HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2002-10-08 Special CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
2 /�
INCLUDES MINUTES, AGENDA
FOLLOW-UP�,
AGENDA AND PACKET.
(NOTE: BLANK NUMBERED PAGES
IN PACKET WERE REMOVED
PRIOR TD MICROFILMING).
�'FQLLOW UPS MIGHT NQT HAVE
BEEN DONE FOR M4RNING AND
SOME EVENING MEETINGS.
Citv Councilors
.Judie Hammersrad, Mayor
Ellie McPeak. Council President
Jack Hoffinan
Gay Graham
Karl Rohde
Bill Schoen
.John Turchi
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesdav, October 8, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
City Hall
380 A Avenue
AGENDA
Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.onus
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: (503)675-3984
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please
contact Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236,48 hours before the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Supplemental reports were distributed
3. STUDY SESSION separately. Copies will be available at
the meeting and are available in the
3.1 Foothills Road Task Force Report Citv Recorder's Office.
7:15 4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 AP 02-08; an appeal of the Community Forestry Commission's
decision to approve a Type 11 tree permit requested by Stephan and
Melinda Todd. The applicants are requesting approval to remove an
8" maple, a 13" cherry and a 12" cherry in order to expand their two -
car garage to a three -car garage.
Public Hearing Process:
Staff Report: Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner
Public Testimony
• 15 minutes for the appellant's presentation;
0 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation;
• 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood
association, homeowner association, or government agency, or
other incorporated public interest organization;
• 5 minutes for other persons;
• 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
Motion:
5. ADJOURNMENT
The study session will be televised and rebroadcast at the following times:
Channel:
28
Wednesday
10/09/02
8:00 a.m.
Wednesday
10/09/02
11:00 p.m.
Thursday
10/10/02
1:00 p.m.
Thursday
10/10/02
8:00 p.m.
Channel:
30
Friday
10/11/02
12:00 p.m.
Saturday
10/12/02
2:30 p.m.
Monday
10/14/02
6:00 a.m.
�, I
1
1 Lake Oswego
� Foothills Design District
� Project Summary
City of Lake Oswego
Crandall Arambula PC
DKS Associates
June 2002
Credits
Lake Oswego City Council
' Mayor Judie Hammerstad
Council President Jack Hoffmann
Gay Graham
Bill Schoen
John Turchi
Elynor "Ellie" McPeak
' Karl Rohde
Steering Committee
Lake Oswego Planning Commission Frank Groznik (Chairman)
Oswego Pointe Condominium Association Mary Beth Coffey (Vice Chair)
Foothills Road Property Owners Rick Mreen (Toklat Industries)
Citizen -at -Large Bill Beebe
' Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Chris Hoffman
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Roberta Jortner
Linda Dobson
Design Review Commission Julia Morales
First Addition Neighborhood Lynn Peterson
N.R.A.B. Keith Moe
Tri -Met Alan Lehto
' Evergreen Neighborhood Association Jeremy Langeliers
Paul Graham
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency/City Council Mayor Judie Hammerstad
' Committee Alternates:
Lake Oswego Planning Commission David Waring
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency/City Council John Turchi
Citizens: Ron Fallow
City Staff Gary and Betty Buford
' Department of Special Projects Gerald Knippel
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Bob Galante
Ken Itel
Crandall Arambula
Planning & Urban Design George Crandall
Don Arambula
Kristin Belz
0
i
7
L
Contents
Introduction
2
Study Purpose
Study Process
Project Objectives
Study Area
Background
4
'
Property Ownership
Flood Issues
'
Existing Regulations
Framework Plans
6
Land Use Framework
Circulation Framework
Land Use Areas
8
Circulation Elements
10
'
Transit Center
Willamette Steps
Willamette Steps Boulevard
Rogers/Tryon Loop
State Street "Park Avenue"
Willamette River Walkway
Tryon Gate Bridge
Next Steps
19
'
Plan Refinements
'
Appendix
Under Separate Cover
0
i
7
L
L
C�
1 Study Purpose v �t
tent of the Foothills -�: „d Design�-
J,srrict project is to explore options for ) ♦L, t pr�M'•
_ +•,ture of the currently ' zoned -Indus
o's
g j • . I 7rea between Lake Oswe ! '
:,mown retail core and its water- ' '
jlong the Willamette River, The Foothills Dishict
t proposes both circulation im-
•ments and a mix of land uses that / {
id provide the greaten benefit to
: ,toperty owners and residents ofc� , rµ
Oswego. The study develop, a 11, v,,own
' work plan for the Foothills area
n
ncludes land use, circulation and Oswego Qi
- ficci ion of projects for further re-
Oswego Pointe
r
C 14 Condominiums
' Millennium Ploza
Study Process
` )1,lortli
;_,roject wus begun n July 2001 by
ity of Lake Oswego. The City ap-
ed a Steering Committee to guide
ocess, with committee membership
Jing representatives from:
,thiils property owners
e Oswego public at large
• .vego Pointe Condominium Project Objectives
• : ,)ciation
e Oswego Design Review Commis- Project objectives, which are listed below, were developed by the Steering
Committee.
• - .re Oswego Planning Commission
• . -,re Oswego City Council Environment
are Oswego Redevelopment Agency 1) Willamette River- Protect river and restore riverbank,
2) Tryon Creek - Make creek fish friendly.
;'eering Committee met six times Circulation
_ • o six month period, generating 3) Recreational -Provide pathways along Willamette and Tryon Creek.
.goals and ideas guide the 4) Pedestrian -- Improve access between downtown and river.
-,pment of the framework
work plan. 5) Auto Improve access into and out of area.
tlso held additional meetings to
_i1lernatives, seek technical assis-
6) Transit Center-- Integrate bus, trolley, and commuter rail functions.
••• ,
�nd provide updates on the pro- Land Use
other Foothills property owners, 7) Open Space -Provide additional parks and open space.
;,f Environmental
the Portlandtal Services (BES), g) Housing - Provide affordable mixed use (live/work) housing.
_ = _
and its consultants throughout the 9) Business - Provide opportunities for downtown business expansion.
i of the study. This plan represent;
-sults of this process. Other
10) Wastewater Treatment Plant Accommodate planned expansion.
1 1) Oswego Pointe Neighborhood Maintain and enhance livability.
S
il
nf y�//rt lryc.n free
�r „^„• 1 WtNom•Me RNer
Study Area
A Ave.• ' - ....yr -�" `r I I t� ; r '-a
JI .�
e4 ` - •l 4f.*_
'- _ F RoaM Pork
Historic Lake Oswego (date unknown)
,
Study Area
The FOOttvll !-',)ad Design District lies east
of Lake Gswogo's downtown, sepa
rated from the center of town by State
Highway 43/State Street.
'
Study Amn houndaries are:
• East %'J r unette River
• West , (do Highway 43/State Street
° North Tryon Creek
'
• South - Oswego Pointe resldential/of-
lice/commercial development
The Study Area can be characterized
by the following:
• Land Area approximately 19 acres.
• Slope - while most of the district is vela,
tively flat, steep grades occur at the
'
riverfront and east of State Street,
where the elevation drops approxi-
mately 50' to 60'.
• Railroad Tracks - Freight rail tracks run
,
north -sou th near the western edge of
the district, and a spur line loops to
the wood chip storage area.
• Industrial Use - Dominant uses are the
Wastewater Treatment Plant and
wood chip storage.
• Natural Resources Both the
Willamette River and Tryon Creek ore
natural features not readily accessible
to the public at present.
r
u
Property Ownership V
ershi r V�nibMbtrs
p parcels (as of Spring 2002) are
-• oered below and illustrated to the
°ublic Storage (warehouse rental)
•,tafford Investments Ltd.
Imes Mreen (Toklat Industries v�' , \ 07 ��ra
e=questrian equipment and `J
e jl Wastewater
westernwear assembly and manufac 1 4 �� rreamient ,
luring) 1 I ,�,Ev . Plant
clack Warren -McPhee LLC
_ & S Investments (concrete batch % ; `� �� Y
plant) f t ; ( t ; 6
Y Eileen Colhouen Trustee (marine use)Q
"it of Portland Bureau of Environ 1 S t 1 9 chip
j; storage
v mental Services (waste water treat-
ment plant with wood chip storage
Oswego Pointe "
tenant James River Corp.)
i Richard Martin
Nellie Mae Taylor Trustee (marine use)
v PGE (electrical substation) 4orth
-ity of Lake Oswego
iuford (office)
Magid (commercial) -ILI-
d
Prime Property Capital, Inc. a
=food Issues
-e 100 year flood line in the study
i approximately 33' elevation and
.)f the Foothills Road Design District
een 30' and 40' in elevation, the
t is vulnerable to significant flood
at may affect future development
p
0pi
h000d pan
onstruction types.
IFEMAI
City of to
100 year floods" have occurred in
Oswego
est 40 years in the Foothills District, in
records- .
flood —
= and 1996. Flood information is
,:-)ed slightly differently by three sepa-
governmental bodies: the City of
Dswego, the federal government
-3ra) Emergency Management
�cy • FEMA), and Metro (Title 3).
Y
=±dmtrions:
7: year flood plain -The elevation of the
-d having a one percent chance of being
-celled or exceeded in any given year.
title 3 rec
195?6 floc
*v of Lake Oswego Records Flood line
flood
I Me Irol
-t--ration of the 1996 based on aerial
r
,Iraphy-
ecords Flood line elevation of flood
.ving National Geodetic Vertical Datum
-VD) measurement system.
..� ■
�J
U
�I�
R-0/EC
f (Res./East End
Commercial)(
Greenway North1l
® I
- i
-...r Renewas
Ills D'stricJ
we _
-.'.'d 'n 7 \ r Foolhms
-��- .enewat J. --'1 �� DlsMct
North
ME f_=777 . ' ,1+�Li li Y�l�VliliiWll�
Existing Regulations
Zoning
Most of the Foothills Road Design
District is zoned Industrial (1). This
zoning designation includes the
waterfront and all but the southwest
portion of the study area, where a
narrow triangular parcel has a split
zoning of Residential - High Density (R-
O)/East End General Commercial (EC).
The Willamette River Greenway
Management District extends 150'
westward along the Willamette River
from the low water mark of the river.
Other Key Regulations
A small portion of the Foothills District is
included in the Lake Oswego Urban
Renewal area. The Lake Oswego Re-
development Agency directs renewal
projects and activities in the renewal
area. The Comprehensive Plan desig-
nates the Foothills District as the
"Willamette River Industrial Area."
The land use concepts suggested in this
plan generally are not consistent with
existing zoning. The intent of this docu-
ment is to guide any future changes or
refinement to existing ordinances or the
comprehensive plan.
u
F1
J
1
u
` I
u
i
t
0
L
--)e intent of the Land Use and Circula-
r, -)n Framework is to capitalize on the
;ktrict's assets and integrate the down- lot
z - and adjacent neighborhoods with
t— : oothiils area. EAve.
.and Use Framework -
Mixed Uses iaAve. �\ wiitameiie
er
•te Land Use Framework provides a vi- r
st:n of what can occur in the Foothills
.)istnct. It has been tailored to address a +�•��
_9esire for a neighborhood mix of residen-
Tial commercial, office and recreational J C Ave. y t Mixed wastewater
.,seq. The framework builds upon exist- Use Treatment
rtp assets, capitalizes on significant new r Plant
.t -td proposed development in the Lake (existing) !
tswego East End, and incorporates sig- rj
-tificant natural features.
tie district includes six planning areas, °Ave. /Open
ach with distinctive characteristics and r c� �.-..� Space
Jr
aryrng uses, These uses combine to cre '6 Mixed r „ Small Boat Basin
_it,> a single cohesive district, yet each a Use
U�.
.,;r serves a distinctive and important II
A A.e . , u--�J-.'�' .. Mixed
r
iIrahsit Use
document.
Use Framework isnot a regula- _ _ _ (� �` t Oswego Palnle - 1
_rry document. The framework or any Ceilterr ` condominiums (Hotel)
a
\ \ ' M�
of it will require further definition and (not part of
area)
-finement by the City of Lake Oswego
,-i-id roothills property owners. While the \ R I 1
amework plans include elements that
a�-scribe new development for both o
1_tnlic and privately owned properties, Millennium 4 \
'•
Plaza +
'c:XtSfirlg businesses are t0 remain a5 long •wthills Rood Existing C)swr+tt.'
t`leir owners wish.• r ;existing/ Pointe Road
t,tsHoy `> realigned
r+°
,.owe North
kI -' :u r' -&A
Existing
Road
New Road/
Alignment
a
Pedestrian
`V
Access
rrrr..�
Pedestrian
Route
f
E
DAve
Potential Pedestrian.
Access I - Foothills Rd' N, :�ry00
Cipek
Access ♦ ��••
Option y;r:•
r �--Foothills RoadI;� Wil Walkway
C Ave / I /' Extension Study Area, _ r
(alignment to
Potential Pedestrian- aedetermined)
Foothills Rd/
Access Access
/ 'Options /
Willamette Q o
Steps
a Ave.
I rn1 Willamette Steps r"" •q, -
State Street u ; Boulevard f smatiloatBasin
„Park Avenue" i (� lailg nems dlL
Ave_
Oswego Pointe
Condominiums t
k Inol part or study
To Existing
Trall
Roehr ,
1 Park
MU�
PkaO -xisting Oswego
Pointe Road and
proposed extension—
Foothills Road existing North
and realigned portions 21
I il ti('>>IIN
Circulation
Framework -
Connecting to
the River
The Fooll lilts Circulation Framework has
two primary purposes:
• To capitalize on the district's natural
assets, the Willamette River and Tryon
Creek.
• To improve connections both within
the district and with downtown and
State Street.
To achieve those two purposes, the Cir-
culation I (ornework identifies new routes
and enhancements to existing routes for
pedestrians, hicycles, transit and auto-
mobiles.
New Roads
• Foothills Rood north extension - align-
ment to he determined.
• Wiilamctic, Steps Boulevard - align-
ment to ho determined; replaces ex-
isting eoO west portion of Foothills
Road.
New Pedestrian Circulation
• Willamc;tle Walkway/lryonCleek
Trail - frail could be located on north
side of creek; would require bridge
crossing at mouth of creek.
• State Street "Park Avenue."
New Access
• Pedestrian access from State Street to
Foothills District at B, C and D Avenues.
• Pedestrian access to Tryon Creek
trails - location to be determined.
• A Avenue/State Street - possible pe-
destrian and auto access into Foothills
District.
• To ensure that there are two primary
auto access points from State Street to
the district, northern entry onto State
Street at Terwilliger/E Avenue will be
provided: precise location to be de-
termined.
11
17
I
Existing
Road
�®
New Road/
Alignment
Pedestrian
Access
����♦
Pedestrian
Route
Circulation
Framework -
Connecting to
the River
The Fooll lilts Circulation Framework has
two primary purposes:
• To capitalize on the district's natural
assets, the Willamette River and Tryon
Creek.
• To improve connections both within
the district and with downtown and
State Street.
To achieve those two purposes, the Cir-
culation I (ornework identifies new routes
and enhancements to existing routes for
pedestrians, hicycles, transit and auto-
mobiles.
New Roads
• Foothills Rood north extension - align-
ment to he determined.
• Wiilamctic, Steps Boulevard - align-
ment to ho determined; replaces ex-
isting eoO west portion of Foothills
Road.
New Pedestrian Circulation
• Willamc;tle Walkway/lryonCleek
Trail - frail could be located on north
side of creek; would require bridge
crossing at mouth of creek.
• State Street "Park Avenue."
New Access
• Pedestrian access from State Street to
Foothills District at B, C and D Avenues.
• Pedestrian access to Tryon Creek
trails - location to be determined.
• A Avenue/State Street - possible pe-
destrian and auto access into Foothills
District.
• To ensure that there are two primary
auto access points from State Street to
the district, northern entry onto State
Street at Terwilliger/E Avenue will be
provided: precise location to be de-
termined.
11
17
I
ar,,xed Use/Commercial/Retail/
nployment/Housing
., ertical and horizontal mixed uses would
-ciploce existing industrial uses over time.
.ryes include:
• Housing, commercial, retail, and em-
ployment.
• New areas for expansion of down-
town business district.
• Additional open space or flood miti-
gation areas possible.
,,.ew zoning and design guideline plan-
IVIg studies will be required to determine
ale, form and character of new devel-
:I.nment.
Mixed Use
+ended to serve both tourist and busi-
-ss patrons, this waterfront develop-
--lent capitalizes on:
* views up and down the Willamette.
* Adjacency to the proposed small boat
t)asin.
xisting Roehr Park amenities.
• Adjacency to Oswego Pointe office
Dnd commercial development.
• � _ lure Foothills District development.
• Ac cess to future transit center improve-
-lents.
• Adjacency to downtown Lake Os-
VVego.
OpenSpace
oterfront open space provides public
-I- : ess to the Willamette and an attrac-
-,_Ir and amenity for Foothills District De-
Ic)pment. Private and BES parcels
n• quid need to be acquired by the City
:. ake Oswego. Open space includes:
• oturai riparian areas.
terpretive/educational uses.
• .-*ive parks including public recre-
-ion or assembly areas.
• .7lkway and bicycle paths.
• . Irnited day -use parking.
',eating and viewing areas.
• nutters from treatment plant.
Mixed Use -
Commercial/ Retail/
Employment/ Housing
North
0
Mixed Use q. i I,I1 II
North
b� s
= 11
Open Space - :'•
It
��jj North
North
X0
North
�7 UAJ
Small Boat Basin
Existing
Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant
Mixed Use/Transit
Center
19
Ip1 l�iY
I
1 )
SmallBoat Basin
Creating un amenity for development
in the Foothills [district and providing the
citizens of I ake Oswego with a new pub-
lic recreation facility, the boat basin in-
cludes:
• Only small or non -motorized boats.
• Pier or other river viewing areas.
• Public day -use -only.
Private property would need to be ac-
quired by the City for development of
the boat basin. Precise location, size
and components need to be deter-
mined.
Wastewater Treatment Plant/
Mixed Use
The Bureau of Environmental Services will
continue to operate its existing Tryon
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
area:
• Accommodates projected 15 -year
plant expansion identified by BES Pub-
lic Facilities plan.
• Provides visual buffers between plant
activities and adjacent uses, as well
as possible odor mitigation.
• Could be considered as a future re-
development site.
Transit Center
Mixed use transit center development
includes bus, pork and ride, trolley (street-
car) and possible future commuter rail
facilities. The transit center:
• Replaces existing bus transfer facility
in downtown.
• Would be phased.
• Includes public spaces plazas and
viewing areas.
• Minimizes impacts on existing residen-
tial areas through use of buffers or other
design features.
Prefeired locations of transit facilities are
illustrated on page 1 1.
I-ransit Center Alternatives
3u•s Transfer Facility Alternative D/F
ase I, the facility would be located at
- urrent city -owned park and ride lot
_option D). If the existing railroad tracks
' :rode -separated from State Street
:n e 2), the bus transfer facility could be
-,ded to the north (Site Option F).
t
_ -�- Dom►
D Ave. / \`
1
r �
i C Ave.
I i
B TI , rL.J
o
A Ave. t l`
NI
0
Lakewood
Bay
North
�•�:�"til':'%t�'�ii )il• • .�r�: ,:
.,cc;rnatives were developed and as-
- e•d by the Steering Committee. Pre-
- •d alternatives are illustrated on page
Alternatives A through D are shown in
-� Appendix.)
Y'J02 2003 Transportation Growth Man-
- r --ment grant will fund further study of the
,'ternatives developed.
-`erred Alternatives
Center preferred alternatives E and
'.,it
= include the following:
• .�: facilities that provide for buses and
-:.:,ociated uses such as queuing areas,
ver's rest stations, etc.
•Irk and ride garage that accommo-
7tes transit patrons and possibly addi-
_,nal spaces for downtown parking.
• -'revision for future commuter rail facilities
:-joh as transit rail platform.
•--onsit-supportive mixed use develop-
-,ent.
• 1•0ltamette Steps as part of first phase.
• ••,ew pedestrian crossings of State Street.
• ^-visions for possible future grade sepa-
- ation of railrond tracks of State Street.
3kn Transfer Facility Alternative E
-- locility is located between B and C Av-
-n_oes on the west side of State Street, in
"-e hound floor of a park and ride structure
-Option E).
3u•s Transfer Facility Alternative D/F
ase I, the facility would be located at
- urrent city -owned park and ride lot
_option D). If the existing railroad tracks
' :rode -separated from State Street
:n e 2), the bus transfer facility could be
-,ded to the north (Site Option F).
t
_ -�- Dom►
D Ave. / \`
1
r �
i C Ave.
I i
B TI , rL.J
o
A Ave. t l`
NI
0
Lakewood
Bay
North
�•�:�"til':'%t�'�ii )il• • .�r�: ,:
Tryon
Creek
Fq
VO
Access and road
alignment to be
D Ave. determined
C
Bus Transit Center/
Park and Ride -
May include down-
town poking
Potential Commuter
0 Rail Station
C
LU
004= Willamette
Steps
r
fr
o
B Ave.
" Park and Ride -
640
Structure with transit -
supportive mixed use
development above
PI
J,
Development Site -
Q. transit -supportive
a mixed use
Possible Phase 2
A Ave. A Avenue extension
Z elk
1 4C. C-1 r,0%tj-�\\s d Phase 2 -
N �0Bus Transit Center
Block expansion /relocation
1384P.,area (pending track
,
grade -separation)
C.r Phase I -
Bus Transit Center
(Alternative 0)
Existing Foothills
North Road access
.3kewood 1 71171 improvements
Bay Ln
, , f Block
138
Tryon
Creek
Rd.
Lakewood "W 6 North
Bay
GrIl',
ID Ave.
r
C Ave.
r r
r c
r
r
Qrl
B Ave.'
C, -j
Ili
Ir
A Ave
, , f Block
138
Tryon
Creek
Rd.
Lakewood "W 6 North
Bay
GrIl',
G
1
F1
L'
►►Willamette Steps
,.,-, primary pedestrian connection
Tr,rrr the downtown retail core to the
s District is provided by the pro-
Nillamette Steps. A continua -
t B Avenue, the steps will be a
jr table, gracious entry to the Foot-
Ict offering a view point to the
• Willamette, and Mt. Hood in
uTce.
- - I uacter. materials and detailing
.t ttl, !(cps should be consistent with
�.allFennium Plaza.
c- Willamette Steps are designed to
r- :)based to accommodate a future
,muter rail station at the site. As a
existing railroad tracks would be
--d at grade to provide direct plat -
T c c ess.
D D�
- -j /fit -1
WILLAMETTE
� STEPS
"'.I MMF STIES 9001 t VARD
B AVENUE
v �C7c�QQC��
rr; o�
It
Av E
North
ll
:.' 'Ori s�v
(./-')t,%M(,.��ri'.f/�:(_ �'4 ^.'tea-dY •.NIU
r
i ,Wl+ rRYM � w
n
gyp, k[ t r
1
Phase 1 Elements '
Willamette Steps construction Phase I
Includes:
�! ,, -=a • Wide stairway with landscaping and
pedestrian -scaled lighting.
