreme slope (20 percent or more) where existing trees and vegetation have been instrumental in retaining the hillside. When the removal of trees may cause slope failure (e.g., landslide, sloughing, etc.), then either the tree should remain or a method of mitigating for the loss of the tree must be engineered. This site has slopes between seven- and 47-percent (Exhibit 9), and is in an area identified as being • subject to landslide hazard (Exhibit 28). The applicant has not clearly indicated the extent of slope alteration proposed in order to construct the proposed dwelling (Exhibit 6). As a result, the number of trees that must be removed to construct the improvement is uncertain. Staff recommends that the Commission not render a decision regarding this tree removal application without such a plan. Flow of Surface Waters: This standard is typically applied to areas with stream channels. This property does not contain or border a stream. A driveway is proposed near the southwest corner of Tax Lot 401 in order to access the site. The new impervious surface on the site will consist of a dwelling and a segment of driveway from Mayors Lane to the dwelling. The impervious areas are required to be designed to drain to a positive storm drainage system on the site without adversely impacting the adjoining properties. Drainage issues are addressed by the Building Division staff in implementing the Uniform Building Code(UBC), Drainage for Minor Development(LODS Chapter 12) and the Erosion Control Ordinance (LOC Chapter 52) at the time of building permit plan review. Protection of Adjacent Trees,Existing Windbreaks: The trees proposed for removal will be within an area comprising more than half of the site (Exhibit 6). Adjacent, remaining trees have already been impacted by earlier tree removal • LU 99-0066 Page 6 of 10 activity on the site, leaving remaining trees scattered, rather than preserved in • clusters. Some trees farther to the north, east and south are detached from the construction area and may not be disturbed. Individual trees, when suddenly exposed by removal of adjacent trees are more subject to failure caused by wind- throw than trees left standing in groups. Trees within 5- to 10-feet of the proposed building's"footprint" are typically required to provide six-foot-tall protective chain link fencing at the dripline of those trees required to remain, and shall be put in place prior to commencement of construction. Due to lack of illustration of all the trees on the applicant's tree removal plan, however, staff is unable to confirm these relationships. Staff recommends that no decision be made regarding this application until an accurate and adequate site plan is presented to the Commission. "(c) Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood." Construction of a new single-family residence is in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood and is an outright permitted use in the R-10 zone. This site is currently a vacant lot that is moderately covered by trees and is situated below the rest of the area in a ravine between two existing homes. There is little question that removal of trees necessary to accommodate the construction • of the proposed dwelling will have an impact on the appearance of the lot. However, the applicant proposes to retain a portion of trees on the lot surrounding the house, and to plant 28 more trees (Exhibit 6). Because they are not illustrated on the applicant's tree removal plan, the staff is unable to determine how many trees are proposed to remain following housing construction. Staff recommends that an accurate tree removal and mitigation plan be required to be submitted illustrating all existing and proposed vegetation to be planted on site, prior to any action by the Commission regarding this application. Staff recommends that the plan illustrate mitigation trees measuring a minimum of 2"caliper for deciduous trees and 8' — 10' tall conifer trees. These trees will be required to be planted prior to final building inspection. LOC 55.02.041 Prohibition of Tree Removal of Trees Greater Than 12 Inches.Exception [Emereencv Tree Ordinance] "Notwithstanding LOC 55.02.035(1), 55.02.042(1)and LOC 55.02.080(3), no tree greater than 12 inch caliper at DBH shall be removed, except the City Manager may grant an exception to this prohibition when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or LU 99-0066 Page 7 of 10 alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, • so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. The City may impose such alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs as a condition of approval of the permit, in addition to any other conditions or provisions provided under LOC 55.02.042(1)and LOC 55.02.080(3). This new standard is applicable to all tree removal applications filed after September 28, 1999, and for all tree removals sought in conjunction with a minor or major development, except tree removals permitted under the Emergency permits, Dead or Dying Type II permits and Hazard Tree Type II permits. Under the new amendment, in addition to the basic requirements for a Type II permit, including "trees not dead, dying or hazardous" or tree removal in conjunction with a minor or major development, the applicant is required to address the new standards in LOC 55.02.041, if any tree proposed to be removed is greater than 12 inches in diameter. Specifically, an additional analysis is necessary over and above the underlying Type II criteria, to determine whether the proposed development may be sited differently (e.g., alternative site plans) or whether other mitigation alternatives would lessen the impact on the 12 inch trees proposed to be removed, still enabling the development to comply with other Lake Oswego Code provisions (i.e., setback, solar access). If it is not possible to site the development by means of an alternative site plan or other landscaping plan, an exception may be granted and tree removal permission given to remove a tree 12 inch or greater in diameter. This ordinance (LOC 55.02.041) gives staff the option of requiring alternative site and/or landscaping plans in order to preserve existing large trees on site. The proposed site plan is designed to provide adequate space in which to maneuver passenger vehicles entering and leaving the site. However, because not all trees are illustrated, as noted earlier in this report, staff cannot propose additional measures to preserve trees located in the vicinity of the dwelling or driveway (Exhibit 6). Staff is unable to find that construction of the proposed house foundation on the southeastern half of the site will not interfere with existing trees in this vicinity (Exhibit 9). As observed during a site inspection, all trees appear to be in good health. Staff recommends that a revised tree location and removal plan be submitted, so that the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway can be evaluated, and perhaps adjusted, so that affected trees may be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Also, staff recommends that a certified arborist be retained in order to evaluate and submit a plan with specific pre-construction and post-construction • LU 99-0066 Page 8 of 10 1 recommendations for preservation of the trees illustrated on a revised site plan, • indicating the location of all trees on the site,in order to ensure maximum tree protection, before approval of the tree removal permit is approved by the Commission. The arborist's recommendations may result in changes to building's "footprint",which must be shown on revised building plans for review and approval by staff prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff finds that until the recommended additions to the tree removal plan, as noted above, are submitted and evaluated by staff, the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal meets the requirements of LOC 55.02.041. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that the proposal does not currently comply with all relevant criteria. Specifically, the applicant has not submitted a complete and accurate tree location, removal and mitigation plan, and has not submitted an arborist report indicating the existing condition of the affected trees and the anticipated impact of the proposed dwelling. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff notes that while it is within the authority of the Commission to deny the applicant's request for tree removal based upon the deficiencies identified within this report, staff recommends, in the alternative, that the hearing regarding LU 00-0002 be continued in order to enable the applicant to submit materials necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria,as noted above. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Type II Tree Permit Application form,TC 99-0183; dated September 9, 1999 4. Affidavit of posting; dated December 14, 1999 5. Tree Removal Questionnaire; dated September 9, 1999 6. Final Grading, Tree Removal and Mitigation Plan; dated September 16, 1999 7. Request for Hearing,by D. Cameron; dated December 22, 1999 8. Building Permit Application,BP 99-1796; dated November 1, 1999 9. Building Permit Site Plan (BP 99-1796); not dated • 10. Elevation: Left Side (portions); not dated LU 99-0066 Page 9 of 10 11. Elevation: Rear(portions); not dated 12. Elevation: Front (portions); not dated • 13. Elevation: Right Side (portions); not dated 14. Ordinance No. 2179, regarding LU 99-0001; dated April 20, 1999 15. Map: Sensitive Lands Overlay(portion) 16. Staff Report and Decision, SD 47-90; dated June 12, 1992 17. Tree removal study(Alternative 1), SD 47-90; not dated 18. Tree removal study(Alternative 2), SD 47-90; not dated 19. Tree removal study(Final), SD 47-90; not dated 20. Letter from R. Tahran to M.Wheeler(Exhibit 11 of SD 47-90); dated April 23, 1991 21. Letter from R. Tahran to M.Wheeler(Exhibit 12 of SD 47-90); dated June 24, 1991 22. Letter from R. Tahran to M.Wheeler(Exhibit 27 of SD 47-90); dated February 14, 1992 23. Letter to D. Ross from R. Chevrette; dated November 23, 1992 24. Letter to D. Ross from R. Chevrette; dated June 7, 1993 25. Engineering routing slip from R. Chevrette; dated July 1, 1993 26. Letter to J. Barnes from M. Wheeler; dated September 24, 1999 27. Plan Review Checksheet, by J. Byerley; dated November 29, 1999 28. Map: Hazards, from Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory (LOPRI); not dated s Mpub_wksklatalcommon p\mike_wlworkspackeportAlu00000210W114r0.doc] i LU 99-0066 Page 10 of 10 ihHr ` L It Ibt1 �1 LANE. QN I 3.46 — — MAYORS _��ss E A�rMI 40 � ' 46" 7 700 0 2369 r` 500 Gjy`UJ" I gOf' L 3fi 'et' - 2}lf ° 365 'moo. S�3i, kb 0.49Ac. �` e a,0 Jr J V 0 � i4 PA- L2 ` 1 r' �� �' 20 \°' tea.ss 19 \� A. S 0.49. r 1 ,t •,05 11 ,0��3' Qy�y1G �. T ��,bl. o.58gc r2. ;,✓ 32 ��S . a_ZZS QR 18 0 P D ors • of re PAROE c r 56Ac.) 1,1 CO 2000 ` a .0 e,, 1900 6t N '366 4 l994'77 ,w ��� to pC L 231e /` N ' •'~ S 17 563 o Qp�' Tr) _ 300 ,` •0 �P�l b� c P 51 m �;(�i 33 ‘'I• m VI o �y° 32 •` 1700 1600 W ;' 1800 y, :339 a. 207. SS r seaes3•i, 'W r6 A 1 . I �I Q 3" , : 2 r 1 V •. a 599° /5 E 30sae_ n. Q 1 , AI l .r-117 - E 4 4n \/ 1300 h `.4 1401 , ,,` ,' + \,I• i l 1400 1402 / 1500 100 'pr 33j s 20 f NI ‘ ‘ C) \a � 101 26 1 e' •,7 4S -- 1/ 1 �� ( �' �A 102.Ye a�f7 .. 28 So Tk SEE MAP 2 IE 16C EXHIBIT 1 LU 00-0002 ID 0JJ1 �1J„ ' �1T��PA h 26 I o I x I G I d J S I S 1 / 11T111/ ..��� Zt� ~ <G(i ( ossz crct E NV I Y. •• I N K�,.�r1k• PA� 15� .N.r1-..1.w.,.r-r•n�w•vv - bpl` • - CLI IMKa • .. , �° /• _ d \S o.lt02 ..�...• ootd LnN,u.+ �.� Irs4 /` I'1 3 �d ep MCANYpN - V DR V G[.2 � ' o NT DE " iiioi, ,, ! ® Go.7 ii, o.car2.2 ce.z 2�Ce . zn,Jy ®d c �I ®��EN yzcioLcdY �f t P ® �l p6C7G6C2 �vx Co• �� �eAv 7.' OBC2.. C® � IBCz 9SC2 1r G0.2 • • torHlCESLpEM ` A_ ®® ff,RNG. �` S9C2 oLC2 < SCC2 M� - ��agu®P'� Al '1� • OVA h'O CSC2 02[2 SN.z . T . .,I 11112 Sa[2 o0C2 G122 ;,t. • & ®ai alla IREC e f 1`744 8 #®f 1022 Oa12 LO<z 0022 SS7.i Mg . /•�. }r �® � , 06(2 .etz OS22 C.2aSL2 Dew coo. •. YI •. �I IP virutP4iripAr° C4 0012 D= ,'TS 'c. FERHVOOD '' yl' �9\ 41."'' SM. e I ., vRTiti E. Isis AI,* sulAdiklow.J � �® � Isar. � 1 [osel . g �'� I.AN[ apt u:G1+ w°xyt !i- !'TRE , gal ,Ip _ A I -il _ 8 ® 4- �® GC6l er61 ® i, 0161 �1 nr:1.1 A�� ®�• . \ 0(02 '•�o 0601 r1 G9e1 Or61 ..•-.. - 'r l'v)�• r SCeI p LL,'')b q�?: ® : Lai I Oee1 1ps<Z"SI tt61 Lcel i - 1 cae r. R 4 '9 76[1 ! x I r 1.01 ` 0.01 1' Cf111 •tal L901 N v . ` �`If '"® eCS•p2' ,Cde\ "9 m u lone ' [an rMu u :1 tl �. 1, alai Gan :Sol; t el C901 1.d. ®� � .t. ® n G//1 min Gilt 9L01 SSLI Y281 Y c2e1 _v `C7 n aeu CCC$ GCLI 09/1 LLII 0.e1 C.tl aLll N R 'ae rtb0 ,,S, \ �. I N o• t cut out Z. . �� m Ge9l 02[1 cut 02n cut 71SI Lin rlfl '—_--+ '� O Gr91 Ot 9l o 5891 0991 -a G841` - 41 oars ro D 0491 1G91 0591 „ ®e^ G991 1�� CC2I _ :291 = L19(ari ' oz9�� •o+l `` 1091 2o91 091]i.N ; I= ' ri;1 L8G1 o6u nr'.cl :� \ •+•ar.. ., 7 o cm! olti 1K, n r'V • ,.•, 0 r- 14.0 .10k 1. A vE. • '''.. 2 ri 1- mitt fil% t. !r - - 7,1 5 16r1 0 rn D DOLI i tt • 1nX p OLYI IV. . • IL0 iY 2 A '12rrfr \\S` Di . x " aG.l Kr , � y ;, � Ct I .2.1 9.1 tsar n 1 zo r Cb3f�N7n -c9H gr ® f``�RQ "-Jill � . [9`rll • f-! y• I I 4 . � 1 ` I .:h ),:iv,... ,.,,, 4, ...„. ts.,..., • I. "1 1, l' 0 . . .54 1 , 1 r ; I 1 1,' .�.11: I rf.# T ♦t� �It.IlT+bu ['1 90A n ,. r0D<::•:. - I . ,. •. .. .I.• I,i 1. .. p•i1 I:' . - ':I ( 4--i i$..L1• 1.1e.r1 'a .kv•{. 'X.I:7 W#1 L' 07l Tree Removal 'Permit N;A—C.,91:-.tni 1 g3 eir• ' Nis lido Jig Fee: WIWI Application Receipt No. 12:1 72-1 110 OW40 Date: 1 Applicant: JB & B Construction , Inc. Phone: 635-9446 • property owner: David Roe Phone: 221.-4744 • Address of Tree Removtd: Lot 17 Parcel 2 Palisades Heights Estates # 1 - . .. il L.. ..• . Size,Number,and Type of Trees to be Removed: ..1"01 Fir, ( ' 1824" ) • _ I - „ s 1 Reason for Removal: Construct New Home Anticipated Removal Date: ASAP _ . I agree to comply with e Oswego Code,Chapter 55,regarding tree removal. I grant permission to the City of Lake 0 ployees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for removal. , . •-., _ . , . - _S ignatudofroperty Owner(reqt ).---!--...„._L , . ignature of Applicant(if different) The City must.rignfor trees located eniablie*wag;, -:- . John.:.H.:larnes / .President •David _ Roe / Owilet,..F.: •--._:., . , , .,-.-:. ..-- • --; -.. ., ..,_, .,, , . , . . , • s - '- ' .: ..:,,•,:ki&-., k..1%......,74:.q..4:-,.:N- - - •..•• , : ! Permit Type(Fill Out:With:City.Staff)• :-i.:-.r : ' 1 .. ;.-t --5 ?''' '.. k -''411';'..RE C D •r1:1 TYPE I •1 Submit.(1)Removal plan? --"-,--At. 77ile > --‘ "r- • .: • ,...,:-T...ite .... --.-ri-...--- ,-,_- ,;_,_.----.4,-.._ . ..4_ ;zi_....;..,:... ,;:v...,•.4..,444-21....•,,,f,...,,•___.,..,..z.g....,,,,•,.;.:.,, ,:„.• ..•, sEp 0 9 1999 • LI -.txrE i,A.DEAD,,- bllD1111t(1)Kemovat plan ...„------. , - . . : - .., CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO (Oversizedlots)v-,To Do: (1)Mark trees withi:rellovni bbo ii ' -- ._, /-.,: ClIEMERcENCY • Submit(1)Removal plan,(2)PhotographOf tree/ormiltkiftElwithgyttlesgmbats ... . , --,M ,...,...,..,,,-, ?.,-...,-. .4: ..4:?..-. .'^ -. •- ki;i' :., ..‘ Li VERIFICATION _ ' Submit:.(1)Removal plan,(2)Mitigation plan;if reqUired . >,. • -_...1..r,--, ....-.,.- . . (Prior approval) To DO:'"-(1)Mark frees with yellow ribbiki,1(2)5iiike build' .. 1,-, ,,--.-- •r -.-46-- , 1. 4., -,:,:s- , .--4,.- - ,tie i i LI TYPE II,DEAD --.:,,Subrtut(1)Removal plan,RIliotograph,of dead trecs,(I EXHIBIT 3 • : . ..-„•.):,-,..,,,3 -‘, __.: , 11,cti,r.siz4 -.‘-'4.v.g -,11;-.;. -,, , ..--• ,..,-., To Do (1)/4/kei ism-It=,,,,c-•.....len - --,i).• i LU 00-0002,.,-, ; IL1,- - -— __ ..' -'-'r: - 'ITO WAYM4j,`,11P-It.4 .1104,76frklkOt fr*,;•:" ket,-4x-i .L.,!..1-1,i.4-, IJ TYPE II,HAZARD Subniit(1)Removal plan,',(2)1SABazard Evaluation,:c3) - „--..n... Mark., . ,..,.-•.-.•Atl. . .._Arefilitlit . To 13o.11) trees wiur7euow.pboon,76447;wr.• „ -, , --7 7*--•ti5-1 intitlYr-iiittit-k.FW-Qt'*-,:4:r.--tV'Z's. • 17; 3.i. :'7-r 17.--1, ' "'' '- LI TYPE II,DYING :: Submit(1)Removal plan,(2)-Arborist iepokf(3):Wigatlonplan;:(4)Cdpy of notice letter To Do: (1)/Viiiik trees witii-j,ellO;i-ribliOn;(2)Post sign (3).-,Send 'notice letter,(4)Affidavit . , Wait: '-s>(1114 days Until the cOinnientperiod 4 aomoitei -4:-,t, • .,- . .: • ••• , . -,., ,•- -,.,. '...f-z,;7-1,44-.,-;.,-II-;‘,1!4;?..-A,-.44.4-i:•:"i c.),: • . 0 TYPE II,OTHER SubMie(1)Removal plan,(2)Questionnaire (3)Mitigation plan,(4)Copy of notice letter __ . - ---.:. TO_Dtif4(1)Mirk trees with:yellow ribbonZ(2)Post sign,(3)Send notice letter,(4)Affidavit -, • . ..:.4 ii... Viaitt:I.: (0 14 days until the comment period ilaimplate---,= , CityStaff to Fill Out:--.-'.r k•-.: -:':,•',t•-••-•: 1:-!,:z.:7,-. ---f,..!-- - • . --tr-i;4'.. -_; --- f, -, 7 r,,-,-;.: ..-1, • -7.---;=I_ ta- = — rir:',..,•••=re.;1, :9'*"14`ir,r *tkV_:-- 7-rgitrg-ccti.-ii,-,z.v,; N.,- ......r.,z ..-••:T.,,,-,Ntti-.14,... ,t, 343;0-74-ristt:- •.‘ -----.,1 -.7:::-' . Intake-S i .. - n .-qtrxap ---ITaxtitotz,"-qr!QJ queDate . JILL ---- -,:"- . 9 _ --...,-,:__::,,-,-, -:- -. , w .!,'-_,- , .& ,:-„t--;..; -•:-,f,f,,_ _ ,..!.% _cfs,;i.-,, :f••-, = - • , - ':-- ..:;----v.:,.a . -f•,-,,.0!- '•.'1-14_,1- S----4-ityk-. ----,,,,i-,4- --1--.14,=., 1,4c-,,!,...A :,.--•. - i fa Plonning File# -r"-4.'.4"...'''-' 4"- • z-';'`. ---i. --3'1'. ':1e1110114i1Appielyeil/D :Clued';,37.4- A-:.''4:!1;-'-'? IV. r T. ' -, • - --- - - --t---- ,i,•-• ---. s‘..- , ..:,-- ,- --.. _- : , • -.__:::-..„:-,' .. :,',-.-.-•-_- ,,..". • ,r ,:-.111 , . 4',,-r!,-tt-4ii1r--.M-:=T1-,i O f_.,r, . f-,,- ,,14- A ; 3 ZK - 1V14'..''4,..1'.,.1;-.-,, .,-f--'. .- "1 Building Pernit:# - MigafionTlatiApprov e ' -f - - - ,- • - - ' - • - - Revised July 19911 1:VonstrAapplctosUree removal'pp-July 911.doc . . . 0 L). 0 3 r AFFIDAVIT - Name of applicant J B '& 13 Construction, Inc. Tree Permit No. • Address or General Location: 2306 Mayors Lane AFFIDAVIT OF MARKING TREES, POSTING NOTICE, AND M • NOTIFIING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION .. Y. 4 i Win. 'ii • t ? • .0 j y - - , , - Tr -John H. M Barne f . ~V4 I t' ; mot- I -�4 :r•. z .i.i•, Rio swear=or affiim that IIam`(representing) the varty_ e. qu.test1n_g t,permit to fcut- ti F :'. FA r? S • �`Y ice•,.. 6HY �a rP1 - ti '.or trees on the property local d at -2306"Mayors' Lane - ' :`"Pursuant to LOC 55.02.075, : 1 t,. on-:the' 14th day of .Dyye ember• ,-;19 99,�I-personally ntie...-es- narked the.tXrequested for'removal) with l - • .' 1 . r. Y }} '.- 4. yellow tagging tape,posted notice:on fhe property that the site is s ubject•tosa�pending treeeremoval permit, which is clearly visible to vehiclestraveling on• apublic street Mayo t:s• :Lane . . ; : (street name) and to pedestrians walking or biking by the property,and sent a-letter to t ie• —PIT i s a d e s neighborhood association to notify the association of the removal requ (attach letter). . : . _ • is l i`+ _ ... `,I-r eA a.a++�..._-...._.r. /i-•• _ �I//fti- _�. _._ .. 1 t _ _ i I nature T-- 4 Subscribed and s{worn•to,or affirmed,before , e this 17 day of:. 'I]EEii 4...; . ,F19 .. . • 1• STAuTNE40/kG9N r y,- > _ .,,_y _T. l`V. .... -•- ; i �� Tea.' r.t:y •2 _- _ 1SFi �� _ ] ' �t L }Notary bhc or ihe�_tote ofOregon ,�;1 ■: 3 �1,7A 1%',1 .-�F°•,ZC i .Z : a I :;22i1><i - .�'v i 9E:F1 i S }'. - s. „ , ., � � S CAR 1_1E `°. • : .7. t'!'t ,r t..:a -t , � ;v ,� /�i "� .:�' :: ARYPUBLIC-pAEQON r. — 1.-- c'7 r`i is f +•c -COMMISSION _SEP_18 : `• .I. f�� - ` IY C0�1�,1(S510N EXPIRES SEP_18,2001 :MylCommission Expires- _.. _ 1 s ! a o ' t,i?`• - 14 DAY-PUBLIC NOTICE PERIOD WILL BEGIN ONLY_WHEN THIS i -1.• -P' ill,# x pj•_1 t•AFF AVITIS RETURNED TO: - _- n s- -...e.• 1.. , t •_ y X . b `. � "-- - °`' I §: -` ' City ofiake Oswego: �"' EXHIBIT 4 ,s : * 1 I'.; t _ , L_ _ Department of Planning and Development LU 00-0002 ! ��tY1 Y•-�' �eL_- Tz» . - - . 'Attn•-Tree Cutting Permits - y .w ' t .1 ` a - t g•' - 5. - . - - P.O.Box 369 • - 0 --! • _` ' _ - - ; -Lake Oswego, OR 97034 - Revised June 1998 I:Vormslaaplctnsltree removal affidavit-june 98 - 004 TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE • Please be as thorough as possible with your answers to the following questions. You need to provide sufficient information for staff to review(i.e.photographs, site plan,technical report)to demonstrate that the provisions of the Code have been satisfied. You may answer on this form or attach additional pages. Q. Is the tree proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or to construct development • approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable • development regulations? Explain. _ Trees. are _being removed to allow "for -the construction of a new single familt residence .-'`. .;_'" --- Q. Will removal of the tree have a significant negative impact on any of the following? Explain. (1)Erosion No. Most of the tree 's will be inside the building foot print . (2) Soil Stability - • Refer to item t 1 411 �� sx . „ . .... _ (3)Flow of Surface Waters _ . . .. . Most of the vegatation will remain intack outside the footprint . (4)Protection of Adjacent Trees(maintaining existing windbreaks or tree groves) Most of the trees have been removed ',from this before purchase. The remaing trees are on the high grond on the adjacent lot . Will removal of the tree have a significant negative impact on the character,aesthetics, Q • property values or property uses of the neighborhood(this is especially crucial when the tree is contributing to the skyline of the area or if there is some unique characteristic in the tree)? Explain. We propose to replant 28 trees to the east side of the property. _. • . ._ _ -- _- EXHIBIT 5 LU 00-0002 III (Note—in deciding whether the applicant's response to this question satisf!, e criteria,the City may consider any proposal by the applicant to mitigate f CttV G trees by planting new trees or other vegetation). SEP 0 91999 Revised June 1998 1:forms\applctns\tree removal questionnaire—june 98 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dept.of Planning&Deveftmecrt1 5 O L) • 0 41 • I roPA* ' 54. 14.f�i ... i I \` \ I �� I .•p q F .)'��i i 1 i I�7'r JFV s• r vF � ` -.% <900 v rr 1 map.' I •f v M YF I I ! 1 0 I • F )'\01011.' V 1 ✓ I I thw1 — 1_1 0 • I I li r •ii l m —\" 2z ' t, r .1 '; ill .-y" '-- -/ elteelper ihipp. 4,:r -01 I IX . a �2 e7'F I 112 t30'. ` --"Pfiftitii*i /-----Th,--- 1 ''tific • . .- -iatr-, ('' -- I - - • - Pgiir.-7- 4411P4140.1tk cRS" ,..._-\-- A ., -.. i . 1..-vo, tri i u. ' 461 zn , _ 's-x.o.F:L.: - mak, f k LIIIIIIICSit.-_, - % 4, RECEIVE3; lip SEP 16 1999 EXHIBIT I lai pY LU 00-0002 CITY OF La.::_OSWEGC • Dept of Piiamir&Development • \, I Final Grading plan Q I'=8'to 10•Tall Fir Tree to be Planted Parcel 2 i Lot 17 Palisades Heights Estates#1 1 7. =2"Red leaf Maple to be Planted City of Lake Oswego n t =Indicates Trees to be Removed V U V • 2318 Hillside Lane Lake Oswego, Or 97034 43s-SzsS 22 December 1999 City of Lake Oswego Planning Division Box 369 Lake Oswego, Or.97034 Att: Mike Wheeler Dear Mr.Wheeler This is a letter to protest the granting of the tree cutting permit application TC99-0183,posted on 12 Dec. 1999.The application is for a type 2 other, removal of 11 live trees all but one of which are fir trees between 11 and 24 inches in diameter,and 60 feet or more in height. All are alive and in good health. All eleven trees are on a steeply sloped hillside. The property will be essentially clear cut by their removal.The soil from where this grove of trees has been removed will be destabilized making the hillside susceptible to erosion and landslides..The area at the bottom of the hill is developed with new homes which are in the path of such a slide. The grove of trees now provides a wind break for adjacent property and homes as well as protection for each of the trees in the grove.The single tree left standng will have no protection. 111 Removal of these trees will have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics not only of the neighborhood but also of the house to be constructed. The plan as submitted appears to make no attempt to save the trees by careful placement or design of the new home.The appearance is rather to clearcut the property for the lumber and then build a house. For these reasons I request a hearing on this application for tree removal. A check for$11 1 is enclosed for the hearing fee. Yours Truly F RECEIVED Donald F. Cameron DEC 2 2 1999 Cc: Dorothy Rogers, Pres. Palisades Neighborhood Association CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 17211 SW Robb Place Dept.of Planning&Development Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 EXHIBIT 7 LU 00-0002 • •J J 1 r( • BUILDING I'tKIVII I AFFLIUN I IUIV : WORKSHEET F•1-z -- _ _ '7'� SING INSPECTION SERVICES -.O. Box 369 1'.*,, ::F:: - !::= 2- ' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 0� Phone: 635 0390 FAX 697-6574 / 'A/� ifr AS Sensitive Land: YES - NO d.: ii . .:_• ::fitl.. --. . : � . 1�.. .sd ...�..:::. ...Ilh..�' �p•`air Imo. l�`•.•_ .._. > .-..�..� � ri��i€i €1=€€ € a�€ JOB ADDRESS: D-(D(p Mayors Lane DESCRIPTION OF WORK: New Single Family Residence El Residential ❑ Commercial PROPERTY INFORMATION: Tot. Floor Area: 3414 Type of Construction: NSFR Map & Tax Lot No.:400 / 21E16CB Main Fir Area: 2300 Occupancy Group: Subdivision: Palisades Heights Garage Area: 675 Number of Stories: 2 Lot Number: 17 - Parcel 2 Deck Area: 550 Number of Bedrooms: 4 Block Number: Lot Area: 21,491 'Job Valuation: $ BLDG CONTRACTOR: JB & B Construction, Inc Phone #: 635-9446 Address: POB 1784 FAX #: 635-8541 City, St., Zip: Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-0582;ontr. Board #: 51175 Contact Person: John Barnes Metro/City Lic. #: PROPERTY OWNER: JB & B Const.Inc. Home Phone #: • Address: POB 1784 Work Phone #: 635-9446 City, State, Zip: Lake Oswego, OR 97035 FAX #: 635-8541 TENANT: Phone #: Location in Building: FAX #: N . ARCH/DESIGNER: JE Krause Phone #: 656-4111 FAX #: 656-6297 o W ENGINEER: Payton Rowell PC Phone #: 254-6292 FAX #: = o PLUMBER: Harmony Plumbing Phone #: 692-5986 w Contractor's Board #: 85021 • FAX #: 691-2923 ELECTRICIAN: Bear Electric : Phone #: 678-1355 Contractor's Board #: 20919 - FAX #:- • 6781108= • Plot plan MUST show setbacks of building(s) on adjacent lots and existing structures to remain on building lot. • Grading permits to include topography at ten (10) foot intervals as determined by a registered survey. • Change of use permits must show existing use of building and proposed new use. I agree to build according to the above description, plans, and specs, and that all work is to comfomi with all applicable codes and ordinances of the State of Oregon and the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. I further agree that the building will not be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City. PRINT APPLICANT NAME John H. Barnes/PRElN DATE 11-1-99411 S OFF1t:E Y U EQNL t • 8 C nrdat hen iap�rov , Jun-97 0 08 111 0_____________ • . Zs' . . -"------- '_------ 1• ' 15001' ..- .... \ . _., C.ks ....................... 14 ut ...........---- :lb. r.,__ _ _- — .. __ _ _ _ ••.,\ .2_,.....\ > 4' — -------- —___>--7 - : — • ,• , __ - •• ___ , _. — - _----------.`: \ — n.....2_,.....-------- c- . ;•-• • _ i,„ ..--- ' \ \ -I \ 1 e\r\. NIP‘13 .-.Ce \ \I . Cl..4)5P • ...,""--------1,j------------7---g , :--.- _________.---4-\ ,,„,. ‘ \ t•_..-- ( \ \ \ 7 \ ,,...,__...... ._..... i......i............,1 ............1„.i..._.....-...;....--.i.J-.. . ___ . re... ...._....2.1........._____>__\ :‘.400,„\lot.\...........\„..\....\ ,•K 0__,,r\ \ \ i) ' \ 1 ' -i• . Ili _ _‘7, \---•••••717--11\ 1 ., •.1 ‘ IL, l„ \V/ c a. , 1.! 1. \ \ \,ci.„:„.„../ (1 ....- • \ 1 . N.. i IA ‘ ' la‘ . ) • \\ \\i I ' / • U4 ,, , •%, , III . kt, 4af s • 1 ' '\i \ I I . \ \ ' \ \ 0.' .1 \ \ EXHIBIT 9 LU 00-0002 I C-7) • z i 4 . ,. cr....) .- I "Ct '440 • • I0 • S • V, . .i 0 " ' I IL , -..i% a Y � "F` . I C c� a �E�z4� u ter-- ( t� • , L J part —_ — -----/1 ranI< -Li PRC 99141 / i/ ��- RE r I .-^i�� 1111� EXHIBIT10 / ..--- Arr(bxlrlA - ',we_ LU oo-000z I -- 1)I�IP LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION C_ SCALE: I/4 • I-0 1/- j_ - - Il • 1 t W HEAD I' ,, % ../ • . . ' • i•NO m �IDal ll 11 11 1 il 1111111 _ ED R FLOO W HEAD. 11 � fir—. _ � j--t NO 4ED FLOOR / /—•— ____J I Pir •• 1 L I. ei S---"-----T LJ1 LEFT-SIDE L ` i 1 � ____A SGAL.E= 1/4" ■ 1'-0" c. I 1 I � — i\' 00 0 0 0 i _ • b1--- L .. 