4 r At -grade pedestrian crossing of railroad
Y-
` safe provide
tracks;
f tY gates.
Existing buildings to be maintained.
,� >a ' ` s _ / • State Street pedestrian enhancements
yZ and crossings at A and B Avenues, to
improve access to Steps.
�;
Fhwe One View Southwest ,
_ fir• Phase 2 Elements
Willamette Steps construction Phase 2 in. -
A eludes:
_•'•.�, 1 '� • Plaza area along State Street from A
• h f '; 3 -�, , -�'V to B Avenue.
�•t `,;.; �. • Grade separation of heavyrail/com-
. S P a muter rail and trolley (streetcar) tracks.
Commuter rail platform canopy.
�:. ♦� New transit -supportive mixed use de-
#. -r ,; -1 velopment adjacent to Steps and sta-
tion platform, , includin p g posssible park-
ing structure.
c r r
L
t
Willamette-
BAYC t' i✓7C7 � Cs:l G7 L...1 ^�/flf,'�'`
Wltlamette 5 ps goulevard'�'.'� =J •• -
v ' WQ t A
r1'
K +
v
�L�Avenua - 1 g U J
Of %
foothill. Rootl ... �.....�M �.�...... ..n •..�..�.. �..
1 North
' o
�
Canopy trees
.. i.: Xl•Spacing
omamenlol
Straat Light$
Proporty L-10
10' 10'
t:u..n. vn�m -npn .r n..r . _ i.n..,..., t m�.rnr•r w�.—
20' nU'
-------------80' Riehl ul—Way ---_...-
14
-te elements of this new street include:
..ondscaped curb extensions
#101amette Steps
oulevard
:,Qecial paving at intersections
• vVide sidewalks
tew east -west road provides a di-
connection from the Willamette
;,is through the Foothills District to the
;t tall Boat Basin. The roadway would
,eytiace the existing Foothills Road; its
frt71 alignment would be determined
- ,City of Lake Oswego and property
-%wnerS.
Willamette-
BAYC t' i✓7C7 � Cs:l G7 L...1 ^�/flf,'�'`
Wltlamette 5 ps goulevard'�'.'� =J •• -
v ' WQ t A
r1'
K +
v
�L�Avenua - 1 g U J
Of %
foothill. Rootl ... �.....�M �.�...... ..n •..�..�.. �..
1 North
' o
�
Canopy trees
.. i.: Xl•Spacing
omamenlol
Straat Light$
Proporty L-10
10' 10'
t:u..n. vn�m -npn .r n..r . _ i.n..,..., t m�.rnr•r w�.—
20' nU'
-------------80' Riehl ul—Way ---_...-
14
-te elements of this new street include:
..ondscaped curb extensions
.andscaped green strip the length
-,t the boulevard
:,Qecial paving at intersections
• vVide sidewalks
_,onopy trees
• _>mamental, pedestrian -scaled
alert lights
• _,pedal paving in parking areas
'naintain consistency with down-
_, -n Lake Oswego, all street furniture,
�_-mdscape plantings and paving de-
_li-% should be similar to those of A Av-
Willamette-
BAYC t' i✓7C7 � Cs:l G7 L...1 ^�/flf,'�'`
Wltlamette 5 ps goulevard'�'.'� =J •• -
v ' WQ t A
r1'
K +
v
�L�Avenua - 1 g U J
Of %
foothill. Rootl ... �.....�M �.�...... ..n •..�..�.. �..
1 North
' o
�
Canopy trees
.. i.: Xl•Spacing
omamenlol
Straat Light$
Proporty L-10
10' 10'
t:u..n. vn�m -npn .r n..r . _ i.n..,..., t m�.rnr•r w�.—
20' nU'
-------------80' Riehl ul—Way ---_...-
14
View west showing civic/open spaces to be connected by Rogers/Tryon Loop
Tryon STCTe Oak
— Possible walkway
f extension to north
11 `.,T Tryon Creek
pedestrian trail
Mi�llnn��n� 1'lu nr
jt
. 7 ;
Rogan Oak
"Orwego Creek
er�dge rCfewoy
Rogerf hynn
I r" 7- 1 .7 �
Willamette River
Walkway
Waterfront Park/
Small Boat Basin
Rail spur
walkway
Willamette Steps
State Street "Park
Avenue"
Willamette River
Walkway
9
Rogers/Tryon loop
[Ile fr1c)pT.nc;c1 Rogers/Tryon Loop con-
nects the existing parks and trails and links
the Foothills District to adjacent neighbor-
hoods in a continuous pedestrian -friendly
route.
Two pedestrian walkway types are pro-
posed (tinct detailed on pages 16 and
17):
• Willarnr.tte River Walkway
• "Park Av a in„
Willamette River Walkway
the "nature" segment of the loop, the
walkway is an asphalt trail to be used
exclusively by pedestrians and bicyclists.
"Park Avenue" State Street
As the 'ruttu a segment of the loop, "Park
Avenue" provides enhancements on the
east side of State Street for a safe, park-
like, pedestrian -friendly atmosphere that
is buffered from heavy auto traffic.
Rail/Trail Spur Line
The existing roil spur line that leads to the
chip storage site along the waterfront
could be used for either trolley/train ser-
vice to the waterfront or as a pedestrian/
bicycle trail.
1
11
� y
A-
t:f Stole Streel
p[' -fun
Lm.M I I I
��nnccaowa rv.,w. V�cpe, rn,n
.,.n wm ,ar, o..eel � A - ..,.-r:.lo .•e,ye srroaaM Cemr. '
North
77
i
ConoPY gees
W%pacirwg -.1 IP
$heel Ugnls41
W''.
.
04
90101tl 1� '1
'-
I I I 1
un�ro on.�•� Lw.
'Lo' Exisflny Roadway r �
1 Wn(It .0 q
H5 Vrghl nl-WnY - f oswnenl
• ment for sidewalks.
tate Street
'ark Avenue"
= -1-e Avenue" enhancements to State
extend from Rogers Park to Tryon
==4 State Park. Improvements In-
`
- Iween walkway and roadway.
11
� y
A-
t:f Stole Streel
p[' -fun
Lm.M I I I
��nnccaowa rv.,w. V�cpe, rn,n
.,.n wm ,ar, o..eel � A - ..,.-r:.lo .•e,ye srroaaM Cemr. '
North
77
i
ConoPY gees
W%pacirwg -.1 IP
$heel Ugnls41
W''.
.
04
90101tl 1� '1
'-
I I I 1
un�ro on.�•� Lw.
'Lo' Exisflny Roadway r �
1 Wn(It .0 q
H5 Vrghl nl-WnY - f oswnenl
• ment for sidewalks.
iI paving and/or at -grade
:-, )sswalks at intersections and drive
woys.
• _11idergrounding of all overhead utili-
• rd ground cover, shrubs or hedges
- Iween walkway and roadway.
:;ditional landscaped tree buffers
,.,-)ere needed.
• : 7ditional pedestrian -scaled lighting.
• _ creational bike route possible part
1
: ' widened walkway.
:. uthbound bike lane on State
-et roadway to be considered.
diards and other pedestrian protec-
!:.:
_ devices.
==:Iestrian-scaled information and
7ractory signs.
11
� y
A-
t:f Stole Streel
p[' -fun
Lm.M I I I
��nnccaowa rv.,w. V�cpe, rn,n
.,.n wm ,ar, o..eel � A - ..,.-r:.lo .•e,ye srroaaM Cemr. '
North
77
i
ConoPY gees
W%pacirwg -.1 IP
$heel Ugnls41
W''.
.
04
90101tl 1� '1
'-
I I I 1
un�ro on.�•� Lw.
'Lo' Exisflny Roadway r �
1 Wn(It .0 q
H5 Vrghl nl-WnY - f oswnenl
L,/ 'j47,
,ec60we
iRyON GovP
r
W/GG'tME7,'
.-- /✓ftp'/VC �/N.�,�v�N
Lr1-N�
North
� �Ve �GLbDN„q y
-^ " r"r"r jrw t
f+SoNaT
TWk4ol Mftway Sed#on Along RIrer
Gq.•cree
Willamette River
Walkway
Chani( loristic-s of the walkway include:
• Wide asphalt -paved surface
providing separate lanes for pedestri-
ans and bicyclists.
• All walkway improvements would be
constructed above the floodway
elevation.
• Widened paving in active park areas
for gathering, seating, viewing or
other activities.
• Connections to existing trails at
Oswego Pointe.
• Interpretive or educational elements
such as signs, monuments or plaques.
• "Nature walk" elements that have little
impact on riparian environment.
For day use only the trail would not
include lighting.
Tryon Gate Bridge
, -yew bridge at Tryon Creek offers the
.i-_qoortunity to restore the natural envi-
-y-imental quality of the creek and pro-
,( --ie salmon and steelhead fish passage
-C and down Tryon Creek. The bridge
—,-,-,jld be designed to create a new
;I:Tleway as well. Alignments for Foothills uuUUM TMTTMT
si -,,--id north extension, bridges, and rail -
tracks will be determined in future
ir xo5ed design includes:
• ,reek banks landscaped with native
,.)IantS.
•;Iedestrion connection to Tryon Creek
ark trails.
• •yew signalized intersection at Foothills
;,oad north extension access point to
-,ate Street,
• :-idge to carry pedestrian, auto and WML'
- Dil traffic.
Possible Access
Option
I
A;
N k
loinaI
Plan Refinements
_r plan identifies a number of land use
circulation elements that require
rw-ier refinement. These refinements
he completed by the City of Lake
r�go, other agencies, or the private
�J. Refinement areas and actions Pate
-r � listed below. Tran
Refir
Waterfront
,
Park/Open
Road and Rail Alignment I
Space/Small
'
Road & Rail
j 2 Waterfront Park
Alignment
,
Refinement
3 Transit Center
Area
'
North Tryon
,
Property
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
I To be determined
5 North Tryon Property
Waterfront
,
Park/Open
Road and Rail Alignment I
Space/Small
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
Boat Basin
j 2 Waterfront Park
Refinement
,
Area
3 Transit Center
Willamette
Steps
Boulevard
Refinement
Area
O II 1... i11 Li. '. .I d'., �.. •_,. .,
;�,1 .fit er ...A. �,qw. t... ..a„
f_I t+,. ,,..tw f
Road and Rail Alignment I
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
I To be determined
j 2 Waterfront Park
I
City of Lake Oswego
I To be determined
3 Transit Center
I
TGM/ODOT; Tri -Met; City of Lake Oswego
I 6 months
I 4 Willamette Steps Boulevard
I
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
I To be determined
5 North Tryon Property
I
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
I To be determined
Mixed Use Development Update/Revision to
City of Lake Oswego; Property Owners
To be determined
.current Zoning Ord. /Comp. Plan
i Acquisition of BES Waterfront Properties for
I
City of Lake Oswego
To be determined
Open Space/Parks/Boat Basin
':�quisition of Railroad Spur for public use as a
I
City of Lake Oswego
To be determined
rail and/or trolley
j Development Standards/Design Guidelines for
I
City of Lake Oswego
I To be determined
District
L
i
Rogers/Tryon Loop Design I City of Lake Oswego; ODOT I To be determined I '
Lake Oswego
Foothills Design District
Appendix
to
Project Summary
City of Lake Oswego
Crandall Arambula PC
DKA Associates
!une 2002
n
1
t
Credits
Lake Oswego City Council
Mayor
Council President
Steering Committee
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Oswego Pointe Condominium Association
Foothills Road Property Owners
Citizen -at -Large
Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Design Review Commission
First Addition Neighborhood
N.R.A.B.
Tri -Met
Evergreen Neighborhood Association
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency/City Council
Judie Hammerstad
Jack Hoffmann
Gay Graham
Bill Schoen
John Turchi
Elynor "Ellie" McPeak
Karl Rohde
Frank Groznik (Chairman)
Mary Beth Coffey (Vice Chair)
Rick Mreen (Toklat Industries)
Bill Beebe
Chris Hoffman
Roberta Jortner
Linda Dobson
Julia Morales
Lynn Peterson
Keith Moe
Alan Lehto
Jeremy Langeliers
Paul Graham
Mayor Judie Hammerstad
Committee Alternates:
Lake Oswego Planning Commission David Waring
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency/City Council John Turchi
Citizens:
City Staff
Department of Special Projects
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
Crandall Arambula
Planning & Urban Design
Ron Fallow
Gary and Betty Buford
Gerald Knippel
Bob Galante
Ken Itel
George Crandall
Don Arambula
Kristin Belz
Contents
Background and Preliminary Plans
Purpose and Process
Schedule
Tax Lots and Ownership
Opportunities
Constraints
Land Use Alternatives A 1
A2
A3
Bl
B2
B3
Circulation Alternatives A
B
Framework and Land Use
Concept Framework
Open Space and Enhanced
Pedestrian Circulation Framework
Primary Access and Gateways Framework
Land Use Options LU -1
LU -2
LU -3
LU -4
LU -5
Specific Areas
Transit Center Alternatives A
B
C
D
Marina Alternatives 1
2
Willamette Steps Boulevard Grading 8%
Grading 10%
Memos
DKS and BES Memos
Public Response
Steering Committee and Other Meetings -
Notes and Response Sheet Comments
i
11
i
t
i
i
Background
and
Preliminary
Plans
`.w•t�c�4.rG.
Y r \
Background
Appendix Purpose
- , Appendix is the background docu- �-
which accompanies the Foothills ; ♦ l
R, -.i -XJ Design District Final Plan.
I-oothills Road Design District plan-
rDroject explores options for the fu -
of the currently zoned -industrial :°' Foothills District I
r--• between Lake Oswego's down-
retail core and its waterfront along ¢� Ay ,
141amette River. Preliminary and I - .tea 9 ,.,,. •� w
- ,efinementsproducedthroughout Downtown ;t ' 1 i'
;_banning process are included in .ake
Oswego
—is appendix.
`��• _ a' a ���I
Oswego Pointe •
Condominiums
_ _ -�• .; ,
Millennium Plaza
Study Process
_iroject was begun in July 2001 by
--ity of Lake Oswego. The City ap-
•rl- led a Steering Committee to guide
~ r --,rocess, with committee membership
_-ca.tciing representatives from: Project Objectives
• = anthills property owners
_ -irce Oswego public at large
:-,-/ego Pointe Condominium Project objectives, which are listed below, were developed by the Steering
:,aciation Committee.
I: Oswego Design Review Commis- Environment
• 1) Willamette River- Protect river and restore riverbank,
_r Oswego Planning Commission 2) Tryon Creek - Make creek fish friendly.
• ..,ir e Oswego City Council
• Oswego Redevelopment Agency Circulation
3) Recreational • Provide pathways along Willamette and Tryon Creek.
leering Committee met six times 4) Pedestrian - Improve access between downtown and river.
-3 six-month period, generating 51 Auto - Improve access into and out of area.
goals and ideas to guide the 6) Transit Center- Integrate bus, trolley, and commuter rail functions.
lopment of the framework plan.
- =:ity also held additional meetings to Land Use
tr Q alternatives, seek technical assis- 7) Open Space - Provide additional parks and open space.
and provide updates on the pro- g) Housing - Provide affordable mixed use (live/work) housing.
n other Foothills property owners, 9) Business Provide opportunities for downtown business expansion.
;.xesentatives, the Portland Bu -
Environmental Services (BES), Other
n Id its consultants throughout the 10) Wastewater Treatment Plant - Accommodate planned expansion.
' the study. The Project Summary 1 1) Oswego Pointe Neighborhood - Maintain and enhance livability.
,endix represent the results of this
l
WORK TASK
1) Startup
• Finalize Work Scope
• Initiate Contract
• Establish Stakeholder Committee
July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2) Information Assembly
• Collect Site Information
• Identify Opportunities & Constraints
• Prepare Preliminary Market Analysis
• Prepare Briefing Paper
• Prepare for Stakeholder Meeting
Conduct Meeting Meeting 1
3) Development Alternatives
• Finalize Evaluation Criteria/Checklist
• Prepare Development Alternatives
• Evaluate Alternatives
• Prepare Briefing Paper
• Prepare for Stakeholder Meeting
■ Conduct Meeting(s) Meeting 2A
Meeting 2B
I i
Sept. 10th
Oct. 1st
•Oct. 15th
4) Alternative Refinement
• Refine Preferred Alternative ,
• Prepare for Stakeholder Meeting
• Conduct Meeting
Meetings 3A, 36, & 3C �
5) Final Products
• Prepare Draft Report
• Prepare Final Report
• Presentation of Study
N)v.7 Ujan.7 1p Mar. ll
Meeting 4
May 15, 2002
C
i
\,
a.aMl
Backgroun-d J,
Foothills Tax Lots and Ownership
=_ 7-
LFoothills Road Design District �-
-77
D"
II
II JI
1 I I!
I
I���1J : Inst ti4
� i fr • Gly M Por\YM
�/ i i In.aw.arda '
1 UMW .. Jan.. B. 14'Ian
1
i - t llaMow"MIr
Mw" LC C
fruW
Ewn
POE 'IQ Inv.a/P•. +b 7' CJI `J. N.IY lana 1
C, I ry i I� t.rb•
I ` Iti I S
Maw J• � LaAa Oen, I I O
a� 1
aS'+'E6C E
ecC-
r ' Ca01Ml Y<. t 1l X .. /
J
Opportunities Diagram
4.
North
'C'onstraints Diagram
!d llW v -
w -
AS
Land Use Alternative A 1
Existing
ve
�79
Study
Area
Boundary
Creek
C
A ve j'� f
BES/Wastewaft
.Treatment Plan
Employment
Ij _ '
d
e -.1% Oct
q I W?q .1
lj E
Employment
2 Eniploy
QUO q
0
AA v
Existing Oswego
Pointe Residential
N,
Iry
Willamette
River
erjt j:
James River
Chip Storage
(BES)
North
Roehr Park/ V
I
Oswego Pointe .,,-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
0
11
Land Use Alternative A 2
--)(ging/Employment
Ave,
0 Study Willamette
Ave, Area River
Boundary
fj
'7�
W4
C Ave.
Residen'llal BES/Wastewater
Treatment Plant
A
0
0
Employment
0
4) 0) Residential Employmentt Open Space
.
0
4 Av'
fit
Existing Oswego
Pointe Residential
As�
f
North
Roehr Pork/
Oswego Pointe
Land Use Alternative A 3
Housing/Open Space
E A
/*
Study
Area
—7.r Boundary
Creep'0001 >10", mo,
CA"
ve I
BES/Was ewater000
Residqntial Treatment Plant
Ave..
0 C
foo"6'a
3!
f� ' q
0
I,- , 1 rResidential
a'
-1 D U
Existing Oswego
Pointe Residential
IN
Space
Willamette
River
IN
Open
Roehr Park/ 1) " I
Oswego Pointe 4
I
I
I
I F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Space
d.
Open
Roehr Park/ 1) " I
Oswego Pointe 4
I
I
I
I F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
r
:and Use Alternative B 1
Employment/Open Space
\ - Study i
Area
Boundary �
i
/BES/Wastewater
i Treatment Plant
ment /
,t
.1
�2
\�. Open r
8te. a r� Space
spa B Ie,e rd
1 � 1
Willamette
River
Employment
Existing
Oswego Pointe
Residential
tt0011k Pork! , 1 •
f7Fw8f�la Y�eilllYi 1 � (
Land Use Alternative B 2
-ousing/Employment/Open Space
to6 -111
(+ ', / � ,fes.
Av-
. e.
C
Ave
Residential
Ave.
)aQQ
0
ARe,
0
Q)
A AVP 0
u
Study
Area
Boundary
BESJWaste-water
CTre�tment Plant
Ole,
Employment
d
Jenill, al Employme I nt
�01 -
Open
Space
Existing
Oswego Pointe
Residential
North
OswegoftAmo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
Willamette
River
BESJWaste-water
CTre�tment Plant
Ole,
Employment
d
Jenill, al Employme I nt
�01 -
Open
Space
Existing
Oswego Pointe
Residential
North
OswegoftAmo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
J
Land Use Alternative B 3
�ousing/Open Space
-` Study 1
Area
Boundary
Residtentiall / BES/Wastewater
Treatment Plant
�npioy
I`ent
t - _
1 '
? , o a `� FOO►h►rrS
rn°
is esident(all
1 ° Q .� `
a)C�
1 °
1
Willamette
River
" \ 1
Ro'd l ! Open
Space
►..� U _ -
Exlsting
Oswego Pointe
h • Residential
fit
LV
ry
,fit' M
Roehr
0swega
i�
North
4' /
Circulation Alternative A
sting
Proposed Rogers
Tryon loop Walkway
Study
i f Area
t .. r D.. q_�,e �/ ,, Boundary
1
I
it '( •�� r `Jl � � G�eew �
i
.CA e
1 _I! BES/Woslewolet
�! Treatment Plant
f
Existing Streets t'
a. VS A ve VLOO
Willamette
River
A Ave
Existing
Oswego Pointe
y Residential
�� fix♦ -mss %a,.
♦.� i 'h To
Existing
r J • Roehr
1 ♦ Za,.4a�►
Park
r Walkway
Roehr PoW j
Oswego Pointe SY•
___...... ,»._ North
I
I
P
I
L
I
I
H
1-1
11
I
11
I
Circulation Alternative B
lamette Steps Boulevard
New
Signalized
Intersection
--.Ave
r
-7r
C Ave.
�ZT
BAv
A
Proposed Rogers
Tryon Loop Walkway
4
Study
Willamette
Area
Boundary
River
01
C I evL
00
BES/Wastewaloji
Proposed rr�otmE�nl Plant
Foothflls Roa
Proposed Willamette
Steps
ji 0
Pr opo sed
6AA Vvillan-mlits
B
Blvd.
1A Aveti I -
Existing
Existing
Oswego Pointe Foothills
Residential Road
1%
To existing
%r Roehr Park
Walkway
C)SN', go
J
r
i
1
i
Fi
i
Framework
and Land Use
Lake Oswego/Foothills Concept Diagram
Ir
I i II
L I
u,m„e •wa
I I4�lwritlary I., ..
nN6
Lakewood Bay r/ i
/TING
r
�11f;e-�
E�-/-sTlN6
4�r11re; P.9�,�
W�97L �'l'�'-D/V7•
I
h
Downtown Framework Plan
erg Space and Enhanced Pedestrian Circulation
5?,TE,
Downtown Framework Plan
�rirnary Access Roads and Gateways
Foothills Land Use and Circulation
= , ernative LU -1
77CvoN G ,
hve
y of
v Cyn• � • �' , rII • � ! � `f 1
HOP n Gne
/52
LI �) O
re
n j� EPS 6 v �^=
t ilndustrial', �•
� �--�.' � � \ - � yes rdy� � ', • `1
o;; f.-•�1'/Sr'/Nlt ,..� North
1
I
I
I
I
Framework & Land Use
:o-othills Land Use and Circulation
A,Aernafive LU -2
'I?ZY,9/V e-- - i
0,
Vedest, ,
LasorivI,f
H)
Ye
floDd Ine
r
North
Foothills Land Use and Circulation
ernative LU -3
tt'
r �({. -t 61
7.
G , o 0 0 �,
i
Foothills Land Use and Circulation
Alternative LU -4
N�
71.
o- c- 1, aem r&
Foothills Land Use and Circulation
`ernative LU- 5
...............................
.jf
JV a .,
.....-..... .,'......... .......... - yl ..... �1. w....,....,,�.....4............ ......C.'...: rc ..............
Specific Areas
n
�71
L�
Alternative A
Tri -Met Preliminary
Future Block 138
Development
ll
E Ave.
R I��
R ,
CM
R ftt �: ���;"'•;
rt m
a '/
D Ave
T.
R G ? r
d F
t1a m
G a a
n rr
(,'Ave. i 65"-'r 'Q n
r�
nm
-1
R Ave moi' �R'i i •
ca Q�
a �
A Ave
Millennium Plaza
Lakewood
r
41017 0 (1.
R t2M
it
�oothillz Rd North
I.
Park and Ride Lot
Bus and Commuter
Rail Transit Center
Willamette Shore Trolley
Alternative B
_is Transit Station West
Bus Transit Center
and Park and
Ride Garage
Commuter Rail Station
Future Block 138
Development
h
9 Ave
R !1 ;
rt41
R f.
d • 01
D Ave.4z�!4t'
R a ftp ?�
c C q
C n� n
C Gi op
C Ave
0 n as I
_.itJ w `'
B Ave.
R
fL �. Ad l�a�jy
A Ave.
A i
a n` a
F
R
M
Millennium Plaza
Lakewood
Willamette Steps
Development Site
and Parking Garage
Willamette Shore Trolley
1
11
L
i
i
i
11
i
i
t
a
h
Specific Areas
Alternative C
�s Transit Station East
Bus and Commuter
Rail Transit Center
Development Site
Future Block 138
Development
Ave.
rr m
r
R a'
D Ave. tar i
�r
41
M
(T RPP
R� ql ,�:, •' � AY`
0 GI [Q L, P F
(i+ T
(%IN 0 R C r
a I "
C Ave. CC
CC
Cr
R C r�
R r P
c
B Ave.
R
2 � N
to iii �'
�I
A Ave. - -- .
1�
N /
IP
R n
11
Millennium Plax
Lakewood
Willamette Steps
Development Site
and Park and Ride
Underground Garage
Willamette Shore Trolley
Alternative D
z -us Transit Station South
Future Block 138
Development
Millennium Plaza 41
r
Lakewood
Willamette Steps
Commuter Rail Station
and Plaza
Development Site and
Park and Ride Garage
Willamette Shore Trolley
Bus Transit Center
r7-
' P- �y
E Ave.
a4
r
r
MR
9
Q
r
(-1
0
r;
G. r
q
D Ave.
(I
0
PPV47
P
P
La ke-
C",
rs
t
'Z
cr
r r
r
F
VI Cc
7
CPcc
cc
pot
B Ave.
r
rt
I ic"C* a ("'OQ
Ir. 0,
I- I
(I -el Ff,
C. ch
A Ave.
r
I
41
V
r Fr
Millennium Plaza 41
r
Lakewood
Willamette Steps
Commuter Rail Station
and Plaza
Development Site and
Park and Ride Garage
Willamette Shore Trolley
Bus Transit Center
r
aio;N�
Specific Areas
1
Marina Alternative 1
. �- _. _.. r°rN,•dy.lrin- - aro 4ac � i —.. ---'F��Rs Ts.rr rc
� T i � � � tC'rrrrlrt9r �
( r �' �� � r�I 1 � � r � ' � rM,a,v. •'I p.o nr
R `�
Pr
� -.: e r :... • �. •�,y *>K I i . I! LI . t2• � I�N, �� �I ��� rr.r:
J /
r � �� '" "� ''� •_fir �_li
.titres.,-, jy,,.a•ra � .fr � ��
; North
A/K
Marina Alternative 2
t
i
°._
v � , I ' :✓/UA.VG/JE 57L�Pf Ccc�+ I � I qa I �,� / �
if NAT
tib, , �' •� 7�/�1r
North
Willamette Steps Boulevard
Udo grade
8% grade
At bk-
I
� i• l Yl
,
n`t-- , �2a � M'ztiP .•'Nt,7FY�^'M'I�; I L. __,_f I
;,.-- 4 ..� •""��. ,�'l4' � � North
41
'- 7P Nsi
North I
I
1
L-
i
P,
P,
Memos
11
N
1
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Arambula,Crandall-Arambula
Kristin Bele, Crandall Arambula
FROM: R. S. McCourt, PE, PTOE
IDATE: November 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
P01332x0
E-1
We have reviewed the six alternative locations for a bus transit center that you have developed in the planning
' studies for the Foothills Road Design District. This memo outlines some traffic circulation and access issues
associated with the alternatives that will require consideration in design. Elements of bus access, vehicle access,
pedestrian access and bicycle access are discussed in qualitative terms comparing aspects of the alternative plans.
GENERAL
• Any option that places a fourth motor vehicle leg on the State/A intersection is likely to generate
deficient operating performance in the peak periods. This would negatively affect both bus and
motor vehicle operation.
• The need for a second northbound left turn lane has been documented in several prior studies of
downtown capacity needs in Lake Oswego. Without the second northbound left turn lane (not a
shared lane as it is today), eventually deficient operating performance at State/A will occur in the
future, degrading bus and motor vehicle access in the area.
• Additional crossings of the railroad tracks for either motor vehicles or pedestrians are generally
opposed by railroad operators. To resolve this issue will likely require mitigation measures and
operating settlements developed through negotiations with the railroad operating company, ODOT
Rail and the City. This could include items such as capital cost of mitigations (such as gated
crossings, added tum lanes for storage, consolidated crossings, grade separation(s) and crossing
removals) and cost of operations ( of items such as gate....).
• No continuous bicycle lanes exist on State Street today and if changes were made, accommodation
of bicycle lanes would need to be considered (see Regional Transportation Plan and TSP).
• Providing a new second access into the area east of State Street via D or E Street will significantly
improve access to the area. Issues to be addressed with this new access include: 1) approval of the
railroad (noted above), 2) gated crossing, 3) need for a northbound right turn lane on State Street to
store vehicles when a train crossing occurs without blocking northbound travel on State Street (ORE
43), 4) spacing requirements for the new intersection to the Terwilliger Boulevard intersection to the
north and alignment with E Avenue (or D Avenue) — ODOT requires 400 feet spacing between
accesses, and 5) grading issues between optimal placement of intersection and railroad track
elevation.
Redevelopment potential of the Foothills area could be improved by a third access to the south. While there
is no eminent connection available, it may be possible through redevelopment to link the Oswego Shopping
Center to the study area creating a third access. Study of possible motor vehicle connection possibilities
(beyond public pedestrian and bicycle linkages) should be considered.
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
The six alternatives locate the bus transit center in different positions on either side of State Avenue. Issues for each are
discussed below:
Option A (east side of State, between A and B):
• This is one of two options that have the potential for good cross platform transfer with the future commuter
rail station.
• Flow of buses into transit center is very efficient and direct with little out of direction travel.
• The bus circulation in this option depends on an exit from the transit center to State/A. This fourth leg would
be a significant impact to an already degraded intersection operation at peak times when bus flows are the
most frequent.
• The transit center design between A and B Avenues on the east side of State Street either requires pedestri-
ans to go through the bus platform or cross bus movements multiple times. In either case it limits east -west
pedestrian movement from downtown Lake Oswego to the Foothills area to minor treatments (narrow walks
and stairways).
• Park and ride lot access is well removed from State and downtown circulation, with few conflicting move-
ments and good stacking area via Foothills Road to State Street or the new north/south roadway to E
Avenue/State Street.
Option B (west side of State, between A and B)
• Access to the commuter rail park and ride lot is shown via a frontage road to State Street with fourth leg access
to both A Avenue and B Avenue. Fourth leg access to State/A would significantly degrade already poor peak
operation. Access would have to focus on StateB with some form of a turnaround possibility.
• Much better pedestrian accessibility is developed between downtown Lake Oswego and the Foothills area;
however, the park and ride access roads create conflicts with pedestrian movements at State/A and State/B.
• Access to the bus transit center is much worse than other schemes. Southbound ORE 43 buses require a
punch through onto State to regain access southbound on ORE 43. This would be disruptive to pedestrian
travel and difficult for buses since traffic queues would commonly back up over the punch through.
• Northbound ORE 43 buses are also impacted as their egress from the transit center is so close to State/B that
traffic queues on B Street would commonly extend past the transit center exit, delaying exiting buses.
• Buses would cross downtown Lake Oswego sidewalks at three locations on the A/State/B perimeter of the
transit center creating more pedestrian conflicts than any other alternative.
Option C (cast transit center off new north/south roadway)
• Bus out of direction travel is significant for travel on ORE 43 and routes to the west.
• This option would have to provide bus stops on State Street for through routed services to avoid out of
direction travel impacts which would reduce the effectiveness of the transit center.
• This is one of only two options with the potential for cross platform transfer from bus to commuter rail.
• Park and ride access would be similar to Option A, with remote access, good stacking and two access points
(via Foothills and E Avenue).
• The development of the site on the east side of State Street between A and B Avenues presents several access
issues. This site has not vehicle accessibility and would have to have parking placed off the new north -south
roadway linking to E Avenue. There is no place for drop off/pick up to occur on State Street creating a conflict
for the site. Services (garbage, delivery,....) to the building sites would likely be from State Street which would
have significant traffic impacts. This site is not a desirable site for land use development from an access and
circulation perspective.
C�
i
�I
I�
11
' • Pedestrian linkage between downtown Lake Oswego and Foothills area is very desirable via A and B
Avenues with no motor vehicle conflicts and wide plaza -like walkways.
' • No motor vehicle access via fourth legs to State/A or StateB is desirable for motor vehicle operation.
Option D (south center at northeast corner of State/Foothills)
• Retains good downtown -to -Foothills pedestrian access, three leg intersections at State/A and State/B and
good park and ride access characteristics of option C.
• Uses space between A and B Avenues east of State Street as a plaza which would have little traffic opera-
tional impacts compared to Options A, B or C.
• Uses existing traffic signal at Foothills/State for transit center access (rather than a fourth leg to State/A or
StateB — which is good).
• Good bus access to transit center for northbound ORE 43 routes but poor access for southbound ORE 43
and western routes (requiring out of direction travel and round -about routing). May want to consider split
transit center with curb side bus stops southbound on ORE 43 adjacent to Millennium Plaza (to avoid
circuitous routing). Only southbound buses that layover would be impacted by out of direction travel.
' • Bus transit center access is one block removed from the commuter rail station.
Option E (west side of State between B and C)
1 • Similar good aspects of Option D such as good downtown -to -Foothills pedestrian access, three leg intersec-
tions at State/A and State/B, good park and ride access characteristics and use of east side of State between
A and B as a plaza.
• Bus transit center one block and a crossing of State Street removed from future commuter rail station.
• Good access for southbound ORE 43 buses. Better than Option B since access via C Street and B Street
would be less disruptive to pedestrian and traffic flows. Return movement from transit center to south-
bound ORE 43 (State) could frequently be blocked by traffic queued at State/B.
• A new traffic signal would be needed at State/C to accommodate the return path of northbound ORE 43
buses. Coordination of this signal to provide bus priority and maintain traffic progression would need to be
evaluated as to its impact.
• Access for buses from the west on B Avenue could be obstructed by traffic queued at StateB signal.
Option F (east side of State, south of A Avenue)
• This option includes a hugely desirable feature that grade separates the commuter/freight rail track below
State Street. This would be very beneficial for reducing traffic impacts of commuter rail crossings at peak
times and to improve safety by eliminating at -grade track crossings. The cost of this options would be in
the $20 million range (expensive). Cost can be controlled by limiting the number of times roads or structures
' are placed over the railroad tracks (leaving open cut areas).
• Adding a fourth leg to the State/A intersection would have negative traffic impacts at peak times. This
would also be very expensive to cross the railroad tracks and to be graded down to the new north/south
roadway. This connection should be eliminated from this alternative.
• The Foothills Road connection to the eastern study area is eliminated. This should be retained in lieu of the
fourth leg of the State/A intersection. The intersections of State/A and State/Foothills have the potential to
operate acceptably as tee intersections — but not as four leg intersections (due to greater lost time and
increased capacity consumption of the fourth leg). The redevelopment of areas east of State Street have
greater potential with Foothills access than with a fourth leg to the State/A intersection. To retain the
Foothills Road connection, the bus transit center would need to shift southward (closer to an Option D
configuration) to avoid being over the railroad tracks (or in conflict with the Foothills Road alignment).
• Transit center options noted for Option D above (possible on -street southbound stops with transit center
layover) should be considered. The position of the transit center would be one block removed from the
commuter rail station. It might be possible with the grade separation to consider shifting the commuter rail
i
station southward to be closer to the transit center. Another option to consider would be to shift the commuter
rail station to be under State Street, accessible from both the east side (the transit center) and the west side of '
State Street (Millennium Plaza) without having to cross ORE 43.
• Similar good aspects of prior Options such as good downtown -to -Foothills pedestrian access, three leg
intersections at State/B, good park and ride access characteristics (if Foothills Road retained) and use of east
side of State between A and B as a plaza. '
Should you have any questions please feel free to call me.
i
11
C
i
CITY OF PORTLAND
!L ENVIRONMENTAL SEXVICES Q#
'120 SW Fifth Avenue., Room 1000, Portland, Oregon 97204-1912 Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
Memorandum
TO: Jerry Knippel, City of Lake Oswego, and
Foothills Rod D sign District Ad -Hoc Stakeholders Committee
FROM: Roberta Jortn r, ortland Bureau of Environmental Services
CC: Randy Tomsik, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Steve Simonson, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Greg Hettman, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Jamac Hilliard Cncecy, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Quentin Pitts, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Janice Newton, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Mary Wahl, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
SUBJECT: BES's comments on Foothills Road Design District Briefing Paper #2
DATE: October 1, 2001
Thank you for the opportunity to review the 1=oothills Road Design District Briefing Paper #2.
We appreciate the effort to develop some interesting, exciting, and challenging redevelopment
designs for the area. We offer the following thoughts for consideration as the discussion
proceeds.
Connection to the Willamette River and Tryon Creek/Trail System The Rogers
Tryon Loop concept is a compelling idea and warrants further evaluation. BES supports
the development of a system that provides access along and to the Willamette River and
Tryon Creek, along with accompanying restoration opportunities. BES is interested in
exploring options for trail access along the Willamette River.
The Tryon Gate Bridge concept could provide significant benefits in terms of both fish
access and aesthetics. However. it is not clear how access to northern properties is to be
addressed. hi addition, the location of the pathway up the southern bank of Tryon Creek
may be difficult due to practical space limitations (relative to existing wastewater
treatment plant facilities), topographic constraints, and environmental restrictions.
Locating the pathway along the northem side of the creek may be possible however a
stream crossing would be required as well as acquisition of land or easements from
pnvate property. Additional feasibility analysis for the trail system and potential creek
crossings is warranted.
' 2. The Willamette Steps circulation alternative would complicate access to the Tryon Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (TCWTP) site by creating 90 -degree turn requirements.
This road configuration could cause problems for sludge and chemical tanker trucks and
construction trucks that must routinely access the plant.
Memo to Jerry Knippel and the Footlhills Road Design District Ad -Hoc Stakeholders Committee
,
October 1, 2001
Page 2
3. The Land Use Alternatives show residential or employment uses to be located adjacent
and to the west of the TCWTP site. Significant screening and aesthetic treatment of the
buildings and process units would be needed to address compatibility issues (visual,
'
noise, odor). The facility planning for TCWTP has not, to date, addressed or provided
for these potential changes. Providing a buffer between the new uses and the WTP could
contribute to the viability of the redevelopment design. Compatibility issues, potential
'
solutions and their costs, and financing options, should be evaluated before forwarding
recommendations regarding the development design.
,
4. The Land Use Alternatives consistently show an open space use for the portion of the
City of Portland property east and south of the TCWTP facility. As stated in our
memorandum of September 14, 2001, the portion of the property south to the current
'
Foothills Road location should be retained as a contingency to meet future facility
requirements. For the remainder of the property, a change in land use (from industrial to
open space) offers substantial opportunities in terms of public access, recreation, and
'
riparian habitat. However, this change in use also implies a significant reduction in
property value and associated fiscal impact the City of Portland. BES is willing to
explore options for potential future conversion of this property to other than its current
'
use. However, the options should be cost -neutral in terms of their impact on the City of
Portland.
5. Land Use Alternative A 3 shows employment located on the current TCWTP site. We
'
assume that this alternative assumes a relocation of the plant to another site. Given
current cost estimates, the replacement value of the plant at its current capacity would be
about $40 million.
'
n
11
'
a
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1 120SW Fifth Avenue., Room 1000, Portland, Oregon 972041912 Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
February 11, 2002
'
Jerry Knippel, Maintenance Field Manager
City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Mr. Knippel.
In helping Lake Oswego consider its vision for the Foothills Road Design District, I wanted to
'
provide some rough estimates for different Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
scenarios. The Bureau of Environmental Services is sensitive to Lake Oswego's desire to
create a new vision for this area and adjacent waterfront. We understand that your desire is to
'
define a vibrant community with enhanced redevelopment potential benefiting the City within a
20-year time horizon. The Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant factors prominently into
these considerations, because of its physical presence, and because it provides an essential
waste treatment service for the City of Lake Oswego Hopefully this discussion will be helpful
in considering your development options.
Basis of Cost Estimates
All cost estimates in this paper are order-of-magnitude estimates. These order-of-magnitude
'
estimates are made without engineering detail or data. A cost estimate of this kind is
considered accurate within a range of -30 to +50 percent. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and matenal costs, design complications, competitive market
conditions, implementation schedule, changes in the regulatory conditions, and other variable
factors.
Four scenarios for the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant are discussed As has been
previously stated we feel that moving the plant is not a realistic option in this 20-year planning
time horizon. The scenarios are.
1. Do 'mitigation work in order for the facility to be compatible with additional neighboring
'
residential and/or commercial redevelopment.
2 Do 'major' mitigation work to allow the plant to remain in place but essentially make it
'Invisible' visually and functionally to neighbors and users of the transportation corridor.
3 Move the treatment Plant to another location In the area. (There are too many factors to
'
consider in providing anything more than a very rough estimate.)
4 Eliminate the treatment plant and pump the flows to another treatment plant(s) in the
region. (Not considered a viable option)
'
COST $8 TO $15 MILLION
1. MITIGATION ESTIMATED
Assuming any new development In the area would abide by prescribed setbacks from the
TCWTP property line, some mitigation would Include landscaping enhancements in the buffer
P503 823740 FJ.' So3 iiih r+5 100 S(I<T:J 15.1 N,, No% At, Igki.tl (hitxrriuratl : miAoyer ftr!rd wi R'(ynt4l pai l
areas within the treatment plant boundaries. Covering of unit processes, providing additional
odor control, and screening other operations would provide other mitigation. Some of the
projects that would be included in a 'mitigation plan would include:
y Upgrade Headworks. This project would include enclosing the existing bar screens and
screening storage areas in a building.
Cover Primary Clarifiers.
r Odor Control/Headworks and Primary Clarifiers. Capturing and treating the odorous air
from a new Headworks Building and from within new Primary clarifier covers.
i+ Provide Odor Control for Thickeners and Wet Well.
Y Make Grit Removal Improvements.
Y Cover Chlorine Contact Basins to screen from view.
Y Screen Sludge Loading Area from view.
Y Screen Waste Gas Burner from view and/or reuse the digester gas onsite
Y Landscaping opportunities, especially on the west perimeter of the plant would need to be
upgraded to provide additional buffer
2. MAJOR MITIGATION Estimated Cost: $12 to $25 million
A model for mitigation that might be considered 'major' would be Vancouver, Washington's
Marine Park Reclamation Facility. In that wastewater treatment plant, great care has been
taken to enclose processes and disguise the facility to look like a modern business park
setting. At Tryon Creek, this would involve retrofitting the existing plant will false facades and
roofs, and/or replacing some process areas with new 'buried' facilities, and/or changing the
topography of the grounds.
Conversations with CH2MHiII have indicated that this type of work resulted In costs of
approximately $13M at the new Plant in Vancouver, WA and $70M at Seattle's Westpoint
Plant.
3. MOVING THE PLANT Estimated Project Costs $56 to $117 million.
A thorough discussion of the third option would have to include an analysis of other potential
sites with sufficient area for the relocation (this would need to be a joint Lake Oswego and City
of Portland effort) in light of a $50 million + price tag for a new facility. It Is highly likely that if a
new site were found, the new facilities would require at least the same mitigation treatment as
in the Major Mitigation option. In addition, consideration would have to be given to the
additional regulatory requirements (see item A. below) a new plant would undoubtedly be
subjected to and the costs for additional standards of treatment. This estimate is based upon
a 10MGD Plant, a new site, demo of the old plant, selling the old site and conveyance.
4. ELIMINATING THE PLANT
In the City of Portland's estimation, the fourth option is not really viable or reasonable. It has
been addressed regionally by the KOLTT Study (see item B. below) and sub -regionally by BES
in the most recent TCWTP Facilities Plan (see item C. below) The major conclusion of the
KOLTT Study is that each wastewater treatment plant In the region needs to remain In service
and deal with their respective wasteloads and growth In the TCWTP Facilities Plan, the
evaluation of an alternative that pumped all COP flows to the Portland collection system
indicated that the alternative was significantly more expensive than a new plant. Estimated
Project Cost $68 to $146 million.
L
0
i
n
BACKGROUND ITEMS
ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
: Reflected costs are in 2002 dollars with no future escalation.
: Reflected costs assume continuous schedule of work.
L Ranges are reflective of a —30% and +50% costing variance.
% Costs include Predesign, Design, Construction, Start -Up and Land Acquisition
Costs include Contingency Factors based upon Risk Assessment, Design E & O,
Construction unknowns and Owner Changes.
% Market conditions, Regulations and Escalation will effect the actual, final cost.
These are Order of Magnitude Estimated Costs and are based upon Concepts with no
current basis In design.
A. REGULATIONS
Major renovation or relocation of the treatment plant will no doubt trigger new permits and
more stringent permit requirements leading to increased costs. Changes will likely include, but
not be limited to, addressing toxics, biological criteria, bacteria and temperature as water
quality concerns.