911 MEAD 1 - I -- .�.. . Ir •II *m I 1111I ��1t1 ! \r (_I 70U1 HEAP. /e.0.1r/—i � /' I 4. f-r---J911ED rupcm --_,..... 4, iii,,111111- 1 fT `' C \'!. i ' i i Lipt , 0 1 1i i, '1- , I \ i i i i ; i i 111TE , � i 1 , i 1 I I t\ i i 1 ,k, , V i 1, \ 1. . 0 ))A \ '' ,' N % \\\ I I' ------ i i 1 11 i --t ii • \ I 4 it 1 1 \ \ � , I \ i. 1 .1\ 1 I 1 . ! .. I \\ - I i iL Orl 1 r\ 1 4 II 1T S 1 1 \ 1 I . Lt-�im I� A TITLE: !O ELEVATIONS • 0 iLiv VriT17" BP• •, TDP. - ••• : • WINDOW HEAD .‘_ • • •-* ;: •.• ••..• •- • •. . .• . .•F... , •• _11_1 • FINISHED FLOOR • I TDP. WINDOW I.4EAQ . _. —- re,•Grf.4,i7 • \ , 1'.• _111 FINISHED FLOOR _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . - I! 1 • f 12 EXHIBIT 11 LU 00-0002 Tar. / TOP. I Z4r...a1- F1'1/r� BP. '. -- 1 TOP. a iri--i i 1 WINDOW HEAD C •- • " I�� - It'l • !,h'1 . if, . .0 Q. —. —icW 1 - I i II hIHIWiUiH !Ht _ FINISHED FLOOR . . T.OP. WINDOW HEAD , �r� T: • • t. tf L*A I ,F tJIi�I• cL _ _ _._. FMIL_HED FLOOR it J I-1 1 I2 6r— EVATION • TOP. --- C, • 0 0 . _ • S S 1 / CM DOWNSPOU76(SEE ROOF PLAN) _- _ - 6 G 7NtuEtIG•BTLGo•FINIBu (INVALL PER MANX.INSTRLGTIGNS) •TRIM 61-10WN AS SUGGESTION ONLY. VER:FY W/D,WERAWILDER • TDP. _ • — • T.O.P.111 • 1'11',.1 • t J t `' 'pii / ,.. JII wD• - - WINDOW HEAD k. i. irk. i . 1 _ _:I li ---2. .1.;;.•: so 11 l I WI f- _ — —' I - -: ' _ FINISHED FLOOR ' I —top. -- ,-- __r WINDOW HEAD ' a n:t` 1'1 . t 1 JI,. t '—•- S ai.— — —L1• — — — — —. FINISHED FLOOR 1 / 1 II tI I t— I ...7>...,.../.----------. ........... ........,....../......'..........-.......-..7._ Iit, ------ .• . 7.0.P. ., •• i . ‘___ (4-r.Ar Ptv1/14141r17- SP. .., ---..... • s,___j T.o.P. --.- - _____.2 . ,-:,!.:::•:.••• '••,....,:, 7-.....;',--:-....i.,?- 1;•-::-;-r•- - -,.. -- 1 -=-/ ______ ...?:.• . , - —______ wi HE -- - / _ _.. NDOW AD ,r __-- . 1--..w.'.- .: • •. -• ••:• - . . k-----j,'....,. .:.,- .....:-:.. ...:,. •• . • . . . .... . . . .. . . _.. . .. .. . . „..„...: ! .. . . . . . . . ... ....•..• .. . 7 - ...• I'1..s';,44...';. . . 1 . , .. . .' •. . .. .. .. ir . ' -— -- I .::' • • • .o 4.1. .. •.. . . FINISHED FLoOR , . •. ---• - . . 1 T.O.P_______. r • . WINDOW HEAD ., . ..,..--.•- ... .,..'',7,-7,11i v.-,,,-, .',• 10.7V.7•77 — ' --"-- ' :. .-';''' l'"%—:' •'...::''' 1;i:,..Y,...,'i.... • ... ..•:.• ;:!'...,:7'.;,! _ .. ,.','...:.,.:•. i .. . *IP it::•••,.•',1 —'?...! ,,:r.:'....i•''.1 b . - .• , :,-%:,' 7- ...,•• '............::-i.i1 .. • -••••• . . ... . . ... _ -4) . ..;_i 11..-__.. ...-L-...:.F.- '•..- . ..; • - ".:.- . ''....'• :,?:....7,..;J . :::.:;.:,. : _••st.!. I.:!:.i.!-•t,';4! il•.1'.",..:...i..: --•.4,,•1 ''''....•"...,.. ,.1.1.-rZ...LF.. ..1 ILL.L.Lji- '... ...,:'L. ''- !..._,..,*.,......,-: , .fi i I • !,..; • FINIINED FLooR . . - - - • - i_..-- _ ._.1._._. , •1,. _ ._. . j...-_-.,,,,.4 _._._ ._ ._. _._._ . _._..7„..._..--.*..-(t._._._ ._.__ .•_._._..._._._. -.7.—, • • 1 -W-- -4------_r_ 1 1 I 1 ..---' . _ ur) • 0 • . _ • • • Pi • E ., Vit _ • f � Ai 1 i ...5 .....-.1i ii,,i,-1r.i-esil .[,. II ' r. x. . ', � �1 • Ijj �; l � ;o —w,. � y . . � :7'r( ' {�v,-1' KM�1-ic-; A 1. FRONT ELEVATION NOTE: EXTEND ALL FLUES A M(N. OF?'-0" SCALE: 1/fir .. l'—m," ABOVE ANY FART OF 7NE BLD'G W/IN A 10'-0'1-4ORIZONTAL RAD(U9 EXHIBIT 12 I i LI.00 0002 4'A©OvE . 'ARIZCNTAL ' MATERIAL .• PLAN) 'B FASCIA 'OF PLAN) 0' NIB) / • TIONBl PR Pli , f . s 11 . 1 ,, { �- [ II ► I [ t is � °I , i , IIp1 - I I I U II l I a�. '1 -P. 4" NOTE: No • r ? \/1,11 ALL GRADES BHCIIF!ARE APPRG'xl. �'� VA 'O� EXOV ALL FLUES A h CF rYa 1. CONTRACTOR 3NALL vERIFY ALL A I -CrANY FART O. THE IuLD'G W/IN EXISTIts AND FINISH GRADES. A �'_ ✓HORIZONTAL RADIUS r,. L.�.1 '/ \ 17 ---1. 0 0 1110 . r 0 0 • * _ T.OP. _ ip pry Ix15(ia• Sr) TAP. ( r' _ WINDOW HEAD II! , I . I' .., r • . 11 H 1 1.1 Ii 11111 IIll I 11 II lI • r�la ...,. FMI61-1ED FLOOR ai . I i_I ,M., f WI NDOW HEAD _, . . - f "" ; Y � a ``,';: . I o ` II p1.31.-Jii r ■ MISHED FLOOR Y� II _ L _____ APPp...xtr 7E- Li I — — — — - t- . FiNr5+ O df-anr — — \ ! 2 EXHIBIT 13 — f I ! / r tc2ct FI L.LD 44 S LU 00-0002 I �EQVI� 1 f I k- Is —16 ,Ave, 2ooF . TAP. /� l f RM/t'`Iflz 64 r TAP. _! WINDOW HEAD II , ° I 1 . 0 I IIIIIIIIIIIIII11IIIIII II . � F NIBHED FLOOR , ., I 1. TAP. I_1 WINDOW HEAD eli,1 tz7 o' 'M __-_ _/1Jt 1 / ,______i_,r_ i-� _ .r . i — — — — _ — — _ — _ FINISHED FLOOR , _ i L . Arr[2.0)4111456- t - _� P•415l P ci ao C.. ( V 7414444.4141%.. I I /-FF/dC .FILL f s C. tJ o 0 0 . 0 • • /✓/r/ ><------ ----1 // 17 6 f AV `f�- _._._._._ • -' _= II ii I. 11 IHI 1111 iiiii tl II t11 -0_F !_I , „.., , : , . 1 L J —rii` Irt , _ is At I!I! fi --1• . •, , _ r rl ry` L �. 1}F 1 \_ •1. i'f il `---......„ ,......,... .. I%) i 4 1%6 4%4 4%N 1 1 1%S b CO 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL A iv- 0-UN I OAR IZCN L i r,C IU9 IV/ IN EXISTIN:i AI�ID FINISH GRADES. A Im'-Co*HORIZONTAL RADlU9 --,.............................t. _I i„ -. --- - - - -- - - .IANIF ‘r--.>.,---- .. __, - _ - 1 - 1 ill 11 ifil. Z i ,. ...,...„,,.. • , ____. I_1 _ _. . _ _ _ _i - - - - - - - - - - - L 13 = L il 44. 0 0 - • • • _ I l . *"........... ...„,f7 • I :10.11r>Cr -...."....- I - I 11 i iii'nl _- _._. _.— _._._._._r_._._. _.-.-.- .-.-.-.- - � L ' 1 L J\ \ 2-1 1 L rl _rI 14 L L- r 1 c:� L -,. . TJ rt._ _ _ _ , i , -1/:. r ' Cr'l • S • � �4.0 Jo 'lays: May Lu, 1777 ORDINANCE NO. 2179 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP, INCLUDING THE SENSITIVE LANDS MAP AND ATLAS, TO DESIGNATE A RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE ON [HE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: 21E 16CB 00400 AND 00401, LOCATED AT TERMINUS OF MAYORS LANE; AND MAKING FINDINGS (LU 99-0001-1312) WHEREAS, the city initiated a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to designate a Resource Conservation District (RC)overlay zone on said property within the city; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law, including notice to affected property owners pursuant to Measure 56 (1998); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego Planning Commission on February 8, 1999 at which the staff report, testimony and evidence was duly received and considered; and WHEREAS, the PIanning Commission did deliberate, adopt findings of fact and conclusions, and recommended that LU 99-0001 be approved by the City Council; and • WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on March 16, 1999 at which the staff report and evidence was duly received and considered. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached as Exhibit "A." Section 2. The Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map, including the Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas, are hereby amended to designate a Resource Conservation Dist'ict Overlay Zone on the following property in accordance with the map attached as Exhibit "B" (the amended site is labeled on Exhibit "B" as Site as a convenient reference only, and such label shall not become a part of the amended maps): EXHIBIT 14 LU 00-0002 • Ordinance No. 2179 Page 1 of 2 0 1J 2 7 Legal Proposed Description Location Resource No. Overlay Zone 21E 16CB 400. 401 Terminus of Mayors Lane TG-3 RC 411 Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 20thday of Apr-;1 . 1999. AYES: Schoen, Hoffman, Prosser, Rohde, Mayor Klamner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lowrey, Chizum EXCUSED: None W. K1 r,Mayor Dated: April 21, 1999 S ATTEST: • tchcock, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney DOCIORD12I 79-SL.ord Ordinance No. 2179 • Page 2 of 2 0u28 1 O 2 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 4 A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ) LU 99-0001-1312 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 5 ZONING MAP AND THE ) SENSITIVE LANDS MAP AND ATLAS ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS 6 TO DESIGNATE A RESOURCE ) AND ORDER 7 CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY ) ZONE LOCATED AT TERMINUS ) 8 OF MAYORS LANE ) 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 This is a city-initiated proposal to amend the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map, 11 Zoning Map and the Sensitive Lands Map and atlas to designate a resource conservation district 12 13 overlay zone. The property is located at the terminus of Mayors Lane, Tax Map 21 E 16CB, Tax 41114 Lots 00400and 00401. 15 The property owners of the subject site chose to contest the resource designation, and 16 requested that the designation of these resources be considered at a public hearing before the 17 18 Planning Commission. 19 HEARINGS 20 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 21 meeting on February 8, 1999. The City Council held a public hearing and considered this 22 application at its meeting on March 16, 1999. 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 24 25 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan,: 26 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER(LU 99-0001-1312) •Page 1 (City of Lake Oswego, LU 99-0001-1309] David pP,,,ell EXHIBIT City Attorney•City of 1ska Oswete 310"A"Avenue-P.O. Gas 369.Lake Oswete.Omen 97034 (503)675-0325 FAX(507)699.7e51 - n rd' -7q 0u29 - 1 Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic, Historic and Natural Areas 2 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance 3 LOC 48.02.015 Definitions 4 LOC 48.02.045 Official Action 5 LOC 48.02.105 Revocation of Approval LOC 48.17.020 Criteria for Sensitive Lands Overlay 6 Zones Designation C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code 7 8 LOC 49.16.015 Definitions LOC 49.16.020 - 49.16.030 Application of Code, Planning Director 9 Authority, Fees LOC 49.16.035 Development Permit Required 10 LOC 49.16.040 Development Permits Restricted LOC 49.20.115 Major Development 11 LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof 12 LOC 49.22.205 Development Standards LOC 49.22.220 Review Criteria for Major Developments 13 LOC 49.22.225 Conditions of Approval LOC 49.30.500 -49.30.510 Application Requirements 14 LOC 49.36.700 - 49.36.720 Application Procedures • LOC 49.40.800 Review by Planning Director 15 LOC 49.44.900 - 49.44.920 Review by Hearing Body/Notice of 16 Public Hearing LOC 49.46.1000 -49.46.1035 Hearings Before Hearings Body 17 LOC 49.58.1400 -49.58.1430 Compliance with Approved Permit 18 D. Statutory Provisions 19 OAR 660 Division 16 Statewide Planning Goal Procedures 20 E. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 21 Title 3 Water Quality and Flood Management 22 23 F. Other 24 Significance Criteria from the City of Lake Oswego ESEE Analysis (Appendix F) 25 26 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER(LU 99-0001-1312) • Page 2 [City of Lake Oswego, LU 99-0001-1309] David 0.tawei( Clt) Atone+-City of Lake OswiTe 310-A-A -P.O. One 769.Lake Otwego.Organ 97034 • (303)635-03)5 FAX(503)699-7453 010 S1 CONCLUSION 2 The City Council concludes that that LU 99-0001-1312 is in compliance with all 3 applicable criteria. 4 FINDINGS AND REASONS 5 6 The City Council incorporates the Planning staff report dated January 27, 1999 for LU 7 99-0001 (with all exhibits attached thereto), the Council Report dated February 23, 1999 (with 8 all exhibits attached thereto), the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission, and the 9 entire record of the proceeding herein, together with the following supplemental findings, as 10 support for its decision. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplemental findings 11 12 expressly made herein and the incorporated matters, the matter herein controls. 13 Other than the staff report, no oral testimony was presented in this matter at the public hearing before the City Council. 15 16 The City Council finds that the site qualifies for designation within a Resource 17 Conservation District Overlay Zone pursuant to evidence in the record prepared for the City by a 18 team of environmental professionals. The City Council also finds that the proposed overlay zone 19 designation complies with all applicable state laws, Statewide Planning Goals and administrative 20 rules, Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies and City ordinances. 21 ORDER 22 IT IS ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that LU 99-0001-1312 23 24 is hereby APPROVED. 25 Findines',LU99-1312.SL 26 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &ORDER(LU 99-0001-1312) ',Page 3 [City of Lake Oswego, LU 99-0001-1309J David D.Powell Clry Attorney.Ore of Lake Oewete 3$0-A-Aram•I.O. boo 369.Lake Orwete.Orcton 97034 • (503)63S-0223 FAX(503)699.7453 0 31 \1. buy - .�j N 17766► ° / \ Lill rL:37-----ra• \ O\ 1? vW 8J5 Li 17764 ci w .r v :.) yI<< SIDE LANE2 30 1 72 •\3¢ \i N COA se CT' CO CA) W ice•+•` ` ti7'• -_: ....?.• 1 . a I I P Po:e*._I.k.t'•;;1z-44.::::..;.:,..,,:ii'Fri.e.:;!:1Z-...7..:.it..%\ --/ 1 ri 1 7 9 0 c. .9 1 •-... ,:s., .ter .�� 2 : - _ Cr' �` - ��- -..�.� ,mow . LA �R-L �•,._` �- 5� SAINTS "� m -r 1�- ,,, x-. 9 i 23 "` v • 51 Z•-� !t►L �r•�r wt�f- r 9 .) \as \ :-:I V o j Ii c."*.717-''le;;741:tbs-,%4.-"- :."-----E )i::: cp /. _.,_ .., --;7".7-47.-.7.-= •• ::.—*..f $ JLZ • "-..- 1,. :.;:-�,,..�:,—* 179501N. c� v �1'^_" `�=3 .gin iGi+C%17.�--r'L!s':YQr:�'� ..:�- ar-•S'sr.J.'si,_:..=e iL�° t:�*= =.,' =- ;s.i• �.s �4: •Y','Y ••-:Se+<_ i :_' •• �`i+c"'• v .a.•.-..:..-.7;.c'ti w arx:_/�!-!-:• .w.!!''�.•,•, G r V III 'AL+ u ss- -..- `•'[T_-J c:t tee. v" �,,.�,w �+}-•- .�L• t -�0-l; �t gd.."„`S`�:'fa (i/ ▪ • _ i,; "j.6nr s, ..Jl�▪• . a.",sa""�.,.. eT•z� 4." .- �i'`• - rr t"e i+• F� Y�i•• ts 4'« MZ„ '.-C�. ,s a. .s.71 !,1-•;.Y:r".4 * .fir.�i: 24 c: • ..:;3c ror .If°'elf ar•� r..dL....Y:'!°ci`�".rt.T�..�• •...••y A. r I:s:- •`T :di7▪. ^_v .: .11.-• •D-^_ f.__ ..- 4 r a.-1.'�` •-'••w- ;feb- S'.-_"�`t.P Cz Pl .l . 't�:-�'=r'u 4. _rya_ �7�• s 2". - -n. _ O i.+f--y.i.v�y. ....- r~ya;-- s'C+.t: a,...i„.h7�� ....> .- nr.,.•r+u.- .r.�`ti:- 'n-.,��.; v....., ,ram•. r �;_. i , � ' j•:,....`` �=' .-_ •r Uf co_. _' ' .af :� ,�_;, •.._ -+� r. y �•. 1 _�- ,.., �; i ac "^ti p--." ' pS f Ii}'t•.;•-=yY— l8O -x"1 'd `-`"• iC �+�+> �Y ls�r'• `Y :r.ti• - •.. d:... ...;..Ty: n •tA_ s�lc� c- . ,c..a12114 a.:"::.w+i .4+h .14..•`''�' A l t� ..��'+ - 'y. .cti=�� i+.�•R�'' . tia�i.. irt�r •-,- +'.t b �l,�•, 1`-S ''+ ' ' ^�.. ''i'y.�'Y'- j T w--^trA.-ET.. • - , alN J ..-1f"'•i "l�[ -��f:+l aarY_ �f • -��^^'yis:.Y'd ��-n _ •�3a.M"�*yi.+4y.. Q t {� •• !.}t ..•A wor-iC' .wt•4..:Tay..a=%►•'. s.,.;',^tea.-«t ±^•a a..n•.i--'l's- .. ;•••`,ll.Ar :ix�•a.-:,-. erg, i�••_. '-::t- Y• '`.',''� =.Z->:..-4= -^ _`' ••jam-'•+. SP-— •-.• �r:t'.-r..'. -•s, •`•.: .. bf._▪ •^ 1 '� _? •.. i L7*...,S.'w•;H.fy s '1-•".7 S• oOvl •+ LlT•N, j ~%r�` v`7-e.�r+,.•r'►.-..:L��.•7..•sa L�•`.• -!4. • •r / 1,�i 1i'_+.;,+t ;: s/!�*. '- ivr.•r.Y r7.v. -t.•'h.a l• . i •• .17� $�C�',G4�YiS�'r-L-'�-" l%a..:rV�'•4 --- - i.• .4-•W.rY —.7n•«::;► .. :.+••: ;a':•J..-i 7.= ,t :r..F.`i: 41--i •:ce-•at-:.' ' `.'.•�`-.'s: K-,-•r1w.s:,.:r_+:/.yF+•.e:"fr G jam' '-r^ r:.+:w^ \.w• a•••+t.M1. • "." '(\'+'_`. 'T.!--•a...yv_.▪..+y•`_���- NvFN__:r'•.•._r.._i• -„ry.!•:{,�.- V •.-. !--i:l=i`1..,": . ".,rz�,``K'•:'-' }'i_ _:..-.•.s�•:441='r Z,wK -,.tT,+`:{r .' (5 • , i'j tir `# 11 +l::Fh - t` L„L j S+a: C`...-fir' < ) ii _2 i ->.. J,l`'''' ' [.. ].r , 7 y_ • _j- f'•I v, 1 :.i.y...4 :�. � =:..:.... 45 �,. k= 0400 and 00401 • c Tax Locs 0 • m.: _ - . . : - I Tax Map 1 1E 16CB110 . .. .�,%; �,; ._- -- . • • :� ai EXHIBIT Ort 2119 • i • 76C I I . •�-`• V. . -' [1. O ��F / ' ' • '\— . �'; . 5' ;CHURCH FjI-.-.smicririj \ • • O ;LATTER ,A.. \<:/../....--1---.....***%%. Y . i),... ,• • If. • 03 L.......7, - -7---- I bit 4. .......(_.. .-I �. I I ' •V •• • •' _r 11.0 • . • � • • • ` ine . .___/1 • . ______\_. . •• • . • • -Ir . / . . . -. .-4. 7:----1- = Z.7"----- ::::. 7.-- = 'i-=:-4— -. 7—:--. -._: 77; 1 • .• : . \ • \ . , . • ‘ ,... DRIvE . ,, • • • •. , ' .\....._-\. . . • • ' . )------c- • • •`fir• . • • vc, • •• \• . • R1pG� Q��� A . EXHIBIT 15 • _, • • - Vc.. LU 00-0002 • '! . o _ • •\ • • • ,R .. • City of Lake Oswego • • 04, 1994/95 Natural Resource Inventory • . • V....C...., . .Individual Properties Maps NA �— . • • - • •/ . . • Site No.�z _ Section 'rAC� • • • ' • • FIG . .- • • \ • , • , • W or WL=Stream Corridor • - •' • .• . and/or Wetland . TG or dot pattern=Tree Grove • •• . • • ` , Scale: l" =200' • • • • . • . ( . • LEGEND • • c$�TE . • . .•- • • r - • • • •• • • la • , �. INSIGNIFICANT . • •• •• . • • • ... • • • • .• i/ .. :i. ' lin • • • • • • ...• : ... . . • : : TREE GROVE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS _ III • 17 16 — . �• W /#(.4 20I 21 a�e .Q • • 0c; 34 REPORT' . . .STAFF • • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISIOTT • APPLICANT: FILE NO,: David Roe SD 47-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: David'Rce Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 400 of June 12, 1992 Tax Map 2 lE 16CB NEIGHBQRHOOD ASSOCIATION: LOCATION: Palisades East of Palisades Crest Drive, south of Mayors Lane ZONING DESIGNATION: • COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-10 ' R-10 I. APPLICANT'S REOUF.ST The applicant is seeking approval to divide a 47,300 sq. ft. lot into two parcels. The parcels'are proposed to be 25,800 sq. ft. and 21,500 sq. ft. in size. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 Impact Management Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 4, 5, 6 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 3 EXHIBIT 16 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 LU 00-0002 Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy '. SD 47-90 Page 1 of 13 0 6 3 5 ■ Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 Potential Landslide Area Policies • General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 General Policy IV, Specific Policies 1, 2 Potential Erosion Area Policies General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2 General Policy 111, Specific Policies 2, 3 General Policy IV, Specific Policies 1, 3, 4 Weak Foundation Soil Policies • General Policy II General Policy III General Policy IV Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 Residential Density Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 4 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II Transportation Policies • General Policy I. Specific Policy 2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 4, 6 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) C. City of Lake Oswego Develonment Cam: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.2(X)-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval D. City_sf Lake-Os go Development Standards: 5.t0)5 - 5.040 Street Lights 7.(05 - 7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 11(X)5 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 13.(X)5 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard • I6.(x)5 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control SD 47-90 3 3 6 Page 2of13 0 • 18.005 — 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 — 19.040 Site Circulation — Private Streets/Driveways • E. City oaake Oswego SQ1aL Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005 — 57.135 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.010— 55.130 III. FINDINGS A. Existing Conditions; 1. The site is composed of approximately 47,300 sq. ft. in an irregular configuration. The site abuts both Palisades Crest Drive on the west; and Mayors Lane on the north. 2. The site is bisected by a 10 foot—wide sanitary sewer easement and sewer line draining southeast to northwest. A 5 foot—wide public utility easement is also located along the side property lines. A 10 foot—wide public utility easement is located along the northernmost and easterly property lines. 3. The site is composed of slopes ranging from 9.5 to 67%. Areas in the northeastern one—third of the site exceed 50% slope (Exhib;' 16). This area amounts to approximately 25% of the site. 4. Palisades Crest Drive is a 32 foot—wide paved improvement with curbs, gutters and no sidewalks, in a 50 foot—wide right—of--way. • 5. Mayors Lane is an 18 foot—wide paved improvement without curbs, gutters and sidewalks, in a 20 foot—wide right—of—way. 6. An 8 inch sanitary sewer line is located in a utility easement abutting the south right—of—way line of Mayors Lane. This 8 inch line continues southeasterly, bisecting the site. 7. A 6 inch water line is located in Palisades Crest Drive. 8. A 10 inch storm drainage line is located in Palisades Crest Drive. Because the site lies below Palisades Crest Drive it cannot be served by this storm drainage line. 9. A fire hydrant is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palisades Crest Drive and a southern segment of Mayors Lane. This hydrant is approximately 325 feet from proposed Parcel 2 (Exhibit 4) and 130 feet from Parcel 1. 10. A street light is located at the southwest corner of the site on Palisades Crest Drive. No street lights arc located on Mayors Lane. • 11. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as having a potential for severe landslide hazard. A portion of the site is also identified in the Plan as having a potential for weak foundation soils. SD 47-90 Page 3of 13 0U37 • • • E. . proposal; • The applicant proposes to create two parcels from a 47,300 square foot lot. The parcels are proposed to be 25,800 square feet and 21,500 square feet area. Acc.:: s is proposed to be available to both parcels from Mayors Lane and to Parcel I from Palisades Crest Drive. C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development: 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted the documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urbe Service boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. A City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990 demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. .The 1989 passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. Impact Management Policiu These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies arc implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that _ density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. • SD 47-90 0 6 3 8 Pape 4of 13 • �WtldlifLtbitat Policies • These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Landslide Area Policies These policies require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation District mapping indicates that the site is in a potential landslide hazard area. A soils investigation has been presented in Exhibit 5 and amended by Exhibit 13. This investigation (Exhibit 5) illustrates that the ground has been stable for along period of time. The Soil Conservation Service soil survey maps and - technical support materials state that "Roads and buildings should be designed to offset the limited ability of the soil in this unit to support a load and to offset the effects of shrinking and swelling. The soil investigation (Exhibit 5) does not recommend construction techniques (foundations, storm water disposal, etc.) necessary to assure the continued stability of this steep hillside site. However, the applicant has supplemented this soils report with a storm water disposal report (Exhibit 13) by the same soils engineer that prepared Exhibit 5. This report suggests methods of disposing of storm runoff on the steep slopes of the site. The recommended method for storm water disposal is to install three 10 foot—long, three foot—wide seepage trenches, on the uphill side of an old road descending from Mayors Lane. The applicant's topographic survey (Exhibit 25) of this area of the site indicates that the site of the old road is in an area of slopes greater than 50 •_ percent. This installation will be discussed further regarding the Drainage Standard for Minor Development, and the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard, reviewed later in this report. • I'ote._ntial Erosion Area Policies These policies require desittnation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policie:.. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Weak Foundation Soils Policies These policies art intended to protect development from damage caused by weak foundation soils. A soils report is required to assess the soil condition of the site and to suggest recommended constniction methods to address those conditions. These policies are implemented through the Weak Soils Development Standard. A portion of the site is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan to have a potential for weak foundation soils. The applicant's soils consultant has not addressed this in the soils investigation submitted (Exhibit 5), but suggests that the use of spread - footings would be suitable for the soils present. • SD47-90 Q '339 I';alc• 5 of 11 Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. There are no Distinctive Natural Areas listed in the Comprehensive Plan which include this site. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance,and the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standards. The related development standards are reviewed in this Plan policies. report following and analysis of the applicablep Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57), reviewed later in this report. Protection Open Space Policies These policies further protect natural resources listed in the Plan, including stream corridors, hillsides, erodible soils and sites with landslide potential. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard and Hillside Protection and Er osion Control Deveiophlent Standard, which are reviewed later in this report. Intns; trtal[i_o_aBoUcies These policies require that the City require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The policies also require that a developer be required to• • dedicate additional right-of way as necessary to provide for widening. The applicant will be required to dedicate right-of-way at the east end of Mayors Lane to achieve an emergency turn around necessary to meet these requirements. This dedication will he discussed under the Utility Development Standard and required as a condition of this action, if approved. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning C'x1e Reauiremerts and Analysis The following requirements were in effect on the date this application was submitted: The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit: required minimum lot width at the building lines coverage; egwcud n minimum lot depth is 100 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)[. Maximum the zone is 30ric [LOC 48.225(1)1. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48.215(1)1: Front yard: 25 ft. Rear yard: 25 ft. Side yard: 10 ft. SD 47-90 • Page 6 of 13 'A 0 • The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: �. Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) • Parcel I 25,800 110 190 Parcel 2 21,500 170 140 As proposed, both parcels comply with all 3pplicablc zoning requirements. The maximum height of 35 feet is allowed in the R-IO zone (LOC 48.2201. Compliance with this requirement will be assured upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Development Codc Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as a minor development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. So1ar_Access_Ordinarlcc.esluiremcnts and Analysis (LOC Chapter 571 This ordinance requires that 80% of newly created parcels be designed to achieve solar orientation and a minimum north-south dimension. Because Parcel 2 abuts Mayors Lane, it complies with the orientation requirement to be within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. The frontage of Palisades Crest Drive abutting Parcel I • does not comply with the orientation requirement. Both parcels exceed the 90 foot north--south dimensions required by the Basic Requirement ILOC 57.020(1)1. As an alternative, Parcel I can comply by imposing a Solar Building Line, north of which solar access is assured (LOC 57.020(2)1, or the Performance Option, which requires orientation of the long axis of the dwelling within 30 degrees of an east- • west axis or a percentage of the glazing (windows) and roofing to face within 30 degrees of south ILOC 57.020(3)1. A choice between the two will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Also, dwellings on both parcels will be required to comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance 1 LOC 57.050 - 57.0901 as a condition of this action. rc:e Cuilin Os n;ucvit_cquircmcnijtnd Analysis (LOC'Chapter 55) • In an effort to evaluate proposed development (Exhibit 3) with regard to tree removal, the applicant has submitted Exhibit 14. This potential design suggests the necessary removal of twenty—seven trees, fifteen of which are Douglas—firs. Exhibit 15 illustrates an alternative in which the west property line of Parcel 2 is an average of 40 feet farther west and the homesitc.is less steep. This alternative suggests the necessary removal of twenty—nine trees, sixteen of which arc . Douglas-firs. While the number of trees are relatively similar, the trees removed would be from different areas in each alternative. Based upon the evaluation of tree removal alone, either alternative is acceptable. Further consideration of these options must rely upon an analysis of slopes which art considered under the I lillsidc Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard, reviewed later in • this report. it should be noted that trees existing well below the proposed home site were not mapped by the applicant. SD 47-90 Parr 7 of 11 u U • • c. The applicable Development Standards The following requirements were in effect on the date this application was • q submitted: S1tt.ctLighi&(5.005 — 5.0401 • Street lights exist on Palisades Crest Drive, but not on Mayors Lane. A street light will be required to be located on Mayors Lane at the western property line of the site as a condition of this action, if approved. Earkine.itnd Loading (7.005 —7.040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off—street parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport. Both proposed parcels are of sufficient size to accommodate this requirement,demonstration of which will be required upon application for any building permit requested subsequent to this action. J raina e_atandard for Minor Development (12.005 — 12,040) This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant has submitted a stormwater disposal report (Exhibit 13) which suggests the construction of seepage trenches on the uphill side of an old road on • Parcel 2. The suggestion does not take into account the impact of the trench installation on tree removal. The applicant illustrates that Parcel 1 will deliver stormwater to a seepage trench located northeast of the proposed dwelling on the parcel. The applicant has provided a tree survey (Exhibit 26) enabling review of the proposed seepage trenches. A professional engineer must confirm that this proposed method of stormwater disposal for Parcel 1 is acceptable. The seepage trenches have been located such that impact to trees is minimized, but the storm water disposal method for both parcels must be acceptable to the City Engineer prior to final plan approval, requested subsequent to this action, if approved. These seepage trenches will be required to accommodate on—site drainage only. • Drainage from the public turnaround should not be directed to these private systems, but should be directed to a public system. Such a facility does not exist at present. While dedication of an easement for a future public storm drain is •appropriate for this proposal, construction of a storm sewer could not occur until an extension of the casement to Overlook Drive is secured. A nonremonstrance agreement for future formation of a local improvement district (LID) will be required to allow this construction to be defe,red. This and the public dedication will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. v cakLoundation_Soihh_U3A ) 3.04W A portion of the site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as having a potential• for weak foundation soils. The applicant's soils report has not provided an analysis SD 47-90 P:Iv(' Rof1Z Q ',, -j of the strength of the soils found on the site as required by DS 13.035(2), though he • has concluded that, "the two parts of the lot are both stable and suitable for house construction using spread footing support" (Exhibit 5). Utility Standard (14.005 - 14.040) This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. Except for the undetermined location of stormwater disposal facilities on proposed Parcels 1 and 2 as noted regarding the Drainage Standard above, the applicant • proposes to connect to existing public water and sewer facilities located in Palisades Crest Drive and Mayors Lane. Based upon the first floor elevation proposed for Parcel 2 (as illustrated in Exhibit 26) it is uncertain whether a gravity fed sanitary sewer can serve the dwelling. The applicant must provide a grtvity connection to the public sewer. This design must be assured prior to final plan approval. Mayors Lane is an 18 foot-wide street in an equally narrow right-of-way. There are presently no provisions for emergency vehicles to turn around at the east end of Mayors Lane. The applicant's site plan illustrations (Exhibits 14 and 15) and preliminary grading study (Exhibit 26) show the potential location for a fire truck (or emergency vehicle) turnaround. However, Exhibits 14 and 15 do not take into account the location of the southwestern property iine of Tax Lot 5200 of Tax Map 16BC, abutting to the northeast. As proposed, the fire truck turnaround would • encroach upon this prop:sty 10 to 15 feet (see Exhibits 16 and 23). The grading plan (Exhibit 26) differs from Exhibits 14 and 15. Extensive grading,...- and retaining structures are required to construct the turnaround designed to meet City standards regarding maximum grade of surface cutbanks, etc. (Exhibit 26). Public dedication of right-of-way and construction of the turnaround will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 - 16.040) This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. Specifically, no more than 65 percent of areas of between 20 and 50 percent slope may be stripped or graded, and if density transfer is determined to be infeasible, at least 70 percent • of areas greater than 50 percent slope must remain free of impervious surfaces and structures. The applicant has performed this analysis on exhibit 16. The applicant indicates that 9,650 sq. ft. of Parcel 2 is greater than 50 percent slope, leaving 11,850 sq. ft. between 20 and 50 percent slope. This results in the following: Areas of greater than 50% slopes 9,650 sq. ft. x 70% = 6,755 sq. ft. to remain free of impervious surfaces and structures. Area oL2U(o50% slopes • 1 1,85O sq. ft. x 65% = 7,702 sq. ft. maximum allowed grading and stripping. SD47-90 0043 PatcSof 13 • • The impact of the proposed turnaround, driveway and dwelling shown on site plan illustrations 1 and 2 (Exhibits 14 and 15) appear to comply. The grading plan (Exhibit 16) which accompanies this application indicates that the extent of disturbance of areas with greater than 50% slopes is three to five percent, within IP the limits allowed. The 4,000 sq. ft. coverage of the proposed dwelling (Exhibit 26) would disturb only 34% of the area on slopes between 20 and 50%, also in compliance with the standard. Further conformance to this standard will be assured upon review of building permit applications submitted subsequent to this action, if approved. - It would be imprudent to require demonstration of compliance with the standard as a condition of this action, when such is required before approval is granted (Impact Management Policies, Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1). Access Standard(18.005 - 18.040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel 1 abuts Palisades Crest Drive for 99.9 feet; Parcel 2 abuts Mayors Lane for 80.75 feet. Both proposed parcels are in compliance with this standard. Site_Circulation - Private Strecds/Driveways tl9.0Q5 J9..O40) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The preliminary grading plan (Exhibit 26) demonstrates that both the public turnaround and proposed driveway for Parcel 2 meets these requirements. The • construction site on Parcel 1 is less steep than Parcel 2 and may more easily achieve compliance. The final grades will be reviewed upon application for construction or building permits submitted subsequent to this action, if approved. d.. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS - There are no such plans which affect this site. D. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff coricludcs that the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria through the imposition of certain conditions. E. Action Taken: Staff approves the minor partition (SD 47-90) subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and modified by conditions 3, 5, 7 and 8) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one • year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the . City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, • development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if SD 47-90 Page 10of 13 0U44 granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. S The final plan shall reference this land use application -City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 47-90. 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's Office and recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office. 3. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate dedication of public right-of-way necessary for an emergency vehicle turnaround (as depicted in Exhibit 26) along the frontage of the site on Mayors Lane. 4. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement and petition for future street improvements anticipated in Mayors Lane. This agreement shall apply to both parcels as approved. 5. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate the dedication of a 15 foot-wide public storm drainage easement along the northern and northwestern property • boundaries of Parcel 2 and extending over Parcel 1 to the public turnaround required by condition number 3. 6. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement for future storm drainage improvements anticipated in the-easement required by conditions number 5 above. This agreement shall apply to both parcels as approved. 7. The following notes shall appear on the final plan: • "Parcels 1 and 2 are solar lots. Development of structures and planting so non-exempt vegetation on Parcels 1 and 2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050- 57.090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1 and 2." 8. The applicant shall, on a covenant to accompany the recordation of the final plan, illustrate the location of a Solar Building line on Parcel 1 as provided by LOC _ 57.020(2) OR the following notes shall appear on the final plan: Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees; or, Habitahle structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the final plan or plat. 9. Prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall provide an engineered design for a method of stormwater disposal acceptable to the City Engineer. 10. Prior to fi.tal plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of • the City Engineer that a gravity fed sanitary sewer to serve Parcel 2 can be designed. SD 47-90 Page 11 of 13 0 J 4 5 �.l i,. Via:..`�'+.' .:1�:_ -. .. _. ..-.:_1.... f..'. .�.�.... ".. ' •_. .. .- �..��----- _ _ e • 1 1. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Deportment prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequene to the date of this approval. 12. The applicant has provided a tree survey of those trees in excess of five inches in diameter (Exhibit 25). The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory structures on parcels I and 2.. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050—55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). 13. The.applicant shall install storm drainage improvements necessary to serve Parcels 1 and 2. This installation shall be a condition of any development permit requested' subsequent to this action. 14. The applicant shall install a street light on Mayors Lane where it intersects the westerly property line of Parcel 2. This shall be a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action. 15. The applicant shall provide final design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and install the emergency vehicle: turnaround required by condition number 3. This installation shall be a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action. Prepared by: afticift.49\" 1 - • MICHAEL R. EELER Date Associate Planner Approved by: j TOM COFFEE Date P1:.nning Director Reviewed by: .Uu Q1/990 CINDY PHILLIPS DI Deputy Ci.y Attorney EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map • 2. Applicant's Narrative, dated November 1990 3. Site Plan 4. Vicinity map and hydrant locations SD47•-90 0 `� .r6 „..._ 1 '1 ..f 5. Soil investigation by J. McDonald, dated October 29, 1990 • 6. Letter from A. Southwell for L. & L. Johnson, dated January 18, 1991 7. Letter from A. Goldstein. dated January 21, 1991 • 8. Section of site by R. Tahran, dated February 14, 1991 9. Orientation of views by R. Tahran, date. February 14, 1991 10. Site section study by R. Tahran,dated February 14, 1991* • 11. T etter from R. Tahran, dated April 23, 1991 12. :tter from R. Tahran, dated June 24, 1991 13. Stormwater disposal report by J. McDonald, dated July 1, 1991 14. Site plan illustration 1, dated May 6, 1992* • 15. Site plan illustration 2, dated May 6, 1992* 16. Slope analysis,dated April 26, 1992* 17. Photograph: View northeast 18. Photograph: View east 19. Photograph: View northeast 20. Photograph: View southwest 21. Photograph: View east—southeast 22. Plat of Palisades Heights Estates, dated September 11, 1972* 23. Plat of Palisades Heights Plat No. 2A, dated June 30, 1963* 24. Landslide Hazard and Weak Foundation Soils 25. Survey and Topographic map of portion of site,dated April 5, 1992* 26. Preliminary Grading Study. dated April 28, 1992* 27. Letter by OTAK, dated February 14, 1992 *Exhibit to large to reproduce, available in case file. IIIIRW:kaa\baa I sns-9Ok<2poxts>S D47-90 } • SD 47-90 0C47 i • • 45 • " 0 . .,, • 7)6 0 • .?4-./.?,. /•-• •.'-'4,'7,' ..ef,„21.4.4),. • •• ...'• . '. •!' !..'w, .... \e,• . • . .: ••••. ..,51.-. •• • '.. .. '‘..,... •, _____ -• -,.--,,.:.;,?).4N___. ,,.-.;..,,.1'.,,,,_ - •' .,.- ppr,,,.. -4., i . • - :"::.-2/,:.,ew"). -..',..::' • • A 4. .---.. .. . . ,,,-,:::::.4.4..k-. .. ..... ......c.: . •::.../.. i. . .., .., . ... \'(.f • ..i/A,, .--- / , .. \, \-„ \ c/Nr N ,,•• -:-......1. •- _. -- - - . . - • ' .•-•..•‘,./-f _•,---i , '.,, ...• i• • _-•-- __ t \ . \ ./\\ ...•,, N • 4,_,7—1, \ 4Lft'll'eo, 'N.,. !. . --- _ ---------77- - --- / ii '\'''‘.:1'. • A _ --- 11 i . \\ ', ‘ '?'..'. 1'''' --Y OTAiii r ' I I -- • ....,.- /3- y ,-- ,— ,-• . `, i . t. 1 / c,„ _ //_(._ .. ., .. . ....._ . i 1 t., 1 -/<It "-,;' /PA, .. "o, ,,,,. •4 I i I silig.,' ".I I, . - ) ..leii ... q / i•-, -4,. - •••-•_.. • , . . / NI 7.71 .Y6. • • (1 , th ,J, ;,.•, , •,\e„ . ,1 ' 7 i;' illi. 4,- ' ' • I 7 c''- 1( AT; 1 k4 'r ,0 t i'zr,81 . , .. • c,,, . ... O' •••••• 4 o (I' i • 1,4 /0 44 )1 I '4 -, '41/' '' ' ' ' i 'il-T'' • I 1 ,,,, A„ 1k . I .1 j / •f'' - ' • , / iye 1 / I A), , i i '1'..tt. ' , ' 4 et• . z i 4er .., i I ,c_t• ..,' .,' 'rSi. /I • I •/ f ... ‘r • -: -- ' - - ___ _.. -- i . ,. ,........ / ./r_ii • ._ ._ _ ._r,,,, , ,, ,,,/ . . /#: 40 , #(4),., ,if —71 • - •-•-/ - —A_ i\- ..<, (.. , 1 n c iii •.04 . . - - -- A iiiilk44 40 ' ril / 1 / Os 6 lifisextedi ' r :-1,- • CP' ... . . /,„. .a •o / '\ , - •),_ lsA,,..:47 . • - i . i / .. S ''s 4, EXHIBIT 17 s / , / / ...._, . ;-- ,,,,... c--_ 4 .,,'kk /•‘,7, LU 00-0002 -'' '. 7-0 %A, ii i . c i / /9, : &,. , , , -. t.,. , , / / • (.... / / 7. \ r •\ /�� /, t.!�{ .'* \ '\ • \• " S '\ yt • \ • I \''\ s. 40 .......... 4.1s \\ . 116$.104\(,) . , N. :____________ , • Q..5,:lyr , ,../// . ._.•_.. , .._._ • . .., ; . , „ , .F. . : , , ,,. ...., ,• • ..„... .: , ; , ....1_..... , . . N i„,,, ,, „ , , 1 ; / ..... , .,i ..,,„ ,,,, . „ , , ,.. ./.,, ,..„, . ,., ,,,,, , i . , I t.. 64- 1 I v • t sr-., xcs"•r �14., /Irit ' �,I„:.i p� LI : ;.fir .. #/ -. � / 0`1 ,I*,• ' + I i I / :, '../,,44 t i ,r; / -• .._4 t 4 ; 1 i !' : i Lit • -&ill 1 _ ill limb iti 1 ,.., , orp_ . ....„_ Ipi "if' , , ),,, ‘; --____. , aziftAPA./ i'. / -. , , ' , r, I I t !''. / - IMP" lta\ fnr 1 O \/ . . S //T" / rAL , ,S /(-, ro l / c: '�O, ��� EXHIBIT18 .� / el A I Si LU 00-0002 (i . yes ,, / 0 • - . . .0 - . • ---- 0 . .. .. i nor S 0 NN.,.__ \ AL6 i) \ -� I A C!ablk4ZINglik,ilk------ s P f t oo a,-)'G. ' tT fr � n Abo,r , -, 0TpF6c c�.pa. Fit to Tucrc n"1 . > NIlit'-4111141NiN_ - -•2 FIR I NV. l •A N1 R I� fib ."'� , _ ... . . ..Asni.,,..r ___-- iii 1 3. v ,mi-vt------_,'\ ' ...iik 1. , • /�� 6'GFuSperj� � B a �% . 1 ;ilk 21 .0, c,+ 1- 1 .• ��, �� o M . •i. -.• .- ‘ l li...-1;;;•••• . 4- 41 •*-1‘ ' ).\1 ..., 7I F OF :._ . r�1"\ '\\ ` ' \` d IL,' i. _ ac \\ , ,z:,, \ \ \r' i 1C1\ - 1.1rill ill 7 ,, T 424-4 , c 1\ ''IY 1 Icy l \ y� `` ` '� "' �� k \ O \3/4‘ , \t , r r .1s, \ c-)t ,k 4. .7 4\5#- I I /2)4 A° . or c 1 J_ 4 - lil r `s'a t1 1 •, 6cL.o / , l l •, . c V • ' 6F F $Q - r \c: -� + EXHIBIT 19 LU 00-0002 i wbS/6IbEc, S TSefR Sr` LE 1:17- Ftcur 5a 410 • . .'t" •I.r.a•,•p"•A•..hm..•1,....,./'vl I'L•rvu•FI•11.�.K.i}eK,/l•$�. • • Q1Cra.,., ,, i, ri {{ April 23, 1991 „^LIL ( i_ I)��r/( ,• L Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner A P R 2 3 1991 City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 EXHIBIT 20 Re: Minor Partition Application for David R. Roe LU 00-0002 Project No. 3492 Dear Mike: AB you know, I have been retained by Mr. Roe to study the building areas proposed in the Minor Partition Application filed in November, 1990, to assure that there are two buildable lots, each having a view. The view from each lot ;s the primary asset of this property and cannot be compromised. S^veral weeks ago, you and Russ Chevrette met David and I on IDsite where you expressed doubt about the aerial topography used in the minor partition application and reconciling the "Lake Oswego Landslide Hazard" map with the soils study that was submitted. We have done the actual field survey now and located the trees we all - talked about on site and will amplify the original November 1990 Minor Partition - Application filed by Planning Resources, Inc. with our findings. - Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard - The original cross section through the site that we provided demonstrates where the lot lines need to be to protect the property rights of the owner to maintain his view. Lot 1 is 25,800 square feet and has a pretty uniform 12% slope. Lot 2 has 21,500 square feet, of which 7,971 sq. ft. is on 50(24 slope or greater, lec,v,ng a lot of 13,529 sq. ft. that is less than a 50% slope to build on, so no density transfer is n€.zessary or requested to meet the minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet to meet the minimum zoning requirements. The large size and configuration 3f the lots is to guarantee view protection of the two lots being created and to maximize view protection of the neighboring lots. According to our registered Soils Engineer, no landslides have occurred on this site nor are they anticipated due to the soils structure, tree formation and subsurface drainage characteristics. In accordance with Ordinance 16.010(7), no land over 50% slope will be developed. On a site (Lot 2) cf approximately 13,529 sq. ft., at least 70% of the site will remain free of structures or impervious surfaces. This allows a footprint of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. on this slope. We can easily commit that no more than 65% of the area in slopes of 20-50% shall be graded or stripped of vegetation. The actual field survey and slope calculation proves that • the lot as designed provides sufficient buildable area and as designed maintains the view protection corridor established by the owner. . 5 31,t'l .lI•.•I'.Nrw,..f,.,.• i .. . .. ...,.. '1•... • 1'.,1•,-1'. 1..111 , . e 'A�,�t '• ���i1 1 S Mr. Mike Wheeler April 23, 11)91 City of Lake Oswego Page 2 • Weak Foundation Soils Standard The other area of major concern that has been identified is tl,e Landslide Hazard Potential of this site, as listed in the City's "generalized map." The Standard goes on to state that the "actual condition of the site will determine whether such soils exist. The Standard states that if a report is filed by a registered professional soils engineer or engineering geologist, that the "soils characteristics are determined to be adequate for the proposed use, no further consideration of compensating design shall be necessary." (Pg. 43 Development Standards 13.035(3)). The City's Landslide Hazard Map is based on an overview of the City to be confirmed by on-site investigation. In this case, bore holes have been made and concur with the Clackamas County Soil Survey map classification. The soils engineer goes into greater depth on the description of the soils and why they are not susceptible to landnlides. The opinion and recommendation of the registered soils engineer is that the lots a:•e stable and are suitable for house construction using spread footings, the most conventional method of construction. This analysis and recommendation appears to he in compliance with Development Standard 13.005. The access off Mayor's Lane provides an obvious building pad for Lot 2 which preserves the view line of Lot 1 and the neighboring lots. This demonstration of accurate field survey information along with the registered • certifications of the appropriate professionals appears to answer the questions that have come up. Since the application was submitted in November, 1990, please let us know immediately if there are any unanswered questions, as the building season is rapidly passing us by. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Hal G. , Architect President, OTAK Architects, P.C. RGT/tam 34921.001 • Oi_; 54- otak• ArrtW.[.Nnr•r.,vi Itwx•• ino•novnUlnx•rd cart.••.•La•rIx•.,(,e Ar ... •�0,v f){„•Sp •$ur vyM June 24, 1991 .11 . _ 9 1r: .; Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner City of Lake Oswego EXHIBIT 21 P.O. Box 369 LU 00-0002 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: Minor Partition Annlication for David R. Roe - • Project No. 3492 Dear Mike: Based on our site visit with you and Tom Coffey on June 12, 1991, and our subsequent telephone call, I will address the remaining questions you have regarding our pending _-- minor partition application. 11111 From our phone call, I understand the remaining questions to be: (1) Tree impact of one building pad versus another. (2) Additional topography information to the sewer easement. (3) Additional tree survey information to plot trees up to the sewer easement. (4) Show that no more than 65% of the areas of 20% - 50% elope will be disturbed by home construction on Lot 2 (lower lot). • (6) Show fire truck turnaround on a print. (6) Address stormwater disposal from Lot 2. I have prepared two illustrative site plans, much like the sketchy ones I gave you on-site, June 12, 1991, to better illustrate our answers to your questions. I also feel the drawings were helpful to look at "on-site" to see in the field how other homes may be affected by one building pad over another. The trees, neighboring houses, slope, view corridors and building heights all need to be considered. For the illustrative site plans, I have made some building pad assumptions for thb size houses that usually are placed on this size lot. Each would, most likely, have a three car • garage and range in size from 3,000 sq. ft. to probably 6,000 sq. ft. . • _ 0L55 I y I bi • i:16 GiA••r)n [Mrv,•vI'MITI • Mr. Mille Whe3Ier, Planner thille 24, 1991 City a2 Lake Oswego PRg, 2 will addroes the remaining questions point by point. (1) Tree Impact As the illustrations show, the trees that would need to be cut for each building pad would be about the same. Illustration 1, however, preserves a tree buffer between Lot 1 and lot 2, that would help site a house into the tietting much better and offer a screen for the house to the south. The tree cover on the steep eastern half of the lot would remain prodominandy at is, except for thinning to aflocv lb? views. ;2) Additional Topography The additional topography up to the sewer little easement you asked for has been shown on the site plans. (3) Additional Tree Survey Ind nm tion The additional trees on the site area that you requested have been zhawn on the site plans. (4) No More Than 65% Distributed Area on 20%-6fl% Slonea My original map to you on April 23, 1991, allowed 7:97I.0 sq. ft. of area classified on 50% slope or greater on Lot 2. From our meeting, you showed • some additional "red-lined" arees that you thought should also be in the 50% area. I have added those areas to ihe original calculation to arrive at 9,650 sq. ft. of G0% slope or greater for Lot 2 (Site Plan Illustration 11. Since Illustration 1 is our requested configuration and the plan we feel is superior for previously stated reasons, I have calculated the areas for that option. Lot 2 on Site Plan 1 i-3 21,500 sq. ft. If we subtract 9,650 sq. ft., we have 11,350 sq. ft. of area that is less than 50% slope. The zoning is R10 requiring 10,000 so. ft. per lot. We exceed these prescribed requirements and do not need or request any density transfer or variances for the Lot 2 shown on Site Plan Illustration 1. The code requires that "no more than 65% of the area between 20%-50% slopes be disturbed," which would be 11,850 sq. ft, x 65% = 7,702 sq. ft. of area that could be disturbed by code allowance. Our Site Plan Illustration 1 shows a building pad of 2,500 sq. ft. (which could be up to 5,000 sq. ft. total if two story) plus a driveway area of 864 sq: ft. for a total disturbed area of 3,364 sq. ft. Since it is not an exact "designed footprint" at this stage, a projected "disturbed area" of 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. would allow some flexibility and still be far below the maximum area allow';d by code. 4,500 sq. ft. disturbed area divided by 11,850 sq. ft. = 38% disturbed area. The disturbed area for construction will be between 30% to 4C% and most likely closer to 30%. The illustration shown on the Site Plan Illustration 1 is 3,364 sq. ft divided by 11,850 sq. ft. = 28%. • 0 u 5 6 • • • Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner June 24, 1991 City of Lake Oswego Page 3 (6) Fire Truck Turnaround I have shown a fire truck turnaround on both plane that corresponds to the city's "typical residential turn-a-round" details (Drawing No. A-I.04). This configuration fits the best with the existing pavement and causes the least amount of additional grading site disturbance and paving. (6) Stormwater Disposal Our soils engineer, John McDonald, P.E., has prepared specification for stormwater disposal. See attached. I feel that the information that has been submitted shows that the application as submitted fully complies with the development standards. The application es submitted also preserves the property owners' and neighbors' property right, to preserve views to the greatest extent. I hope this additional-information is sufficient for you to arrive at a decision on this matter. If you have any other questions or wish to discuss thi3 letter, please give me a call at any time. Sincerely, O 1t : _ Rat h G. Tstt`-an, Architect Preaident, OTAK Architects, P.U. RGT1kw 34921.002 0u57 • • • Ut: J0 . .. , . . , • • . , . . c'01;`` 'ircn --lin otik .0 t_!,t hour wens 611.-rio�i Swat I 1 ill n E. February 14, 1992 . 'ARCH 1 RPORA,E C T S.T P.C. . - .. ''' E E B 1 5 1992 Archtie tuts, ' i i a. Planning -.. Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner =- Urban Resign' Cityof Lake Oswego _al:. EXHIBIT- , B \ peve{�,�ent Services P.O. Box 369 C3 �` Landscape Architecture Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ` CMInglneernq'. ,'• �`9'�'410 Re: Minor Partition Application for David Roe ' Transportattdir` :` Project Number L3492.A00 Environttylental Services:=a.., Water Resources Dear Mike: -Sucvaying We are finally submitting the remaining additional information you required in : . your 'Draft Staff Report' on the above-mentioned minor partition for your review. . • •In your conclusions, you asked for additional information on six items. Since •. ,. some of the information requested is normally supplied at building permit stage, . when a specific design is being reviewed, we have had to make some assumptions when arriving at preliminary designs for driveways and drainage trenches; but I think the intent is to show that there is a workable solution to the questions you raised. I am providing the additional information in drawings and in narrative . III for each point- 1. Your staff report is correct in that we will not be able to use the >,, storm drain line in Palisades Crest Drive for Parcel 1. We will employ the common seepage trench solution for stormwnter • -. disposal as outlined by John McDonald, soils engineer, for Parcel • 2. This solution is common in Lake Oswego where no storm drains are available. It is designed for a 10 year rainstorm and - two hour duration that drops an inch of water, each square foot of roof area needs 0.08 cubic feet of water stored. Drain rock has - about 30% void space, therefore, .28 cubic feet of drain rock would be needed for each square foot of roof area. Since we have not designed the house for Parcel 1 yet, we cannot arrive at the exact design of the seepage trench. It is a common . ' N o method of storm water disposal, and we have a large area of 0 moderate slope with no trees to accommodate the final design. I • m 0 would suggest that a condition of approval to require the specific X design be provided at building permit stage when the exact roof w ,.1 area and building siting is known. 2. We are submitting a drawing of an engineered preliminary design ,, - for the proposed turnaround showing the limits of grading and vegetation removal. • 1r3ea sw 600Ml terry now ' 3. The topography survey was produced by licensed public land �4O�� ,,{. ' su veyors and a stamped survey will be provided, . 1 ,e `.;�4W31 ws63ae (' lMl6ne wry.tint . 0 >a,�,,,5 9 • w.nv,�,.eoai • .. rlI*1P R77 0S77' M1 `.'4 •• • Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner Page 2 City of Lake Oswego February 14, 1992 4. We have prepared a grading plan for the driveway in Site Plan Illustration No. 1. Again, this design is preliminary and can only • be finalized with the exact design for a house for Parcel No. 2, At that time, a structural engineer should be required to do the final design at building permit stage. This preliminary design, however, will meet the intent of showing the limits of grading and vegetation removal. There is a relatively flat pad right off the property line that forms a natural driveway start. Holding dose to the original grade practically eliminates any cut on the uphill side and only results in a six foot retaining wall on the downhill side. Typically, we would bridge across from the uphill side to the lower side retaining wall with timbers and pour concrete on a plywood deck. This is a very common practice and detail on steep lot construction and ono that causes the least amount of disturbance. I would be happy to provide you with an example of this detail. This approach would- not cause any disturbance on the uphill side, so our original tree removal projection remains unchanged. 5. From the grading study done for the driveway, it appears as r • though only 200 square feet of the area over 50% slope will be disturbed. (200 sq. ft. % 9,650 sq. ft. of area greater than 50% = 2%.) Our original assumptions for the proposed building pad and driveway were quite conservative (2,500 sq. ft. building pad and 864 sq. ft. driveway = 3,364 sq. ft. disturbed area of the area between 20% and 50% slopes). In addition, I have included a 6 foot perimeter 'construction zone' area of 800 sq. ft. I have also included a disturbed area of 1,000 sq. ft. for the seepage trench area. The total disturbed area in the 20% to 50% slope area is now calculated to be 5,164 sq. ft. (3,364 + 800 + 1,000 = 5,164 sq. ft.) Even if we allow a 20% contingency for changes due to a more exact design (5,164 sq. ft. x 1.2 = 6,196 sq. ft) we would still be considerably under the 65% maximum disturbance allowed. (6,196 % 11,850 sq. ft = 52%.) The trees 5 inches in diameter and over were surveyed as required along the old road ..vhere the seepage trench will be constructed. ' It appears as though we will only need to cut one more tree over 5 inches, a 14 inch alder. • • r .i..; • t, .+.tti Mr. Mike Wheeler, Planner Page 3 City of Lake Oswego February 14, 1992 • The fire truck turnaround has been redesigned and now meets the City's standard detail. Relatively minor grading will be required if - • we use a 2 foot high rockery or concrete retaining wall. All the disturbance will occur on the uphill lot (Lot 1). I feel this is the best approach since it will confine the disturbed area to 2,100 sq. ft. and require that only 2 fir trees and 2 maple trees be removed. .;. . I feel the submitted drawing is a realistic approach and is as ' detailed as can be until actual construction drawings are prepared. • G. The trees 5 inches in diameter and over, within 20 foot on both '` sides of the center line of the old road, have been located and are • shown on the drawings. It appears to us that with this additional information, we comply with all applicable criteria. Please review and give me a call if you have any questions or want to discuss any of the information. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and go over it since a lot of background assumptions have boon made. - Sincerely, ' JJ. • Ralph . 'I�n, ALA President, OTAK Architects, PC RGThw 3492' 001 ,,• • 0: • • • i GU G1 :`. ; • • • OLGL ;�' ,'r •`•. �. ,3 .• � f r* ♦ ♦_ .�- ' q, , r •• . - • gs. 1AKE 'LC)..(f.:11*. C70 -•••- o0EGO ln MINT OF PUBLIC VVORK5 November 23, 1992 Dale Ross OTAK, Inc. 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 RE: Mayor's Lane Turnaround Area for David Roe's Partition (SD 47-90) Dear Dale: Please look over the red-line comments on the turnaround plans. Also enclosed is an example of a similar turnaround,showing the kind of spot elevation and profile data we need. As a public improvement, these plans will need to meet all applicable Public Works Standards for Design and Construction. On this project, it is imperative that we can arrive at a final design because it dictates where the public dedication needs to be shown on the partition plat. We will also need to collect the minimum plan check and inspection fee of$750 before we proceed with our review. Please give me a call so we can discuss solutions. SinccrPly, Russ Chevrette Engineering Technician RC/kaa Enclosures I Russ92.2 J<cor rt',>SD4 7-90.1 t:11-2i • EXHIBIT 23 LU 00-0002 � � 63 • • • 0 ;' G4 OE q. • D i, OREGO14 • • DEPARTMENT 01: PUIBLiC WORK!" June 7, 1993 EXHIBIT 24 Mr. Dale Ross LU 00-0002 OTAK 1'. O. Box 1379 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 • RE: Public Works Plans for Roe Partition; City File SD 47-90 ' Dear Mr. Ross: • The majority of the corrections and concerns on our red-line set of plans (date of review 411" November 16, 1992) have been handled on the revised set received by this office on May 25, 1993. Revisions and additions to the plans, however, have generated the need for some fine tuning that, when accomplished, will result in approvable plans. I have taken the liberty to include compaction notes for your use on the plans; please incorporate them. Note that the astern':~ and existing compaction notes don't jive. The private perforated pipe wall drain is now shown with an I.E. of 6;.J.00 on the cross section but discharges at contour 636. It was correct on the previous submittal. The addition of the inlet structure and public storm drain pipe is approved in concept but needs the following revision: a) minimum pipe size for public drains is 10" and the approved material when plastic is proposed is P.V.C. Series 14 DR 51, ASTM D2412 or ADS N-12 solid wall; b) the proposed ditch inlet with slanted grate may prove to be hazardous near the edge of asphalt, a type G catch basin would be acceptable unless You feel these are over-riding reasons for the slanted grate; c) specify some form of permanent protection from erosion at the outfall of the public storm drain; d) illustrate the public drainage easement continuing northeasterly instead of terminating. Provide all the horizontal layout data needed to locate the new right-of-way and accurately build the project, together with all curve data, bearings and distances, etc. i suggest this be illustrated apart from the existing plan view to avoid clutter. Indicate the location, type and size of all utility conduits for future seryices and the • required street light. We don't want the street to be cu; at a later date for items that should be installed now. O G5 '.• - • .- Mr. Dale Ross • June 7, 1993 Page 2 A benchmark note tying this project to an official City benchmark is required on all Public Works plans. Update the revision box on the title block, to document the pre'.•:oas changes and the pending ones. Finally, we have never received a plan check/inspection fee on this project. Due to the minor nature of the work, we will forego requiring an engineer's estimate at this: time but we will require the minimum fee of$750 before the plans receive an approval stamp. If yc.i need to discuss any of these matters in greater detail, please give me a call. Sins?rely, ttss Chevrette Engineering Tech III RC/kaa - Enclosure • c: Ralph Tahran, OTAK L.Ivid Roe CAwelaword\pw\ttla\rosoJtr • • 0u66 0 • ENGINEERING ROUTING SLIP FROM: DATE: 9 3 TO: — Rob Amsberry Jerry Baker Dennis Brown Ron Burton • Frank Charbonneau Russ Chevrette • _ Buzz Clark __Joe Collins — George Dwire Gerald Fox _ Martin Hall Wayne Halverson Andy Harris Jerry King Pat Kopetski John Kroft Linda Mann Kathy Marcott _ Hea+h^r Neely Mark Schoening Mary VanKleef tAIKC WR — S.D MESSAGE: PLA4i RCCr:IVC) G -2R•y3 FOR. -C EIS 11 •Aloajf iAJCt,YYLRYZA rL• ►W PCX CtwA t7TS. tL ASE &TC2C IA PAR/11104 FiG6. v&r. TORE Mvint11 : CI%e(K Fit of 4r 750 bRuc4P 0A or 1R• . 6A5E:A,F)175 ETC.. v„out.o tt( ADVilAna CLA.LI(?9 u)HQS: .esPo lilkiu+^a if WILL C Tb AMi#J i'11 WJ 111E 3►-c.C:c LJ fit.(. &UttnOutAMME, THE. -ru!W�Zoo it rtc a•r ?2w-I rr• pROPr tri RESPONSE: EXHIBIT 25 LU 00-0002 101<eng-rorm ovng.routing Ju67 oswFco otEwl+ ='OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT September 24, 1999 John Barnes JB&B Construction PO Box 1784 Portland, OR 97207 Re: Tree Cutting Permit Application - Verification; Tax Lot 401 of Tax Map 2 1E 16CB; SD 47-90 (Roe) EXHIBIT 26 LU 00-0002 Dear John: • On September 9, 1999, you submitted an application for a tree removal permit (less the applicable fee), for trees you intend to remove to construct a single- family dwelling on Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1994-77. In submitting the application, you also requested a determination regarding a condition of approval requiring construction of a turnaround near the east end of Mayors Lane. On September 15 and 22, 1999, I spoke to you by phone, identifying the results of my research into the approved partition, particularly with regard to the matter of the turnaround. On September 16, 1999, you submitted a revised tree removal plan, which responded to issues raised by staff. On September 22, 1999, I confirmed my discussion with Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, regarding the revised plan, and the status of your permit application. Please be advised of the following: The tree removal application you submitted was not submitted in conjunction with a building permit for the dwelling shown on the site plan. While it is possible to apply for tree removal, staff will not support such removal without the simultaneous consideration of a building permit. Both permits must be issued • simultaneously. GuGS 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 .-. - :�n, n..:i a... _ rm.... . _- :_n-i n1nn • t....:........ .. n...:.-. --nv\ t�- ��^n r -,�. John Barnes JB&B Construction 11, September 24, 1999 Page 2 of 2 I am awaiting receipt of a copy of the construction plans for the turnaround from Otak, Inc., the consultant who designed this required improvement. Upon its receipt, I will provide a copy to Phil Sample, Fire Marshal, as you requested, for consideration of whether it should be built according to the design. Based upon that determination,you may decide to pursue formal modification of the approval, or to construct the facility. You must revise the site plan to illustrate of the trees in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling, including those intended to be retained (e.g., a 24-inch Fir near the southeast corner of the proposed dwelling, which appeared in the initial site plan). Tree protection measures will be required as a condition of the permit, once issued. You must also revise the site plan to indicate which contours are existing, and which are proposed. You have asked for an assurance that the material you have submitted for the tree removal permit you seek is satisfactory, and that a permit will be issued for such removal upon completion of the City's review of construction plans for the dwelling, and issuance of a building permit. To the extent that the revisions noted • above are made, and that the revised site plan accompanying the application for a building permit is substantially the same as that submitted on September 16, 1999, that payment of the applicable filing fee is made, and the trees are field-verified as being required in order to construct the dwelling,driveway and seepage trench, the City is prepared to issue a tree removal permit to the owner of Parcel 2, or their authorized agent. If you have any further questions, please call me at 503-635-0292. Sincerely, ON'a...e, t2.0)4agua Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner mpub wkswitAcommon_onike_wlworkwws correskid47.9019909240.4ac] • Lo8i I - Plan Review Checksheet BuildingDepartment 1Lake Oswe • of the City oS �o Building Permit#: 99-1796 Date: 11-29-99 Address: 2306 MAYORS LANE Owner/Occupant: JB&B CONSTRUCTION INC. _ Contractor. SAME Type of Const.: VN Occupancy Group: R3 Zone: R-10 Plan Review by: JIM CORRECTIONS,ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO [HE BUILDING PLANS,0[HER THAN MINOR RED LINE NOTES,WILL REQUIRE COMPLETE NEW FULL SIZE SHEETS DRAWN BY [HE ARCHITECT,DESIGNER OR ENGINEER 1.THIS AREA IS LISTED AS POSSIBLE UNSTABLE SOILS. PROVIDE A SOILS REPORT BY A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER 2.SPECIFY METHOD AND LOCATION FOR THE STORM WATER REMOVAL. 3.THE MAXIMUM BUILDING FIGHT OF 35 FEET IS MEASURES FROM THE EXISTING NATURAL GRADE. ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATED GRADE TO REDUCE THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED. 4.PROVIDE 1 SQUARE FOOT OF UNDERFLOOR VENTILATION FOR EACH 150 SQUARE FEET OF UNDERFLOOR AREA. VENTS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 3 FEET OF A CORNER AND SPACED FOR CROSS VENTILATION. VENTS MAY BE OMITTED ON(1)WALL ONLY. 5. HANDRAILS ON THE OPEN SIDES OF STAIRWAYS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 34 INCHES ABOVE THE NOSING OF THE TREAD. SEE STAIR SECTION. 6.THE PLANING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE THE BUILDING SE 1BACKS. RE-REVIEW 12-13-99 1.THE GEOTECH ENGINEERS REPORT SPECIFIES THAT ALL FOOTINGS TO BE 18 INCHES IN WIDTH. NOTE: SEE THE WET WEATHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE GEOTECH ENGINEERS REPORT. is-ia-c1� Post-fit'�Fa�x Note 7671 DI/ G IPa9Lso To f A +i; C - -I- ' F rn ca. Citli 6-C L.O . IPhone• Phone -oa_8(? Fax i VJ D I Fax 1 q.I EXHIBIT 27 LU 00-0002 1' t G .� EXHIBIT 28 LU 00-0002 SLIDE AND WEAK SOIL AREAS CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND r VICINITY /:AtririL /,/ , A r :_• 1 `.,� SCALE: 1 "= 800' 800 1600 2400 3200 4000 FEET • SCALE slide area _ / 4, .:, AND . ./.,,,c' — • VICINITY •/: it /7/ 'IL_1 t .:L__4_ . . ___ I,,, LI 47 .• SCALE: 1 //= 800' 1 i 1 li 800 1600 2400 3200 • 4000 , I 1 . FEET SCALE 1 i . t . t i . , cram.,••••••• lei , slide area ... . _ . _ „.. . .. 111 n OILIMI.•MIN• 1 • • -••. • '.4, '-' • • 1..r%• - ,i ,..:'',4, . • "`1,--4. ...e.,...,..1....idt.tror,..a. ....4 . - - - r• •,-.• • • -,,,Th.:„.• ....„... . .,,,i,i =14:4-."`If-'i.:7-,c.,..3- ra,,,,r:.•:1::Ao-.:,k-4.-.:1-••• ••41./A4,-., ,,;., •_r.- , ..,....*a-A*41V101•I''il iIi" •i 1 11 tii.,•'.-- ••- :'"i,-1,'•' -- iip."'ql-P.''44. 1-:40':-• ,...„ --...•-'1,.7-.---1-K....e....;,,,_)...A.-4.,.. ..•, . . 1 i slide area and 1 I i . • .. ..._.. .... 1 I if i 1 1 Zt JI : .....— ;----1. i----11—, I ..,!... .;`;,. .-./?'. ::,..:• I:I 1:1 It. „ i 11 l ', n :L___ wea so very unstable soil 1 li iil (. 1 _I I I • ! 1 I - • 1 I weak foundation soil rmun".ji 1 1. I 41 t. ir . , i . , • i. 11 1 slide hazard 41, , „ . v. I _, i1---... . •N. . I er% .... L.-. - abil- _x /� Ii nr.aa. if I'M Ag7 �,-..-,-"- .3* ) , _ . ,P:-.1--i': -' -; . 0447 -- — r 3 (1 • y: � �s l ' '��y� [, �= r; , '�-. 7 `. � - C —.ar 0 - - ifi i ..7.,..S; : '}' F.r�r�,="iL�d`yZ' Ij ;pyl6 '.; Tt .'�k' y4 3ln•''~ \i - " ` ::1,-,5:„•... u.n . � �,y /'•'Qa. Tom„ -. > 0 �t �;�:�a]� c- Q ;'3�. ,.-'1V.,71'iy .-;,'-:.-r;:.-:.'-;.1:,.ii_,..;.:.r:.41t 3 4-;f'..V',,.',-•i2'.„•4,.. f;. ' L f i . ,,,e,--;4,N f n tit...tri.t.f,-,470., . inivta.'.f.. ,.. .-, •:i ,y 4 E' Try- A. -Ia., ' .I. Cr. . .. . "fri../Pril,4' :_A f...t 4? :'-' 44INT'''N' ' 4 "".24":2'i;"--1..- T 1' ��IAA *;v._, �' p ' i!' ,•i �?� t ''` - to �` :-... J.- `•r ip, 1 a TIr-iji V• t //''^^ .,,,,,, �c -F�., t.}/F17p y�tw.i* - ''''."-- A.-. `V a'„..........„.,,,,,,,,,„,:,,;.::„6 ....,... .:,„vit,,:..:,:.,,,,:,.„,..„:„...:..r ... ;' 3 l ,� r F.t 4+, + i. • • .1 ;5 y 9. 4 -• -s,. 1' • .fit rt. _+`9c' t. y` . . V Y- `'}}ii•� "" `..'''3 }{� s i .�::_,,.,-,....!..;75e•-•-..r.:47-*--,:l.7.-..,,,:tio•;01:::_S '�• - X'.,- I- ,,r,.4 .... .(....:.,,....:;;...___,_:,..,..„_s� \ ��1 _ '� •/it-!'`.(, S�,r.:; sr s__� is _ ... mivir '� r . f �j ..may �,.►� ,4�Lof�t tT 'f it : L: r! '�y — e n J- -- „� i _ ;_ .,:„ �. • (. 1 �s'eir'ha.. �.1,s\-ii.v. i1I ` S•yy+ j ri _ �i v'� !! i � 14 :p:�lP : y, _ 1� .?J i 3Cr�' :: - '•...� s�'n:- ^,r.h>'� d:�'r, . .%.ke-f.;rr . t� ?_ 11 •+_5!�+•:L•;• `u :.ai;F. -'`"';fit•. _,y/. ,q� y. 3 ,4 Rt� `,�► �`_ '' �:9't�', ±=d ir..,,,,*:e.:_:_... .....:.;:„.„1... „ :`ypa..tat ', a r c,:'+ ,I✓ Hil tY i Lt�w- 'es_ •�j gam4. S•t�{s' .. - 49- ram r - {j`n, �� ��"ts'� e�•�--".��Z-..err-�,�t �� y}'`.+ tr <z � ;#y. '• —._J I . j� tea. 'y_��lf ! 1q< �'t� ti �''k. �• � ..• �- - _. JF -' - -- ''is-=::'°L' a,,� 4�c�'cA•„ii s� `tj Li'" ;�i ' •1+ !1,s l,. i3 •;TA-. r;_-•. -:"'sue—w '45_-tizj 1 q:ti� r o.s ?. rtw� .In 'y I1 1. ft. .913414-4:.; -" in-2,41 ,b, ii :If•/ I.;- 4tr-;41.:L..:-44: . �.: 4 tea:: z..,.,,,,...1 t 40,,,,I .:A 6 . ' 'P 4_,11:.:,-;••••••z:.*&:-...- --1.461.1 ; -:.•."?...-4-y--4-g3-..";--W-'-attrv--;•-•:-.;'.--; ,...e.r.-.;-e'pek.,t; ' 1/4----or_.,,,,,_/-1.77:. v L i, ‘,. 1 :.,;t4r‘ omos COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum Date: February 18, 2000 to: Development Review Commission From: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner Subject: LU 00-0002 [JB&B Construction; Roe]; Additional Materials and Analysis BACKGROUND This application was originally heard by the Development Review Commission on February 7, 2000. A staff report was prepared and published on January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, the applicant requested that the matter be continued to the hearing scheduled February 23, 2000. Additional materials were submitted regarding the original application following the requested continuance. The following materials are attached to this memorandum: Exhibit 29 Soils report, by J. McDonald Engineering; dated July 1, 1991 Exhibit 30 Geotechnical investigation, by Carlson Testing, Inc.; dated December 9, 1999 Exhibit 31 Revised tree removal plan; dated February 7, 2000 Exhibit 32 Letter from J. Barnes, with attachment; dated February 8, 2000 Exhibit 33 Drawing: Turnaround design (portion), by Otak, Inc.; dated February 2, 2000 Exhibit 34 Consulting Arborist Report, by Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc.; dated February 11, 2000 Exhibit 35 Photographs (12) of site Exhibit 36 Photographs (8)of turnaround area 380 A Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego, 7 Oregon 9 034 I'lanning Division: (503)635-0290 • Building Division: (503)635-0390 • Engineering Division:(503)635-0270 • FAX(503)635-0269 Memorandum Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 February 18, 2000 • Page 2 of 6 In response to the applicant's additional material, please consider the following: APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL The applicant's original proposal was to remove 11 trees in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the site, which was approved as a part of a previously approved minor partition, SD 47-90. The following issues were identified by the staff regarding the proposal (excerpted from the January 26, 2000, staff report): Not All Existing Trees Are Illustrated On The Applicant's Tree Removal Plan Staff noted that the applicant had not illustrated the location, diameter and species of all trees present on the site, as observed during a site visit. Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be continued to enable the applicant to provide required materials. While the applicant has provided a revised tree removal plan (Exhibit 31), that plan does not also include proposed mitigation trees. Instead, the applicant's arborist has illustrated • the location and species of mitigation trees on a reduced copy of the original, deficient tree removal plan, but has not specified their diameter. Because the two drawings are at two different scales and do not include all required information, staff remains unable to properly evaluate the applicant's proposal. However, based upon some of the information provided, staff will suggest some apparent alternatives, later in this report. Extent Of Slope Alteration Proposed Not Illustrated The applicant has illustrated a five-foot-wide area outside the actual footprint of the proposed structure as the extent of disturbance that will result from, or be necessary to construct the proposed improvements. No area of disturbance is illustrated regarding the construction of the proposed seepage trenches, located below the dwelling.' The purpose of this requirement regards the maximum area of disturbance allowed by the Hillside Protection Development Standard,which limits the disturbance to no more than 65 percent of the area of the site between 20 and 50 percent slope. Due to the absence of a complete representation of disturbed areas(e.g.,movement of equipment necessary to reach area of and construct the seepage trench),staff is unable to reach a conclusion regarding compliance • with the Hillside Protection Standard. Memorandum Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 • February 18, 2000 Page 3 of 6 Accurate Tree Removal And Mitigation Plan Required As noted previously,while all the trees have been illustrated on the revised tree removal plan (Exhibit 31), applicant has not illustrated the location of proposed mitigation trees on the same plan, as required. An arborist's drawing at a different scale, attempts to achieve this objective. This effort is not successful, due to the dissimilar scales of the drawings, the fact that they are not a composite of the information needed, and the fact that the arborist used the original, deficient tree removal plan as a basis for the reduced drawing submitted. As such, staff cannot properly evaluate the mitigation plan. Certified Arborist to Submit A Plan With Specific Pre-Construction And Post- Construction Recommendations: Alternative Site Plan Or Other Landscaping Plan Required The applicant has submitted an arborist report (Exhibit 34). The arborist concludes that all trees on site are "...of sufficient quality to warrant protection during construction." The arborist further suggests that, "...no additional recommendations are offered to revise the site plan or its `footprint' from its original form since the site plan offers the least amount of environmental impact to the trees without significantly changing the design • requirements for the structure." The arborist employs a 10-15 foot"critical root zone"in protecting the trees proposed to remain. These conclusions and measures will be discussed later in this report. APPLICANT'S REVISED PROPOSAL The applicant has amended the proposal only in the choice of which trees are proposed for removal. While the applicant continues to propose 11 trees for removal, one 14-inch Douglas-fir(west) is no longer proposed for removal; a 14-inch Maple within the building envelope is proposed to be removed instead. This Maple tree was omitted from the applicant's original site plan, but whose presence was noted by staff during a site visit. ANALYSIS The applicant has proposed no significant changes in the configuration of improvements proposed on the site. Additionally,the applicant's materials remain incomplete for the purpose of properly evaluating the proposal with regard to both existing trees,proposed mitigation trees, and the location of the proposed dwelling. However, based upon provisions of the Tree Code, the following are issues which are raised by the applicant's materials: • Memorandum Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 February 18, 2000 • Page 4 of 6 Off-site Impacts Have Not Been Properly Illustrated and Considered The applicant has illustrated the location of trees west of the site (Exhibit 31) in the vicinity of the proposed driveway. However,that plan does not illustrate tree removal that will result from the construction of a public turnaround as a condition of the previously approved minor partition. As a result, the revised site plan incorrectly gives the impression that these trees will remain. Staff believes that these nine trees (ranging from 10-to 30-inches in diameter) will be removed, or be dramatically impacted by the construction of either the turnaround or the applicant's proposed driveway. The full extent of the impacts of proposed development must be shown, and these impacts minimized as required by the Tree Code. The applicant has not demonstrated that this minimization has been achieved by the current proposal. Adjustments to Orientation of Proposed Dwelline The proposed location of the area of disturbance is four feet from an 18-inch Maple on the south side of the dwelling. The next-nearest tree that would be similarly affected is 22 feet (north). At a minimum, the applicant is capable of pivoting the footprint of the dwelling to the north, holding the position of the northwest corner, in order to maintain the minimum 411 "critical root zone"protection prescribed by the applicant's arborist (Exhibit 34). Doing so would contribute to the likelihood that this tree will survive. Width of Driveway is Excessive The applicant has illustrated the construction of a 26-foot-wide driveway, with a 31-foot- wide construction-impact zone (Exhibit 31). The distance from the west line of the site to the nearest tree is 21 feet. Staff suggests that the driveway width can be reduced to 12- to 15-feet in width and utilize a five-foot-wide construction impact zone, and avoid the removal of two 10-inch, one 12-inch, and one 24-inch Douglas-fir trees at the entry to the site. Floor Plan of Dwelline Could be Reversed The applicant has not demonstrated that the alternative of reversing the floorplan of the dwelling has been explored. Staff suggests that, base upon the partial evidence submitted by the applicant, that the floor plan of the dwelling could be reversed, north-to-south. While this would result in a longer driveway and relocated on-site turnaround, in light of the likely impact on the trees abutting to the west by the construction of the required turnaround, the resultant tree removal would be cumulatively no more severe. to do so would preserve five or more trees at the entry to the site, retaining the neighborhood's wooded character in this vicinity. Again, this alternative is offered only because of the likely removal and impact upon the existing trees west of the site, affected by construction • of the required turnaround. A composite illustration of on-site and off-site impacts of the Memorandum . Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 February 18, 2000 Page 5 of 6 development of Tax Lot 401 would enable confirmation of this suggestions as being appropriate. Impact of Current Pronosal on Off-site Trees As noted in the previous item, while the applicant has illustrated the location of trees abutting the site to the west, the impact of related development of the required turnaround in the public right-of-way west of the site has not been illustrated. This impact must be compared to the illustration by the applicant on the tree removal plan that these trees will otherwise remain. Staff believes that this illustration and conclusion are not accurate. CONCLUSION The applicant has not fully satisfied the material requirements identified by staff in the January 26, 2000, staff report regarding LU 00-0002. Staff has identified the material deficiencies throughout this report. Staff finds, as a result, that the applicant's revised proposal does not satisfy the applicable tree removal criteria. The applicant must provide the following, which is necessary to properly evaluate the proposed tree removal: 1) A composite drawing, to scale,illustrating the following on Tax Lot 401 and the public turnaround: a) All existing trees b) All trees proposed for removal c) All site grading, including that regarding the public and private (driveway) turnarounds d) Proposed dwelling e) All proposed areas of disturbed soil and vegetation Additionally, staff has identified three alternatives by which the impact of the proposed construction of a dwelling, driveway and turnaround on the site may be minimized. 2) The applicant must demonstrate how one or more of these alternatives may be employed in the development of the site to satisfy the requirements of the Tree Code [LOC 55.02.080(3)], as follows: a) Pivot the Footprint b) Reduce Driveway Width c) Reverse the Floor Plan of the Dwelling North-to-South d) Compare Tree Removal Required By Public Turnaround Design to the Tree Removal Plan For Dwelling • Memorandum • Development Review Commission LU 00-0002 February 18, 2000 • Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Since staff has identified alternatives intended to minimize disturbance to existing trees, staff recommends that LU 00-0002 be continued to enable the applicant to address these alternatives, and to provide the materials described above in a composite and comprehensive form. /MRW [I:1mike_w\workspac\reportsUu0000021000218me.doc] • • • JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING _ SOILS • CIVIL - GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S.E. STANLEY AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97222.4351 (503)774-0077 July 1 , 1991 Attn : Ralph Tahran OTAK, Inc . 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego , Oregon 97035 STORMWATER DISPOSAL FOR LOT AT EAST END OF MAYOR' S LANE, LAKE OSWEGO . This lot drops off steeply behind where the house would go. The problem would be in disposing of the stormwater without causing erosion or destabilizing the slope. The soil is Saum soil , and it has clayey gravel at depth . It has some downward permeability , so that if the stormwater were inserted deeply enough it would seep downward , rather than go laterally. There is an old cat road that cro:-ses the slope on a ten percent grade just below where the house would go . This cat road is cut three of F.our feet deep on the upslope side. By making a series of level seepage trench segments arranged in series on this upslope side of the cat road the stormwater could be safely stored until it could seep vertically into the gravelly soil . • For a design rainstorm of 10-year recurrence and two-hour duration that drops an inch of water , each square foot of roof area needs k . 08 cubic feet of water stored . Drain rock has about 30 percent void space so 0 . 28 cubic feet of drain rock would be needed for each square foot of roof area . A roof area of 2 , 000 square foot would need 560 cubic feet of drain rock . . The attached sketch shows how the ten foot long seepage trench segments are arranged on the old cat road . Each provides 75 cubic feet of drain rock , so eight segments would be needed . The sidewalls of the trench segments shall be draped with nonwoven filter fabric equivalent to Exxon GTF 125f) and the filter fabric shall be wrapped over the top of the drain rock after the distribution pipe has been placed . A leaf trap along the linos of the attached sketch should be added to the pipe entering the seepage trench to enhance the longevity of the drain rock . Very truly yours , ..48 -0 PROr� `; �• �j`v4rON8t • tuna + • • 7// 4/- c/7 '.1UL.O .9. 1991 01110011 ' 0 4 r a Na EXHIBIT 29,�, K• met LU 00-0002 r+ f Mayo11110 Lane J I 4""'..-- NO• , I • • IIoUSe • Location le / Old Cat Road IX/ 5-___WLYIE 10';; Slope Of 4" Perf. ABS ELAN VIEW - -^ Drain hock 21/2' 1' 'french Segment • 10' Old Cat Road 4" Perf. ABS •••°......°°"°..) I__a_i r II Nonwoven Filter Fabric i I 3' CROSS SECTT&N SEEPAGE TRENCH ARRANGEMENT • LOT AT EAST ENI) OF MAYOR'S LANE July 1, 1991 John McDonald Engineering • ® 0 ' LEAE_ThAk DETAIL_ III/ (Used to help keep drywell gravel beds clean) • • Ground Surface Cleanout Lid f .igl.-///11. 171.17.,777/ „.„'"/"---/- //�] ��� I' \\ Y 1 1 Y y , /\ `l` O / /% 12" ± l\% \ - Tile made of \\ 12" e- 12" PVC Pipe, 1 Min. / Concrete tile, /r /'N Stncked 5-gallon \ / pinstic pails, or other non-rusting y ' and non-rotting materials. .i • rr < Open Bottom r 4i r ,�<A PROP �5 I,o,H84, 4 dew, 4 .r-r* . • it % ON Usoli l e ',l 14 A • ✓Oyw(rt M 9 NO viep ,I k woo Main Office Branch Office P.O. Box 23814 4060 Hudson Ave., NE Tigard, Oregon 97281 Salem,CR 97301 Carlson Testing Inc• Phone (503) 684-3460 Phone (503) 589-1252 FAX (503) 684-0954 FAX (503) 589-1309 December 9, 1999 CTI 99-G1405 Mr. John Barnes r4 r Y j F JB & B Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 1784 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 teertdot, C ri OF LAKE C . NE GO G::r.t.of P!annin.}&t0svdiwomsn: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LOT NO. 17, PALISADES HEIGHTS ESTATE NO.1 PALISADES CREST DRIVE LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON Dear Mr. Barnes, Carlson Testing, Inc. (CTI) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject • project. Authorization to proceed was provided verbally by Mr. Barnes of JB & B Construction, Inc. on December 1 , 1999. The geographic location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 . The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at specific locations within the site, and to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundations, pavements, and earthwork. This report was prepared for your use in the design of the subject residence and it should be made available only to potential contractors and/or the :,ontractor for information on factual data only, i.e., field boring logs and samples. This report should not be used for contractual purposes as a warranty of interpreted subsurface conditions, such as those indicated by the formal boring logs, and/or discussion of subsurface conditions contained herein. PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 30 LU 00-0002 Project Information • Project information was provided by Mr. John Barnes of JB & B Construction, Inc. We have been furnished with the following: Lot No, 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CT/#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 Page 2 of 10 • • Partition Plat Plan Prepared By: OTAK Inc. Dated: November 22, 1993 • Site Plan Prepared By: J.E. Krause Architect Dated: July 16, 1999 • Design Drawing (Sheets 1 of 9) Prepared By: J.E. Krause Architect Dated: October 27, 1999 We understand that the proposed residence will be located on the subject property on Mayors Lane in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The proposed residence will be rectangular with plan dimensions of about 52 by 56 feet. Generally, the proposed construction will include a two-story wood-framed building. Detailed structural information has nor been provided, however, we assume that bearing wall loads will not exceed 3 klf. We have also assumed that soil-supported ground floor loads for the garage will not exceed 150 psf. Portions of the floor will be structurally supported with individual piers. We have been • informed that an assumed allowable bearing pressure of 1500 psf was assumed for design of the footings. The existing slope is about 2:1 (H:V) and the footings for the residence will be stair-stepped along the slope and a "daylight" basement will be constructed in the eastern portion of the residence. A wooden deck is also planned on the eastern portion of the proposed residence. Site Description The property is located on the northern flank of Cooks Butte in Oswego, Oregon. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape and occupies approximately one half acre. The relief across the property is about 64 feet, sloping from an of elevation of about 633 feet in the northwest corner to a low of 566 feet in the northeast corner. As mentioned previously, the slope is about 2:1 (H:V) (about 24 degrees) and appears to be natural and undisturbed. The exceptions are a small amount of fill in the northwest corner and a shallow road cut entering the property from the south and extending northward parallel to the contour. S Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CT/#99-G1405 • December 9, 1999 Page 3 of 10 A light stand of mixed Douglas Fir and deciduous trees surrounds a cleared area in the • central portion of the property. A heavy ground cover of dead trees, black berries and various other kinds of brush were observed throughout most of the area, GEOLOGIC SETTING General The site is underlain by Boring Lavas of Pliocene to Pleistocene age. These basalt and andesite flows are thought to have erupted from a series of local vents. Cooks Butte has been identified as a local vent for the Boring Lavas. It is composed of a series of interstratified cinders and lava flows. The Boring Lava flows are typically poorly exposed because of deep weathering. No exposures of Boring Lavas were observed on the site. The surface soils are residually weathered from the volcanic materials. They consist of reddish brown silty. sandy clay with weathered rock fragments. FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated on December 2, 1999. A total of six manual auger borings (designated Borings AH-1 through AH-6), ranging in depth from 2 to 4 feet (practical refusal on hard clay soils), were completed at the approximate locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. Our geological staff described the materials encountered in each boring according to the Unified Soil Classification System (visual-manual method). The formal boring logs are presented in the attached Figures 3 through 8. SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Generally, the site soils (to the depths investigated) consisted of two distinct sequences of residually weathered volcanic materials beneath the surficial topsoil. As indicated on the boring logs, the upper soil sequence consisted of a dark brown, medium stiff to stiff silty, sandy clay surfacial plase containing scattered organics grading with depth to a • orange brown sandy clay. Sand sized rock fragments were found throughout the sequence. These materials became very stiff at approximately 3 feet in depth. The Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CTI#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 • Page 4 of 10 dark brown topsoil/sod cover was typically soft and wet and classifies as a clayey silt with low plasticity • Groundwater At the time of drilling, groundwater was not encountered within the borings. Fluctuation in the observed groundwater level should be expected due to seasonal climatic changes, construction activity, rainfall variations, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Since groundwater level variations are anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based on the assumption that variations could occur. Based on soils encountered, saturation or perching of rainfall should be anticipated. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Basis For Recommendations - The following recommendations are based upon the previously presented project information along with the data o� _ained in this investigation. The field and laboratory data have been compared with previous • performances of building structures bearing on soils similar to those encountered at this site. If the project information is incorrect or if the location of the structure changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery of any site and/or subsurface condition during construction, which deviates from the data obtained in this investigation, should also be reported to us for review. It is our opinion that the proposed residence is geotechnically feasible based on the observed subsurface conditions encountered in this investigation, and provided that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Due to the presence of relatively soft to medium stiff, unconsolidated soils to a depth of about three feet below the ground surface. we recommend that the footings bear below these relatively soft soils, on the undisturbed stiff to hard residual clayey soils. An illustration of the recommended bearing surface is shown on the attached Cross Section, Figure 9. Grading • Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CTI#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 Page 5 of 10 • General Site Preparation — All areas to be graded should first be cleared of debris and organics and should be removed from the site. Any remaining organic sod zone should then be stripped. Stripped material or unsuitable fill should be stockpiled only in designated areas. The final depth of removal of unsuitable organic soils will be determined on the basis of a site observation by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. Stripped topsoil or unsuitable fill should be stockpiled only in designated areas. The subgrade soils on the site are fine grained and, in our opinion, are moisture sensitive. Hence, the earthwork should be scheduled for the dry summer months if at all possible. Otherwise, special techniques will be required during construction to minimize disturbance to the subgrade by construction equipment if work is scheduled for the wet months of the year, generally between about mid-October to mid-June. Excavations — In our opinion, excavations can be performed using conventional earthwork methods; however, some difficult excavation should be anticipated. Temporary • drainage or sumps should be provided for excavations to prevent excessive softening of exposed soils. The contractor should be required to provide necessary dewatering during excavation as well, to avoid excavating in standing water or "boiling.' conditions. It is important to note that our explorations met refusal at relatively shallow depths, and as a result, the presence of bedrock or residual boulders at depth is unknown. We recommend that test pits to the proposed depth of foundations (daylight basement) be performed and grades modified if significant rock excavations will be required. Generally, for excavations less than 5 feet deep, the sides of the excavation can temporarily stand with vertical cut slopes as a result of the apparent cohesion from the soil moisture. Temporary cut slopes and trench excavations should also be in accordance with the latest OR-OSHA requirements as it relates to construction safety. It may be cost effective to adjust the building location or pursue a construction easement to allow for slopes as opposed to shoring. Permanent Slopes - All permanent slopes should be graded to 2:1 (H:V) or flatter. Flatter slopes may be necessary for ground cover and maintenance operations. 410 Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CTi#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 • Page 6 of 10 Surface Water Control — The contractor should be made responsible for providing • temporary drainage as required to prevent ponding or standing water in slab and foundation areas. Once subgrade soils are observed or compacted, a minimum of 8 inches of compacted aggregate base should be provided to prevent softening/swelling of prepared grades. Structural Fills and Backfills — We recommend that any landscape fills be limited to 4' and be properly drained and constructed. We understand structural fills (as opposed to backfills) will be limited to the area below the rear deck. Figure 9 provides our recommendations for construction of this fill. Structural backfill may consist of any soils, that are free of organic or other deleterious matter and are not considered highly plastic: provided the fill is placed during dry warm weather and it is moisture conditioned, if necessary, (to raise or lower the water content) before it is placed to achieve optimal moisture content for compaction. If grading work is accomplished during the wet time of the year, then an approved, organic-free, well-graded granular sand and/or gravel with no greater than 7 percent of material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve is recommended. On-site native soils, in our opinion. are not suitable for use as fill during wet weather. Structural fill under footings should also consist of organic-free, • well-graded granular sand and/or gravel with no greater than 7 percent of material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve to a depth of at least 18 inches below the footing bearing level. Structural fills within the building pads and driveway areas should be placed in 4 to 12 inch thick loose lifts, based on the capability of the compaction equipment. Structural backfill within the footing excavations should be compacted with a `hoe-pac" or 'jumping jack" type of equipment, if fill depth exceeds 10". Structural fills should be compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum density (ASTM D-698). It is recommended that the moisture content of the fine-grained soils at the time of compaction should be controlled to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Some aeration and drying of the on-site fine-grained soils may be required to achieve the recommended compaction criteria. During wet weather and for heavy compaction equipment, we recommend the initial lift of granular structural fill soils over silt subgrade soils should have a minimum loose lift thickness of 12 inches. 110 Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CD#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 • • Page 7 of 10 Design Considerations III Shallow Foundations - We consider the site acceptable for support of the proposed residence on a shallow foundation system. Continuous and individual footings may bear on native undisturbed soils at a depth of at least three feet below the ground surface. The footings may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf. The load may be increased by under seismic and wind conditions. Footings should bear at least 18 inches below the finished exterior grade in order to provide confinement for the bearing soils. Minimum footing widths of 18 inches are recommended, even though the allowable bearing pressure may not be fully developed in all cases. Horizontal shear forces can be resisted partially or completely by frictional forces developed between the base of the spread footings and the underlying soil and by soil passive resistance. The total frictional resistance between the footing and the soil is the normal force times the coefficient of friction between the soil and the base of the footing. We recommend an ultimate value of 0.35 for the coefficient of friction (the normal force is the sum of the vertical dead load plus real live load). • The project site is presently assigned to seismic zone 3 in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the results of our investigation and review of the UBC, we recommend using a site coefficient of S, and the Zone 3 factor of Z=0.3. Estimated Settlement - We have compared the field and laboratory test data obtained in this investigation with our experience with similar structures and empirical relationships for bearing and settlement. Using a bearing pressure on the order of 2000 psf, we have estimated that the total settlement of the structure will be one inch or less. Differential settlements (along the length of a continuous wall footing and between column foundations) should be approximately one-half of the total settlement. This settlement is primarily the result of elastic compression of the upper medium stiff silt soils and should occur within a week of application of the structural dead load during construction. Ground Floor Slab - We recommend that any floor slab (garage) for the proposed residence be constructed on a minimum 8-inch layer of free-draining well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 1-1/2 inches and containing • not more than 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis). This layer should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Standard Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CT/#99-G1405 December 9, 1999 Page 8 of 10 Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). Additional rock thickness may be required if constructed during wet weather conditions, based on the consistency of cut subgrade. • Concrete slabs and aprons should be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pci for the surface fill soils. Where structurally beneficial, we recommend that slabs be jointed around columns and walls to permit slabs and foundations to settle differentially. Embedded Walls - Embedded walls such as small cantilever retaining walls or basement walls (if any) should be designed to resist lateral pressures. Conventional retaining walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid weighing 45 pcf. Non-yielding walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid weighing 55 pcf. These values assume that the wall is properly drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures and that the back slope is horizontal. Higher lateral pressures may be anticipated for up-slope backfill. Sliding, overturning, and maximum toe pressure should be checked for cantilever walls. The lateral pressure may be resisted in part from the passive resistance of the soil in front of the wall footing. Ultimate passive resistance may be computed on the basis of • 250 pcf equivalent fluid where horizontal ground surfaces prevail provided that the ground surface in front of the footing is thoroughly compacted. Additional ultimate resistance to lateral earth pressure may be obtained from sliding resistance of the base of the wall footing. We recommend a friction factor of 0.35 for fine-grained silt subgrades to determine the sliding resistance at the base. We recommend that a factor of safety of 1 .5 be used for sliding and overturning. Drainage is considered necessary to protect against saturation of the backfill due to leakage from broken water or sewer lines. The perimeter drain lines should be adequately sloped to allow the water to drain under gravity. Failure to adequately dispose of the water behind a wall could lead to significantly higher lateral pressures than anticipated. Our recommended drainage and backfill criteria are provided in figure 9 Foundation Surface Preparation Once the foundation excavations have been completed, a qualified Geotechnical • Engineer should confirm suitable bearing conditions and to determine that all loose 1 Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CTI# 99-G1405 December 9, 1999 Page 9 of 10 materials, organics, unsuitable fill and softened subgrade, if present, have been 411 removed. If unsuitable soils are encountered at footing locations, we recommend that the unsuitable soil be removed. As mentioned previously, the footings should bear within relatively stiff soils at a depth of at least three feet below the existing ground surface as shown on the attached Cross Section, Figure 9. Also shown on the cross section are minimum lengths of foundation steps (5'). If excavation for the foundations is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend over-excavating the bottom by about 3 to 4 inches and backfilling with a granular material to prevent disturbance by workmen to the footing subgrade. Prior to placing granular material, exposed footing subgrades should be observed and probed by the geotechnical engineer or his representative in place of compaction. Final grading of the areas around the building should provide for positive drainage of surface water away from the residence. Quality Control - Site preparation and the placement and compaction of all structural fill should be monitored by an individual experienced in earthwork and construction • methods. Construction Monitoring and Testing Guidelines We recommend all foundation subgrades be observed by us prior to backfilling. Compaction of foundation over-excavation backfill should be tested at a minimum of every two vertical feet of fill placement. Slabs and pavement subgrades should be observed and testing for compaction, if applicable. Typically full time observation of wet weather pavement and slab base sections are required due to variable consistency of subgrade soils and the necessity of placing sufficient base material immediately following cutting. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS AND GENERAL NOTES We suggest that the developer incorporate the recommendations in this report into his/her agreement with the earthwork contractor. Earthwork should be performed to both Lake Oswego standards and the site-specific geotechnical recommendations in this report. • Lot No. 17, Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 CT!#99-G1405 ' December 9, 1999 Page 10 of 10 This report was prepared solely for the owner and engineer for the design of the project. We encourage its review by bidders and/or the contractor as it relates to factual data only • (field test pit data). The opinions and recommendations contained within the report are not intended to be, nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office. We would be pleased to provide additional input, as necessary, during the design process and recommend quality control testing and engineering observations during construction in general conformance with the attached testing and observation summary checklist provided as Table 2. We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. • Sincerely, • CARLSON TESTING, INC. = (.7 :21TR.N.,FIUL l c ,eaa Roger A. Paul, P.G. Alan P. Bean, P.E. Senior Geologist � �oc,'% Principal Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figures 1-10, Tables 1-2 Distribution: JB & B Construction, Inc. - Mr. John Barnes • • REFERENCES Beeson and others, "Geologic Map of the Lake Oswego Quad, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Wasnington Co's, OR.", Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, GMS-59, 1989 Madin, Ian P., "Earthquake-Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metro Area, OR" Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open File Report 0-90-2. 1990 Schlicker and others, "Geology & Geologic Hazards of NW Clackamas Co., OR," Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 99. 1979, • ID SITE LOCATION Palisades Heights Lot 17 —..-„ .,.," - •. - - a ...t..12yr_----...-- ci,c.4..: ..,:_-a,-.,..:.1 ,,,, -.•k .i_Li g 0 ."''-' - •`,. ' :;i:,:_--2:/.: '.":r,*. ,--... :, ‘.i , • ii'. •• ---- I.- , `k,....t.. - . . . .,. ,...,.6,3 ..-i--.3r -• •...y.--,— .4—„:4:4„..1,_Tr --, _.- . ---, 1 .1.,:i..• ....,•:',...hs...-vv'i...3N-- $.,.e:' .,. ) •-•_ • --4--;f: ,•• ' .,4- : • .,: . . . • - -•••,. .• '‘ A• r-...............____\____-.L„,,z___:-___ , •- ...-• --,•,•-• -1-•-•.-t- .- .,"--• --- ...---2y._, -. , ''-7-1'#-:"4-"'''s 1-: • •,,,, ,- . --•.______,/... .