B. KOLTT STUDY, JUNE 1995
KOLTT is a study to identify options for providing wastewater treatment in areas served by
Kellogg Creek, Oak Lodge, Tryon Creek and Tri -City Wastewater Treatment Plants. This
study has examined how to provide capacity for future needs and make the system more
efficient by looking at possible operational, financial, land use and governance changes.
C. TRYON CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (TCWTP) FACILITIES PLAN, JUNE 1999
This updated facilities plan presents the recommended alternative and implementation plan for
facilities required to treat future TCWTP wastewater flows from Portland and Lake Oswego
and to plan future regulatory requirements that may affect TCWTP discharge The plan
assesses the adequacy of the existing facilities through the year 2040 and Identifies short and
long-term improvement that may be required.
t The service area includes the City of Portland's Tryon Creek basin; the City of Lake Oswego,
not including the area that flows to Clean Water Services; and the Stafford Urban Reserve
Area (URA) The service area population will occur primarily as infill to existing tributary areas,
only the Stafford URA potentially will add sewered acres.
Sincerely,
'
Linda M. Dobson
Bureau of Environmental Services
'
Cc Douglas J Schmitz, City Manager
Dean Marnott, BES
Steve Behrndt, BES
'
Lee Klingler, BES
CITY OF PORTLAND
,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES -
1120 S%V Fifth Avenue., Room 1000, Portland, Oregon 97211.1-1912 Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
March 18, 2002
Jerry Knippel
City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
IDear Mr. Knippel,
I am responding to your request for comments on the draft Land Use and Circulation Concept
Plan for the Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development. We appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this important process.
Much of what we have said in previous comments (particularly those dated October 1, 2001)
still is applicable today, more specifically:
TYRON CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
We are happy to see that the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is included in this
latest concept plan. It has been acknowledged that the Plant serves an important function and
service treating Lake Oswego wastes. There appeared to be universal support at our last
meeting for changing references and maps for this facility to Tryon Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant (TCWTP), to better acknowledge this important role.
In operating and maintaining the plant we are sensitive to the need to be a good neighbor and
to fit compatibly with the surrounding community. We foresee continued efforts in this regard.
At the same time we need to assure reasonable expectations. We need to be vigilant about
maintaining a "buffer" related to issues of noise, odor and general daily operations. Generally
speaking we think that residential uses should not be in close proximity to the plant perimeter.
The mixed-use designation around the plant, needs to allow for consideration of these buffer
issues.
CONNECTION TO THE WILLAMETTE RIVER AND TRYON CREEK/TRAIL SYSTEM
We are supportive of Lake Oswego's efforts to connect to the Willamette Rlverfront and Tryon
Creek. Specifically, the Rogers Tryon Loop concept is a good one and one that we support
We will need to work with the City further on the specifics of alignment and easements over
TCWTP properties along Tryon Creek and the Willamette River. We still believe that location
of a trail along the southern bank of Tryon Creek is extremely problematic due to space
limitations, topographic constraints and environmental restrictions.
The concept plan shows open space to the east and mixed use/hotel to the south of the
TCWTP facility along the riverfront. We are supportive of the open space use of the land and
I 1 ip4ri=3T140 IaK 5Ct-,21.(,41K 'I[)') N)A,,23.35?u Ltr); Anc.c,;:a Opixatur!% Vntnhnrr Printed orrc(c d,cp,nk•r
acknowledge that a mixed-use concept on the riverfront can be very exciting. We still envision
that the City of Portland would own the "northern half' of the parcel to serve as a buffer for the
Plant. We are open to further discussions with the City of Lake Oswego regarding acquisition
of the "southern half' of the parcel.
CIRCULATION '
While we recognize that this is only a concept diagram we need to reiterate that future road
configurations/alignments need to take into consideration turning movements of large sludge
and chemical tanker trucks that routinely need access to the Plant. '
PHASE 2 PLAN REFINEMENT STUDY AREAS
More detailed study of the Roadway/Rail Alignments, Waterfront Park/Open Space/Small Boat
Basin, Transit, and Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment is an appropriate next step. A
comprehensive cost/benefit analysis is an important element of this next phase of work. '
Sincerely,
Linda M. Dobson
Bureau of Environmental Services ,
Cc Douglas J. Schmitz.. City Manager '
George Crandall, Crandall Arambula PC
Dean Marriott, BES '
Steve Behrndt, BES
Randy Tomsik, BES
M
I �
CITY OF PORTLAND lddazftl
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES QO
120 SW Fifth Avenue., Room 1000, Portland, Oregon 972041912 Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
1
' May 21, 2002
.terry Knippel
City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
I
fl
Dear Mr. Knippel,
The Bureau of Environmental Services appreciates the opportunity to participate in the Lake Oswego
Foothills Design District process. We share the Steering Committee's enthusiasm for the future of this
important riverfront area and we look forward to a continued presence and partnership with the Lake
Oswego community for the foreseeable the future.
We are particularly pleased to be able to play a major role in the acquisition of additional waterfront open
space north of Tryon Creek. We believe as does City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, that this partner-
ship will benefit the entire region by providing opportunities for streambank restoration at the mouth of
Tryon Creek, improving fish habitat, creating new open space and providing better access to the
VViitlamette River.
=ollowing are final comments on the 5-15-02 draft recommendations presented to the Steering Commit-
tee. Much of what we have said in previous comments (particularly those dated October 1, 2001,
February 11, 2002 and March 18, 2002) still apply today and we hope these will be included in the final
•ecord.
Ne appreciate that some members of the community would like to "totally reclaim" their waterfront for
-itensive mixed use/open space. Realistically the 20 -year time frame of this Plan must include the
'ryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Our memo dated February 11, 2002 evaluated a number of
a?ternative development scenarios for the plant. Eliminating the plant and pumping the flows to another
--eatment plant is not considered a viable option in any timeframe. Other scenarios from mitigation to
-elocating the plant range in costs from $8 million to $117 million. Given the magnitude of these costs
--ie best course of action at this time seems to be working on compatibility and successful integration of
'ne plant with new and planned development for the next 20 years.
We look forward to further development and refinement of the Plan elements related to circulation, land
use and open space. Specifically:
;nand Use and Open Space '
We remain sensitive to buffer issues around the plant particularly along the southern and western
property line. We anticipate that further refinements of the Plan would assure that adequate buffers are '
maintained. We request that the bulleted language pertaining to the Treatment Plant on page 9 be
amended to read:
• "Could be considered as a future redevelopment site in 20 + years." '
Given the recent purchase of property north of Tryon Creek we think it would be appropriate to revise all
maps in the document to show this land area in open space use. Given this new development we think
n preferable to locate the trail along the north side of Tryon Creek through this open space. It would be
preferable that all maps in the document reflect this new trail alignment and that the bullet under Waste-
water Treatment Plant page 9 "provides public trail access along Tryon Creek" be deleted. The terrain
on the south side of the Creek is particularly narrow and steep making trail construction difficult with ,
-)egative impacts to the health of this riparian ecosystem.
The Bureau of Environmental Services has already installed flood protection gates at the Plant. The
bullet on page 9 referring to possible study of this option is confusing and should be deleted. Additionally,
while we will continue to make improvements at the Plant including visual buffers to adjacent uses we '
do not anticipate being able to accomplish this from vantages such as State Street or other areas on the
-ull.
Circulation '
We look forward to further refinements of the circulation framework. It is critical to address access to
±he Treatment Plant site related to accessibility for large tank trucks, their trip demands and maneuver -
limitations. '
Jignment issues for the Willamette Walkway Trail need to be addressed as part of any further study
,elated to Tryon Creek and the northern BES Willamette waterfront segment. '
`,,'Ve think that this is an exciting concept plan particularly as it relates to future open space and greenway
enhancements along the Willamette River and Tryon Creek. We look forward to working through the ,
::.etails in the future.
Sincerely, I
-rnda M Dobson ,
Bureau of Environmental Services
Doug J. Schmitz, City Manager '
Dean Marriott, Bureau of Environmental Services
Brendan Finn, Commissioner Saltzman's Office
Public
Response
i
7
Ci
11
t
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
FOOTHILLS ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TASK FORCE
September 10, 2001
I. INTRODUCTION/WELCOME
' Vice Chair Mary Beth Coffey called the meeting of the Foothills Road Development
Plan Task Force to order at approximately 10:30 AM on Monday, September 10, 2001
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
' Members present were Vice Chair Coffey, Rick Mreen, Bill Beebe, Chris Hoffman,
Roberta Jortner, Julie Morales, David Waring, Mayor Judie Hammerstad, John Turchi,
' Keith Moe, Lynn Peterson, and Alan Lehto. Chair Frank Groznik was not present.
Others present were Ken Itel and Bob Galante of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment
' Agency; Randy Thompson; Phil Selinger, Tri -Met; and consultants George Crandall,
Kristin Beltz, Don Arambula of Crandall Arambula, and staff coordinator Jerry
Knippel, Special Projects Department.
U. PRESENTATION
Background
George Crandall, Crandall Arambula, explained that his firm had begun
collecting information about the study area in July 2001 and had assembled the
material into Briefing Paper 1. He said that each Task Force member would be
asked to suggest Task Force objectives, which the consultants would then
summarize and use as the basis for suggested alternatives for the area that they
would present at the group's October meeting.
Existing Conditions
Don Arambula, Crandall Arambula, pointed out that Briefing Paper 1 listed and
discussed existing conditions in the study area. He noted the document described
the boundaries of the study area (Tryon Creek, State Street, and the banks of the
Willamette River), and its existing land uses, topography, flood plain lines, land and
business ownership and zoning.
III
1
01c Response
Opportunities and Constraints
Mr. Arambula advised that the study area was primarily industrial with some R-0 Zoning along State ,
Street. He further advised that development of the area would generate traffic that would impact
three nearby intersections, particularly at State Street/AAvenue. That intersection was projected to
reach Level of Service "F" by the year 2017. He advised that the consultants had observed condi- '
tions that were beneficial for the study area, including its proximity to the Downtown District, op-
portunities for good views due to elevation changes, good opportunities to create pedestrian and ,
vehicle connections between the waterfront and Millennium Park, and the potential for future com-
muter transit service. He advised the area was constrained by barriers to connectivity, such as State
Street congestion, the need to negotiate and create rail crossings, significant changes in elevation, '
the flood plain, and the existing treatment plant and chip plant uses. Members recalled some addi-
tional constraints, including the presence of power substations and Metro'Title 3 buffer standards
along Tryon Creek. '
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
Stakeholders' Issues ,
Each Task Force member in turn suggested issues they desired the Task Force to address. The
'
objectives they desired to see related to relocation of the transit center, protection of neighbor-
hoods, accessibility, parking noise buffering, affordable mixed housing, pathway connections to and
along the river, a Trolley Line connection to Portland, protection and enhancement of the creek and
'
river banks, water quality and surface water management, the visual impact of the study area from
"A" and "B" Avenues, development of guidelines and standards for the area, impact of a develop-
ment plan on the capacity of the wastewater plant, options for relocation and mitigation for existing
,
businesses that might be impacted by future changes in the area, and incentives for developers to
provide enhancements to Lake Oswego's qualify of life. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that one
objective of the group should be to identify tools for implementation of Task Force recommenda-
tions. She described how one community had utilized the site of its wastewater treatment plant as
a bird -watching area and interpretive center and an instance where a "green" (vegetative) roof
treatment had created a park over a below grade parking structure.
• Developing Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The consultants promised to review and summarize the objectives suggested by the "Task Force in
a draft document that members could comment on prior to the next meeting when the'Task Force
was to further refine its objectives. They explained they would subsequently develop suggested
planning alternatives for the study area based on the objectives. They anticipated that each alterna-
tive would include specific land use, transportation and open space standards for the Task Force to '
consider.
TV NEXT MEETING
v
The next meeting was scheduled for 10:30 am, October 1, 2001. The Task Force directed the staff to
invite the general public to the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Task Force, Vice Chair Coffey adjourned the meeting at
approximately 12:00 PM.
lWoothillsUninutes\09-10-01.doc
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Knippel
Special Projects Department
\1
Public Response
•a.a.
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Stakeholder Meeting # 1
Flip Chart Notes
September 10, 2001
1 Meeting attendees included
Foothills Road Development Plan Task Force Committee members: Mary Beth Coffey, Rick Mreen, Bill
Beebe, Chris Hoffman, Roberta Jortner, Julie Morales, David Waring, Judie Hammerstad, John
' Turchi, Keith Moe, Lynn Peterson, Alan Lehto
Project Manager. Jerry Knippel
Consultant team: George Crandall, Don Arambula, Kristin Betz
7ne following are comments recorded on the flip chart during the discussion of issues with committee
^nembers.
General Comments
• City boundary of Lake Oswego is at Tryon Creek line, but area north of the creek is an impact area
' for Foothills District.
• Oswego Pointe is part of the impact area, and how the two areas connect is important.
• Ownership - add names of owners missing from map.
' Utilities substation - also a constraint.
• Existing viable businesses - are they a constraint?
• Buffer zone - Tryon Creek/Title 3 issues.
• North of Tryon Creek - mitigation opportunities, re: Endangered Species Act.
• Mouth of Tryon Creek - land was considered for purchase by City but was too expensive.
• Pump Station to deal with floods (at retention pond) - was installed after 1996 flood.
Top two issues of each committee member
Each member was asked to provide two priority issues; they are listed below for each member.
1. Want to contribute to Lake Oswego public life - how to do this? Add to quality of life for the public
of Lake Oswego.
' 2. Access,
1. First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) - concerned about transit center - want to move it from current
location, and fit its design into downtown, making it accessible and tied to the community.
2. Allow for growth of downtown but not into First Addition neighborhood or other residential areas.
Dther goals:
• Affordable housing.
• A Avenue should continue to be a Main Street, not made into a couplet.
• Connections to river.
i
Public Response
1. Riverfront restoration # 1 priority.
2. Easy river access to downtown.
1. Parking for transit.
2. Affordable mixed use housing (residents could be employees for local businesses) -suggestion of
arts community.
Other issues:
• Bike/pedestrian trails.
• Trolley line - utilize it.
1. Trolley line - future use of transit center/parking.
2. Access - pedestrian/auto access from downtown to transit center.
1. Protect waterfronts - fish especially important, at Tryon Creek.
2. Recreation path connections.
1. Oswego Pointe residents want less paving, fewer buses - or consolidation of or buffering from
each - and less noise from chip plant, etc.
2. Access to downtown - should be planned, not "willy-nilly."
1. Access to river and taking care of the river.
2. Highway 43 - alternatives to auto traffic.
1. A and B Avenues - visual impact and access.
2. Design Review Commission (DRC) goals/built projects.
1. Parking issue vs. high density housing - some mention of removing the housing and replacing
with parking.
2. Nonindustrial uses - jobs issue.
Other issues:
• Environmental usage.
1. Redevelopment plan and wastewater treatment plant can work together; plant expansion and
its 20 -year plan? (Will provide project team with 20 -year plan.)
2. Willamette River/Tryon Creek issues re: local/regional needs and opportunities.
1. Local business owners - impact on them. Displacement is a concern for businesses. (Zoning
changes could make current uses into nonconforming uses, question how to protect current
business's investments.)
2. Flooding.
1. Environmental soundness can make the area better.
2. Relocation/mitigation of treatment plant and chip storage - example: parts of treatment plants
can be made pleasant for bird -watching, add to livability.
ether issues:
0 Access.
11
1
• Green roofs? Many possible ways to design.
• Identification of implementation tools is # 1.
1. Access - State Street seam.
2. Traffic - divert it off State Street with a bypass, a tunnel?
Other issues:
• Wastewater treatment plant - move it? That is a key real estate parcel.
• Substation - move it? Where? Is also a key real estate parcel.
1. Add to quality of life.
2. Development can help afford other quality of life improvements.
1. Tie to river, to Tryon Creek.
2. Transit Center.
i
L�
n
L�
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Response Sheets -
Written Comments
Stakeholder Meeting # 1
September 10, 2001
The following are the written comments of meeting attendees who answered the two -question
response sheet handed out at the meeting.
1. What are your objectives for the study area?
1. River front (bank) restoration for a walking path.
2. Join Foothills to Downtown revival with easy walking access.
3. Develop park land (open).
4. Develop transportation to Portland (Transportation Center).
I . How can this area be changed to contribute to Lake Oswego quality of life indicators in a more
significant way...
2. Create a richly textured environment that contributes to Lake O's needs - including needs for
housing, business, manufacturing, recreation.
1. Access,
2. Will more of the area be converted to open space/recreational use and what development
restrictions apply?
3. Affordable housing? Does the city need to grow? 43 Bypass?
1 . Redevelopment plan that's compatible with and integrates with the TCWWTP in a fiscally
responsible manner.
A feasible redevelopment approach that enhances the community by integrating urban design
with the conditions of the site.
3. Connecting residents and visitors to the area to the Willamette River and Tryon Creek, while
protecting resource values.
Restore banks of Willamette and Tryon.
Good blend of mixed use with acceptable traffic generation profile.
Forward -thinking parking design to meet current aesthetic and environmental state-of-the-art.
Conversion/acquisition of chip plant and rail spur.
Interpretive/exhibits for natural resources along water features, trails, and POTW (fish, buffers,
watershed health, water quality).
Determining the best use for the area - based on quality of life.
Determine access from downtown to Willamette River.
How can options for relocation/ mitigation occur? - chip plant, substation, treatment plant,
industrial use.
Identify tools for implementation.
Look at specific "access."
, .
Affordable mixed use housing.
Incorporate with existing retail area of Lake Oswego.
2.
2 Fill low areas.
3. Include area of North Tryon bounded by Railroad and river.
'
a. Bring in rail commuter/trolley.
Transportation center (full service) parking, bus, streetcar.
5. Move PGE.
A.
Large full day parking.
1. Public usage versus private usage.
Access across A Avenue access from B and C.
2. Growth of commercial into Foothills area.
6.
3. River restoration (easy walking).
A. Access.
'
5. Parking versus impervious parking.
&
6. Tools to impact change.
1. Livability for Oswego Pointe neighborhood folks - not more parking/people. Access - if it is to be
Marina (possibilities)/connect with tour boats.
consolidated (????).
10.
Connectivity to Tryon Creek Park.
,
1. Moving transit center to State and A - tear down buildings.
Removal of Bob McGid/Gary Buford Buildings.
2. Allowing for growth of commercial into Foothills.
'. 2.
3. Connection (direct) for ped access to river.
'
r. Linking existing waterfront trail to outcome of ped/bike and transit study at Metro - connectivity
,
to Seliwood Bridge.
2.
5. Keep A Avenue the Main Street - if auto entry is needed, put it down closer to E.
6. More public space - usable public space - educational?
'
. Affordable housing.
Riverbank restoration with greenway walk and connection to Tryon Park.
Easy walking access to downtown renovation areas.
, .
Affordable mixed use housing.
'
2.
Viable business environment.
3.
Transportation center (full service) parking, bus, streetcar.
A.
Large full day parking.
5.
Access across A Avenue access from B and C.
'
6.
Connectivity for hiking/biking as well as to river.
7_
Utilizing the positives and mitigating the negatives of the site.
&
Access to the river.
9.
Marina (possibilities)/connect with tour boats.
10.
Connectivity to Tryon Creek Park.
11.
Removal of Bob McGid/Gary Buford Buildings.
'. 2.
More business opportunities/job opportunities.
'
' 3.
Riverfront restoration.
2.
What are your top two issues for the study area?
'
Riverbank restoration with greenway walk and connection to Tryon Park.
Easy walking access to downtown renovation areas.
'
Revelopment plan that's compatible with and maintains the function of the TCWWTP and
allowing for improvement/expansion in accordance with the Facilities Plan, and in a fiscally I responsible manner.
Addressing Willamette River and Tryon Creek issues including Willamette Greenway, stormwater/
water quality and fish/wildlife habitat/ESA, taking into (account) which local conditions and the
regional perspective.
1
'J
Protection of Tryon Creek and Willamette River - through native -vegetated buffers consistent with
Metro Title 3 standards, fish -friendly improvements to Tryon Creek to forward compliance with ESA,
and careful engineering of run-off and limitation of impervious surfaces.
Accommodation or acquisition of recreational pathway connections along Willamette Greenway
and Tryon Creek.
M1. Willamette Shore Trolley ROW and potential future transit options along State Street, including bus
operations and potential future streetcar.
Access (multimodes) between this area and downtown Lake Oswego at locations other than
current Foothills Road intersection.
To what extent can redevelopment occur - important to grow, but not into FAN. Affordable hous-
ing, "A" as Main Street.
Riverfront restorations (environmentally sound). Walking access from Lake O. to river and along
river. Mixed use housing. Connect to Portland - utilize trolley as street car.
`Bypass Highway 43.
Move water treatment kept on table away from river.
Parking vs. high density housing.
Industrial use vs. any other usage.
Water treatment plan - environmental usage vs./plus park usage.
^Less not more parking/paving/cars/buses/trains - consolidate in one area, landscape. (Transit
center?)
Less noise from railroad/trucks (chip plant)/cement plant.
_ Access to river and downtown - people .
Transit Center design fits in, easily accessible, tied into community.
Allow for growth of downtown in future.
Affordable/mixed use housing (housing business). Business viability and opportunity (architecturally
with downtown) tied into downtown.
Transportation center with peak (minimally) -hour street (efficient) car access to Portland - much
parking - (neighborhood friendly).
Can we provide greater public access to the Willamette River through consensus in the community
` and the current property owners?
Can this area be used in an overall plan to manage traffic on Highway 43 and to provide an envi-
ronmentally cleaner alternative to the auto?
�I
1
G
P�
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Response Sheet Comments
Stakeholder Meetings # 2 A & 2 B
Oct. 1, 2001 & Oct. 15, 2001
The following is a transcription of written comments added to the Alternatives Response Sheets:
Oswego Crossing
• Further explore options E and F. For option E, consider the possibility of connecting the train
plataform to the top level of a bus parking garage via a skybridge.
Rogers Tryon Loop
• Trail to south of Tryon Creek may be infeasible due to constraints (proximity to TCWTP topography) -
may be worth considering trail in north side of creek.
• If we have trade-off, financially I think the bridge for us is less desirable then undergrounding the
railroad.
iCirculation
• Creation of right angle turns will be problematic for trucks ingress -egress to TCWWTP.
• Prefer "other" alternative: extend B Street.
• Prefer Willamette Steps Boulevard without the 8 degree offset.
• Prefer "other" alternative - look at A Avenue; bad circulation through Foothills.
• Love the undergrounding of the railroad!
• Easier to implement with landowners. Difficult circulation for more intensive mixed uses, more
housing.
• Marvelous vision, favor Mt. Hood angle? Improves circulation for mixed uses, more intensive uses
need better circulation.
• Prefer "other" alternative - 8 degree change in road alignment.
Land Use
• Alternative A3 as Employment/Open Space rather than Housing/Open Space - best from TCWTP
perspective. Switch residential west of WTP to employment.
• Open space to the south may help achieve compatibility between plant and redevelopment.
• See memo of 9/14/01 and 10/01 /01 for comments from WTP.
• Recognize value of riverfront to redevelop next area - BES property is managed as a public asset
and is currently a high value property. Would consider options for integration of plant and
possible expansion to other parts of the site. Conversion to open space would involve addi-
tional negotiation/business transaction: asset trade.
• Concerns about sound, smell and dust.
• For Alternative B 1 - add housing adjacent to Oswego Pointe south of WS Blvd. Employment
north of WS Blvd. - no housing. Perhaps some additional housing on the south end of the wood
chip property next to Roehr Park.
• Don't know preferences yet; workable access and future of wastewater plant will affect alterna-
tives.
• B-3 - would like to see some opportunities for mixed use - could be affordable housing. Need to
deal with BES and nature of that plant. And Portland re: chip plant.
• Prefer B-3 because of flood plain.
• B 2 Alternative: open space along river (chip plant) and Tryon Creek and most important locations
for open space. Need to reduce housing in vicinity of treatment plant. Improved circulation
importanat for more intensive land uses. Central parcels along Willamette Steps Blvd: creative and
innovative design can address flood issues and stormwater mgmt.
• B-3 Option: central open space more politically and economically cumbersome. Need more em-
ployment.
• B-3 Option: with 8 degree street alignment in place; with some mixed use on the area north of "A."
• Other: mixed use.
1 II
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
FOOTHILLS ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TASK FORCE
�I
October 1, 2001
INTRODUCTION/WELCOME
Chair Frank Groznik called the meeting of the Foothills Road Development Plan Task
Force to order at approximately 10:30 AM on Monday, October 1, 2001 in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Members present were Chair Groznik, Vice Chair Mary Beth Coffey, Sarah Brault
(representing Rob Fallow), Rick Mreen, Bill Beebe, Mayor Judie Hammerstad, John
Turchi, Paul Graham, Julie Morales and Keith Moe. Chris Hoffman, Roberta Jortner,
David Waring, and Lynn Peterson were absent.
[Note: No attendance roster for this meeting available to transcriptionist. Yellow
highlighted names need to be checked for spelling.].
Guests present were Bob Galante and Ken Itel, Lake Owego Redevelopment Agency;
Randy Thomsik, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services; Alan Lehto, Tri -
Met; and Jerry Landers, Evergreen Neighborhood Association. The consulting team of
George Crandall, Kristin Beltz, and Don Arambula of Crandall Arambula was also
present.
Staffs present were Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; and Jerry
Knippel, Special Projects Department.
Chair Groznik invited audience members to introduce themselves. They were Foothills
Road area business and property owners and managers John McKee, Rich Martin,
Woodrow Taylor, Rick Atherton and Pat Bowers. Bob Poskin, Lake Oswego, Building
Official, Community Development Department, was also in attendance.
PRESENTATION
Draft Goals & Objectives
George Crandall, Crandall Arambula PC, presented conceptual alternatives for
the study area that the consulting team had created using objectives suggested by
Task Force members at their initial meeting (see Foothills Road Design District
Draft Briefing Paper 2, dated October 1, 2001.).
Public Response
Oswego Crossing Alternatives ,
The consultants stressed that the location of the transit center was a primary issue to be addressed '
in the study area. They presented four conceptual plans for a transit facility in illustrations A
through D:
Alternative A was the "base alternative" that focused on Tri-Met's suggested location for a bus
transit center and Park & Ride lot. The consultants had added additional circulation that included
a new roadway connection to E Avenue in the vicinity of the existing public storage units.
Alternative B illustrated the bus transit center on the west side of' State Street with a covered '
railway st<ztion across the street on the east side to serve a future commuter rail service; pedestrian
connections from A and B Avenues; and an auto connection to E Avenue.
Alternative C showed the transit center on the east side of the railroad tracks between A and B ,
Avenues, with a park and ride facility underneath. Pedestrian crossings were shown at A and B
Avenues. The consultants confirmed the facility could use the existing Foothills Road. They also '
confirmed the Trolley facility remained in its current location in all four alternative scenarios.
Alternative D illustrated the transit center at the south end of the study area and across from the
Lakewood Bay Plaza. It was to be served by the existing park and ride lot. The consultants
suggested the center could serve the Trolley and Streetcar services as well as bus service. They
showed pedestrian accesses across State Street to A and B Avenues and a new roadway connec-
tion to E Avenue.
The consultants anticipated they would review the alternatives in detail with Tri -Met staff after the Task
r
Force selected their preferred alternatives. A Tri -Met representative confirmed that the existing bus facility
could accommodate six buses at a time and 10 buses per hour. He advised that the shortest bus interval at
the stop was 15 minutes. The consultants clarified that a heavy rail train came through the area on the
'
existing track at AM and PM peak hours; "streetcar" service would be similar to that which served 23,d
.Avenue in the City of Portland; and they assumed that Trolley service would use the existing Trolley. They
advised that all of the alternatives they had presented could accommodate and provide connections for
heavy rail, streetcar and trolley service. Mayor Hammerstad clarified that streetcar service would utilize the
existing tracks to connect to the North Macadam development and then continue into Portland. The
,
commuter rail would come from Tualatin and utilize the existing tracks and railroad bridge across the
Willamette River to access the City of Milwaukie. The Foothills transit center would provide a place for
commuters to transfer to a streetcar into Portland. She noted that a streetcar was a lighter vehicle and
would have less impact on the area than a heavier train. The consultants recommended that any plan the
City selected should feature sufficient flexibility to accommodate future transportation changes. I
a..6
Public Response
Rogers Tryon Loop
The consultants then suggested configurations of access ways in the study area. They illustrated a
major pedestrian loop system to connect the riverfront with Tryon Creek State Park and Millen-
nium Park. They said the looped system would create a sense of connectivity and community for
the City, and could provide access to an amphitheatre. They suggested a new wide, stepped,
roadway they captioned the "Willamette Steps" and a new "fish friendly" bridge over open water
along Tryon Creek at Terwilliger Road. They noted the bridge could serve as a gateway to the
city. They presented designs for State Street walkways and crossings and advised the plan would
require an additional 5 feet of right of way to accommodate street trees and a separated pedestrian
and bicycle pathway. They envisioned a study area pedestrian walking route would connect with
Tryon Creek State Park trails.
Circulation Alternatives
The consultants presented alternative plans to address land use and circulation in the study area.
Alternative A illustrated a widened existing roadway that accommodated a pathway that con-
nected to the existing concrete walkway to Roehrer Park. Its pedestrian and bicycle lanes were
separated by bollards. Riparian and native vegetation was used to landscape the route and aid
water management in the flood plain.
Alternative B featured the new wide, stepped "Willamette Steps Boulevard" as a visual and
physical connection to the waterfront. It connected with the existing roadway to the Oswego
rPointe residential development and followed the railway spur route to a new signalized connection
at E Avenue. The consultants stressed that improved access to the study area was essential to
encourage more intensive development there. They envisioned the design of Willamette Steps
Boulevard would complement the design of Millennium Park, and they estimated the new road-
way would drop 38 feet in elevation along its route. The consultants acknowledged that the
alignment of the boulevard would need to be modified if the City desired it to align directly with the
view toward Mt. Hood.
Land Use Alternatives
The consultant team presented alternative land use concepts for the study area.
Alternative A-1 illustrated how the existing area could he planned to include employment, cross-
ing and residential areas, and a future green space area in the vicinity of the existing James River
chip storage area.
Alternative A-2 showed the study area with an expanded BES Water Treatment Plant facility.
Higher elevations of the area were designated for housing use. Lower elevations maintained the
existing industrial/employment uses. The chip storage area was shown as open space. No change
had been made to the roadway.
Alternative A-3 included higher elevation residential uses, a similarly sized, but reconf igured BES facility, and
the existing roadway. The consultants explained this configuration would create more useable green space
in the center of the study area.
Alternative R-1 included the existing industrial/employment uses, a modified crossing area, an
open space at the chip plant site, and "Willamette Steps Boulevard."
Alternative B-2 illustrated higher elevation housing use, the existing industrial/employment uses in I the lower elevation areas, an expanded BES facility and open space at the chip plant location.
Alternative B-3 "squared off' the BES facility area to create a more open green space connect- '
ing with the waterfront. It also created better -shaped parcels. The consultants advised the road-
way captioned "Foothills Road" on this illustration should have been captioned "Willamette Steps
Boulevard."
III. DISCUSSION AND PREFERENCES I
The consultant team distributed rating sheets for the members to use to compare and rate alternative
concepts. I
BES Water Treatment Plant representatives explained that none of the alternative concepts adequately
addressed the facility's expansion needs; compatibility issues, such as noise, odor and screening needed
to be considered; and any conversion of City of Portland owned land to open space needed to be
negotiated. They clarified the chip plant leased its land from the City of Portland and that some
improvements that were planned for the plant did not include construction of a cover to control odors.
The consultants confirmed that they had reviewed the BES expansion plan and believed it could be
accommodated in the concepts they had presented. Mr. Crandall advised the group to wait to con-
sider the issue of the impact of the facility on land uses until after the Task Force had identified their
preferred alternatives. Mayor Hammerstad reported that the chip plant had recently extended their
lease for another ten years. The consultant stressed the group was developing a long-range vision 10r
the area that would extend beyond the terms of leases. The BES representatives confirmed the chip
plant lease allowed the parties to dissolve the agreement with 24 -month notice.
1� tt
i
Public Response
• Oswego Crossing Alternatives
Task Force members discussed options for locating transit facilities. The consultants advised that Tri-Met's
suggested location (Alterative A) was very functional for a transit center, but it would generate more traffic on
A and B Avenues; create a large area of hard surface between State Street and the railroad tracks; and interrupt
the looped circulation system concept. They clarified the power substation would remain in its current location
' in this option. A member commented that this option would not work well for a bus center because it showed
the facility on a small parcel that featured grade changes.
A. The consultants explained that if the transit facility was sited on the west side of State
Street (Alternative B) bus access would be closer to Downtown, there would be room for
B. The consulting team advised the advantage in locating the transit facility on the east side of
State Street between A and B Avenues (Alternative C) would be that it created more
space for the loop system and reduced vehicle traffic in the study area. Tri -Met represen-
tatives indicated this location would present a challenge to bus access because of the
grade and the amount of out of way travel along Foothills Road that this concept would
require. They also noted that the buses would generate more noise that would impact
I
residents of the study area.
C. The consultants observed that Alternative D would place the bus center closer to the rail
the looped system, and land behind a commuter rail station on the other side of State
Street would be available for development that included an underground parking garage.
They clarified the power substation would have to be moved in this scenario. Mr. Galante
agreed with another member's observation that this option would interrupt the synergy of
the Downtown area and take up space that could be redeveloped for retail or mixed
retailfhousing uses. The consultants acknowledged that Alterative B showed a less -
desirable level bus
of circulation.
B. The consulting team advised the advantage in locating the transit facility on the east side of
State Street between A and B Avenues (Alternative C) would be that it created more
space for the loop system and reduced vehicle traffic in the study area. Tri -Met represen-
tatives indicated this location would present a challenge to bus access because of the
grade and the amount of out of way travel along Foothills Road that this concept would
require. They also noted that the buses would generate more noise that would impact
I
residents of the study area.
C. The consultants observed that Alternative D would place the bus center closer to the rail
derground parking facilities were preferable to surface parking
facility and provided the best opportunity to create a public pedestrian -friendly facility.
Task Force members wondered whether this plan would force people to walk too far
between bus and rail services (they estimated the distance would be 300 feet), or whether
it would be advantageous to route pedestrians past area retail stores. They wondered if it
would make more sense to combine the bus and rail facilities. They noted this option
provided the best opportunity to connect with Millennium Plaza. Someone observed the
plan utilized public space well because it located transit facilities along State Street and
allowed more room for other development in the study area.
The Task Force asked for advice regarding how many parking spaces were necessary to serve the area
and how many would be accommodated under each alternative. Mayor l lammerstad stressed that un-
derground parking facilities were preferable to surface parking
Jerry PPe Kni 1 '
Special Projects Department
ICn ippel\foothills\m inures\ 10-0 I -0 I .doc
�J
Public Response �.:
• Rogers Tryon Loop
The consultants asked Task Force members if they found the concept of a looped walkway, entry
bridge and stepped promenade desirable. Mr. Galante recalled that a walkway connection from
the study area to George Rogers Park had not been possible in the past because such a connection
would need to traverse private property. Mr. Groznik commented that he favored the idea to
uncover Tryon Creek and use the bridge to create a gateway to the City. He clarified for another
member that the federal govemment offered funding for projects that improved fish habitat. Someone
suggested that improvements could be scheduled incrementally over time, instead of all at one
'
time. The consultants agreed to present ideas for orienting the stepped promenade towards Mt.
Hood. A Task Force member indicated he was concerned about how greenway and setback
regulations would impact study area businesses and access to housing on the lower elevations of
the area.
Circulation and Land Use Alternatives
Task Force members agreed to continue their discussion of circulation and land use alternatives at
the next meeting.
Rl NEXT STEPS
The Consultants agreed to present options for areas of mixed use for future discussion. Task Force
members urged study area business owners to relate their future business plaits to the Task Force at
next meeting after a businessman in the audience observed study area business stakeholders needed to
be more involved in the process.
• Alternative Refinement
The consultants agreed to combine members preferred alternatives into two or three alternatives
for discussion at the next meeting.
• Meeting Time
The next meeting was scheduled for October 15, 2001 at 10:00 AM and a subsequent meeting
was scheduled for November 7, 2001 at 7:00 PM. The locations of the meetings remained to be
determined.
Z'. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Groznik adjourned the meet-
ing at approximately 12:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry PPe Kni 1 '
Special Projects Department
ICn ippel\foothills\m inures\ 10-0 I -0 I .doc
�J
ResponsePublic 1 1
I
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
' Stakeholder Meeting # 2
Flip Chart Notes
! October 1, 2001
Meeting attendees included
Foothills Road Development Plan Task Force Committee members: Frank Groznik,Mary Beth Coffey,
Rick Mreen, Bill Beebe, Chris Hoffman, Roberta Jortner, Julie Morales, Judie Hammerstad, John Turchi,
Keith Moe, Alan Lehto, Jeremy Langeliers, Paul Graham
Project Manager: Jerry Knippel
Other City Staff: Bob Galante, Ken Itel, Bob Kincaid
Consultant team: George Crandall, Don Arambula, Kristin Belz
The following are committee comments recorded on a flip chart during the discussion of alterna-
tives:
IJ
Treatment Plant/BES property
• Compatibility issues - need up front analysis.
• Re: downzoning - will have fiscal implications for BES/City of Portland.
• Odor control - five-year capital plan for the treatment plant does include odor control.
• Primary clarifiers - no plan at present for covering them (they are major odor producers at the
plant).
• James River chip storage recently extended its lease - 10 years; however, buy-out on lease
possible with 24 -month notice.
Alternatives - Oswego Crossing
General Comments on Crossing Alternatives
• Oswego Pointe neighborhood - concern about bus noise.
• Tri -Met concern - looping route necessary in two options for buses (i.e. out of direction travel).
• Each circulation alternative accommodates any of the transit center alternatives.
• Number of parking spaces depicted (120) is simply the maximum Tri -Met could fit on site in their
alternative.
• There are reasons not to select all the options, but in terms of deciding a direction to go in, they
are informative.
• Project process should emphasize where we want to go, not what obstacles might be there.
• Mixed use land options - consider.
• Plans of business owners - find out what they are.
• Surprised only two business owners on stakeholder committee, out of 19 owners.
Alternative A
• Parking offered - could be some number of spaces as in Alternative D if build three-level parking
structure rather than the surface parking shown.
• A very tight parcel.
Aernative B
• West side station a bad idea because impedes on compact retail/ 1 st Street retail district - punches a
hole in that new fabric; also, L.O.R.A. has already considered that emphasis on compact retail on
1st and agrees.
• Semi -prime developable land given to parking/transit in return for less developable land in Foothills
district.
• Each circulation alternative accommodates each transit center alternative.
.%,Iternative C
• Grade issues for Alternative C.
• Noise from grades/buses for Alternative C.
,Alternative D
• Offers most opportunities for (long-term) public space and makes prime site of developable land (to
east) - gives most options.
• Re: buses - state of the art/European type buses (cleaner, quieter, etc.)could be used in the future;
i.e., better buses than those used now.
• Offers advantages - unless you need 8 stories of parking! Amount of parking needed is an estimate
at this time; no parking model has been done.
• Three levels of parking with 120 spaces on each level would be possible as depicted. (Alternative A
could have some amount of parking if not surface parking only.)
Alternatives - Rogers Tryon Loop
• Path ends almost at Rogers Park - could completing that path be done now, as first phase? No -
homeowners object to people walking through their backyards, which is what the path would do;
thus the early 1970s vision of path may not work yet, though over more time, it may still be possible
• completing path - homeowners object to people walking through their backyards, which is what
the path would do; thus the early 1970s vision of path may not work yet, though over more time, it
may still be possible.
• State Street part of the loop extends past the redevelopment area.
• Fish biologists - are they ok with the bridge idea? Don't know, but usually a bridge is good way to
repair environment for fish. Many examples nationally of waterways that are not even visible!
• Bridge could be a "statement bridge" - stating that you're in Lake Oswego.
• Bridge would be expensive - multi -millions of dollars.
• Bridge is a long-time idea of the Friends of Tryon Creek and other groups.
• Would also be good idea to explore in-between options for fish and creek.
• Suggest a third option for circulation - a road oriented to views of Mt. Hood (discuss at next meet-
ing, with land use discussion).
• Tryon Bridge a good idea, but in terms of elevation changes, some concern about the south bank
and setbacks from the treatment plant - path may be too close to plant facilities.
• Would bridge impede housing to the east? Consider this.
i
i
t
n
II
Public
Response
Aernative B
• West side station a bad idea because impedes on compact retail/ 1 st Street retail district - punches a
hole in that new fabric; also, L.O.R.A. has already considered that emphasis on compact retail on
1st and agrees.
• Semi -prime developable land given to parking/transit in return for less developable land in Foothills
district.
• Each circulation alternative accommodates each transit center alternative.
.%,Iternative C
• Grade issues for Alternative C.
• Noise from grades/buses for Alternative C.
,Alternative D
• Offers most opportunities for (long-term) public space and makes prime site of developable land (to
east) - gives most options.
• Re: buses - state of the art/European type buses (cleaner, quieter, etc.)could be used in the future;
i.e., better buses than those used now.
• Offers advantages - unless you need 8 stories of parking! Amount of parking needed is an estimate
at this time; no parking model has been done.
• Three levels of parking with 120 spaces on each level would be possible as depicted. (Alternative A
could have some amount of parking if not surface parking only.)
Alternatives - Rogers Tryon Loop
• Path ends almost at Rogers Park - could completing that path be done now, as first phase? No -
homeowners object to people walking through their backyards, which is what the path would do;
thus the early 1970s vision of path may not work yet, though over more time, it may still be possible
• completing path - homeowners object to people walking through their backyards, which is what
the path would do; thus the early 1970s vision of path may not work yet, though over more time, it
may still be possible.
• State Street part of the loop extends past the redevelopment area.
• Fish biologists - are they ok with the bridge idea? Don't know, but usually a bridge is good way to
repair environment for fish. Many examples nationally of waterways that are not even visible!
• Bridge could be a "statement bridge" - stating that you're in Lake Oswego.
• Bridge would be expensive - multi -millions of dollars.
• Bridge is a long-time idea of the Friends of Tryon Creek and other groups.
• Would also be good idea to explore in-between options for fish and creek.
• Suggest a third option for circulation - a road oriented to views of Mt. Hood (discuss at next meet-
ing, with land use discussion).
• Tryon Bridge a good idea, but in terms of elevation changes, some concern about the south bank
and setbacks from the treatment plant - path may be too close to plant facilities.
• Would bridge impede housing to the east? Consider this.
i
i
t
n
II
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Stakeholder Meeting # 2 B
Flip Chart Notes
October 15, 2001
I. eeting attendees included
Foothills Road Development Plan Task Force Committee members
Members of the public
Project Manager: Jerry Knippel
Other City Staff: Bob Galante, Ken Itel, Bob Kincaid
Consultant team: George Crandall, Don Arambula, Kristin Belz
"he following are committee comments recorded on a flip chart during the discussion of alternatives:
Oswego Crossing/Transit Center Alternatives
Transit Center Alternative E
• Twice the property acquisition.
• Block needs redevelopment, is a good spot to think about.
• Bus station across from trolley station - not favor this.
• Requires another signal at C Ave, probably.
Transit Center Alternative F
• Not just visionary but almost hallucinatory.
• Have to study this alternative, then study costs.
• Would be a wonderful solution.
Re: Seattle convention center - similar to that because they "went over."
Individual pedestrian overpasses possible instead? Less expensive.
• Not necessary to make whole thing as a tunnel.
' Would integrate A Avenue downtown with Foothills district.
• Long range plan - solves some rail crossing problems (esp. commuter rail).
• Like it, and don't know if commuter rail needs regrading anyway - i.e. don't discount the alterna-
tive because of expenses.
• Tunnel would be underwater if lake floods!
• Look at below -grade aspect of alternative as Phase 2 of project?
' Land Use
property Owners' Comments
Gary Buford, 415 N. State St.
• Wish to improve building themselves.
Better to have gotten input from real stakeholders earlier.
This is a long term plan.
• Bus, light rail, etc. near State Street is good.
Public Response r
• "NIMP" attitude - "not on my property."
• Not opposed to planning process but do have own plans.
• Extenstion of B Avenue good.
• Lowering railroad grade good.
• Expensive real estate, however.
Jim Mreen
• Process going quickly so far.
• Need input - on consequences and challenges that the concepts put onto the owners of properties -
i.e., what are the consequences for me, my family? I would like to be involved.
• Each circulation alternative accommodates each transit center alternative.
Name? (across from Toklat Industries) r
• Have plans for property.
• Riverfront property - would city want to sell it at park use rate (lower than for commercial use)??
• Residential looking over WWTP? During BBQ, get smells from WWTP... i.e. compatibility issues.
• Prevailing winds - vary, but you "know the treatment plant is there!"
• Cost very high to redirect smells? r
• I.e., adjacent to WWTP, better for employment?
• Property adjacent to "B" Avenue extension - what are consequences to value of my property?
Stakeholder Committee Comments
• Compatibility Issues - buffer idea '
• Residential versus commercial use - condo owners further away but he's riot received any com-
plaints except noise complaints from residences north of WWTP.
• Residential users notice noise more than commercial users do.
• Circulation - right angle entry to WWTP tough for trucks to do (radius).
• Potential alternatives - need to be cost -neutral to City of Portland.