• • ' ••-..../A.-5----;'----:;'-' -, "'--i.qoP;--_,",,,, ._ -'.- . . ) .., •=r--,-7,--------=---4---: -- ••-•..__ .'-.1%-,f;-..---=-:.:,_ '...::::(01-_,..__-• •.:',:"-- ''''-'-'-'.... Lititi-- -' . •:A '4.- • - : ' • ..• ' • ' 4.1'1' --.$ ••--k-----177----<-.,•:•=----.1Z-;..--.•-_• '.1--sol.:.:..r..).fu: - .- ..-1.----7••- 7- ,-ssa • • 1 - - • -• ,.)•.0 . .-}- • •-i 7"-- .-', -'' . -a," • - . • , . ; . .- 1,L 44 ' 5' • • •• • t.,. --- ------7e:,/,,9„.• F.- 57-3-.---. ..)f . _ .• .- . . '----7-71:t**--:•''''''''''- .4, if! .. • .1-.:••••.,.....---,_----_ ',":,„,......pfe2.•4-20•.-,1_,_,-'' • ii, ) .,'" .• I Diarnoll:cr ..-- •.. .- ,'If ;r.'•- /' l ,- 4' Head u rN 10',....:,, • .' • • ' .. •-• •iv ! •. -,.-i, ': ' •Isr..*.". ".."'' 1" '..C?"- G - 3,.'-, : 1, . A,' td ‘..'• ..-.ir-..':'' /1: :.V'!.:7:.' Z A464;/,'''.- . _...4-- !...7.'„!- -..-1,. __•,_:', ':::#...,,t(g;f,:i 1,`,.,,,. .:sylle.'1.- . '-tlpf t::.._, . 5 •- I.. . ' • .' 8 - - '. '...',,,,,.'---Fiii..,:..-'44t.'24...,,.,-.•• ---- :, i.'/`.---1•-tt .' ,$) 0 •-/ '-' '-;.•••'-i:-.-----17- ---. ____. -, .... , _:,..,,•...--- LAKI,' dROVE. A., •C .,-..-=','''12*-...v-. . l' ill;;&'''.4'.-- 7. .".--t!.:,-..". ';' •..', ../. ..,,'''-• . 2:'',=.;-*;•,,"-,-.7-1'7,-..:i7t V.'‘'''..,•('...-' - . ___,.----'06!?'1 1-i '4' I - '''''*Twin Pdints ,..0r.rer-'4"-.•••• .‘$.-'711.:-.........:7%...,4.%,..._„.4..,.....t,,..,-.,..c.-„,,,-,......_,.......,,-,.......,, 99 '..A", .."-, 4 ....1 •••••'..,... .7.',-....•"€•.:,•• :....-.:.::. • '-::: • .-. ••,x- -FA:...--•4: ,i, ' ....,,Ii .-;-// --',----'------_ -4 . -1.{:F. i.„,.._...4, .....=--.:. ., __.-, •e t.I.,:-,-<,' ;..'.'.:',,....- - -- - ..2....\\--;•;., ,..-Slivf ,;•i•,!•".",---::',.-!V= . i L A ,,,,,.-..-4.---52---... -........„------4.4....,o,-.-,.•,441-,..- , 7'7..-...--77,-,;?-----.-7-75=-.---. -•.-.. lik______. 7, . „jor.....11V... ,,.-..,.1.;.,,,,I....*..- t:f>"'...,,,,.# ,-,;.4.--f•>•---1.'• ' f es , ,ki fir!' ..-'„:`: ,---.775.„'i,-7"ir !:", :____01___ -t.'7....•-.'•'it. 9,,:iily . T.:W-1W -,...p.„....)-45,::: . • (.‘51,...."••• e‘ ,:zi- .Y:•.,...:*-4....: ''Iviv-••__.,....„..____„ _ ,•_.: .,.._•,_ -,-,, ".•:- .7-__,..,..,-, ........,... ;:....M..^T11,- . 0 .. L....fil: / ,?.5..",;/ 1 ;,:-"-',-, ' .isc:'.1:::: ..::-..:7-, . _!-- ---_:-• ,- •• ••,......4.31.);:„. 1_atte Grove s. ''''-' 4'7(•::-1.*:::,;;•%1'4t,-. ,• '4 -.:,1 ,'4 2:7-)..7;, .;' .1 f".;'•..4.7-,V 'Ii•:!:•':....:.•• e--:':''---........ •--::.-'1(-/ ...;i:. -1 • -• - •4',",••••..1:4 •••••;;6••••••.:11.4-1.1..-. •t .1 ••;-_-_-,-;• ,, 4 • 0-..' :.I.•,, .1, . i c..-------. -..e-g••1-.1t.. , /. •-•-•••-, • !... .,-.- --,- --k.:-, I, .. ,-..., . .•,. ,.. ,.... .. '• •-; ;-;.'l'''-..-41- .-..-: -.•.- • 'Sit k:' - ---r- 4 v- ' ' •' '1 • 7••., ••„'.., p*:,.,..b!..,-;-.,..... ,• '...,,,--:::'. GR i ''••-•.*: ',-----. .-- -''. . I. "-"4-'`',•••.--".7.-..gicr-......---.:_•'•=--.-;,-.-:-.: / •.' ."---:'" %.-m-- 0 it-_-----.1i • ,iniT - :••,, t-,itr,;•----•••••••`-'--e-,•E ..--.30--- 'ze ..-i. ,-1.4‘E'''"'1"'" /•.r: -*-, 'f.2,7--7- .,--......,r/....,..-_,_-..• ... •••• _.. 4-...r-i- il-441y efflir :ii1----------, .: h. .' ' , !. • -f.-/,, • iik0:,(C-r-=•,...7.-..- - .:/6/.-.;", ;•;::.-f' _, jhr.,,,, ,,,,..,,, ,,,,-•••r___..,.., • ,,,,. 1 •,,,,./1 0,/...p.i.,___,_ / - /- • '4•714•A •--'4T" _. . :.1...,,!•(,,,'•;•.. 4,',..-•:•• ..0.41,7 7 %.1.:.""-!•`---PT,—, igier7- •(:11...,:;•ti,;•:i....'1''A:-:\ 1 •• t 1.. - i-.7--; —7"---,'r.,L.,...,..:,,....:74, .."7-=-1::-- i...4i:l47./ •'fjp4,:rij.,•:,-,4 i; ...--.,., , •,,,,,.-.- , $:), (1-- -,, _ . • , ..„•,•4 -..... A.' . 5aUf$0 HOLLI-,,,i-L :/: : ( I '' ' - 1.'55' : ".:';:.` .." I r' ."' : i" *r..ir,it t••,;1..1 am,. :.,::-,... • ::. i,..---- .=. ;,.- , 4_ • _. r.,.... ___,"'.•. ‘:'.in..,,,0, . 4.7 i 7._ • 1. 1 =Fr..71.' e... .'. 1 , 7 4, t •1•7::..,''''::: -.1/.% •-.-.,. 4 i \--. --, , .,, - ,, sic!fAc''. - -.:''''' •'-f'-'"...• .,yA •• , \:\-./ _. (.141"/.. 4.'' '''''.. -1-'.. '''''7 •''';'` ' j•-"";.- ::. PI•Ak----`-."•'-.\ • SUBJECT SITE' ,.-. . / ---c- ,, ;, ..1 , -I% i • • a ."--"t i;..r• •-,-•i -- .., . ...f.,..,ir---, „...00.._,..- .-.-.......... rIP i '. v. ... ;:.'9, .. ,' ' .01,47; 0 '• it"., • - --, ••45,VJWi.t,.,\‘;. ..19 no al .• A7 ' : i •••' s . . .,. •ili 1 4',.. • . • , " 7?''-t,e, tti., _ lAtc 4lept;•-•-,,'V.k1,,..... • ' '''""'"----," ----.+ --/- c' it t / .."---`• ,,.• : ....„,t,t,. /IN • ! t, .. , •, .,T ;.-g . 7:1,1y-): ! ic x' L'Th7: •----..--;:-:-, , ,- •• .. 11•;-..- 0\v,1 , ,-----,.. .1 i , N ...„.4 .464. ),(,? . • i,.,..,.;''._1•44,$;,.I.,),/.... ..,--) . .‘'.:.,::-....'.. ":.'',,) i',,..'k_.,,--1 110,Y___Ir' \40:-\/,' i (.) . / .../. s •-• ,.......' )t. .,,,,jr: . .,/. ,I,.,.,:;,..../.,,,!...: ./...',.7':7', -lerkp tat.ilt ie.,......,. i .-.'•„' t i• • —,-c, -'- --".••-i•T: ,..11, -.....:','--.-7,. "77: - :- _ - • :tail'•''! '-• l'T)t .. :1 •;•:-.*:„-•,•n''. .. i ../.- i , i ' % ‘r-/) ..'-' 1 ' ,•- .•' t • ;• ....1., / ; . :-,.--..•,. •,-.47,// - .'., ..... r•. . :i .•1.(. (.,) ) i ,,1' ) I - t !.i...•,1._ •:..i.f-,i. ;---,T--,. ,/:1‘4' c"?'..." . -1 I i ‘ .// / ' ' •• ". .• -7 i . .A.,..:. .t,-.&12,,- * -.4.1.:_._; ,, .\._ ,,,. ....._o_skt.,,,.... .,_. „.i.,.,1 . I. ,.. ! . 4/• ... r• tior 111)i •• .,-,-,,i -1-.. , •t• .-s ''' .0 •'--'- ---- - ---'t•-;' ' -- - - '7 . c•-• ••• f .". . '1' ,y ; ± - ' ' ,7,--.A.,-:-_--A ... , •cs • i.',t -r• --•--- Irri' -- -, • c, • :. • ,1, : ---- • - , ::.--'• , ,,,- - -• -------- • * '; ••\.-.'•N I it: • - • -'. - ,_ • - • ••• -•- 1---! (. \ :. .--""e,\ .‘-' ''. '''-.9.1 '''''‘ • • - ..:11• ••! ---,- ---.'7%'-,-----"'- I ' =--, ' •- - • ->'. 1-Inelia i - '- ,,., ..).. •••vt,iN,' J,.._-,... ',-/----....- ,," • -./..,....., I - -1 ,.,-• -F. ---Gtarier '. A 7 -. ..c_-__ ..`-,-,./"-' .-.. ) .. , •-' — • ; /." '. -- L- OP v. ':-- 7.--.••-t,-,5. - .. .', .. ' / ''''-',:.i ' ' i--..._...:74/' :-.•._ , ".... - .= •7--- l„ '' ' • - - A i . . :,. .-11.• RO t.---;1?..--k--,,s----1,' -..,-.• : '','•,.. ' • i' '-- tr.- 1.14, i • • . ,,.. t \ a i 1 \ I . "44:4;, '`..: - , ' il './. ' , ‘ _.., --- `,..... • --• ' . • . I --.1.--.... ' 1,,_:. -..r '-::-::! 1.:..;'_-•:.:777-....,/,T,7 .... k 4. , i 44.. •\__,,, .i,,,e...._,.._..4_...._.. . •, , , ... ]:) . i , ......,,,,,.. 7_2 ; : `, I 'i -y, • - { i , F R -s7 F,' 3...-----',.•-•'---'• ..,, , -...,:•:-.-..._ .--...,• ',-.:,:i • , -• ••••.-- . .-- - • • •) / IA' -,.............---. --.-, 1 ....-:-.,-7 ,---.,,•:-',!,-.7-•-;',.z.:,-;=---.,,..••••••,....,,"/ - --;•1••/:,.....,-....,2.--,-4?...4'-i •:. • / .•.- *. -r"-' ;' '''-- r)..I. . .- -. .\-'''''71-;'''' ''.-44'4''''Clix.riti 1. I''.1.7e?-' • ' :.I.-?1,i • 7 r f 'I '-4 r f ' . du ••=4. -i• '•r----N.';I.16"..'r-I-.,.,',. .....-...,,, , 1 ,. v,.1.. t ... 1.-..:1 . Base map taken from USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Lake Oswego, OR Quadrangle, 1961, Photorevised 1984 Scale 1 Inch = 2,000 feet Cl. 10 feet I( ,_ Carlson Testing, Inc.P.O. CTI Job No. 99-G1405 FIGURE 1 II 1 wr2511. PO Box 23814 Tigard, Oregon 97281 AAA-WA 1 SITE LOCATION PALISADES HEIGHTS LOT 17 O __ _ - _ i_____r_r____i I 1 • _4121, U. • \ - EXISTING GROUND SURF=E PROPOSED EYT`_RIOR FINAL GRADE Li _ ...-- -; ---.7 11. I MINIMUM STEP LENGTH = 5' 1 //I MINIMUM DEPTH = 37"jJ— — �.s Ar ZONE OF GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL* r-L lI Drawing revised from the Site Plan of Lot 17 Palisades Heights Estates No. 1 by J.E. Krause, Architect P.C. Scale 1 lnch = 8 feet * Zone slope 1.5 :1 is not to scale 4111) PRLSp Carlson Testing, Inc. °<iCT.i ,-v P.O. Box 23814 CTI Job No. 99-G1405 FIGURE 10 'E"NG"` Tigard, Oregon 97281 YLLp Approximate location of proposed house Existing Skid Road (not to scale) Soft clay layer• 3 peel, Fill (to be removed) ver age—e prh / Vey Sty y Recomended Footing Cross Section Clay Bearing Layer .Yet !• PALISADES HEIGHTS LOT 17 1 FIGURE 11 P,RLS0 1 ..-� 7Es7 NNG INC. 12/6199 684-3460 • Carlson Testing,Inc CTI Job No. P.O.Box 23814 99-G1405 Tigard,Oregon 97281 LEGEND \ 1.•�� \ 0 10 20 SCALE 1 INCH= 10 FEET • • ' i • • • 1111 III .. 0 laze,. 1 et. > ev)! ,� :S To 1 Rt:M I / T • 04* �f_ \ —1 \ 0T kg IiS r" It.�n/F i g _ \ \ I AG�i�i T o.✓.fG ,rc/fds7/a•✓ ' 1 of — 0%A `)f \ \\ IA n , NW �Asyl: \ .iCD \ \ 1214" ° 6 ----.. Ai/ VT Z/ / \ / d I �'\ Q♦ EXHIBIT 31 • LU 00 0002\ � ' \/ ` \ fro . „. C �4,\ \\�o, \ e _ ,.... ,. ..,,,,,, . o \ \ .., • '4? c- \ 'A ,, a d_" \,,),..\ 1 -F:�. , ` O >Y % RECEIVED 00*, \ \•\® • ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1 �/ \Lot=21,A91 sq ft \ (Aeao20%to50%slope11850s m '`'• / ` \ 1, ' (7,702 sq ft grading/stripping allowed 1$ Area greater than 50%=6755 sq ft �•, '� r\ \ ` (2895 sq ft grading/stripping allowed; •' (� \� ��/ 0 y ;,� House Coverage=3089 sq q \ \ \\ \\' �� 0 Seepage trench=1000 sq R \ al 9 - \: , Driveway/walkway=1900 sq R c` Excavation zone foundation=1060 sq o / 'N‘ • Tntat Coverage or aradina=7049 sa II / / \ • Z t /� RECEIVED jB & B Construction, Inc. C`TY OF LAKE u WEGO • Dop:.of Pfanning&Daveloo�nt POB 1784 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-0582 503-635-9446 February 8, 2000 Mike Wheeler Planning Division City of Lake Oswego, Oregon POB 369 380 "A" Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Mike, Enclosed you will find copies of the Building Permit Application indicating that the Erosion Control permit was issues on 11-1-99 and notation on said permit application confirming this dated 2-7-00. This should satisfy the notation in the staff report on page 5 under Erosion. You will also find a copy of the Plan Review Checklist indicating that the height requirement indicated in the staff report on page 4. All requirements of the Building Dept. have been met and the Building Department is ready to issue the permit. EXHIBIT 32 LU 00-0002 John H. Barnes President at Large • } .�r : :, • _ <: r "`DLJ1LV11Y1/4a f L.111V11 1 P-1,1- I L.1VPi I 11d1�r ,_t, WORKSHEET q'_'7: ,�r:i-•!/VG INSPECTION SERVICES :::�fF:1cE:vsFtiititY_._:{�-.�.>:;-:::::::::::::}:_-:-:}:.:.:-::-.'. _ -.Of Box 369 P.>=RMti ' :::::::::: -Mi:iR:::f:::5 :: • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 °`� Phone: 635-0390 FAX 697-6574 : Data:Essueci:::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:•:•: i. --] z_s I it- 1-°1 ,DP, — :=Receipi::N.a�::<::: :: . .=� tt •::`_:::::::::_:::::::::::: Sensitive Land: YES - NO I'L- ) one;:::::::::: .:'_..•_•. I :N TE =>Api 1cdtl0]h must be fill .°. :'.. .- nComp c i iiiiiii will y es++a ? i•` iiiiii0.Mi JOB ADDRESS: D,.- 0 Mayors Lane DESCRIPTION OF WORK: New Single Family Residence ® Residential ❑ Commercial PROPERTY INFORMATION: Tot. Floor Area: 3414 Type of Construction: NSFR Map & Tax Lot No.:400 / 21E16CB Main Fir Area: 2300 Occupancy Group: Subdivision: Palisades Heights Garage Area: 675 Number of Stories: 2 Lot Number: 17 - Parcel 2 Deck Area: 550 Number of Bedrooms: 4 I Block Number: Lot Area: 21,491 IJob Valuation: S BLDG CONTRACTOR: JB & B Construction, Inc Phone #: 635-9446 Address: POB 1784 FAX #: 635-8541 City, St., Zip: Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-058Zontr. Board #: 51175 Contact Person: John Barnes Metro/City Lic. #: I PROPERTY OWNER: JB & B Const.Inc_ Home Phone #: , I Address: POB 1784 Work Phone #: 635-9446 . City, State, Zip: Lake Oswego, OR 97035 FAX #: 635-8541 TENANT: Phone #: - Location in Building: FAX #: N • co c I ARCH/DESIGNER: JE Krause Phone #: 656-4111 FAX #: 656-6297 - ENGINEER: Payton Rowell PC Phone #: 254-6292 FAX #: X o PLUMBER: Harmony Plumbing Phone #: 692-5986 inJ _ Contractor's Board #: 85021 FAX #: 691-2923 ELECTRICIAN: Bear Electric Phone #: 678-1355 _ Contractor's Board #: 20919 - ' • FAX #: 678-1108' • Plot plan MUST show setbacks of building(s) on adjacent lots and existing structures to remain on building lot. • Grading permits to include topography at ten (10) foot intervals as determined by a registered survey. • Change of use permits must show existing use of building and proposed new use. I agree to build according to the above description, plans, and specs, and that all work is to comform with all applicable codes and ordinances of the State of Oregon and the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. I further agree that the building will not be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City. PRINT APPLICANT NAME John H. Barnes/PRIMN DATE 11-1-99. OFFICE:USE ONLY :;.;: Initial when approved Plan Check: :'Planning Engineering : Jun-97 f•;! I_I S Plan Review Checksheet • Building 1nartment of the City of Lake Oswego Building Permit#: 199-1796 I Date: 111-29-99 Address: 12306 MAYORS LANE Owner/Occupant 1 JB&B CONSTRUCTION INC. Contractor. " I SAME I Type of Const.: I VN Occupancy Group: I R3 I Zone: I R-10 I Plan Review by: I JIM I NOTE: CORRECTIONS,ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE BUILDING PLANS, OTHER THAN MINOR RED LINE NOTES,WILL REQUIRE COMPLETE NEW FULL SIZE SHEETS DRAWN BY THE ARCHITECT,DESIGNER OR ENGINEER. 1.THIS AREA IS LISTED AS POSSIBLE UNSTABLE SOILS. PROVIDE A SOILS REPORT BY A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER. 2.SPECIFY METHOD AND LOCATION FOR THE STORM WATER REMOVAL. �y�L Z--1-c� / THE MAJOMUM IfitG FIGHT OF 35 HE>;1 IS MEASURES FROM THE EXISTING NATURAL GRADE. ARTIFICIALLY ELEVAIEll GRADE TO REDUCE THE BU ILDING HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED. 4.PROVIDE 1 SQUARE FOOT OF UNDERFLOOR VENTILATION FOR EACH 150 SQUARE FEET OF UNDERFLOOR AREA. VENTS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 3 FEET OF A CORNER AND SPACED FOR • CROSS VENTILATION. VENTS MAY BE OMITTED ON(1)WALL ONLY. 5. HANDRAILS ON THE OPEN SIDES OF STAIRWAYS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 34 INCHES ABOVE THE NOSING OF THE TREAD, SEE STAIR SECTION. 6.THE PLANING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE THE BUILDING SE!BACKS. RE-REVIEW 12-13-99 1.THE GEOTECH ENGINEERS REPORT SPECIFIES THAT ALL FOOTINGS TO BE 1° I"I.CHES IN WIDTH. NOTE: SEE THE WET WEATHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE GEOTECH ENGINEERS REPORT. �a-I3-`1 Post-tt'Fax Note 7671 Oate / - 11,114 s,. / To ,!_ -� FrOr'rt� CoA i ePt rwwC Co. ♦ram d7' L Q Phone. - 'Ph°oe IFax1 1``4I Fax • EXHIBIT 27 LU 00-0002 U G9 0 -E%IS'P• _ • S11N U P 'J-- -� E%I� \ ' i\ \ .......------- \ \ • • , A C--- \ \V, \ ..., , ______ i . ' ! /j . 1 ;/ INSTALL 10'X 5' X 1.5' RIP-RAP / �. i r;Zf/I / CLASS 100 I .. Al y `4° I/ / ` i � �5�, / / . / I. �� � F.O•.P, i o Ss /. ../... ��� ' A �S � , ' , ' LOT 17\`• , / ,c� / \ \ .. • / PARCEL 2 • Q / BOW 638., — / / / / \ Bow 638t] \ •8 \ —� \ DITCH INLET Cr y• ,'y / \ \ / PM SLANTED FRAME 8•CRATE iy / RAT= 6.36.0(BOTTOM) I, / \ \ \ \ IE OUT=,632.0(8) ! '5, \ \ LOT 17 \ • • \ TOW 642,0 \ \\ \ j PARCEL 1 \ BOW 6J`dk0 637 \ \ \ 637,2 `a'6'4 \tb� , h .. `\,\ \\ .,. -73... \\ ,>,,)/ \ \ / '��CAST-IN-PACE \ , / BOW sJaO \ ak, 1nCONCRETE RETAINING WALL \ TOW 642.0 \ O' S 10 ` ,LO 8' IY10E \ \BOW 638.0 \ \ \ RECEIVED \ \ \ � \ \ • \ I / i?[fl \ EXHIBIT 33 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO \ \ LU W 0002 Dept.of planning I D.,alopmanl _— — .___—G E.O.P f �� 10'UTILITY EASEMENT AO - - - - • EXISTING E'C \ ALONG BACK LOT LINES ',0, / fr- \ \ _~ - \ / ° / gyp, �Y.}- \ /\. / / / \ Q. 2° / / 20' \ / -- / / \ / �i / / x -� / \ / / .4 EA"/S7bvc / \ / / �� .b?' AI. --. '2.7—,--7_2_v.78:31.57r \ 1:), ..---5;„, / �/ / \ �;" I • \\ i ��' / / / i5' HIDE DEDICATION TO THE / .\;> / \ \ / \ I • 1 1 I PUBLIC FOR STORM DRAIN / \ / \ ` 1I \ I 7 / / EASEMENT Qt/ \ 80W 638. lc_ // \ \ \ 11 ..____\ - ✓ \/ VERTICAL 6.CURB / / .121_ .-'i`—' \ ~ / / \ BOW 638.q \ \ 5 //\/ SECTION A-A / \ \ 0' NIDE PUBLIC Zif \ SEE DETAIL SHEET/20 / \ \ sAN11ARY EASEMENT \\ \ .. \ \ �' L 0 T 17 \ \ \ \ \ \ .. \ , \ \ L 0 T 17 PARCEL 1 \ L 0 T 17 \ \ \\ �ws PARCEL 2.4.0 \ PARCEL 1 \ \ °5 \ &-\ , ...... / \ \ / \ LACE 5' WOE DRAINAGE AND \ \ \ CAST-ENE RETAINING / \ CONCRETE RET WALL WALL MAINTENANCE \ 0' 5 1 EASEMENT \ \ 8-NTDE \ \ \ 0 0 • 0 Ni. TED DITCH INLET DETAILS ii( 1 2 , . e .. ALE ,/2- RADIUS _• , t 3.. ••-. 1.• ' I--5:,.. -- • 1-...--4.--c.=. • - L •— -7-2 •A I I I I . I-- _.. - •• I. EXISTING GROUND L•,-I PO —° - -- C3 I _ Z LI-I C:3I Li CO CE z . a 14' ce a 0.5 ca .... , .,.,, .. SLOPE (5% MAX) .. ,,..„ . . _ ,I b,..1 1 ii ,1 I ill IL 11 1 .0 I , 1 -"•-•-•'"- 0.flitIVCPMK.P"t'i' I 'i'-4 :i: 1 ,' 4' .,' ',...'1!I ',k -...I .. 116'Ill . ii,,A.1 tq, ' ` NOTES: . , . • '., • ' • '-' 1 I.KNIFE JOINTS SHALL R OF CURVATURE AND k 2.CONCRETE USED FOR I STRENGTH IN 28 DAYS 3. r PLASTIC PIPE SHAI. —3" A.C. CLASS "C" IN TWO LIFTS 8" OF 3/4"-0" ROCK =ill DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SECTION A-A .=—..-.....1rmg5- =- -.:-,-- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ....,.., / TURNAROUND CROSS—SECTION (' 2 ' „ VERTICAL Cl NO1 10 SCALENo' TO SCALE • Rr- CEIVFD • Consulting Arborist Report t i T.4$ OF LAKE E wW i•JL GO Uopt.of Harnoi%t.Doc pm2nt Specifications and Recommendations for Pre-Construction Protection, Removal and Retention of Trees Related to Construction and Soil Excavation on Tax lot 401 of Tax map 21E 16CB Located at 2306 Mayors Lane Palisades Neighborhood Lake Oswego, Oregon • Prepared For: JB& B Construction, Inc. John Barnes P.O. Box 1784 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Prepared By: Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. Don Richards, ASCA Consulting Arborist Registry Number 215 P.O. Box 2355 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 February 11, 2000 EXHIBIT 34 LU 00-0002 • © Copyright Applied Horticultural Consulting,Inc. 2000 r i • Table of Contents 1.0 Scope and Limitation of Work 1.1 General 1.2 Timetable and Limiting Qualifications, Assumptions g Conditions 2.1 Qualifications 2.2 Assumptions 2.3 Limiting Conditions S 3.0 Standards 3.1 General 3.2 Reference Standards and Guidelines 3.3 Specifications 4.0 Recommendations 4.1 Critical Root Zone Protection 4.2 Root Pruning 4.3 Compaction Protection 4.4 On Site and Post-Construction Care 4.5 Mitigation S Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 jB& B Construction, Inc. Report Page 1 1.0 Scope and Limitation of Work 1.1 General 1.1.1 A request was made by jB & B Construction, Inc., general contractors on the property owned by David Roe, for an arborist report containing an opinion on specifications for existing tree protection and post-construction care at the construction site located at 2306 Mayor Lane. 1.1.2 A pre-construction tree inventory was conducted on February 7, 2000 to determine the exact location of each tree relative to the proposed construction plan, the genus and species of each tree, the approximate size of each tree measured in DBH, Diameter at Breast Height, the relative health and condition of each tree and all other pertinent, special tree information associated with this project. 1.2 Timetable 1.2.1 A timetable for completion of our part of the project was confirmed as the week of February 14, 2000. • 2.0 Qualifications, Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2.1 Qualifications 2.1.1 I am a consulting arborist under certification with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, a division of the International Society of Arboriculture, a licensed nursery appraiser under certification with the National Nursery Appraisers Association and a Certified Professional Horticulturist under certification with the American Society of Agronomy. I am a member in good standing with all of these assorted organizations. Therefore, I am qualified to perform this consultation. Additional qualifications are available upon request under the further terms and conditions of this report. • Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB& B Construction, Inc. Report Page 2 2.2 Assumptions 2.2.1 Any legal descriptions provided to me as the consultant • are assumed to be correct. Any titles and/or ownerships to any property or services are assumed to be true and accurate. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all projected related services are evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2.2.2 It is assumed that any property or services is not in violation of applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, quarantines, or other governmental regulations. 2.2.3 Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable and up to date sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, as the consultant, I can neither Neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. Information provided by the client in association with this consultation is assumed to be correct and accurate to the best of their knowledge. 2.3 Limiting Conditions • 2.3.1 The limited use of this report is to offer best management practices for existing tree protection and for implementation of remediation requirements by the client in performing their tasks as general contractor on this project. 2.3.2 As the consultant, I have not been asked to render an opinion on did not allege loss of use on any product nor have I been asked to render any opinion legal in character. • Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB& B Construction, Inc. Report Page 3 • 2.3 Limiting Conditions (continued) 2.3.3 I am not an attorney. There is no substitute for current, professional consulting on arboriculture-horticulture matters and legal advice. This report is not intended as, and does not represent, legal advice and should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. Although every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the information included in this report as of the date on which it was issued, laws, court, and arbitration decisions and governmental regulations in the United States and Oregon are all subject to frequent change. Current information is to be included in all the standards and duties of evaluation, investigations, interpretations, methodology and contradictions in determining the failure for claims and litigation. 2.3.4 As the consultant, I shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. 2.3.5 Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 2.3.6 Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed without prior written or verbal consent from the consultant. 2.3.7 Neither all nor part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without my prior, expressed, written or verbal consent as the consultant - particularly as to loss conclusions, identity of the consultant, or any reference to a professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant as stated in the qualifications listed. 2.3.8 This report and any information expressed herein represent my opinion as the consultant, and my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a • stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB &B Construction, Inc. Report Page 4 3.0 Standards 3.1 General • 3.1.1 Documentation for this report consists of: 1) a measurement of plants identified for removal by size; 2) an identification of plants for retention and removal by common and botanical names; 3) a visual inspection of all plants for quality prior to construction; 4) a review of applicable tree removal specifications, section 02205, Lake Oswego City Codes 55.02.020, 030, 035, 041, 042(2), 050, 075, 080 and 085 inclusive. 5) recommendations for pre-construction tree preservation; and; 6) recommendations for post-construction tree care. 3.2 Reference Standards and Guidelines 3.2.1 Measurements for this report are based on the American Standard for Nursery Stock, revision ANSI Z60.1-1996 and the National Arborist Association Standards for Tree Measurements, eighth edition. • 3.2.2 Common and Botanical names referred to in this report are based on vernacular currently used to describe similar goods or products in the national nursery industry and correspond to plant names and listings found in Hortus III, Fourth Edition, 1994. 3.2.3 Plant protection criteria used in this report are based on best management practices adopted for use by the American Society of Consulting Arborists as found in Trees and Development, A Technical Guide To Preservation Of Trees During Land Development, 1998. 3.2.4 The reporting format used to present the findings in this document will follow the current guidelines found in Guide To Report Writing For Consulting Arborists, 1995. S Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB & B Construction, Inc. Report Page 5 3.3 Specifications S3.3.1 Specifications for existing tree protection will be based on information gathered during the actual site evaluation conducted on February 7, 2000. 3.3.2 Additional specifications used for existing tree protection and construction remediation will be developed from information contained in the reference Trees and Building Sites, 1995. 3.3.3 The majority of trees to be protected are of the genera Pseudotsuga and the species menziesii and are referred to by common name as Douglas fir. Adjacent trees on the property are a mix of native Alnus rubra, red alder and Acer macrophyllum, big leaf maple. 3.3.4 The quantity of existing trees is (41). They range in size from 5 inches in diameter to 41 inches in diameter measured at breast height. 3.3.5 Observations of quality were made during the initial III site inspection on February 7, 2000. All the trees are of sufficient quality to warrant protection during construction. There are (13) trees of the (41) total that have noticeable flaws. The flaws were not life threatening and are of aesthetic importance only. 3.3.6 There are (11) trees identified for removal using yellow flagging tape and numbered to correspond to the numbers on the removal plan. (10) trees are Pseudotsuga menziesii, Douglas fir and (1) is Acermacrophyllum, big leaf maple. The trees range in size from 11" DBH to 49" DBH as indicated on the removal plan. All trees are to be removed using proper arboricultural technique appropriate to the trees and to the site. 3.3.7 The recommendations for tree protection will be based on the plan drawings submitted to the Lake Oswego Building Division for the single-family dwelling proposed for the site. No additional recommendations are offered to revise the site plan or its "footprint" from its original form since the site plan already offers the least amount of environmental III impact to the trees without significantly changing the design requirements for the structure. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB & B Construction, Inc. Report Page 6 4.0 Recommendations 4.1 "Critical Root Zone" Protection • 4.1.1 Delineation of the "critical root zone" shall be established as a distance of 10-15 feet from each tree as defined by the drip line during initial observations made on February 7, 2000.This "critical root zone" shall be marked using six foot tall protective chain link fencing around all trees to remain, and shall be installed prior to commencement of construction on the site. Additional protection shall be used at the top of the fencing in the form of yellow, high visibility, caution tape around the entire "critical root zone" area. 4.1.2 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from chemicals and contaminants, which may be injurious to the root systems of trees. 4.1.3 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from excess water, mud or debris as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.1.4 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from • erosion or sediment depositing as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.1.5 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from compaction and mechanical tamping as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.2 Root Pruning 4.2.1 Root disruption will be likely due to the size and type of the trees to be protected and their proximity to construction and soil excavation practices. In order to minimize the negative effects of root disruption from construction and soil excavation, root pruning will be necessary following any excavation where roots are disturbed. Pruning is to promote new, fibrous roots to replace the existing, lateral, anchor roots found in the construction and excavation zone. The newly formed roots will develop quickly as the soil temperatures rise above 55 degrees F. This elective pruning, if necessary will mitigate the effects of the root disruption and offer an improved water and nutrient uptake • system for the trees. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB&B Construction, Inc. Report Page 7 4.2 Root Pruning (continued) • 4.2.2 Root pruning shall be accomplished by use of one of the following methods: 1.) use of a vertical cut machine such as a Dosko® root saw or lop saw; or 2.) hand excavation in the "critical root zone. Removal of roots greater than 2 inches in diameter may require additional hand pruning to avoid ripping or tearing the root bark ridge. Directional root pruning techniques shall be followed by cutting the root system only on the side of the tree where construction and soil excavation will be necessary within the "critical root zone". 4.2.3 Since much of the root system for the genera and species of trees to be saved is located in the top 36 inches of the soil profile, root pruning shall be conducted to a depth of between 24 inches and 36 inches from current grade when necessary. 4.2.4 After root pruning has been accomplished, the trench created by the root pruning process shall be filled with the original soil and hand tamped to grade. 4.2.5 Since the nutrient uptake mechanism of the tree is the root system and since this mechanism is being severed, it is the recommendation of the consulting arborist to not apply commercial fertilizers within 6 months of root pruning due to concerns of fertilizer burn to healing and callused tissue. If fertilization is a requirement of the contract, only soluble type fertilizers should be applied and only to the side of the tree where roots are in tact and only using sub-surface, high pressure, soil injected fertilization techniques. No granules, tablets or spikes shall be used. 4.3 Compaction Protection 4.3.1 No machinery will be allowed in the "critical root zone" of the trees during excavation, unless approved by the consulting arborist. Soil excavation outside the critical root zone is expected to be accomplished mechanically. • Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 jB &B Construction, Inc. Report Page 8 4.3 Compaction Protection (continued) 4.3.2 If machinery is required to enter the critical root zone • during construction or excavation, a protective pad must be established over the soil surface prior to entry for purposes of weight distribution and compaction prevention. The options for soil surface covers are, 1.) installation of steel plating over the soil surface adequate for weight distribution of the equipment to be used; or 2.) installation of steel grating over the soil surface adequate for weight distribution of the equipment to be used. 4.3.3 Machinery operating within the "critical root zone" shall proceed back and forth at a radius to the tree trunk - no abrupt wheel or track turns shall occur within the drip line of the trees. 4.3.4 If the guidelines for soil compaction protection cannot be followed comuletel' as determined by the consulting arborist, sample compaction tests shall be taken within the "critical root zone" before excavation and after backfilling. Sampling shall consist of three Proctor Density compaction tests performed on this site. These Proctor Density tests • shall establish compaction threshold values to be used as a point of reference during the entire excavation and construction project. 4.4 On Site and Post-Construction Care 4.4.1 The consulting arborist is required to be on call/on site during the excavation and construction phase of the project to insure compliance with the specifications outlined in this report. 4.4.2 Post-excavation and construction care shall include; but not be limited to; supplemental watering of the trees for a period of 1 month after completion of the project as required by local weather conditions; pruning of limbs and branches that appear to have been impacted as a result of excavation or construction activities for a period of 1 month after completion of the project and; pest management if trees show serious pest infestation resulting from excavation or construction activities for a period of 1 month after completion of the project. • Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 JB & B Construction, Inc. Report Page 9 • 4.5 Mitigation 4.5.1 Mitigation requirements should be followed to satisfy all applicable Lake Oswego city codes. It is recommended that trees be re-planted at the ratio of 2:1, for a total of(22) trees, as soon after construction as feasible for soil re-stabilization and aesthetic enhancement. 4.5.2 Since the predominant types of vegetation in the neighborhood are comprised of native, non-ornamental species, the recommendation is to replant with like species to maintain the integrity of the neighboring properties. Suitable varieties would include Douglas fir at a minimum of 8-10 feet tall, big leaf maple at a minimum of 2 inch caliper, red alder at a minimum of 2 inch caliper and vine maple at minimum height of 8-10 feet tall as a multi-stem plant. (Although deciduous, vine maple is measured by height instead of caliper by the nursery growers). 11111 Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. February 11, 2000 I bi/lb/ 1774 .ZL:44 0130U19100UUU ir.=a r- t 1 • VP Tr s T. F5e- R.e---PL.A te.:4 r • \ \'� pLca d w r S i.) d `�E , 0 •0 3) 11,, IGF-F INc,rie n • # LcNt\- e-r o cis �A.�� I.) pok�l�� F;I' 04�1 .• L I \ it ; idi ) s ji Ar eel 1 1 ., F vl,� �-.. \\. 1 ( k d T _� i I s- :► s, v Rom/ vr !�"'`` \. i 1 ___ )) ! 1 ;,.. s.....i. .-F l'-'-'--.., ..1"-.,_ t r Ate I I )vr i \iill%. \ 1 al 1 7 -a14 \ virommi t i .Z(1)11 NTT, 1 ..,/ i4.ce 41° , '� of Ia e• AIR-., -. III',poi EMIEPENT Lair 1 VF 1 . ` '� 1' Ill1 �� A u' r 1 i;----) \'' .*/ 1.0 .• til 1116.,...447,441', ..14k 7 5, ,...c.,___-...-,...,1 7.-p0 riziaNtiliprf iiiN-4r —— •....,..., lalkill"--1 - «2` ll.111114N; / � , ram , el'. • / ill .„..„..\0 e---' RECEIVED S E E 16 1999 \ i UMW 6 • - LU 000002 it CITY C L.ham Y_Oa� GC b 1 Nrt c,F.r,.•,,,..:Or.rat..m ‘] Q I: a e to T O Tau F r T roe to Dr otrl F.vl t'Yacl,np Pi.n w • Parcel 2/Lee 1 7 ie.cv =r Red Loaf Maps to b.Plar,tod 0 r. Palma H.,pnt,Eslat.H.1 u V 6 City .of lake 0..•.90 In :and-tales Trees to be Removed 1 IT ( ham' ,�IIJ 0 ,' z it 1_/.-------, , 0 / x,' x `. (,.—,j,) 7\ — �,, of , C) - v9 '< // �� ,Q `I 1 \ \ • At, a/ /// J-. li i(1 \ \f. )/ , \ 14*IC;;;:.3 . , --it)-1;.C''-.: \--,:s7--2,-:.k, , 1. 3. ( \ \III) P�� u`, r `-- 'a A a, �f0 / E. ®' d I.101 -I t r .51 1----; k6,.m" ..._6c %*c MIN. 1 • � � J �� 1 1 , \ \ — -.) \ \ \ \ O\ 0 V.. took F.FE.631,0m' c\ 1 11 `, j \ 0- 1L)I 1 --,, \ 4 ---....=-1.--- \ ....' \1.1\ 11‘ • --' ''''', -'s.-k-.-- 0‘ VIPA , , / ) ili(4:)‘ /0 f-: /C 0 --- 6' -.TS ------ "... 0,19 ...,..../ \ Ls) '`.$,\\ii,‘,::- , 4.4)\ic; 4'. V.--t., \"" \ ‘-- c, \II 1 0 A.., ,„ ... ......... \,,,, .. , . t� 'et, �.... - �' \--. , \ ., \ , m Q Trees To be- IZE,»,c0.64 \J Del.F! \ A tr ` 1r2.t` 1) PItt Poua.s Fi`r 4,)fl" l' ocll&S F,r cf.) Zi5" i' '--C Ahc.cie a> [s 43o,1so.4 � e 7, a1" Dougc Re',� . Re', Cmu.11'-Stew, 0 ,3 3 as" 7lo� , 11 1) f 9" 4GJoc.�Vc�lr.4 t-t'r (L, IS (1 C- c.cts,lc..4 (-i r 5) lie Zja1.(5)c,s Fir nI A k i (r) LiaPIV ..6 (ZZ) eldeW lH .2 (9 L) / --\ N\ V iaPIH..L 4 (LZ) i!i ..9Z (GO / . \1\\ JaPIV ..L 1 (OZ) J8PI`d..6 (PO / \ -. !� -IePIV2I. (61) -0P1`d..9 (EL) / / \ ,►- !�" bil O/(EZ) .!i ..ZZ (8 L) iaPIH..8 (Z 4) — \ �� penowaa eq of 00i1 \ �i3`- v 7 . . x / )\. \ �;3 �' / / / / / 20' \ / / / / / / / \ z / / ` �� ix\ / / 4 _` (x_ rs7/1v6. z-,r_0�, i \ / S / / ,,)` Ai. •-;�83 157rw \ h/ / /\ \ ~- b J� \� jP / �5' RIDE DEDICA1rWN TO THE / \ '�! / / / PUBLIC FOR STORM DRAIN 91 \\ / EASEMENT \ -�= h I \ / VERTICAL 6 CURB Aft \ \ \ ` / / SECTION A-A JC /\ \ 5 2 \ ` SEE DETAIL SHEET 12 INENT \ ` ,. \ \ \ oh 7 LOT � 7 r 1 7 � $' , ...00 \ � \p‘: ,.. PARCEL 2 \ �0 \ A \ �,� ,,, �- 'EL 1 . \I ...eD \ f3 ,14 # • --- ,..,1 , ... \ cp,, , \ iii \ \ �cT 00 ' 5, \ 4,�... -- ,..... 155 / / \ \ \ 5' WE DRAINAGE AND \ WALL MAIN \ \ V Iii... 10 EASEMENT \ \ • mn, • • S • •..' ' • • a 1'; ^. ,h.•i '• •1.• LI I.. VT . . .. ..-..li.•.-.....� ,.. i.: . \ \ ,. .•.i t 'c .,,, •�i • •• ..i..r. -• e ..!Y•}•p . .. r . 4 eF X,: . •. It ro,2",:-4'4...;. ' ;:. .'1,1,„...,p4t?,.....:',%, . r ,to, a »:• ..`�J .' .� , .fit, ` t ! .. y� 44,• r 1 yA.' `� . ` 55++ \?l.�' '• ..j.•'.l• • .. 1 a v .I afaf r;< lr, •�^ • jilt; w'�," �i .•�•, QT` � i. ' � i! 1•./ ' ' :i::: , i t .! r t`1i'i�^1 ;.., a�K t :.+►. • , S ;,...a L,. �r•�/�1'+ 1' ", 11111 '.� • i�yl ram• w1 �V,. ! .�. • • • .ar `.,>;rI{1,, `� `¢ , y • �4'ill •_ ar '. . . 4' At f' • 4 y 'i' r M� .:�V+ T` • 14 ¢. ^i,.:' is I E f4 a: ; •... L. w r,+ Lj' 1 a .. _ ,. 1'' r 1•r.t. 1-r• 1.'- :;..::::;.. -.'''.'.....,',':71'2:': it It II •••fit j•� -''M. Y , EXHIBIT 35 LU 00-0002 • ,. .. I _ , , , 1.0ittil t I _....__. .... .__ __ ___ ,_ . __ ..• __ __.. 1 ,.. . . -\ •, sci\i, ,.• ?r., • 1 I ,:I i N 635-980 ,r,44i • `� .;} M ry: , + L. a R ire YI.�;mil �. 1 Ili i i I' ir {l�d f i. Div .1.• 111440,• f • r • . i \ \ * �" ••: 4 • • .' l�i i'1, •�J' l` �1y 1y.c.a �isi �, ' 1 � 3ie • ,, ,il S v1, I• • • • • ' s i s '✓ •tc niC_ F y0y+:!' • • • • !w't;. i 0 \ . ,..: lie-, •. 9' . ..,lole -.4. -.4 0 . „• 44;•• ' ' A. g i- / , ...c.r, - ....--. . %,1 -:- 1. _ ....1.1. tie' .. ii/ C ' :lb- ..1.-- at f'..i'•i. 1. . ir , .. ..-.. •,a ' - . i N-461, lett,. • . ..,..:,. k.. "i • • --,•;00, .-- - 1.' 0-,,_•„-'''i . s. . of i 1, \ , , ,...1, '....U,',6"i"\:, -o "•-i.`'s ,-)S, .. I • .,•- ..mi," ... -... y ga.'.... \ . , ' ,- lib-4:i.44,,,IF '4 s'•ill' - .- • . VAL r.,-.4.?.-• ,- . • in:-•••• . ' • 4- , - ..A- -..•4, , "wor-g-", _ _ A - .. -z. • .,..-_,_- • - ..,1 .. ...., _...- •• i . sir.t,. • ,4117,.... . • -?.. - A ' -I,'.."• ; r. ..,it. Ni.iiii ...4t. -; .,...,,,- .." .----- .i. -...• .. 1 : -4, . .., or girt— . .,-: - 0..1...;:::N. . . i .• 'oe--' i- ' • a‘• - ,.,. I. . .4; _ .. . •. 04.. ...joi-.4 4,,7- ' (4.-:.- ., , . 7e1 / • - - ) 41/4 "ek,°*%•-•;.1.-:11 ••._Vb:--• : 'iti..4,• - - ,' P. '. „ •-•,•,.ta• ' r..... .... a T. 4 A • ; •• •• ••- ' '•'': . :-.41'. . „--. -,.'-"i, ''. ' • i' • • -,7*- 4 -.:I It•.ii. 5. • , 1 10-,:i'"L . -1 . s.,V -. • • . i - -......--- -..:_ . . . • ,•-r- .7• - .. -• 1 -• - • 7-- .. t.:...; ;•••L' ...; • s., e i; , -''. -•,.• 1'1. . te - • 5 - 4.."''' .7` ' '-. ' '- ...% 11, 4••••r - , - fr,.. ...... • --". •• .., .44,t•-• • „r_f r i r- .-e:-•. --:-:-.......„..... -P' a J - •' ' ' . 6. ''''.• • I r.'• ../ ) i,..---• - . .: ---- /./ , -. t.- ,.. .•,1 i'l` .-- 1 - - ‘s , • i.:-..%•••- ' I '• . . • - - - ./ . ,.1 .' • i l , • I ' ' i ''-.-.._ /- ; •i. I 4 -- - - - / • ,i 0 A • %-'..4.4414'•_ ..1' -..,_ - ...\- it% _ -ak ' i 'h." , . ., ; °,-r,--, • ...,.- • 0 _ '..e.7-, •".7.,..4.7,,:y: ...,".: .,,,i'.t..:iii‘.1. ,,.,.. ., ir •• :1•i4,.A...: • .. ' * _,.... . 4 --..4-111.I.. ,to i''..`08,---.11,'It••• :'"IX :i1,-V i,,,,11 •,:6ce 1 ) •if 2 31 Y• .,•• ••...7.-t• . .... . -144.1.4,'.--s4.. 10-, - -,... it ,,,...04‘..-_.,.. -,1. •....,/,-.,.-.... . s.-I-4-‘•.,:it;,-. 2., ,. ..„...• , • .-.. II ' •••••• _.! 5 e - ...It. -\-.•:..."1"-t-^-0.: he •, r:7.-4 1-i. ;'. •-v-,,‘:\',N i•- .-44.,,..4 .,4.-.,''.-....., i. t,' 4. .. " * NA.. '‘ .1• - , •Iir' ••--,i:rt.' . '1,14, 1-..',..i.,.",:i .'" uif. . .,4 .- • 1•••• ot.")`-a - ••' . • ..„-,tv. ..i...• •`• .:- i ri' "....4%.1" -e, . .. --.: - 'Ik 4,/i••- ':.;• ..4.#5•11 . .. ':•':!.; .., •ftili:•3, ., .441:14,'"‘"c.:•••t . - ,AA 4 t :Ply4 . ' •••••-„,.._,- „ - e•• • •• ,..... •.. •-.- 11:71 4• ; 114 taro....11 16 Art...,.' .: - L.".7.3r ''' ••,,.. ... '.-.ie . ; u. 1.• , "Igg 1`• ':;.„-;%•;.,•? : • , ..-'11', • ._/.4-.4 pp-:!4: '1'i fIt.•..1• .•k.; ; .f „I • ,;;13... .-,,i •: •• - 4. i , • 4 ‘• . . •• 4.. • s4. • .....! • ' - -- • ' 3 , ':.II ., . - i, t•-, . .0. ,,.4:• . • '...., i, 00.• .4 _ .4. ,•,,r.,,- . II :"..'..' ! l' 't , .•..t5.1" • 1 .,...'- 0...,...• - i• . ,. ...• 1.11,.., : , ‘. 1-1r; t:`i ‘i/I . 7t . ...wit, ... ...., •.'- .. i- 1•i•-•'*I'''4 . 0• : Nir it "' '-, 1`. -1 L..i.•illi. lg.!' .0 .P '.. -' .,'4 '' !:.1.1e4.• t 1 : /I 4 , i . , g rs.N. '•-it•I,V, 1 ! i 1. , . , It A,r.,, ,4..1 ,.f fr, 1. 4 ., , . 1-, ' v-r; ..- '' ..!,- 1. ,4 .. ...., '.. 1 41 ,I,A Pii ' 1/ -, i• ' *9 --, ---..-- •' ':' ,••t (rig iv , . 111_,A, • i- c • t , „.. ,-,,,•• ;•,,,.....,.. ..c-r--.•c--,:- '•• : •11.Pp. l'-u A'4/>:ii-- -.i. i.4A 1,.. /•- i I 1r, -1-4yir . ., ' ...k.e-tie-Tift-w- - • cli!* • v ' s : . ..• -__ .4 : V...fokihni.:_ - _ _-.,:-).-, 14, ' Ni; * vt- i ',.,- .;$!•:, . -,,,,...,.. ,, ,,,-4--- i Ali .4, " ',g- ,I,_., , - ••• 1-t!.-----.-T..•1./.74441"..iii. ', :, 4.1 -i:•,.11,k1 „ktfi'il A:11.,i01 ::44 IC J.:A .-,i-,,Lii.‘-",*.e: •7 ''_ e$ACV. : ._,,'--,!----'4 .4••.--.,-,-,-,....,—. ..„"-4.,.,-=.7.-...•-i,.••'.,1,,7p_, '.",.1•.:"r..,...,•„.,1 ,1-ie i',0-‘1,F,- f ",.,t'..A?.-.4*7-..:..,1.„:-L.,.,•.'..-.:.-r.01-t..-.1r.*-i--kt-,4;i.1f-'.,1-...:;.4.4•:•.4,z.'. .1.;..'. 4 D e7 li* 1 ,\ i.•.-.-.•.;,-,:--,,t,•.r.,;•::,(--'e..,`...:..r:..,.1.-I.::,-.4.4•Pi 1r-:.1.•-,-.i..f:.. I,••'-..•',V‘• !.x/41•P--,4.A*--'•/.'^'..41'7''7r:--:.,,"7y.'I.:'-.,.t..,`-,r,:.,,,'.-:‘-:.:..:.,..:.?.:.l:,..-...-;7.,,,..7‘et-.:a.e.r1„-,1.''.r11.•.1:.-0 4.„...*i.:1"-,.,:1 4-1.1 1.4:,4:--.'.-."s::.' .‘' .... -.•-, . • ,o, , 0 ,..••••-:,."'", • *.--c--.:pk?..,. - - , . 1 ' yi ., -1j - . .. ---, ,•• .. , .../..-.."- .- .s.- - . 'Y' • - '7:• I i' ,If , 1, ••t,i4. '4--• _i • , - - . }. 4. . ' • -et.- 14v-zie -7. ' -1 i--, . ...w.,N.'„,sitt,` ...s.-.. . '.- •, 1 i "�i ''1 A.:, 4, ,, \-",- • lytt i' 1 3 3iS . ,_77-1r .aiF.•i ;r r"tff ra .i� • f-t ;3, -- 'kr/it ' , .i.,.}, ..„,,,t r Il f 4 ,. Or 1 x '. j - \ • 1 _ t�•: ttt 1ji.,-;rR F�qe , • ,',t • f, ).( I '•I�r� 3.:,7-j . t, -'s--',, _ .1ce{, • t Xii ='—'7-" (. -," _ • ''t• •'•�at if, f, AV[ •v� • ., ' -• ,r J t� Y, .-Sam= r - 4.a ,•V. :t'. - ♦ t F-g�: 'Nip,•,♦,�,r��'F ` �a. '� ; R J6 �I •7 .' J.yy , �y� �i Ly 2;n � y.Jrr�;rf<�;�� r�• try•i•-• Y..�.•L '1+ I. yl':�-.- ,.. • ` '!� ? ' w., t l /tw .. �1` •^if i . `f" t :,. • — ,; . '''. •. .. •-• .:.: . ar it! ,' ' i. '70,Z. . , „- i i, 1 a+' } ___., �r — ,, S t'�' it-.1 �. / •f -f,t '•AlS' , t 0 .1 • w 4 • i• ,�'i, all � ;j - ;. �, ��,; � ...,. di- 1,, . a . li 1 , 14 11 :: �� i �' 1. I. ....1 • , - . . '' e ^�K 1 ,t :.lam . `• Tl 'f. j ri . - • 1 .14 ::: r , '.\\ i r• + 1 ,4� - x /r ' `r..tom�' \ts • ii `, ice_ f. 1', !�(.jF".,, .•.��a { s ., r. 41. ' i t, ,..,..„iii ir 1,.. J.,,t.i. : •••Vit-jcitti e• ' i .. 1,P.A1„,0 $ i...,1-44 e 1,._ ,...4,,v;..._,,,,...,:z.,,,..r.. ..,,,_.. ,_. , • 4,,, .k .. , . ,.., ...,„..-4,,,- ., , }? fR,,..1.,..•.%.' + ;i''i `► •i 1 iAilk t.3? ,J( �A1 /y ,_1.....f.-.ir,..,,1 •t (,',1. x ..„., ,,,.., 4u y...1..:..•c Lr• r �--. • _ _ 1:.`,..; iby `�; .�i, ., .ak S , ,.• t _ • ..-,. ..-1.,,,... ... .,., ,,,„„ ..t.,-. , ,a.,r .,je,,4. Aa ' ..„1141'. ..,-,1%. • - ' •.; ...••.t.! •1 ' , ..( . ,.....-T ..,. ,.,, i,..,. . 1, •,. ./: ,.... ,., t. _.„... „,,,,,,„,..„ ,..„.. . . _.,,,! .,,...,. . ,____.„ ... 41 t, ...u''',, ...,:.- r, ...1,r,c."-:-.,-.4: ' --._.---*.7.. r, ' t fit- `- ,, 'i `.i I. • i. ;, ! tt ry . 1 4 . , , J}kJ rp -? 1 , , .-,,,f'r - - 0 ';T. 1 0 ' '• — a i .. ....•; . ,f,-. ii ; . '''''' a' • ',. Al— .-* , tkOPPipt.4,,/..e! i • ., .. 'of • - . : -.‘• " .1,11 ' V. 1 . ..---- .11 —Se ' ' 1 . .- ..- , . _ i,ej •ii. g K_ . ft, r4i :th .. •-•:. ''• f.• I • ,.. It's ...„„ e . __,i,a ..is; 11 1. -.....-N-..• I.4 , vs. . , r • Ai. le. ...-. ...74.".-. t'' ,.11 rp.‘!1- ' ' ,•...:"V, ;eV.. . . •-,- • • ..' ' P:'••• ,• .4,,-."r.? • -"ii ••,*(1 1,,U i'. ' . 4' i C-, -•4-' in''. .' ' ; j. .,;'., , . . f, `1,,••.- • I ithil i . • •a-•' "'d 4. :-4,',I .' ....: .:, ' . ,-.;P.•i r - 0,..1;A' ' ' .10-1. ; -s'4-:• • :11 . - ' 6.• -". , ,, - 111 01110 I; . . . . 41,,:o.- • I ••Ar• :).' ' :' • :...tr ,,, .:44 • .--- ' , -• . . -f---,_•.i. if . t ' ' - . I . •." •.; :'''' . '...1":i:- 'lilkt .:.- •s - ' :,• ' I . • 1 ke•• -.. zol' • It-.4,..21:;:,- • I. ... • ti-..;,•,..,1 . .--. , - . •••.. . ,+4.. .. ., ..• ...,..;,,,e,-b,..i.,v-;.4-•- ti3 ..,.t • i,,,.... . } . ..- ,,.... .. ,.., .. . i ..ii, •1.'IL:..— • !ff , .- - .. • • . . , . rf;.•':. .:'4-*••-",+.1f4.4'.-k"Ait tho '41.'ii t., ''.... . • . ;-:-t- • `• -•' 44.41-t-,-x-„;.". ••- , . L:,.• y .. i • , ';:•,`,..:4;.•-1(44'--',--7::‘.. ...."--. ''.• :::(r1',.' : 1—'7 . . -- ' - - ' '. ,;4-----.•- ... .,.,611,,".,, 4- : , **• ' ., ,. ,.. • __....- - •-•-„.1 — • • .-. '-•• `4.'• ' '' qi' ' -• ' ‘ -.-* 1:: -V• 7.-.5-''.',-• 1 :---:".:,-'-• .---7:::,% :\ i.: :-.-:.'.--: -::.__ ;,, i ...,...4. .......f, - • -- --q -- --------. - --. - - -.:,...,..:,-...11,. ..,. . .• ... --..:Aiv.,,, -:-•.-_-_-_•., ,--• -.). .... ... ' ...I. e,,,,l_.-,..- -.:-.• -. . .,._ -, .p,,,. . .7, - ,1/47, .... 7 ? • . -* >, ; ie..: .,„‘F.• "-; • 44Z3Plir."11,?..1" -. ...`.."4.1,- ' ' —.• " ..,-- -:3:1•11-5%. , - - . -,— . . • • 4?". .-,.. . ,'.4e've" ••••-el . - ----..i.J• , . -"'• - _ 2;8:-:V.... . ".."", : . •,. " . 'it:t'•'• . , . , . i (• ' • f --:':--.**.- . .. ,....-Ir:.''. n PC( A.•: , i -...k."' . .- .,- ... ..._.. -,, .1' -_-• " .../,-'4.'","-:. --,.-4-..:f'' V*: ."" -..- .. . .4, • " t''''...,_`'-i -. '"4:-.- 9"..",%•..r---. ': '-,Pr'-' . - 0 • 1 1 , . .,• f...4: , :.i •.-:f.' "h1/2,..\ • . , • ' _•• • Le. i. . ,p•-....,..,,• . . ... i . .. - , , , _ •.. , )• i !gi!*-''-- - L. ..1, tilt,- .• , Lti,. 1,..,... ,,,.... . . ,. 7,4„ :. Itefe..k . • i io.„.......-.4,7.,.....„ . ..1.• !:-.)e,:. ....t ,... • 4, • pi-11k. .n•.._ : • .-., A:tor 41 1 '1V--, -."- , •_.... ....• I I:. life k ....--:. .: . : • ,-,1-16., . . . .....)-t •.,i 14, ,-,' .4.!..1., i it,,,--..-. •-• NA t. !` o I 1 • j"k '. 41."4-.1k. t 1!"•:.-4:.• •• • '--"Zi.# t4:-.1" 1 - IA ' ': • ". •-3. • .,..'?..r..: , 1,..•!. . 4 IP,-!,ti 0i,•,),.:4:•44:-•' Al 44;., • - f rac!.....1)*•-A- .r"-? '•',1;i!.. ki.., • A4 1: '.. ir.- .... ,..... : hdip,r-.7 • , , •.z...1,i ----- %,..,t • I-, - ••• ',I Agtl'i'-'•:q .7 ,s. ,- _ -; -.`• IA ..-. .:: ... vci : "•;•• - ta-7. ilia `••t!!!.. • . ... . •i ..'441.ir i'•... f ..,, al, ,,... ..,,, ? '.,6."•?! 111. 1 •-- ... •.‘.'..3.•A ,,4-,4, 4..- -. lti 1 .f.•" I . . ... • III . . .... _ ' ./. - J • , - ' ...... • , -..r. _ - 0 ; . ' , . •-- . . .,. ,,, „. , . •• _,,-, . - " _ _ __ . . . • .' . ' 0 11 Ili Iwo -,7:4 _ 4 � • II;' ` • Itv•iii•4_t , . •t. ,i, , , te!et; ., ' � i t Is' \ys . er� : *',4t, ..,. 4 it.,. , .._. .a. •,, a,..,•,, • , • .4 ,..„-- ..:1,41.,- .. - - ---• .- - T. t. c s •r'•;- `p er. j-._ : =4.=::a' r . t • • w a . - • S •1 iy t s . 'r•( -� i�'O�rtv��9�rtlu 1• �t..... • •i,�. _..,w�► L. • Ifi . ♦ •+e, mil°.�" r 'rr. - '-.- r 1 . .14 tom../.'‘.: -,f _ - - ti .r;, ] t...., .7�ref i.\""�` =4 •V • +2 e t]Sh't• . I ice �.,4' ec .4. • •-filii, . 4•0- ,_- _ r : ..„... ,,,.„.. ,.., ..f..- . . et\ 1pr• • 't '‘ . 1..'•-•%\4.1'• e- . -,. ., .., ... . . . .., ,,, .., ..... . . ......„Jr -1 . .4:-44.4:49 "f- i.. -1 NM 1`.. .473 4...4•••0.I:.. _% :..ii.,4..;-•-'.,!.. • � tt Z vs.� • -- J;jlk . Y .�X �`*per _• +; tyl t, •' _ f.•'-c -. Z::. i _ s 4 7• -ram R. ,.. . .. A '" . 1\ ' ', t '. • 16.2 A.. .lir • •"- 411,0.1.ar -.0016.-iiiii:Zik., 4 0 IIP .- '...1.1'•• Illk.\tVill& • ,-.4.r.••••• c. 's:117".-4..e".4.r.• 4E4 :-.e.','0 ''° 3'- -ley -z, = 1 , ..`,1 EXHIBIT 36 LE 00-0002 . •.2 . •'- 4.1 - '• 4i. s t•4.•‘-if s -.',.... ' ' 4L. 1 ' '' %,„5,%-•%"`' ' '. if; . v. g, 0 i• ;i-..,i7e); . e.",-... ', _ -4-.•.„,4.:_t4 iitt; *sir-, -4,,,t itq. I , v., • ...., . -,.,...„,,,„. tz•,. .• ... 1. ..,.... ,oisk., --11 Nilli• Vre . -"".;•141 4 - a. ,, ,,,, • .4.:"... ! r...• •,' - "11 -, _,.. 6"- e?.gc:,,c f-, X., nil • i •Ni ,.. . . 4 . .. ir . ;,c,. • ...11,.......4 . , . ,.., .. . 1..t..1...„,.7..1.. ,..,,,,,,...• ri d t ' i ... ... i. , , .. . i g• . '-' . .•12r-.. i I 7;,-;'. ,,i, ., , i ..,la .. I et.•, . 1 q •rit_4 • .. , a.,„..,_ . ilt 11, i • .... il rii ,A 1,,...- , 7,, : ' v. .,,.' N +4 - ,) 1.= V .- *. • %. p A •-• ,• 1 , ‘.. . . ..• r,"- ., .... 1 151 -. .i.',.",''',"•11:C4411 .V. , ,.- ee- 14_ ' ..1 4 - • 4. • - / 14- .''- 1• . .•11, # . .' .. .,1_ ' --sl. .-;V".'". 4 ' .. - • • :. . . . . . ...it .' "-,0. .2.... • • --..-f....;;-;" '' ... Is: . .t —1 - - - z .• „...., ,: ' 4 k. e ,• .• - ,.. .., •,...4. . , lt, t. -,, ,•.k... .? r., • • •-• -.. '!-....ser:• •.- r:-.•%.t ; ,:ait; .i.A.„i:• 'trt '...' ' . . .-., t•1 . ' • le ' '- - • ••• '- i•it''''. '-' t . c ' ,. • OP' •.1. . ... .' a:T ..' 'Ci '• r ;' -7... '.... , . _ ,.. • • • . •- 0 4: N - . .. -- ' • . . . 4 . . 4,1 .t. f --:_•.;-• ,. . ., ',.!: i ,k- ,.....-ec• o • 1• , i- , 1:, A,, , % • . ,lk,,•••) . , • ..,v;:, i . ,-. - 7 • ,..- - (i, t • i.• •,(2! -, - . rel.S..",— . 6 •- to ilie„ , oil i • .4, . ..... ... ;.;-,-__ , .11 .4 ,, .---.• . i iir 12.L- J, ,-1,:fi;off \ -,*1 '',,, --,-• .i . 4 -s• -c..-... 6 4 t.1.1.,---- - :Ig. I... "4, ilt N. • '44,t41 • •.1- '. 't.- •— -,---. 1 .. .1, ,....-...- - .'i, f 1 — .1.• (1:':' • . i 91.-40. '9 1 .r.!r_ . ._ -4;-- . - - - - • -.•):4 It.. •I 1 ,. ..,,,,,,. , •%•-.. ,-.. - -- ;."•.- ...-- i , • • , r.-- —,.. 4.4— V.: • ' • •e . . -.„ —',/.,t;...4:. ,s, , . „ ,`,'.. .: , 2.„r, _ • . ,.., ..., t _ '-• - --- •,.-; Atli,--' ' . / .-,,,!,). ...','.il • ".4..v....:, A i, • , •,,,. :lye•. -• ',';''zidik14,1!•. : .4•\ !sr:.•, -_, . _ _i . •:4,6*,-,,,,_,..:,....._,sar. • 011illik , . .:, •:,..,. ...•;:t • ,t i- IiiefitNog 160.../ i - . .. - , .6 --,...._•4„, . s.• - . , • • • 1,....v . .4,41 ..-•• .N.t..., :- ,6,•"'/"1 ' 'r• 76IT , , ... ,..,, , . . ; . . • ._. • • ,_. .... . , .......- .„_ .... ---_j:`--.2- —: -•.:..: • •IR , ....... ' . . _ .. ,:r :,,• .. ------... '',virlitiolt. -, ....., • • •- • ..r,,, ------ • , • , ,r . ..- e. , . ir; , _ ,....... ,..... ,. ,. _. v..s.,-.. • .... i .,• J.; e...=.:- .144-- \•, \ - -- - . . . , ' , •- -.-- . .„ '• ‘ J - ' %M. s i 1-41',F4-1. 4* . ' i'"- ....:-S. ', • • • . , , -As.-- —:0,4: • , .. ....'"• .01., -.,1,. - , . , • 7 . . :'ItT 0 i'.i ...It" � :1 :�C''� `�e4� Tar jr ✓fi• t /k ,' ` , A r 'i i. I. Sib+ • , � i, eK{ yr a ' r a ;T +1: 9 a f •/ 'tt /'�. • it •; . r,' c `f A i : J' ' . . . ', �?:"Y-� rt.. . _ 1. S. •fh/ •wir - - ��[[ •• • : A_ S 3 • • S w •`z,, V ; , !! �� +.a ea y ,I M;,.•4i]7 1' • lowisi)d „ • l it y� (r� .., , jl 1J ,, Iti. f1 • •.� •'i \ .t gio. • -. ••••., i ,.t• .#.. ., . •• Sri... .�. ! ti ,, p., . 0 • 0 .f. :••z • --: ; , , :. ' . . ,. .. , ..-' e• .4••• ' /1/4 • II •1 ,I# •-•!. CI, . r .... ,-- . .•r,-.... 1,,.„, r„ , ,. I. • • ' -4...• j.,-..t.• . .. i •• r• -•••'t i • ' 41 i-.... Ns'.... .•#1 -...L' • .A. .1$3 •or A ''' • -.%N.,.,N,.., 7 I.••..-C 7.f,- ' ..-- , - : ';' • . • .lit "•-,3.? '-' • •••. i " ‘'-• •:"... . - 1. , • • *ft.'. Id -- ' .4 ' '-'),'4 "'..— •-• kii,...... -, 1 - • : • : . .1i •••- ). 4•45- -- •'-',$ - - - 4, - / -- t\ . •• - -.$ .-- . _ ..• ,, 4.,--n. x- i • • '''n '\ • ' . , .--1 t,. '• ‘4.-''''- , P!'.'"; --- , .'',,...",..t„Yr .. ;sr,.....4. . _LIP'r. I '..., Illt i . •-, ,. . ..'..4., •.:e.• .' .13,.. V .. . .-. -6••••---1 --1 . '••• ..r.•- . ., ......-• `,. , . - •-• ,•' . "."..-- ---.N.' • t , • ?NC -,- ..1.. .„ ...Is_ ..„........!... :.:14 6- ir , •.1.A.7., IIV--rit ' • 1. --.• -'•- - "1111'' - ... `'''• '-••15,- --4,•` .' 7'v'• - : 44+-1.9 — 1 •'•c- • . •••$ .= v. N ' -. .••' P."-''..-.-•-,-. -• .IVA-.^..••'-','. •-- .r. :-4 -. -.-%-•-.` - • ';'• .•'‘ •••• , t- ,1-1... .-• • - ; .-.W" ' • 0. # • I. ,, . .. :” N I.` ' 1 • . • . •J -' '' '‘ A -; . \ . 1, z _ - O.- - • i.• . ... • , • 4M "7 iir .-r • ... . • -,••',...t:-..-- *II. ,..,....4. -lociii,,--:. .- ., ..3,.. . 7 ., :.• ..- c f- •.-, ,..........!--7-!1-jelk:-.1.!.2.,... .,Ilk.;":::-. •41,...ilill. -i I Wilie..1 r '''."--.74'.1r..........:-; , rii"• ip5"'„Ir..f..„ . - -- 1.-_ -,,_. ,4,81 !, •<"*.3 ,„v ,.,_ --- -:. _. ,. -magi-, •.."„ I -....,-..,,,..10.,,z -„• _. __ ..-- - ..‘ .,:„., _ .:_-___ . .., •,•_216;11.-_--.,.-„. - - • . P il...rjor.,„,,,-iki.....- ., ,- • `• . "..V. .. !`?i ar/1 ...lir. •re• .,. 44.111„:".1...••• _,..-L' . ea - 4:al%4#i'F'''''• - .k.-• ••• . --•• ••••,:i-J,-...r'41.-71P.,A1 ,,, : • -.744 .4101-.le-1"...-,-1 .1 ‘. lir. .00 vis":„.47- - _,•-_":„4 ver , - _ 0 -t • - .„„,m • ; •!.:•-1,.,:- . ,01i. t3:- •!i.I(S t rave' 1 . 'As+• "' i;-V.•'ida0-1.•'r'IZ.F1 -,-...,-4 • 1,7• 1.--,OW- • r,"14.t-- -, _it.. '.,i..•‘;.:::-, :: . ,w:.11:.T1r:;;#4.."4:-..;::-- • - t ''''. ' ..1”..--.''.!••te- .....- '. 11. or •. 0 • ft,it - •1... .' -...-. t AP•-.-.41V-SOK"..-..-- - - .' •r.... ,... , .. :#31,...`.•:'*:- - -'- _- •-• 2 ••••••• I.-•'W-•'f•-- ..-••••'742 . '': !'"r"' •-.... ... •• •••:. - " --"-.3-aV A `•-.:.•fe,-'•''z 4..' --- .441."••. ""."•19'; "4. -- •I • "1444 - - -.,•••••• •••••=...mir•-"W".•••• :--..... #..... •••S.4 'Pre,-4... • c ,......, ..:•.t.„'C•_ ,.. .. is. • . .'''wa''-"v.t'.'' A "-• , ' "14.C.1- Ar.....1. 40.:,44, 1011':•,-" Nip '''',4.:?,--'19171111.. ' !C., • v.,• .,-...-. Arr.:•-%"34e.g.•-._ -Moamar- -, . ,r._..-. -..,""*".'" -IF -'- ---• Apsir...--:'"-- - ......-... - • ,.. I •-..A.* Its a-0,0-0.-•-• 4.:-&.-- _-;1144. 1116forair: „ji. ,-. :ar. • • •• ..- • d11111rporilit111!"P",---------"'"'--...vie, ...:4 `• : ''Itit,..".• •'':: -'11.°?.:=1;40..!..•• 'I."!"Pt ,' c-io:Ir.rie.. - ' ''•""` - /1.44:1.,;,..-. . ,, t,--ra- -'.4' . ":;•71,1111k. -f-111F, L'.- . 1. _. '.. .it •.'. if it ,. . • • •,,,,....., •.s.. . . .....• „.... 1.,:... .. ' Ir ••1.-4.••••t. • " -- ..."-7 - • • iSt-224, .•., - ?: vr•-: iv v• - ' ..A,Jr" 4 ., .4°4'. •-.7.11. . 4_.',....'• ."ip -';- art': - • lir,-m. ...A•43..• ."',F.t.L11 ''•-•- ."1,-.- , '.•:".0'''" ...,. .„'-'4,..••••-•-'-'7"16.....7 • _.• .....111111Vi :"...." LTI-Vi r.,....- ..- ..,,,,,• ...4,.. . _. ,.... • . "11'. 11114 - " • Alas 1, -'i• •••• - -,_,..• •.. :Pm * •ar. .......% -lir • , ,- , ..., 4,. 410••"1ill ter... .,„tics- ,_ - , - --f-.• •-Ae-4t-;:i.- . „if( • - m., ...,/, • ••“-- , ....-'----.! 0 .t• ir '... ...-0V .': - _-.-_, . . 4.-- , ,h__ '-',‘_w•-•, • ..'•. • ';:.„ --4. • . . ``�of,,..os, ,,..0 , • : 1 --- ,-_!.•1-,,a_,,,,___ .,/ oe[ao►t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum Date: March 3, 2000 to: Development Review Commission From: Michael R.Wheeler, Associate Planner OOP) Subject: LU 00-0002 [JB&B Construction; Roe]; Additional Materials IllThe following additional materials were received regarding the original application, either at the hearing on February 23r1, or following the requested continuance. The materials are attached to this memorandum: Exhibit 37 Letter from Palisades Neighborhood Association; dated February 22, 2000 Exhibit 38 Letter from Palisades Neighborhood Association; dated February 22, 2000 Exhibit 39 Letter from J. and L. Huntley; dated February 23, 2000 Exhibit 40 Letter from H. and A. Richardson; dated February 23, 2000 Exhibit 41 Letter from D. and N. Cameron; dated February 7, 2000 Exhibit 42 Letter from K. and K. Limbaugh; dated February 7, 2000 Exhibit 43 Turnaround design, by Otak, Inc.; dated February 17, 2000 Exhibit 44 Geotechnical reconnaissance, by A. W. Wright; dated February 29, 2000 Exhibit 45 Arborist report,by W. Knapp; dated March 2, 2000 As of this writing, the applicant has not submitted any additional material in response to staff's recommendation on February 23rd /MRW (11pub_wks\data\common p\mike_wlworkspaereports\1u0000021000303me.doc) III 380 A Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 9703- E tannin_Divkinn: (�011 61R-02-)P • Building Division: fR031 635-0390 • Enoineerin Division: (3(13)635-0270 • FA\ (3031 633-0269 Palisades Neighborhood Association Lake Oswego, Oregon February 22, 2000 Development Review Commission 380 A Avenue P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Iw r• 1, L \o s 1 •v ..... ... Re: Tree Cutting Permit for LU 00-0002 Last.of i iannir c,tit,e;zprr; ; Dear Commission Members, The Palisades Neighborhood Association supports the property owners adjacent to the undeveloped lots located at the end of Mayor's Lane in opposing the granting of a tree cutting permit as requested to develop these properties. The applicant has already created a dangerous condition with the illegal cutting of thirty trees without a permit, and the topping of many others just one year ago. The area is in a designated slide zone, and there can be no 0 question that removing these additional trees will destroy the root fabric that holds the bank together and will also remove the wind break that protects surrounding trees. This would most certainly put the area in still further jeopardy. And the fact of the matter is that most of the trees do not need to be removed. A very slight repositioning of the house would allow most of the trees to remain. The applicant continues to submit inaccurate and incomplete information to justify his request. The applicant is not willing to work with the neighbors to preserve the trees. The following facts can be verified by reviewing the Application, the Staff Report or by visiting the site: 1 . Just one year ago, the applicant illegally removed 30 trees without a permit and topped many others. The open area created by that action is sufficient to locate the house without cutting any additional trees. 