• May need to expand plant beyond master plan - esp. area north of Foothills Road extensiion, all the
way to the river (flood plain could constrain - haven't determined yet).
• Oswego Pointe condos (Pat Bauer) - major smells when east wind blows, people with asthsma, etc.
have to move out because of neighbors smell.
• Zoning - regulations regarding developing your property - lots of regs beyond just zoning (ex. Endan-
gered Species Act).
• Dust comes from cement plant.
• Support for circulation Alternative B - B Avenue road extension?
• Enhances open space use in B3 alternative - OK with floods, like B3 and realignment.
• Visually, don't have a vista of Mt. Hood from below State Street anyway.
• Appears that A Avenue "frames Mt. Hood" - check this out further.
• Steps - down B Avenue - pedestrian only because of grade.
• Hood River examples, etc.
Comments on B Alternatives
• Extent of open space (to west) - how far should it go? '
• Cap WWTP? Or put employment adjacent to plant?
r
11
Public Response �"
• Metro combining '96 flood records with 100 year flood line - look at border of that.
• Open space along river - important to use that land better, for public use.
1 • Tri -Met concerns
• "If this, then that" situation re: options - example being if treatment plant is capped, then residential
to west is possible/more appealing.
• Affordable housing and/or retail/esplanade to south along river? (out of flood plain.)
• Property owners have the final say.
iOther Issues
'wo major issues:
• Transit issues.
• Land use issues.
Other:
• High density commercial/office might be best use of waterfront land.
• $70mil-$100 million - to cap plant.
' I.Aany options for WWTP:
• Cogeneration - methane as asset if captured.
• Seattle Discovery Park good example.
• Technology keeps changing too - make future best it can be.
Cher comments:
• Market analysis for what might suceed in the area? Have demographic info on Lake Oswego
already - siting needs to be appropriate; ex. office sites need good acces - if road access is im-
proved, value increases - i.e., lot affected by circulation.
• Site specific cases - Lake Oswego market is strong.
• Green space - keep it along river.
• Use area as employment otherwise along Foothills Road - "highest and best use."
• However, probably cut and fill - flood plain along Foothills Road.
• Needs of community for more open space? Depends on whom you talk to - soccer teams say
'more fields!" Others: "what better use of public lands than open space?"
• Pump station on Mreen's property - should mitigate flooding.
• Need win-win situation for properties.
• Toklot - want to be albe to relocate and have highest value use, not be at war with city! Want to
be reasonable, not let property stagnate.
• Re: green space, what you can charge - adjacent golf courses increase residential lot values, for
example. I.e., more linear feet of green space adjacent to properties in Alternative B3.
• Property owners could form a shared corporation - could be a win-win for all, developers dealing
with one entity.
• If expand URA, need to use highest value use of land - a practical question.
Next Steps
• Meeting # 3 - 7 pm on November 7 (Wednesday).
• Win-win situation for all property owners!
t
t
i
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
FOOTHILLS ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TASK FORCF.
November 7, 2001
I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Chair Frank Groznik called the meeting of the Foothills Road Development Plan
Task Force to order at approximately 7:00 PM November 7, 2001 in the Oswego
Pointe Recreation Center, 195 Foothills Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Members present included Chair Groznik, Vice Chair Mary Beth Coffey, Rob
Fallow, Rick Mreen, Bill Beebe, Christine Hoffman, Paul Graham, Keith Moe,
Roberta Jortner John Turchi and Pat Bowers. Julie Morales, David Waring,
Mayor Judie Hammerstad, Lynn Peterson, Alan Lehto, and Jeremy Langeliers
were absent.
Guests present included J. R. Mreen, Toklat; Randy Tomsik, City of Portland
Bureau of Environmental Services; Rose Rummel-Eury, Michael Eury, Garry
Ackerman, Sylvia Ackerman, Robert Jarvis, Colleen Longo, Sonny Jepson and
Anita McLellan, Oswego Pointe Condominiums; Tim Colhouer, Eileen Colhouer,
Rich Martin, Gary Buford and Betty Buford, property owners, Joy Dawson, OPV;
and David Zagel, Tri -Met.
The consulting team of George Crandall, Kristen Belts, and Don Arambula of
Crandall Arambula PC attended the meeting. Staff present included Robert
Galante, Director, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency, Stephan Lashbrook,
Community Development Director; Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff; and Jerry
Knippel, Special Projects.
Vice Chair Mary Beth Coffey welcomed the meeting participants to the Oswego Pointe Condominiums.
II. PRESENTATION
George Crandall, Crandall Arambula PC, recalled that the Consultants had used Task Force objectives for
the study area to fashion alternative concept plans for the group's consideration. He presented maps
showing lot ownership in the study area and the area of the flood plain. He recalled that an initial survey
had revealed that Task Force members generally favored the concept of a pedestrian loop along State
Street and through the study area, they desired to facilitate fish passage in Tryon Creek by opening the
stream and building a new bridge across the creek; they preferred other Transit Alternatives over Alterna-
tive A (Tri-Met's concept for a transit location). and there was no consensus about land use alternatives.
He said that input from Downtown stakeholders had resulted in the Consultants' recommendation that the
City include the study area in planning for the entire City core framework. He envisioned that Lake Oswego
would become known for its unique connections between features such as the parks, the river, a "Heritage
Gateway" (at Country Club and A Avenue) and a "Tryon Creek Bridge Gateway" (across State Street). He
,
advised that people preferred to live and shop in places that were pedestrian friendly. He stressed that access
was important for a prosperous Foothills Road area.
and the new concept would reduce the grade so that by the time a train arrived at B Avenue it would be under
DQILArambula, Crandall Arambul Pz M, advised that every transit concept plan for the City core should
'
include a bus transit center, a trolley facility (perhaps also to be used by a streetcar service) and a regional
commuter train stop. He recalled that although Transit Alternative moved the bus transfer facility from
Safeway to a location (proposed by Tri -Met) that had good access to A and B Avenues, it would be
located on prime business use land, it would create a large area of unattractive pavement; and it would
break the loop circulation system because there would not be sufficient room between the buses and State
Street to accommodate a pedestrian connection. He recalled the Task Force had not favored Transit
'
Alternative B because it also covered land that would be more valuable for other uses and included historic
,
buildings, and would also require riders to cross A Avenue to catch a bus. Iie observed that Transit
Alternative C positioned the transit center east of the railroad tracks, required bus access via Foothills
Road and provided a new connection between E Avenue and the study area. He said the advantage of this
plan was that it opened up a development site along State Street, and its disadvantage was that it did not
provide the best connections for Tri -Met bus operations and transit noise would impact nearby residents.
He advised that Tri -Met considered Transit Alternative D to be an acceptable option because of its access
to A and B Avenues. He noted this concept kept the transit center and commuter rail facility together and
utilized the existing Park & Ride lot, thereby reducing impacts to both the east and west side of the railroad
tracks. He pointed out that Transit Alternative E located the bus transfer center between B and C Avenues
and combined the center with an underground parking structure that could be used by commuters during
the week and by shoppers on weekends. He advised that the exact number of spaces that would be
necessary there remained to be determined by Tri -Met and traffic consultants but it could be 200-400
spaces. He advised that this would be abetter location for the transit center than between A and B Avenues
on the west side of the tracks, where the entering and exiting buses would contribute to congestion at the
intersection ofAAvenue and State Street.
'
The Consultants then discussed a newly created transit concept that had originated in a suggestion by Robert
Galante to separate the train from the roadways by installing the tracks below grade and allowing roadway
crossings above the trains. Mr. Arambula pointed out how the trains would travel on a track bed that was cut
into the slope, proceed under State Street and Millennium Plaza, and emerged at some point beyond Millennium
Park. He advised that the railroad tracks currently moved uphill on a 1 % grade going south from Tryon Creek,
and the new concept would reduce the grade so that by the time a train arrived at B Avenue it would be under
the roadway crossing. He explained that there were cost advantages to this scheme because the slope would
'
only need to be reduced - not tunneled - to accomplish the plan. He noted that arrangement would improve
traffic congestion on State Street by removing the rail crossing from the roadway. He also noted this concept
would provide increased access to the study area because it would allow AAvenue to be connected to Foothills
Road. He envisioned a European -like covered train station to serve the trolley and commuter rail. He noted a
new development site would be created for office, civic or residential uses. He anticipated that the slope would
'
allow a pedestrian -only connection to a grand stairway to the river ("Willamette Steps Boulevard"). He ob-
1
u
r V�
L
served this plan would not disturb Downtown view corridors. He recalled examples of similar steps could be
found at the Spanish Steps in Rome and the Harbor Steps in Seattle. He suggested the plan could be accom-
plished in phases to allocate its cost over time. Mr. Crandall anticipated that the north end of the First Street
retail area could be connected to the study area via B Avenue and Willamette Steps Boulevard and that would
also create anew prime development site at First Street and B Avenue. He showed a slide illustration of what
the area might took like with a retaining wall, two tracks for large trains under the grade, the trolley barn at its
existing elevation and a commuter rail station on a lower level. The Consultants acknowledged that any plan that
was adopted for the study area would have to be acceptable to the property owners there and that the plan
should add value to their properties. He further advised that it was better to plan the area as a whole than to
plan it in piecemeal fashion, even if it had to be accomplished in phases over time.
Mr. Crandall then presented Land Use Alternatives LU —1, 2 and 3. He advised that B Avenue could be
oriented to provide a view of Mt. Hood. He said the differences between the Alternatives was that LU- l
showed existing uses except for the area of the chip plant, which became a waterfront park; LU -2 included
mixed use; and LU -3 featured a marina and potential hotel site. He noted that all of these alternatives
featured a pathway that looped to Tryon Creek and back. He clarified that the City of Portland BES
facility found the plan acceptable if that facility was afforded sufficient land for future expansion and he
reported that the chip plant lease was not a long-term lease. He advised that the City might be allowed to
transfer flood plain land in order to build under this plan. He said this plan could be completed in phases.
The Consultants then distributed another survey to the participants.
ill. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
An Oswego Pointe resident said she was concerned about noise from buses. The Consultants clarified that
Task Force members did not seem to favor a plan that would locate the transit station near the residential
uses in the study area. They also clarified for the participants that "mixed use residential" was primarily
residential with some attached live/work space, and "employment" was office or industrial use. They
recalled examples of development areas, such as the Pearl District in the City of Portland, where urban
residents considered proximity to transportation facilities a desirable feature. He said that the natural
setting and views in the study area could compensate for noise from the facilities. He anticipated that
buildings could be designed to utilize the slope so they would not appear to be one-story buildings from
State Street and trees and berms could be used to obscure views of the treatment plant. Mr. Crandall
advised that a wastewater treatment plant in the Dalles was effectively screened from the roadway by trees
and landscaping.
IV DISCUSSION AND PREFERENCES (WORKSHOP)
The participants then formed small discussion groups and each group spent 25 minutes considering the
alternative plans. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 PM.
V. PUBLIC: COMMENT
Each discussion group then reported to the Task Force, as follows:
blic Response
One discussion group cautioned that study area property owners should be included in all aspects of the
planning process. They were also concerned about the impact of a marina on riverfront natural area and '
river circulation.
Another group reported they favored the concept of grouping transportation functions together on one '
side of Highway 43 so that prime retail business use land would be available on the other side of the
roadway to enhance the shopping corridor.
A third group questioned how an under de railroad track bed could be engineered to meet the edge of '
9 � 8 g
the lake, especially during floods. They were also concerned that might be a high-cost segment to con-
struct.
Another group reported that the area's property owners were feeling a little pressured and that there was I insufficient information available at this point of the process to make good decisions.
A discussion group reported that they favored the plan for a marina because there was no place for
'
recreational boaters to dock along the segment of the Willamette River between River Place and a future
dock to be built at Oregon City.
'
A group consisting of Oswego Pointe property owners explained that they did not want to hear transit
buses close to their residences and that they liked the concept that placed the train under the grade. They
clarified that they were not in favor of a boat launch, but they desired to see water access for kayaks and
'
perhaps a floating walkway. They favored the plan for a hotel site because it would draw people to the
riverfront. They advised the waterfront and natural area should be used for educational purposes.
A member of another group reported the participants believed that the pristine edge of the Willamette
River could and should be preserved and enhanced by a marina. They recalled there had been a previous
,
land use approval for an 80 -slip floating marina that would not cut into the existing riverbank in the area of
the James River property. They stressed that it was important to plan year-round uses near the marina.
'
Another group expressed their reservations about constructing a rail bed that was lower than the lake
water level. A participant suggested that the trolley should travel around the study area.
'
Chair Groznik thanked all the attendees for participating in the discussion.
VI. NEXT STEPS
'
The next meetings were scheduled for November 19, 2001 (a special meeting with study arca property
owners) and January 7, 2002.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Groznik adjourned the meeting at
approximately 8:15 PM.
'
Public Response \7 0____
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Stakeholder Meeting # 3
Flip Chart Notes
November 7, 2001
' Meeting held at Oswego Pointe condominiums. Attendees included
Foothills Road Development Plan Task Force Committee members
Members of the public
' Project Manager: Jerry Knippel
Other City Staff: Bob Galante, Ken Itel, Bob Kincaid
Consultant team: George Crandall, Don Arambula, Kristin Belz
The following are committee comments recorded on a flip chart during the discussion of alternatives:
Introductory Discussion
' Mixed use residential - would be mostly residential. Employment - mostly office.
• Density? To be determined.
• View down B Avenue to Mt. Hood - not really visible from State Street? Yes Mt. Hood is visible, but
' not a "compelling" view.
• Height of buildings would affect it - one story uphill, cascade downhill.
• Mitigate WWTP - trees can screen it, etc.
' Residents would be urban -type -dwellers (examples: Boston town -houses, Pearl district, etc.)
Workshop
' General Discussion
• Communicate with property owners! Including a timeline for implementation.
• Appeal of grouping transit functions on one side of Highway 43 - allows downtown mass for critical
functions.
• Open tunnel re: flooding - how would one deal with that?
' Property owners - feel rushed, need time to explore.
• Spur of the RR line could be expanded into a loop.
• Oswego Pointe homeowners view: buses - concerned about noise.
Marina/Land Use Alternative 3
• LIJ 3 - housing with view of WWTP? But on positive side: proximity to downtown, transit, views of
' river?
• Question whether marina would have a desirable impact on shoreline; no conclusion. Reservofi;)ns
about it, though its an intriguing idea.
• Marina and birds - no place currently to park a recreational boat up the Willamette except
Riverplace - i.e., marina idea is "fabulous.
• View from the river back to Lake Oswego is pristine. Plenty of outside money would be available
to support marina.
• Pristine riverfront - "repair" some areas, allow marina in others; prior approval had been received for '
floating marina.
• Marina idea - at odds with density goals though - what uses would surround a marina? Need '
enough to support it.
• Marina would be a "sluice" of sorts - would help Foothills area in floods.
• Oswego Pointe homeowners view: Hotel - good idea, would draw people to the water with a park '
south of that along the water.
• Oswego Pointe homeowners view: Boat launch would not be good there, but water access is a
good thing. ,
• Oswego Pointe homeowners view: Marina - "cranked up" about that idea - could be an educa-
tional facility related to environment and water issues.
Next Steps '
• Nov. 19 meeting with property owners.
• Meeting # 4 - 4-6 pm on Jan. 7 (Monday). '
1
t
C
L
t
jFa.u.e�_
i
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Evaluation Checklist - Written Comments
Meeting # 3
November 7, 2001
The following is a transcription of written comments added to Evaluation Checklists we received:
IDowntown Framework Plan
• Good plans - anything is better than existing.
' More roads brings more traffic and pollution to the area.
Important components of future vision. Coordinates with L.O. Open Space Master Plan?
• Roadway to Foothills.
i
Oswego Crossing (Transit Center)
• Bus and train need to be together.
• No preference.
• Any option needs to be considerate of noise levels with existing and future residential areas. Believe
bus transit sta. west of state and I like idea of underground train. As a resident of Oswego Pointe,
and the closest condo to the existing rail track, I am selfishly concerned of noise increases.
• I favor having all of the transit and rail facilities located on the east side of State Street.
• I think that having a transit station where the existing public parking is (D or F) would put too much
traffic at the State Street/Foothills Road intersection. Residents would be competing with buses for
access. This would be compounded if there was no other road into Foothills area.
• Must add increased park and ride capabilities.
• Should be on east side, leaving retail uses to create critical mass for downtown core. Transit should
be grouped together on east side of Hwy 43. Great big idea.
• Make no small plans.
• Does Alt. F preclude Alt. D? See as complimentary.
• Alt. F - Perhaps impractical but elegant solution.
• Transit station below grade with buses transit between B and C.
• I'd like to see a bus center below with parking above. I do worry about noise for Oswego Pointe.
• "Other" preference: Bus station between B and C with train station below grade.
• Alt. F - with buffers - parking on B Avenue.
Foothills Land Use and Circulation Plan
• It seems the cost would be prohibitive (for LU -3).
• LU 1 and 2 - Park provides habitat and public amenity opportunities for flood plain function. Marino
- habitat issues - less public benefit. Res. uses too close to plant.
• Could create a hybrid - leave triangle in open space for habitat and plant flexibility - retain part of
marina.
• In LU -3 retain land as park that abuts WWTP. Use mixed use res. area to west and south of marina to
replicate downtown waterfront i.e. business/rest. on lower, condos on upper level.
Other Comments ,
• These concepts are exciting. There are so many things that need to be worked out -
undergrounding? grade change; PGE, you continue not to address existing businesses. Noise ,
mitigation. What wonderful concept is cost effective - questions about feasibility unanswered.
• I applaud your wonderful efforts. I hope that whatever is done will be done in a timely manner,
realizing we need to consider long term plans.
• Strong supporter of a marina.
• I like the transit center providing needed parking for riders and connectivity for homeowners. Con-
nectivity is key for pedestrians. Don't forget Ave. B is designated bikes boulevard and bikes and '
families would need to get down those steps somehow.
• No hotel - northwest portion of marina will need to be for WWTP expansion.
• very exciting - the idea of the steps are lovely! '
• B-3 Option: central open space more politically and economically cumbersome. Need more em-
ployment.
• I can forsee a mixture of LU -2 and LU -3. The marina idea is worthy of more research, but should not
lose track of natural features along the water.
• Need more time as a property owner to make any of the above selections.
'
• I am a property owner, and I agree with the overall goals and ideas of the presented program,
however I am not ready to vote on one direction at this time. I feel that by next month, I will be
able to provide more effective feedback.
• Place for the birds; no hotel - make that the park.
• Park and mitigation instead of north part of marina and south/hotel/residential area; expansion of
WWTP area to south west corner of its current property. (Comments on map.)
• LU -3 best idea yet - creates a real attractor for B Avenue steps - incorporate more riparian/green
'
space with it - but keep the marina/waterway concept.
• Increase value of property would offset the cost of development.
'
• Mixed use enhances livability - necessary to complement this grand vision.
• Marina - bad idea. See project objective no. 1 - disrupt shorefront, fish habitat, wildlife corridor.
Destroys riparian zone. So much for Metro Title 3 - what about ESA? Generates for more parking/
'
impervious surface. What does it (do]to Willamette Greenway? On both LU -1 or LU -2, will need
creative solutions to stormwater management and impervious surfaces. Is there demand for
another marina? Would require very sensitive design.
• Residential south of W.S. Blvd. Employment north of W.S. Blvd.
'
• Less marina but some! I like a hotel and restaurant - but would like the continuation of the chip
plant to be green space.
• Cover WWTP.
'
Other Comments ,
• These concepts are exciting. There are so many things that need to be worked out -
undergrounding? grade change; PGE, you continue not to address existing businesses. Noise ,
mitigation. What wonderful concept is cost effective - questions about feasibility unanswered.
• I applaud your wonderful efforts. I hope that whatever is done will be done in a timely manner,
realizing we need to consider long term plans.
• Strong supporter of a marina.
• I like the transit center providing needed parking for riders and connectivity for homeowners. Con-
nectivity is key for pedestrians. Don't forget Ave. B is designated bikes boulevard and bikes and '
families would need to get down those steps somehow.
• No hotel - northwest portion of marina will need to be for WWTP expansion.
• very exciting - the idea of the steps are lovely! '
• B-3 Option: central open space more politically and economically cumbersome. Need more em-
ployment.
fl
1
F1
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
Meeting with Property Owners
Flip Chart Notes
November 19, 2001
Meeting held at City Hall council chambers. Attendees included
Business and property owners from Foothills District
Property owners representative: Rick Saito, Mark Coleman
Project Manager: Jerry Knippel
Other City Staff: Bob Galante, Ken Itel, Bob Kincaid
Consultant team: George Crandall, Don Arambula, Kristin Belz
The following are committee comments recorded on a flip chart during the discussion:
General Discussion
S BES- related discussion
• Development might pressure them to make improvements - i.e., incur financial costs.
• Circulation appears ok; just need to accommodate large trucks.
• Chip storage - is a resource for BES now; transition of this use would be an impact.
• We use our rivers differently now - not as sewage anymore! Public amenity instead.
' A financial decision at chip storage and the City of Lake Oswego, who are also a part owner
"down there" on that property.
• Money/financing issues do have to come up at some point (i.e., costs of projects, etc.)
• BES did not indicate to project team that parks/open space would be a problem so far.
• Could Wastewater Treatment Plant (TP) NOT be there? Sure: if developer paid enough: infrastruc-
ture there amounts to about $50 Million.
' Relocation/mitigation is/has been done in many cities - Seattle example.
• Residences next to TP - are a constraint especially with flood plain, etc.
• The BES TP could expand at another facility, for example.
' Footprint for TP can get smaller.
• So far, the project has taken a "broad overview." Next step - taking a closer look.
• The
' Footpri
Other Property Owners/Properties
' As a business and property owner: this is a long-range plan, and "nothing is going to happen unless
property owners agree" to it; explain what that means - am I assured of the "highest and best use"
of my property?
' Examples of Redevelopment in Lake Oswego: Block 13B purchsed by city over time; Block 136
purchased by private developer; Wizer's block still there as Wizer's store.
' We have unique geographic resources here, one being the river.
• Sewage TP is one hurdle. Another is the flood plain. Interested in cooperating, but see these
imediments as serious.
• Current land use - not an impediment because changes over time. ,
• Flood plain is considered in the proposed land use alternatives:
Intensification above flood plain; podium parking, 10' differential between flood and land, on '
average; chip area as park/passive use; question: mid-site/flood line - residential/employment
combination there? Buildings on podium? Would allow water to go in - one or two levels could
flood. '
• LU -3 - Marina: cut and fill/flood refuge as a possibility - Tualatin Lake example - development above
the flooding.
• How much is the flood plain investigation in the scope of this project? Current building would not '
get permits now. City owes it to itself to see if pumps, etc. already put into use there have
changed the current flood plain - i.e., update the flood plain designation? Flooding has been due
perhaps to "system failures" rather than actual flood plain. '
• New road would have to above building heights - would impede access, would be a dyke.
• Wouldn't be able to get to the river; i.e., encourage "unblocking" this flood plain issue, question of
what land is actually developable.
• Project at "conceptual level" now - no quick answer about floods, show agencies concepts so they
can respond rather than just say no.
• What is the flood plain? Removable sea wall along Tryon Creek is a city plan now? I • The river is the big concern.
• FEMA maps are aerials - it is a process to change them but doing so could open up large areas for
what we want to do. '
• BES/City does have plan to build removable flood wall at two lowest spots at the TP to mitigate
flood damage at the plant.
• Pump station was paid for by property owners and City of Lake O.
• Handout was received re: BES flood wall [ GET COPY]
• My redi-mix cement plant needs to be in an industrial area. Redefine "industrial"? Metro is reducing
industrial use areas - but then have to truck back into town the industrial products made outside of
town! Need to have the industrial products made somewhere! "Look at it later" is said about "85
items" and it "might all go up in smoke" - plan limits my land use and then falls apart and my value
drops.
• Agree it can't all be done at once?
• No - parts in Lake Oswego don't all go together - example, A Avenue is a "rollercoaster."
• Traffic from Foothills coming out onto State at E Avenue - great, but what if ODOT says no?
• Plan has a lot of potential, but hate to hurry and make it not work.
• Implementation stage always brings up things that won't work.
• Steer away from a concept that isn't adequately explored in each area - i.e., identify spectrum of
issues to determine viability. Get knowledge to be able to "shoot higher in your ideas."
• Time element? Long term means what? Hard to say - no real limit; however, one practical im-
pediment is urban renewal district (time limit to its being in place, so extension might be needed).
• Uptown Lake Oswego 0- 30 -year time frame for redevelopment; it has changed a lot in that period
• Different time frame for different parts.
• Immediate time frame: transit center location information - don't put transit center where it might
preclude future gains. Chip area: not a problem now, but if things change - jigsaw pieces inform
each other, plan informs us of directions to move in.
• Grade, flood plain, TP location - issues already brought up. If occurs in stages, less grading that
occurs, the better -maintain business activity while developing road, for instance. But development
could go smoothly if not a lot of cut and fill necessary.
11
11
1
1
PN�
• TP seems most valuable land there - what about increasing at Columbia TP instead:
• Magnitudes of dollars with pieces of plan - whole basin has some value, have to evaluate those
magnitudes of dollars, i.e. can move the TP if have enough money - political cost also must be
considered. There is a 30' bank above water level of the river at the TP now.
• How can we plan for future without knowing elevation of raod? OK, we'll find out.
• As we get more information, we can run more options.
Land Use Perspective Discussion
• Unique site.
• Long term plan - 30 years plus, purely; don't see any one aspect as deal breaking, therfore, look at
whole site. Over the 30 years, if cohesive plan for whole area, not piecemeal.
• Unique "amphitheatre" site - mixed use would be best.
• Flood plain - cut and fill isn't that bad. Like fingers of a marina - intense uses possible and have to
deal with regulations and be patient.
• Looking at short term and limitations - that is a "bottoms up" attitude rather than "top down"
attitude of deciding "what we want here in 30 years."
• Complexities often lead to doing lowest common denominater/easiest/least impact solution - but
in 30 years, will regret it. We do have flexibility.
• This is an opportunity we don't want to pass up - have to start planning or never get there.
• Higher/better use - all agree there is one. Current viable businesses - hard to do their long term
planning if changes imminent.., but when?
• Want to maintain our viability during this long term process.
• Re: urban renewal district - how to generate enough income to get us all out whole" Lots of parks??
Where is the money for us to make the transition (out of the district)? Need to "be able to get out
with our skin!"
• Gary (civil engineer): planning can create uneasiness amongst business owenrs it not clearly defined
by city - defining time frames and how they plan to accomplish objectives.
• Divert part of creek to get flow out of marina (?) possible??
• Area at mouth of creek - Lake O, would like to have it but price is prohibitive ($6 million - unrealis-
tic?)
• State Street building - at point now of looking forward to our redevelopment here... (i.e,, what
about Tri -Met plans?)
• What is the impetus for moving the plant (TP) forward (plan??)
• TP has been there 37 years. We would never put a TP there now!
• Long term value in area - this is a tremendous opportunity! Access at another point at Hwy 43 is
another piece that has to happen or plan will not work.
• A lot has been learned about transit center possibilities - want the same level of info on floods. for
example.
1
11
L
`Fpw,
Lake Oswego Foothills Road
Steering Committee Meeting
1-7-02
Flip Chart Notes
Who: Meeting attendees included Steering Committee Members, Lake Oswego city
staff, members of the public, and consultants.
What: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and review a fourth land use
alternative for the Foothills District. George Crandall presented the report to the
group in a PowerPoint slide show.
Where: the meeting was held in the Municipal Court Room, City Hall, Lake Oswego.
Questions and Discussion: The following notes were recorded on the flip chart during the
meeting.
General Comments
Bus noise at Oswego Pointe a concern.
Tryon Creek Bridge - railroad there also - needs flat area to east side of tracks -
grade issues at E and D also.
North of Tryon Creek - not city property - also existing homes there; road would
'
disrupt them, would be 40' in air.
Oswego Pointe residential area becomes an island with roads around!
If Willamette Steps Boulevard were oriented more north to Mt. Hood, that would
mitigate.
Sidewalks and pedestrian crossings throughout are important.
Melding the ideas into best alternative/combination - please write in your
comments and/or get out the big ideas now in discussion.
Bus shelters needed - keep people dry!
Some alternatives have numerous advantages - for example, depressed RR
solves many problems.
RR tracks shifting to east - advantage to State Street properties.
Like the fact that all the alternatives have good pedestrian circulation and parks.
Southern Pacific RR has been moving to eliminate tunnels - but this not a tunnel,
mostly - side of hill/retaining wall then under B Avenue extension - RR shed.
Has team talked to RR? No.
Land Use and BES/Waterfront Property
1
BES - any plans to move? No! Expensive and difficult; 20 year time frame does
not include a move; cost over half -million dollars, and move to where? Don't
know.
Could pump, not all gravity; all comes down to money and political factors.
Need some numbers on cost of moving and time frame estimate.
New treatment plant could be on half the size lot? Depends on money, gravity -
fed, etc. questions.
•
Riverfront/treatment plant site a unique part of Lake Oswego - high value to the
'
'
city, may mean economic costs over all end up not so huge; must anticipate
creek location probably a problem (not deep enough for motorboats but deep
change, long term, technological changes having to do with water treatment
enough for kayaks).
'
plant; in refinement stage of project, address these issues further.
'
•
Natural areas wanted along river - hotel ok there? Yes. But would it succeed?
alternatives for land use and phasing of it.
'
Move Lakeshore Hotel down there! Access to hotel is key - not read as private.
•
Activity by river, feeling invited is important, not whether it is a hotel or not.
Get some numbers based on land use.
•
Another venue for music, draw people.
'
•
Want enough residential there for safe 24-hour presence, and daytime vitality,
•
and water uniqueness.
BES as another use sometime? Is it needed for city's goals?
,
•
Prefer BES as interpretive center/bury it/mitigate it/embrace it.
•
Be real about costs of moving, burying, etc.
•
Unique piece of property/one time chance.
'
•
Flood plain and BES are obstacles to maximizing value of the property. Don't
want just green space and parking lots there (i.e. don't dwell on present costs
only). Support that - much of these ideas costly.
'
Circulation
•
A Avenue extension to east -- grades allow this? Yes, probably tough but
possible.
,
•
North connection - policy issues, affect on Terwilliger, intersection - size great??
East Avenue - First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) - intersection offset from E could
help FAN; size of intersection vary if offset.
'
•
Final document - how characterize the "if this, then that" factors - plan must work
even without some of those big "it's" being necessary to occur first.
•
Though city policy should be able to accommodate those long-term goals/"if's".
,
•
Values to plans - LU -4 could be longest term and maybe where roads go doesn't
matter (roads the least of various costs).
•
Cut -through created with this new road?
•
The cut -through as one-way couplet and they never work for business or people.
'
•
LU -3 - like its circulation because it does not require an elevated road outside
city, etc.
•
Second that notion; tradition here of roads not being primarily about efficiency
t
because gives character.
•
More than one access point to State Street necessary if more development; LU -3
does show three points including A Avenue if below grade RR, though A Ave.
,
already busy...
Marina Alternative
• Off grade, but not preclude putting the tracks below grade at some point. mouth
'
of Tryon Creek - deeper than where marina shown now - but environmentally
creek location probably a problem (not deep enough for motorboats but deep
enough for kayaks).
'
• One month from now - meet again with refined alternatives - which alternatives?
Marina, LU -4, and less change? Take as a constant the circulation system and
alternatives for land use and phasing of it.
'
• How would marina/phasing work with depressed railroad tracks - has to work
without RR below
Get some numbers based on land use.
'
Marina -like idea, because gives people a destination, and could make a statement for
fish -friendly marina, with educational element.
I�
11
J
• Powerboats? Not want big trucks but marina - boats come from water, not from
big trucks. Quiet because coming in very slowly.
• Kayaks/canoes - access to river good (since can't get to lake) and quiet.
• As shown, small marina, especially depending on bridge.
• Doesn't mitigate floods, but could be cut/fill benefits.
• Marinas collect crud - could be flow-through/oval shape.
• Define marina - store boats, or river access? Marina is public - becomes a public
amenity to downtown, and a visual amenity - closer to Riverp►ace - boathouses,
transient slips. (Riverplace is restricted access to docks, within the public
breakwater.) Example: San Juan Islands, larger boats accessible to marina.
• Hotel with marina alternative?? Works really only with marina and with good
circulation/access.
• Marina conjures up 50' motorboat - better term would be "low-key water access
opportunity"?
Transit Center/West of State Street
Bus station west of State Street preferred - better re: noise of machines!
Pedestrian -friendly mixed use facility an opportunity on west site for buses - prime
site, could have character.
Try not to decide too much about transit center location now - because TGM
project will look at that.
Between B and C Avenues - west of State - look at that as site for buses - gives
parking reservoir, etc.
Block 138 development re: bus location further south and closer (higher usage) -
but needs parking if down there.
Other transit center study - what is that? This group's process leading into that
one, TGM study by city of Lake Oswego with Tri -Met and ODOT . When? On the
calendar next biennium - i.e. in next 1 -1/7 years - bus and streetcar transit
considered together.
January 7. 2002
Foothills Land Use and Circulation
Alternative LU -4
Z -"o,— 4'q.- 1
Ca,� aA
F
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Design District
/ r
01
�{ C.�m�erS ►�� �e
Kt,A cmdam- _
L/ot10, A!ombu:o
Public Response —"
Lake Oswego Foothills Road
Steering Committee Meeting
3-11-02
Flip Chart Notes
Who: Meeting attendees included Steering Committee Members, Lake Oswego city
staff, members of the public, and consultants.
What: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and respond to the framework land
use and circulation concept proposed for the Foothills District. George Crandall
presented the report to the group in a PowerPoint slide show.
Where: The meeting was held at the Bank of America building, A Avenue, Lake Oswego.
Questions and Discussion: The following notes were recorded on the flip chart during the
meeting.
Comments
Not opposed to transit study, but will not roll over; intend to stay at property he
(Gary Buford) owns, yet work with City on transit center plans.
"Negative/opposition" comments on record already from property owners,
including those below State Street (bus noise near residences there).
Knows of one other property owner opposed - yet this opposition was not in
previous meeting minutes.
'0 Long term objectives - difficult to say whether property owners' desires are
ingredients - important that they are.
Other land use options presented in the draft final report do not show full
development.
' Record lacking in terms of not total opposition but concern.
Objective is to protect river, yet propose development along it? Seems wrong -
paving along riverfront doesn't protect.
There are different ways of developing - porous paving stones, etc. - "low
impact development" methods to develop yet protect river with buffer.
Views into this bowl/basin from everywhere in the city.
Jim Mreen: made progress, but one area needs attention still - flood plain - how
to get out of it, allow highest and best use of parcel.
As studies progress, need to explore this flood issue; small boat basin may help.
New FEMA flood plain map - boundary is somewhat different.
Relabel - "Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant," not BES; up to 70% of Lake
Oswego water treated there - a service to Lake Oswego.
BES shares goals, open space and river access needs.
Rich Martin, property owner: exploring use of property north of Tryon Creek - want
confirmation this will be done.
North of Tryon Creek property - inside city limits? High environmental interest in
the property, but too expensive thus tar, so Metro not able to purchase;
anticipate a future use of it would be good though.
North of Tryon Creek as "Area of consideration" though outside of jurisdiction.
• Tough to build trail along south side of Tryon Creek - north would be easier. '
Dashed line on diagram - explore way to connect river to creek along some
route. '
• Diagram indicating "mixed use (hotel) - condemn land there? No - chip plant
there now.
City recreation area along riverfront - a city recreation building for Lake Oswego '
especially if boat basin is there too, has potential (parks and recreation department).
i
i
1
COMMENT SHEET
' Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Dr ft Land Use and Circulation Concept Plan?
a i17ti
��r�sC��� �1\5�._. � ...• -'I-�-'--w-;-''' '' -a-iia-G-�! �,.�-` --_
Xa irhp r�`7 U TL
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas?
rradway/Rail Alignment Study ---Lh130 C("(. (Q y�' ' �- - '�`1� 'k' "1 —
(``'<` • Q r1, ac,t� t ��^. '>✓C,(`,a'\r,•.''''. �. �(G\0 � CK� C `;. ''` \ ��'',0 01.11 ,i
�SJIi nt'd �,,Y� `"n ,t, l i\'• ' S� .� ` L V.•1S._
r � 1 • .i 11
Qi\-Ayn�1—_moi_ ISI i ii�.R ,1 1-lc1'•.:�J (Q�y��\ (J t i t \(t` :J �1 t'1� :0
atertront Park/Open Space/Small Boat Basin Study- ��-
��',Ir. ; � ,��t• a't'r� Ic1s f1r� o�;�, ��;c ',� a �:,rt, .�; :. �-c� ti'nn;►L
Transit Center Study (TGM) �t� -� `des, r�� i t ��`-_`;;q'�r�' : �QC1 moil, U—
,l'�_
1')� l'r� \00'� }C'j',Il jr � k'd'l— 1 �. ��;.0 Q�:►. --
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Study
C CF's C
3.) Please add any other comments below.
'
Name (optional):.I ,;-
' II you need additional Nme to respond, please return your comments to.
Crandall Ararnoula
52C SW Yomhlll• Roof Suite 4
Portlond.Oregon 97204
(503) 417-7879 tax (503) 417-7934
koelzncc-city.cor"'
COMMENT SHEET
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plar. March 11, 2002 '
1.) What are your comments on the Draft land Use and Circulation Concept Plan? '
AkAv c-) !pakns 6 fA;5 010^ 15w4e.4 w„ 64 4-4 0 11!" R 04Pkb I�—'$ e 5.,r su,ua�
P�,l.,s.»relctrx cfmcu.M �III�aCC».ei/(v�1 �t sQ-ulsf sem. bec{ ham....„ 1�c,4 ��x�.Grracl/le�( s.�e
s41 A W,4-1'(Nn."1 I DK44A O S K i�e��>L!�? /�. ` 0"M Lo e- �
ao 1 /�lwc r..)-C—a CA %
- n LIL*x&-,- - lm�af — {Cxw� to v/ i o+^ Tl4Y . _Yj v eev4a `t
L/S�DDS ►�COSt+:2c
4x( A, Nil rryv �Ke(Y� 4a -,A vt � � cXI�nklt
�1....5. Thi. M !s w -w eh�-�.�e —o►' .J�-���.'P�� i(,� p
f
2.) What are your comments on the Ph6se 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas? '
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study �' °i� ' 'a.Q c o,,,, e S T�" °' " '
�i ;� k>-- e4,o..t — � 1a,. ':' °"� -,eL EJi�ve �h-se�ficr
kcem Iq 4—
o JCSL. �i O F dV, GJ e �av�'S TYHoh ok.�- r5 k �1i..1i 7iJ U'Si�1
Waterfront Park/Op/en�Space/Small Boat Basinf tudy nn�
'L
JI. A --L n -Y qW_„p{�{ K�PXva�o.o abowl S /�r. w�'2Q s
-6-Cer3�( A�u.�'S��f(� ,k 'Re/�.t�.. + At, �IGe- i3 ewrtieCl cQ.Sr e�s
Transit Center Study 6GM)
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Study�
3.) Please add any other comments below.
Nameptional):•0 JY -- ------ --- --
If you need additional time to respond, please return your comments to '
Crondoll Arombulo
520 SW Yamhill, Roof Suite 4
Portlano.Oregon 97204
(503) 417.7879 fax (503) 417-7904
kbel2®ca-city.com
L�
J
Ll
COMMENT SHEET
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan
March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Draft Land Use and Circulation Concept Plbn?
'h= .nf /N z i�\ S b e f- >4I r )-L-4 /3 �7 5 ; i I H"p r� fiD
U
(_ted S i U6 71` •S
AI J
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas?
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study I'Z e'7� ��� ^ K-✓L--�`��fB� ?'`r'�
.�,"ti���2
e1�T�h/1
Pr 6rAJ)
Waterfront Park/Open Space/Sm II Boat Basin Study A -2 -Al
P�. 1pD
it) IP/
Transit Center Study (TGM) SYws�� I� �e ✓1/�j /'� S wc;, l r c..7r.�
vie1-1--e--(9 C6ki )) a P �a , r --
fi'�) u�iCf' �-'�' 3vA-c 67" S`4" ' o C 5 r
4T��s+'� �y'cl - t fr�$S�S�2 ('.C✓i' - ( .(. V J�
W1 lamette Steps Boulevard Ali nment Stud i'oel"
i .:.Ro � � "` 19'7 ✓`PSC
3.) Please add any other comments below.
) f�� {;..., W,'ir'z�d, e—*— 54-r.. 161
"1'.rl ,hBtP.,. )1
1 Name (optional):
11
It you need additional time to respond, please return your comments to:
Crardall Arambula
520 SW Yomhill. Roof Suite 4
Portland. Oregon 97204
(5031 417-7879 tax ;503) 417-7904
Y.beit®co-city.com
COMMENT SHEET
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan
March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Draft Land Use and Circulation Concept Plan?
n
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas?
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study
Waterfront Park/Open Space/Small Boat Basin Study -- --
W7'rit Aj&4, e rr ever amu
Transit Center Study (TGM) --
Willamette
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Study — -
3.1 Please add any other comments below.
Name (optional): _ 06LJw 5i1'4ru�;tJ - La.KG lZ✓v-�j,_' f�.r.�`zf �,. �L — -
It you need addltionol time to respond, please return your comments to:
&'r-" G �� Crandall Arambulo
I i 520 SW Yamhill, Root Suite 4
Portlond, Oregon 97204
(503) 417-7879 fax (503) 417-7904
kbelzOco-city.com
COMMENT SHEET
' Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan
1]
March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Draft Land Use and Circulation Concept Plan?
I+�Cu�t_� 11UL.F AU rpa x(42 ID &IC u, (L -u -PO �551Y10
0-�%'IUt JtiUA&( L(i t. f U i ��.�Gti�GC e. !�u-;itis i rcufi� rQ,cl (1i¢aw�
V141 *0' `1W., ',Ayett 12IV2 ;!Tr2
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas?
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study iObi!LS **I- PAtCA h 0'4,CCi & l,YL(, blc
u 'lL Ve4 5 ii I )
Watertr nt Park/Ope Sppce/Small Boat Basin Study LOb* 5 i1 ZI�Gs c.f
�ja,e( 4T Uu c�G�p�t-< .
Transit Center Study (TGM) ' >'G ri1� +YlV1, t --n+ (.M4-
( Lz wyw) -
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Stu
ik_ AA _4,441AIal
I Y1 GDY�<{Y�txv fes'
3.) Please add any other comments below.
Name (optional): _---_-----_------- --
It you need additional time to respond, please return your comments to.
Crandall Arombulo
520 SW Yomhill, Root Suite 4
Portland. Oregon 97204
(503) 417-7879 lax (503) 4 7-7904
kbe!z®co-city.com
-
COMMENT SHEET
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Draft land Use and Circulation Concept Plan?
rr�1 i
- :QUO
ir19D �
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas? )
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study FIs ns - ¢�S-;e�,,grw ¢�1 sLull� �� �wIJL�r.
��nII n}L1ck1vI
_ c-�li�,,' L
o bid 4 LY'r a
Waterfront Park/Open Space/Small Boat Basin Study
II I :u 12
Transit Center Study (TGM)
I
a.J%i2lil4ito nJ'L "O'eP eM --
U l} v J v
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Study —� '' L' t:'
3.) Please add any other, comments below.
Cei.i—�u� 5�� (<� �x.�wf.iP M�dd�.�.�rJ rF(,...�ti n Y r � t): � `�•t,.�� 1
Name (optional):
16you need additional time to respond, please refurn your comments to:
Crandall Aramou a
520 SW Yarnhill, Root Suite 4
Portland, Oregon 97204
1503; 417-7879 tax 1503) 417-7904
kbeli&c0-city.com
COMMENT SHEET
Lake Oswego Foothills Road Development Plan March 11, 2002
1.) What are your comments on the Draft Land Use and Circulation Concept Plan?
2.) What are your comments on the Phase 2 Plan Refinement Study Areas?
Roadway/Rail Alignment Study
� � t,�,c.� _ � L ��.`»,� �� � • �- ate, ��:_.� . n�� o r l..U._�� �L _k' _ `— ��
Waterfront Park/Open Space S(Jm'all Boat Basin Study _.
v4
r f
Transit Center Study (TGM) _
Willamette Steps Boulevard Alignment Study
' ment
3.) Please add any other oms below.
�- �� _,;..� �,. ,, >> � �� � C>;-�.c_u- stir'' -•—U�
,
Name (optional):
It you neep additional time to respond. please( et urn your comments to:
..rcn.lpll Ar,arrb�<<.i
52C SW Yom•ul!. Roo' Suce
LJ
Lake Oswego Foothills Road
Steering Committee Meeting
5-15-02
Flip Chart Notes
Who: Meeting attendees included Steering Committee Members, Lake Oswego city
staff, members of the public, and consultants.
What: The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the final report for the Lake
Oswego Foothills Road Design District. George Crandall presented the report to
the group in a PowerPoint slide show. Ken Itel presented information about the
upcoming TGM grant to study locating a proposed transit center in the Foothills
District. The discussion that followed was recorded on a flip chart and is
transcribed below.
Where: Meeting held at US Bank Building. State Street, Lake Oswego.
Questions and Discussion: The following notes are from the flip chart notes recorded
during the meeting.
LU -5 Alternative
Want more information about it?
It is a new scheme, and proposes full development of the Foothills site after the
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) vacates.