2. The applicant's original request includes a drawing which inaccurately portrays the location of the trees which he wants to remove. 3. The trees that the applicant tagged with yellow ribbon are different than the trees illustrated on his site plan to be cut down. 4. Applicant states that all of the trees fall within the footprint of the house (Exhibit 5), yet his site plan (Exhibit 6) illustrates that not one tree falls within the building foot print. • EXHIBIT 37 LU 00-0002 Development Review Commission Tree Cutting Permit for LU 00-0002 February 22, 2000 5. While the applicant ignores the issue of surface waters, one of the neighbors on the downhill side reports spending over ten thousand dollars on french drains in an attempt to control the run off. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as having a potential for severe landside hazard and well as a potential for weak foundation soils. There is already a history of slides in the area near the northeast property line. Our main concern here should be to protect the adjacent properties from any possible damage caused by the development of this property. This Commission as well as the Building Department should exercise extreme care to prevent a catastrophe that could include loss of life. Recent similar failures in Kelso and the Oregon coast should serve as a reminder of what can happen. We know that removing the trees from a site is the most economical way to build. However, it is not the best method of maintaining the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. It most definitely will impact the erosion, soil stability and windbreak protection on adjacent trees. It is also obvious that a slight repositioning of the house could save all of the trees he wants to remove. We recommend that the tree-cutting permit be limited to only those trees absolutely necessary to create the turnaround for emergency vehicles. We further request that the builder be • required to retain the services of a qualified geo-technical engineer to stipulate the required construction means and methods necessary to guarantee the stability of the site both during and after the construction. Developers love to come into our city and build big houses that command large prices because they can make huge profits. But we need to hold them to a higher standard. The same standard that makes our city what it is today. You, as the Development Review Commission have the power to do that and we are counting on you. Our City is known through out the northwest as an upscale area. Part of the reason for that is that our citizens are willing to stand up and protect their neighborhoods from developers who are motivated by money and would otherwise simply rape the land and leave with their profits. Our citizens are counting on you to help them protect our neighborhood. Please don't let them down. Thank-you for you consideration. Sincerely, f • • Dorothy Ro?rs `� ( ack Sullivan '/Jim Blume Art DeRosia President ` ice President Secretary Treasurer Palisades Neighborhood Association • Lake Oswego, Oregon February 21. 2000 Development Review Commission ; . r :� f 380 A Avenue E == ti;. ; P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Re: Tree Cutting Permit for LU 00-0002 cm; Usat.of Fi3r,n n :VA,16;.'um6ni Dear Commission Members, The applicant for this tree cutting permit continues to submit incomplete and inaccurate information in support of his request. He submits this false information in a manner that doesn't allow adequate time for the Palisades Neighborhood Association to review both the application and the Staff Report prior to forming a response. We respectfully request that the Development Review Commission consider one of the following two responses to this request: • 1 . Deny the request in its entirety as submitted. 2. Delay the Hearing until 30 days after the applicant has submitted a complete request with accurate information and a staff report has been issued. These ordinances were put in place to protect our neighborhoods. This applicant continues to submit false and incomplete information. The most recent February 18, 2000, "Memorandum" from staff acknowledges the applicant6 failure to provide adequate information to justify his request and that his statements do not consider other obvious options to preserve the trees. It should also be noted that the applicant's most recent "addenda" was submitted such that the Staff Report was issued just three working days prior to the hearing. We have full time jobs and three working days is not adequate time to review all the material, verify the accuracy by visiting the site and then get together to formulate a response. Thank-you for you consideration. Sincerely, i ... J Dorothy Rogers . Jack Sullivan Jim Blume Art DeRosia • President /Vice President Secretary Treasurer EXHIBIT 38 LU 00-0002 February 23, 2000 • Development Review Commission 380 A Ave. P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR, 97034 Re: Tree Cutting Permit for LU 00-0002 Dear Commission Members, I am Lynn Huntley and live with my husband and family at 17901 Meadowlark L.O. which is directly downhill from the proposed site. Since the last meeting on this issue we have hired an independent geological consultant by the name of Tony Wright. He has worked with this planning department and I think you know his credentials. He has inspected the site and has tried to determine the impact to our property when the additional 11 trees are removed and the proposed house built. He will submit a proposal as to the drainage impact, but has had real problems since he says everything he has been given so far from the initial documents have had slightly different house sightings and drainage plans. But he has said that he has real concerns regarding the proposed drainage that he can figure out and that it appears to be inadequate and not the best for the severe slope and the amount of increased drainage this hillside will produces as a house instead of soil will be dealing the water in the future. • His report should be available in the next three days. As a family we have spent over$20,000 dealing with the extreme amount of water that ends up in our backyard every winter. It has taken 3 external french drains and l internal french drain to keep our basement dry and out backyard useable. The additional water created by the building of this house and the elimination of additional trees which will make the total removed from the hillside 41 must be addressed and adequately dealt with or our home and other homes will be severely impacted. The plans submitted are not consistently nor adequately dealing with the water problem according to our consultant. The cutting of these additional tress and the siting of this house needs further study for all of our best interests. Thank-you Sincerely, Jim and Lynn Huntley . • EXHIBIT 39 LU 00-0002 i HUGH & AMY RICHARDSON 2188 OVERLOOK DRIVE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 February 23, 2000 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: LU 00-0002(JB&B Construction; Roe) As owners of the dwelling located at 2188 Overlook Drive, at the base of the hillside slope affect by the proposed new dwelling to be located 2306 Mayors Lane (Tax Lot 401 of Tax Map 21E 16CB),we submit the following points: • Consequences of tree removal on the hillside integrity Removal of the trees growing on this hillside may disrupt the proper drainage of water and create other changes that could increase the possibility of water damage or earth movement to downslope properties. Development of hillside environments is notorious for creating devastating effects on • surrounding areas. Recent problems in the Northwest have left little doubt as to the impact of alteration of the natural drainage system that is enabled by mature tree growth and disabled by removal of trees and excessive construction. These hillsides require extraordinary care to preserve their integrity. At 2188 Overlook, we are already seeing changes in the dwelling and paved surfaces, both subtle and dramatic, due to downward movement of the hillside. This already fragile state could be severely impacted with the removal or diminishment of the tree barrier. • Destruction of the woodland environment The natural areas remaining in our developing community are becoming scarce. Maintaining the areas that do still exist with a high degree of emphasis on the impact of change is, and should be, a primary concern for city planners and citizens alike. Sincerely, 1n Hugh B. Richardson Amy L. Richardson LAY - EXHIBIT 40 LU 00-0002 • Don and Nancy Cameron 2318 Hillside Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97034 7 February 2000 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Gentlemen: We have read the various reports on this property dating back to 1991. In every single report great time is spent on stating how great the slope is and how potentially unstable the land is. This is still true though there is a building to be erected on the land. The city is rightfully requiring professional engineering people of several kinds to examine the site and the building plans. We hope the commission will cast a jaundiced eye on their blessings since those blessings have also been given on coastal property, property in • Kelso, on Portland's West Hills and on Bull Mountain in Tigard. All of these locations have had serious slides, and in the West Hills one or more almost every spring. Please listen carefully to your experts, pick the most conservative advice and then be a little more conservative than that. We ask this care for the sake of the buyer of the new structure as well as the present neighbors. So far we have been unable to find any insurance company which will cover a landslide. Moreover, Our own insurance would be unavailable to us now; the company will no longer insure any home on a slope of more than 30degrees. The risks of building here are all transferred to the homeowners. 17a,sw_.) C . 6u44--c,cr,---, Nancy Cameron Don Cameron S EXHIBIT 41 LU 00-0002 February 7, 2000 • To Whom It May Concern: We live at 2301 Hillside Lane, Lake Oswego and are writing to express our concerns about the proposed tree cutting on Mayor's Lane property currently being considered for development. Although we are not directly below the property, we do have grave concerns about the removal of trees from this property. Our concerns are as follows: 1. Windbreak. The houses that surround us on the hill are on steep property and the trees on their property are on steep slopes. We consider these trees to be a significant windbreak for the trees that surround our property and the trees on our property. Our fear is that if trees are removed from the Mayor's Lane property, many other trees will be vulnerable to wind. 2. Soil Erosion. The removal of numerous trees from the Mayor's Lane property will result in unstable land approximately two lots away from our property, which we understand has previously been designated as an unstable/possible slide area. If the land slides there, it is likely the land will slide here. 3. Pronertv Values. If a significant slide does occur due to erosion, it would have an • enormous detrimental effect on property values throughout this neighborhood (i.e. Kelso, Washington). We urge you to carefully consider the decision regarding the tree removal on this Mayor's Lane property and to do so with regard to current Lake Oswego residents. If you have any questions,feel free to contact us at the numbers below. Thank you for your time in considering this very important matter. Sincerely, --K Limbaugh 539-2726 Kay Limba h 768-1252 EXHIBIT 42 LU 00-0002 0 07 %,• , ---.....„...---.:...*--40,\\,\\ \ ): ; r ;�(�fr,-T---......_ '. /,./ ./ 1;; I I Kli —i INSTALL 10'X 5'X 1.5'RIP—RAP / / ,f' ,.# I/ 1/ CLASS 100 • ' I ' /'.. 1 \" �6�;, "".2 - � '' ;�' j / ` L !•I �/ `' � ` PARCEL ,2 5 19 a \ ` ~ � �. / \;W . I \ __- � .-,Fr.63. • - 636.g ' \ •, OITCN INLET '. f `�,' ' \ wsN SLANTE)FRAME&(SATE( _ 'y \ ``' � _ RIM= 636.0 , 6'• \ , \ j/ - (BOTTOM) ` 1 `iE OUT=.63?.0(6') ! V ^, a' OW 642.0 \% 1 • ‘• '` , • BOW 6.38.0 1 - .gp 5.� \ `\ • \ . 2.:. . ' 637.-2, .., , `c%"‘-‘ ‘‘.. \\4643 ..'• .1, '' ..., ''', '''. \ \ \ \ -'. \ \ af--,41. .. . .:\ -.... _,„„,,.- % , ,. \ \ \ it . _ .. • .... ._ „ . •,.. ., .5'\ 'II' '•. uj. `.,'_; .09",b4., '\ • ' C \ y \ `\ ` -z` •war gHlO' • �, NING WALL `` i� •\ TOW 6120 \ 1 \ \BOW 6310 • �' S 10 0`` \ \ \ '11 I 1 ' i EXHIBIT 43 \ \ \ LU 00-000- • • E . �e1V E.O.}� \ f0'UTILITY EASEMENT � ' �\ ALONG BACK LOT LNESCRi r. r ,� r �_�� --- \\ i moo. Z. -- R1 -"* .,„ ---...,,i-- I \ .6' vs ,-— / z :77. \ / �, / —�,� /� \\ /„ / / / •14 `�DOsny�QP� �T Srjy \\ h/ , / / / / / / / �5' N10E DEDICATION TO THE /\/ \1. \ + %lJ' / / / f n PlIBUC FOR STORY DRAINg�i / \\ \'_ 1 — " ill / / / \ \ \ / 4ERACAL 6' CURB / \ • , '' / , ;' ` _ SECTION A-A • \ i\....".........../ \ \ \ 5 SEE DETAIL SHEET I 2 1 10'WOE PUBLIC EASEMENT \ \ \ \\ SANITARY \ -., ,/- ;',,,„ �, : � � \ LOT17 \ \ :eel.) PARCEL 2 LOT 17 \ i \ . PARCEL 1 \ \ \ \ \.,\\ • 5 / \ \ �t5..... -- \ \ ii \ \ / \ 5' N1DE DRAINAGE'AND \ v / \ 0' S 10 20 WALL MAINTENANCE \ \ EASEMENT \ \ \ \ I \ \ • Anthony J. Wright, P.E. 1470 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 Phone: (503)635-3146 Fax:(503)636-0427 Mr Jim and Mrs. Lynn Huntley 17901 MeadowLark Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 February 29, 2000 Potential Impact of Uphill Residential Development (Lot 401) on Downhill Properties The impacts of the subject residential site development are based on a field reconnaissance of the site areas on February 11,2000, discussions with the Huntleys, a review geologic Mapping, Geotechnical reports by Carlson and McDonald, Planning Staff Report City of Lake Oswego January 26,2000 and Arborist Consulting Report February 11,2000. The site reconnaissance revealed that subject property graded downhill at between 35 to 55% • or so moderating to around 30% at the Huntley property line. The area, some 50 to 60 ft south of the Huntley north property line, is relatively clear of trees. The open space extends at least 20 ft or so uphill of the property line boundary. In the general vicinity of the property line, 7 or so recently cut deciduous trees were sprouting with new growth. Several old decayed tree stumps in this area is evidence of historic logging. A historic cross slope logging road occurs on Lot 401, with uphill cuts of about 4 ft high at a slope of about 120% and a downhill fill embankment with a slope of 60%. However no evidence of instability was observed along the overgrown logging road.. The reviewed documents indicate that some 30 trees were cut down during January 1999 within the general vicinity of the proposed residence on Tax Lot 401. In addition another 11 trees are proposed for removal near the entry of the access driveway. It was difficult to identify the exact site of the cut down trees due to an extensive thicket of new undergrowth over the proposed residential footprint. RECEIVED EXHIBIT 44 • MAR 1 2000 LU 00-0002 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dept.of Planning&Development Page 2 February 29, 2000 • The Arborist report of February 11,2000 addresses only preconstruction protection, and removal and retention of trees related to construction and soil excavation. The report does not address potential impacts of tree removal on wind breaks or potential damage to existing trees downhill to the subject lot. Some minor recent breakage of tree limbs on downhill properties was noted. The hillside is located on the northerly slopes Cooks Butte which is underlain by weathered volcanic rocks consisting of Boring Lavas. The general area is characterized by wet soils with a high groundwater table reportedly occurring to within 1 '/A ft of the ground surface. The latter high water table has contributed to extreme measures deployed by the Huntleys to intercept the subsurface water and prevent flooding of their basement. From a stability standpoint, the overall hillside is considered to be stable and not particularly • subject to either surface sloughing or landsliding. The recommendations contained within the Consulting Arborist Report regarding replanting of Fir, Big Leaf Maple and Red Alder in ratio of 2 to 1 for a total of 22 trees removed appears reasonable with regard to hillside restoration. The proposed residential development which envisages stepped bench cuts of 2 to 4 ft for spread footing support is considered appropriate. The Carlson soils report does not address interception of subsurface water or the likely accumulation of water in the crawl space. From the point of view of the downhill properties, the crawl space drain from the lower corner of the crawl space should direct all collected water into a downhill disposal system (discussed below). The control and distribution of stormwater from the roof and driveway for the proposed residence merits special attention. • Page 3 0 February 29, 2000 The continuous and/or all segmental soakage trenches to depths of 3 ft or so that are variously detailed on the reviewed documents are considered to be less than desirable. Soakage trench construction is not considered suitable for steep hillsides due to the potential for surface sloughing and erosion not to mention the very high groundwater tables that would likely negate water percolation. A surface trench dissipator system would be more suitable and certainly environmentally compatible The purpose of very shallow dissipator trenches basically simulates surface water flow through the organic topsoil zone. The concept of surface dissipator trenches, although not commonplace, was to the writer's best knowledge developed by the plumbing department of the City of Portland during the 1970's specifically for application to steep hillsides. A preliminary layout for surface dissipator trenches to collect stormwater from the residential roof and entry driveway is . indicated on the attached Site Plan. The trench details are based on a 10 year design storm of 2.6 in. of rain over period of 5 minutes. An additional advantage of the relatively shallow dissipator trenches is the potential for locating the trenches fairly close to existing trees. It may not be necessary to meet the stringent requirements indicated in the Arborist report of February 11,2000. The above design assumptions are quite conservative in view of the relatively high permeability of the organic topsoil zone which would clearly discharge collected water quite rapidly and uniformly along the lengths of the dissipator trenches-thereby substantially mitigating the potential for downhill sloughing and soil erosion. With regard to residential development, all excavated materials from the crawl space and footing excavations (other than those needed to backfill the sides of the footings) should be completely removed from the site. Landscaping fill areas along with sprinkler systems for this development are not considered desirable. Page 4 • February 29, 2000 The aforementioned evaluations and comments pertain only to those related to geotechnical engineering considerations with regard to residential and site stability and stormwater collection and distribution, particularly as they may impact downhill properties. Should you have any questions, please call the undersigned, You truly, • d thony J. right, P.E. Attachment: Site Plan - Residential Footprint, Trees and Dissipator Trenches III i N 7 <(‘ IT , "‘ifi -,/r ( I , , 71- , , . t •, O 1 r�'j' j\ f; ; � il(.>. 0 1-J 4� o� � , l` � S ,, 0 \•1 tU 1 J St/OGA[C � • .� �� !I�a, S '1 1 oiSsioAT0a / •, F. 1 \.m .€5 L \ 1 1 TQe will Ef �qq o e�.� �3,J.� -�OI . 1211% iZ WI-ru )l'`'\ R • j , _ �1'' 3H $ pear, A G • ))7 � 1 �'a, �� / may '/ �� ' 1 1 LotATeC a w AAY0R % 1 i _ CJ .l , 1:L1A lL✓GL GoNTo.rr �� 1</ , ‘ 61.4 ,'Z ' VC. i ''''0 .d.';‘q,\ P" i i /�—:, `�'O ,1\ b ']9G1 ,1/tAOowL/'r-: \CD. 1 / t-) de k ' 0 1 1 .O. • tI•\tr ilol*t.•s i__ l&6-..' . 'f.4 - ,// I/r 0 \,1`C ;. FFF.0400' 1 1 .-\ -\- i\li i. c\ Q1 1 -1 C\~� % $ O '. L-1 I ' ., _ \-, \ \Y 1 1/ LJ \\ —r'L 4 v , g c,i . ..7/ i ,,) ,c,s-,c‘ .0 .\-, r I\ , 43 o , 4-, - . ' is' '..:1 \ al/ ...* . e " lc,_foe // \ ,- - . 0 O\�'"� ///1/ \ -sir-'-- , O // 4\" ® Tr€.es To f Kc 00 23ob MAYoQS tR-1.1E TAMP C'CI TOOSoiLS 1, N 6Ei7,►-heo 1 Xi S ri nu, „iri -- i.� t( S-AL - ill — 301 .` f CONTIN VOJS �, 4 Such A o s PE4F. " "• " ON LEvE L CONTOJQ k.. \I \��,i . /2,1'(_) e01)04 Cr) Q0G or S 1 T E P L. A N � AL � / AL FooTP Q,NT1�`� LL✓LL -re., III' 'Di SSI OATa2 T'2E1-4C14 DE -rAnL TQEES h�11::) 'DI Ss10AToQ ' TC' ,= . I� iIce- 11110 Walter H.Knapp Silviculture&Forest Management Urban Forestry March2, 2000 RECEIVED Mr. Donald F. Cameron WAR 12 2000 2318 SW Hillside Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97034 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dept.of Planning&Development Dear Mr. Cameron: On February 29, at your request, I visited the proposed development at 2306 Mayors Lane in Lake Oswego. This site is immediately adjacent to your residence. The following report addresses three major questions as discussed with you at the site: 1. What are the anticipated effects of tree removal and site development on the remaining trees and on the affected environment? 2. How effectively will the measures described in Exhibit 34, • Consulting Arborist Report, protect the remaining trees on the site? 3. What are the alternatives for retaining important trees and protection resources on the site? Description of Trees Proposed for Removal The construction proposal calls for removal of 11 trees on the site. Trees numbered 1 thru 6(see Exhibit 34, Consulting Arborist Report) are Douglas-firs. These trees are growing in a contiguous grove immediately adjacent to a 17-inch diameter Douglas-fir on your property.' All of these trees are mature and even-aged, with diameters ranging from 11 to 23 inches. They have normal crown development for their age and stocking density. There are no apparent insect, disease, or structural defects. Two other Douglas-firs,numbered 7 and 8, with diameters of 13 and 14 inches, are also marked for removal. These trees are growing in the clearing near the center of the lot. They have characteristics similar to the trees in the grove,but are not a part of the contiguous stand. I All diameters are measured at breast height(DBH),4.5 feet above mean ground level, • using a diameter tape. Results may differ from diameters listed in Exhibit 34. EXHIBIT 45 LU 00-0002 r . Page 2 of 4 Cameron Dr. 3/LOO Tree no. 9, a two-trunked bigleaf maple with stems of 8 and 10 inches, is • growing downhill within the opening. This tree is an immature specimen, poorly formed, with damage to lower trunks. The tree is not well suited for long-term retention. 1. Tree Removal and Site Development: Anticipated Effects. In my professional opinion, removal of the trees and development of the site as proposed would have the following effects on remaining trees and resources: • The Grove—Wind Protection. Removal of trees 1 through 6 would reduce the protection from winds, exposing other trees to failure during storms. The 17-inch Douglas-fir on your property would be especially vulnerable, since it has been protected by the immediate adjacency of the grove. I noted that this ridge top site is highly exposed to storm winds prevalent in the winter months. This increases the vulnerability to tree failure if the grove is removed. • Other Trees.Trees no. 7 and 8 are located at a distance from the grove and other trees. Removal of trees 7 and 8 would • have little effect on wind stability of the grove or other nearby trees. Removal of the bigleaf maple is expected to have little or no detrimental effect. • Trees and Effects on Soil Hydrology. Removal of the conifers is anticipated to increase the amount of excess soil water, exacerbating downslope effects. This is due to two reasons. First, evergreen conifers remove water throughout the year by transpiration, even during the winter months when deciduous vegetation is dormant. Second, they intercept a substantial amount of precipitation, much of which evaporates rather than reaching the ground to further saturate soils. • Trees and Visual Quality. Removal of trees, particularly in the grove, will have a negative effect on visual quality of the site. This hillside is seen from the immediate foreground as well as midground, and is an important viewshed in the Lake Oswego area. 11, 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane,Beaverton,OR 97007 Phone/Fax: (503)646-4349 w f Page 3 of 4 • Cameron Ltr. 3r1A70 • • Effects of Construction Methods. Use of a conventional foundation and construction methods is likely to concentrate soil water further downslope,compared with present conditions. Drainage trenching to relieve water from a conventional foundation is anticipated to further concentrate soil water and could damage root systems of nearby trees. 2. Effectiveness of Tree Protection Measures. The measures described in Exhibit 34 are generally consistent with accepted arboricultural practice. However, several modifications are suggested: 4.2 Root Pruning. In my professional opinion, root pruning in the case of mature specimens such as the large Douglas-firs would be detrimental. These root systems should remain intact wherever possible. 4.3.4 Compaction. If compaction is to be monitored and a threshold value established, the permissible increase in soil bulk density should be stated, and the required mitigation specified. Avoidance of compaction is the preferred method. 4.4.2 Supplemental Watering.Established mature Douglas-fir trees are not expected to require supplemental watering unless there has been extreme damage to the tree or its environment. 4.5.2 Mitigation Planting. It may not be necessary to replant with native species. Both bigleaf maple and vine maple sprout profusely from old stumps. Most of the maples originated in this manner. The sprouts grow more rapidly than planted stock, and do not need supplemental irrigation to ensure establishment. Vine maple may be favored on portions of the site where taller trees are not desired. I would discourage the planting of red alder near the building site, since the species is short lived and subject to breakage in ice and snowstorms. 3. Alternatives for Retaining Important Trees and Protecting the Site. Several options should be considered on this site to protect trees and other values. These include: • Building Pad Location.The building pad can be moved further into the open area so that the tree grove can remain 41, 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane,Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax:(503)646-4349 • • Page 4 of 4 • Cameron Dr. 3/2/}0 intact. This may also require modifications to the access • road/driveway. The two Douglas-firs and the bigleaf maple in the opening can be removed with minimal impact to the site. • Foundation Construction. Alternative methods of construction can be used to reduce impact to tree roots and soil hydrology. Examples include possible use of grade beams, piers or pilings. • Trenching. If soil drains are constructed, or if other trenching is done in the vicinity of tree roots, tunneling can be used to protect the roots. An Air Spade (a pneumatic tool to remove soil without damage to roots) or similar tool can be employed. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these observations and recommendations. I appreciate the opportunity to consult with you on this matter. Sincerely, II Walter H. Knapp Certified Forester, SAF Certified Arborist, ISA II 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax:(503)646-4349