Scheme shows building footprints that engage the street; shows the Willamette
Steps Boulevard (B Avenue extension street); shows the boat basin - all of which
are in keeping with the preferred framework plan the Steering Committee
proposed for the area.
Other land use options presented in the draft final report do not show full
development.
LU -5 considers development of the WWTP site prior to BES's eventual possible
departure, so as to consider site development cohesively with other adjacent
development being proposed for the Foothills.
LU -5 builds on natural characteristics of the Foothills area as a bowl; stairstepping
'0
and allowing views and providing an amenity/draw - the yacht basin and the
river.
Railroad line moving - opens the east side of State Street and allows
undergrounding of railroad tracks at Millennium Plaza (State Street crossing).
Views into this bowl/basin from everywhere in the city.
20-30 year time frame.
• Supports long-term construction of light rail, offers a draw to allow appropriate
housing and employment density to support light rail.
• LU -5 a great suggestion - but 20 years may be too soon a time frame (re: BES
operation of WWTP).
'
WWTP improvements occur constantly, but financial issues/what you want to see
there are also factors to the plant remaining or vacating.
Pumping elsewhere? That was on the table as an option but is no longer (after
'•
BES preliminary financial feasibility memo).
Transit Center Study I
• Narrowing to one site or considering alternatives?
• Opposed to the transit center site including his property (Mr. Buford).
• Study will examine all sites and any new ones and then narrow to two or three
despite the fact that the Steering Committee narrowed its choices to 1-2
preferred transit center sites already. '
PGE, Railroads, ODOT - all will be affected by transit center study.
Jarvis/North Tryon Property
City's acquisition of it is a significant addition, trail on north side of creek possible.
Do not limit trails to being asphalt, nor to being above the floodway - may
explore other options.
BES property
• BES open to sale of chip plant property, with BES retaining river access to the
north side of its site.
• Acquisition of chip plant property - exciting prospect, to develop in the public
vision; not preclude future opportunities.
Next Steps
• Typically, hold public hearing for open community response; council would
probably accept, not adopt, the plan at this point.
• Presentation at City Council may be in June.
II
Fj
11
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002
SUBJECT: AP 02-08; an appeal of the Community Forestry Commission's decision to
approve a Type II tree permit requested by Stephen and Melinda Todd. The
applicants are requesting approval to remove an 8" maple, a 13" maple, and a
12" cherry in order to expand their two -car garage to a three -car garage.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to affirm the decision of the Community Forestry Commission by denying AP 02-08.
EST. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS:
N/A Council Report with
attachments
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEV. REVIEW MANAGER
-0+f T/O2
signoff/date
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoft/date
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.: N/A
Resolution no.: N/A
Previous Council
consideration: N/A
CI` 'CMANAGER
signoff/ddte
L. F. MCDONALD, JR.
BY HAND DELIVERY
BALI_ JANIK 1_LP
A T T O R N E V S
101 SOUTHWFST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3219
www.balaanik.com
TELEPRoNE 503-228.2525
FACSIMR.E 503-295.1058
October 3, 2002
Re: File No.: TC 02-0318 fAP 02-061 - 1478
Dear City Council:
fmcdonald(ilbj 11p.com
Eau
r'dFILAK-EO
David Wheeler and Kimberly Beaudet (the "appellants") appealed the
Community Forestry Commission's ("CFC") decision approving Stephen and Melinda Todd's
(the "applicants") Tree Cutting Permit because the appellants are concerned about the safety and
value of their home. The decision does not ensure compliance with LOC 55.02.080(2) or (3).
Although the applicant's have not submitted any evidence regarding a mitigation plan, the CFC
found that an appropriate landscaping plan will satisfy LOC 55.02.080(2) and (3), and
conditioned the applicants to submit a mitigation plan for subsequent review and approval by
staff. See Findings 2.b. and c. and Condition 2.B. The CFC's findings and conditions of
approval are in error because they are not based on substantial evidence, and is an improper
delegation of authority.
Rather than weighing the evidence before it and concluding that the offered
mitigation plan is either in compliance with the approval criteria, or that compliance is feasible,
the CFC simply asserted that appropriate landscaping would satisfy the approval criteria. CFC
erred because there was no evidence before it demonstrating that mitigation is feasible, and
rather than making the determination of feasibility or compliance in a public forum, the CFC
delegated that authority to staff in a subsequent review that is not subject to notice and comment.
At the hearing before the CFC, Citv staff asserted that the CFC need not provide
an opportunity for notice and comment for the mitigation plan because the decision was not a
land use decision. Lake Oswego's Tree Cutting Ordinance implements the goal and policies of
Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, Section 2, Vegetation of
the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, granting the tree cutting permit will have a significant
impact on land use because it will lead to an intensification of use that will alter the character of
the neighborhood. As such, the CFC's (and City Council's) decision is properly characterized as
a land use decision.
The CFC's error can be easily solved. The appellants simply request the
opportunity to participate in cratling an adequate mitigation plan that will satisfy the approval
criteria. The appellants are willing to work with the applicants in either a public forum before
Ol)M ATCDOCSTORTLAN DOWN\ I
PORTLAND, ORHOON WA.gNINCTON, D.C. Biwa, OREGON
BALL JANIK LLP
October 3, 2002
Page 2
City Council, or in private to formulate an adequate plan. If the City and/or applicant prefer the
latter, the appellant anticipates that the applicant and appellant could meet independently at a
neutral location in the presence of counsel, staff, or an independent third party mediator and
bring a mutually agreeable mitigation plan before the City Council for its review. At that point,
City Council can review the mitigation plan and determine if it complies with the approval
criteria. In the alternative, the appellants suggest that the applicants present a mitigation plan at
the public hearing so it can be reviewed. If necessary, the appellants are willing to continue or
reschedule the appeal hearing so that the applicant's have an adequate opportunity to create a
mitigation plan.
Sill, • rely,
L.F. McDonald, Jr.
LFJ:DLK:crs
cc: David. D. Powell, City Attorney (by hand deliver)
Stephen and Melinda Todd (by hand delivery)
:ODM ATCDOCSTORTLA N D\304730\ 1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: (An Appeal of a decision by the Community Forestry Commissions
AP 02-08; an appeal of the Community Forestry Commission's approval of the
applicant's request to remove three trees in order to expand an existing two -car
garage to a three -car garage.
This site is located at 1645 Lee Street (Tax Lot 1305 of Tax Map 21 E 1513A).
DATE: September 27, 2002
ACTION:
The action before the City Council is an appeal by David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet of 1611 Lee Street
(Exhibit A-1) of the Community Forestry Commission's (Commission) decision to approve a tree removal
application filed by Stephen and Melinda Todd. The applicants are requesting to remove an 8" maple, a 13"
maple, and a 12" cherry in order to expand an existing two -car garage to a three -car garage.
The details of the applicants' proposal are found in the July 26, 2002, staff report (Exhibit D).
COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION DECISION:
Following the public hearing on August 7, 2002, the CFC voted unanimously to approve the applicants'
request. The CFC heard testimony in favor of the application from the applicants and in opposition to the
application from David Wheeler, Kimberley Beaudet, and their lawyer, Frank McDonald, who also read into
the record a letter of opposition from Mary Anderson, Exhibit 6202. Please see Exhibit C-1 for the CFC
minutes.
BACKGROUND:
On May 21, 2002, the applicants applied for a tree removal application to remove an 8" maple, a 13" maple,
and 12" cherry from the north side yard of their property in order to expand their two -car garage to a three -
car garage. The application was processed as a Type 11 tree permit and public notice of the pending permit
was given in accordance with LOC 55.02.082. Two letters in opposition of the application were received
during the comment period from abutting neighbors to the north of the subject property, Exhibit F-2.
As discussed in the July 26, 2002, staff report (Exhibit D), staff found that the applicants could meet the
criteria for issuance of Type 11 tree cutting permits outlined in LOC 55.02.080. Staff posted the notice of the
Council Report AP 02-08
Page 1 of 4
tentative decision to approve the application at the subject site on June 19, 2002. On July 3, 2002, David
Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet filed a request for a hearing before the CFC on the grounds that the
application did not meet approval criteria number 2 and 3 of LOC 55.02.080, Exhibit 6200.
Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Beaudet, and their lawyer testified in opposition to the application at the CFC hearing on
August 7, 2002. In addition, a letter of opposition from Mary Anderson of 1372 Larch Street was read into
the record, Exhibit G201. The Community Forestry Commission unanimously approval the application,
finding that the request met all the criteria for Type II tree removal. The details of that decision are provided
in Exhibits B and C-1.
On September 3, 2002, Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Beaudet appealed the Community Forestry Commission's
decision, Exhibit A. This appeal is being processed according to the provisions of LOC 55.02.085.
This matter is being forwarded to the City Council as required by LOC 55.02.085(5). According to this
standard, the hearing before the City Council shall be based on the record established before the
Commission, and only those persons who appeared before the Commission may testify.
Review of issues Raised before the Citv Council:
The following is a summary of the issues raised by the appellants in the Notice of Appeal, Exhibit A. The
appellants' issues are bolded. The appellants suggest in the notice that the Community Forestry
Commission did not correctly reach a decision with regard to the following issues:
The appellants contend that the proposed construction does not comply with LOC
55.02.080(2), which requires that tree removal will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil
stability and flow of surface waters. The appellants maintain that once the construction is
completed the soil will be inadequately anchored and will erode and wash onto their property
when it rains.
The Commission found that appropriate landscaping in front of the garage addition would prevent
a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and flow of surface waters. The Commision
imposed a condition of approval requiring landscaping materials to screen the new addition (page 3
of Exhibit B). Currently, there is a bare dirt slope underneath the trees, which would be replaced
with a mixture of groundcover, trees and/or shrubbery that will provide better soil stability than the
current conditions. In addition, the new building area will cover a portion of the slope and the
remaining side yard would be primarily flat north of the addition. An existing small rock wall will
remain below the area where the concrete apron will be constructed for access to the third garage
bay. Roof drainage from the new addition would be directed to a gutter and discharged to a rain
drain on the site. The Building Division will review drainage from the new addition during the
building permit process. This standard is met.
The appellants contend that the application (foes not meet LOC 50.02.080(3), which requires
that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics,
and property values of the neighborhood. Tile appellants believe that the mitigation plan
required by the CFC would not adequately replace the screening provided by the existing;
trees in scale and that the upkeep of the required mitigation would not be ensured because no
maintenance plan was required. In addition, the appellants claim that the proposed
development may impede access to the properties north of 1645 Lee Street, which would
decrease the value of both properties. According; to the appellants, the applicants recently
Council Report AP 02-08
Page 2 of 4 4
piled landscaping rocks along the edge of their northern property line, making access to their
garage at 1611 Lee Street difficult.
The Commission agreed that there may be a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood
as viewed by the neighbors to the north of the subject property, but that no reasonable alternatives
to the proposal exist (page 2 of Exhibit B). Pursuant to LOC 55.02.080(3), the City may grant an
exception to the criterion that the tree removal will not have a negative impact on the character,
aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood 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. Since the existing garage is attached to the house the only alternative to the proposal would
be to add to the rear of the garage. This would create a tandem configuration of the cars in the
garage and would interfere with two windows on the side of the house behind the garage. The
upper story window would be blocked, which would convert the three-bedroom home to a two-
bedroom home due to the lack of egress from the second story bedroom (photograph I I of Exhibit
E-5).
The Commission found that decreasing the width of the garage by two tett, and requiring
landscaping, in addition to the required minimum 1:1 mitigation, would adequately mitigate for the
negative visual impacts of the tree removal. The Commission imposed a condition of approval
requiring that the mitigation vegetation include both groundcover and plant materials that will
grow a minimum of 8-10 feet in height. The vegetation is to be maintained in a manner that will
not impede on the use of the access easement on the property to the north of the applicants. If the
City Council finds that the mitigation plan is not adequate to mitigate for the tree removal, Council
may elect to revise the plan required by the Commission pursuant to LOC 55.02.094.
There is no provision in the 'Tree Code that requires a maintenance plan for mitigation; however,
staff interprets the mitigation provisions to require mitigation materials be maintained to ensure
their survival. Otherwise, the purpose of the mitigation would not be accomplished. Compliance
with the mitigation requirements is enforceable by City staff.
The appellants raised the issue of access to their garage at 1611 Lee Street in their appeal notice
(Exhibit A), and during the CFC hearing. This issue is not relevant because it is not related to the
approval criteria for the tree permit. The recent placement of landscaping rocks on the applicants'
property that allegedly interferes with access to the appellants' garage is also not relevant to the
approval criteria and is new evidence that was not raised during the CFC hearing; therefore, this
issue cannot be raised before the Council.
CONCLUSION
Based upon evidence in the record, the Commission concluded that the application met all the criteria for a
Type 11 tree removal permit, and voted unanimously to approve the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Commission, and deny AP 02-08.
EXI11131"1'S
A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL
Notice of intent to appeal by David Wheeler & Kimberley Beaudet, dated September 3, 2002
Council Report AP 02-08
Page 3 of 4 - J
B. FINDINGS. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
TC 02-0318, dated August 21, 2002
C. MINUTES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION HEARINGS
C-1. Minutes of August 7, 2002, hearing
C-2, Minutes of August 21, 2002, hearing
D. STAFF REPORTS
TC 02-0318, dated July 26, 2002
E. GRAPHIC/PLANS
E-1. Tax Map
E-2. Site Plan Illustrating Tree Locations
E-3. Site Plan Submitted With Building Permit Materials
E4. Sensitive Lands Map
E-5. Photographs of Trees and Site
E-6. Photograph Submitted by Melinda Todd
E-7. Photograph Submitted by Kim Beaudet
E-8. Photograph Submitted by Stephen Todd
F. WRITTEN MATERIALS
F-1 Type II Tree Removal Application, TC 02-0318
F-2 Letters from Mary Anderson, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet dated June 3, 2002
G. LETTERS
Neither For Nor Aizainst:
G1-100 None
Support:
G101 None
Opposition:
G200 Request for hearing by David Wheeler & Kimberley Beaudet, dated July 3, 2002
G201 Letter from Mary Anderson, dated August 3, 2002
Council Report Al' 02-()h
Page 4 of 4 6
NE 1/4 NW I/4 SEC. 15 T. 2 S. R. i E Wt M•
��°� CLACKAMAS COUNTY JE:
on y,
III= 1001 001 F.
1—
W 4U
W
H SEE MAP 2co I� IOCD
CH L..CN STREET -...4 — .,8..,.✓e4 to, vo
^. cr: Mn , �... ;Q� .v�i�� e•.'.
1'1300
,+ .r. 3 'p ✓sol otr 5 .re 6I J•'T TM g 9 ��.i �� , w.i� 1v �:
200 q l 300 '401 400 1:1302 1303 1500 i S 310C
�IStf =) 1530.1 1430 I 1400 I ; 1314 '. IST2 1401 1400 1241 '
—�•1� . ` I�►% Isco d�.' _
J j" 6 5 '
s- a.+ rn- 1.r ax-
av so• 1 0.••
17 900. 800 700 600 I 500 1 �' `' =/•QA
1101
Nil 1431 1421 5 5 4 -
�
(' I
ar.l r.16 re IS n,•14 ,e431 ,& L se (l I 10 J0.
.. _............ I OTH) S T R E ES
1304 r� S
-25
7-02 �
2 moo. .fo
f 1301 t4
NO. 45 - -
Pi.r1 S LINE za+ A-?,OLLARDDLC R ": /3'01
JAN B•a,�'er 1 ...:, r• :' ...... `fie' ti •' . 46 %
1700 zJ` F r16•� ��OCK DLC
N0
BULL �
LS' (
9?sb':: \..18OO�N LINE :,223 JESSE o
f u
_
,'�` 00 ;• i u l %
11 /� ' � �j /rip
\S
a a
eizs' 0 irs o 2400 j° o
do. LL Heb•✓•,a JiOJl' •• • h /
4
COURT & CORNELL t �F., „sem. `,�'..�� ?'
f•.�,...�...• .aa ak (r -
�.w llcr ..c J'�o�. -j ° 300
B 0 45 ° 1.3p• Z
. 2600 p .45Ac.
r .,o A3 �0.58Ac. t ; ulll ;'
is 2200 11151
' a North
� � •wv • Z yr 1
•' n •roe
a r:u ... .� r • � .rte>.,•.r > , �
9 ,..r, : L•
� 1.27 7Ac.
s � 112AS C 1
DAVID T. WHEELER and KIMBERLEY A. BEA UDET
xP
September 3. 2002
Arw�e CIh heee►Aer ���
Members of the City Council
City of Lake Oswego, Oregon
RE: Notice of Intent to Appeal decision regarding File No.: TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061 - 1478
Dear City Council:
This letter and the accompanying $65.50 appeal fee is a written notice of our intent to appeal
the above referenced decision by the Community Forestry Commission. As explained in more
detail below, the decision reached by the Commission on August 21, 2002 does not sufficiently
address our concerns that two of the approval criteria in section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego
Code ("LOC") have been satisfied.
We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street, formerly 1314 Larch Street. Stephen and
Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and have applied for a Type II
Tree Cutting Permit (#020318) that has been tentatively approved. The stated purpose of the
Tree Cutting Permit is to allow northward expansion of an existing garage. Our property shares
an access easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street owned by Mary Anderson. Due
to the allowed construction of the homes in this neighborhood, our front door, the bay window
from our master bedroom, and the access to our garage all face the north side of the Todd's
garage and the site of the proposed tree removal and proposed construction. The Type 11 Tree
Cutting Permit application should be denied for the following reasons.
Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property, the proposed tree
removal and proposed construction will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability and the flow of surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is
several feet higher in elevation than our property, and once the trees are removed and proposed
construction completed, the soil will be inadequately anchored and it will erode and wash down
onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and other landscaping
already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install a channel drain earlier this
year to keep the surface of the easement and our driveway from being continually flooded with
mud and plant material debris. The proposed construction will result in a soil bank between the
proposed garage wall and the property line with a 3-4 foot vertical drop over 10 feet. The
mitigation plan outlined in 2.13. on page 3 of the above referenced document does not specifically
address our concerns about erosion of debris and plant material onto the easement and into our
driveway.
If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the
character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC
55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common access
easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed development
constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property may be impeded, which will
decrease the value of both properties. In fact, on the day following the public hearing before the
Community Forestry Commission, the Todds piled several hundred pounds of landscaping rock
EXHIBIT A
AP 02-08 (�
4
-2— September 3, 2002
right up to the property line for no reason other than to impede access to 1611 Lee Street and
1372 Larch Street. This has resulted in damage to vehicles belonging to owners of both
adjoining properties and has made access to the garage at 1611 Lee Street difficult. When Mr.
Todd was asked to move the rocks, he refused to do so. Photographs documenting this action
will be presented at the appeal hearing.
As noted above, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of
obtaining a building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as
allowed by current building code. Construction of the proposed soil bank between the new
construction and the easement will severely limit ingress and egress to our driveway, and may
necessitate the use of a "3 -point turn" to enter and exit our garage. Indeed, that has been the
exact result of the placement of the rocks along the property line for the past 3 weeks. It would
also limit the size and type of vehicle that could access our garage and will therefore encroach
upon our rights of use and enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability.
The trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the other 13" in
diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet above the ground,
and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature trees are approximately
40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages not only the Todd house
but also other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house. This screen is particularly
significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the south side of our home.
Replacement of this greenery will require many years to reach maturity and the proposed
mitigation plan falls far short of ensuring an adequate timeline. Paragraph 2.B. on page 3 of the
referenced document fails to stipulate any minimum for the planting height of the screening
vegetation, requires only a minimum of 8 feet at maturity and does not stipulate any required
maintenance. We believe the vegetation should be at least 8 feet in height at the time of
installation and be required to reach at least 20 feet in height at maturity. In addition, the time
period over which the plant material will reach maturity and the penalty for failure to maintain
the vegetation should be spelled out. The recent retaliatory and unprovoked nature of the Todds
obstruction of our use of the easement has erased any willingness to trust their goodwill in
carrying out the City's directives. Furthermore, there is no provision that the mitigation plan is
subject to review and comment by the neighbors who it purports to protect.
For these and other reasons, we respectfully request a formal hearing before the members of
the City Council of Lake Oswego at such a time as will be mutually agreeable to all parties. We
remain hopeful that an adequate solution can be found that will allow reasonable development of
the property at 1645 Lee Street and will also safeguard the rights of the homeowners of adjacent
properties. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, ,��
t T. Wheeler
Kimberley A. Beaudet
1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034.6000
PHONE: 503.697.8624 • FAX: 503.697.8624
10
I BEFORE THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION
2 OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
og 1a
6 APPROVAL TO REMOVE 3 TREES IN ORDER) TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478
TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN ) STEPHEN & MELINDA TODD
EXISTING TWO-CAR GARAGE. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
10
11 NATURE OF APPLICATION,
12 A request by the applicants for approval to remove a 21" cherry, an 8" maple, and a 13" maple in
13 order to expand an existing two -car garage to a three -car garage. The site is located at 1645 Lee
14 Street (Tax Lot 1305 of Tax Map 21E 15BA).
15
16 HEARINGS
17
18 The Community Forestry Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its
19 meeting of August 7, 2002.
20
21 The following exhibits were presented to the Commission and were entered into the record:
22
23 Exhibit E-6 Photograph submitted by Melinda Todd
24 Exhibit E-7 Photographs submitted by Kimberley Beaudet
25 Exhibit E-8 Photograph submitted by Stephen Todd
26 Exhibit G-201 Letter in opposition of the application from Mary Anderson
2-
28 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
29
30 Citv of Lake Oswego Tree Code (Chapter LOC 55)
31
32 LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type H Tree Cutting Permits
33 LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit
34 LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required
35
36 CONCLUSION
37
38 The Community Forestry Commission concludes that TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061 can be made to
39 comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions.
40
41 FINDINGS AND REASONS.
4?
4- The Community Forestry Commission incorporates the July 26, 2002, Staff Report (with all
44 exhibits attached thereto), as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and
PAGE 1 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 EXHIBIT B
AY 02-08 - - 1
I conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter
herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the
approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter.
4
5 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission:
7 1. The Commission considered the evidence in the record and heard testimony regarding the
8 removal of three trees in order to construct an addition to the garage at 1645 Lee Street.
9 The attorney representing David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet read into the record
10 written testimony from the Mary Anderson of 1372 Larch Street in opposition of the
11 subject tree permit.
12
13 2. The Commission considered the criteria that must be met in order to remove a tree that is not
14 dead or a hazard [LOC 55.02.0801.
15
16 a. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal are located within the footprint
1 of the proposed development, and that the addition meets the site development standards
1b of the zone.
19
20 b. The Commission finds that appropriate landscaping in front of the garage addition will
21 prevent a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, or
22 existing windbreaks. Drainage from the addition will be directed to a gutter and
discharged to a rain drain on the site and will be reviewed and approved during the
24 building permit process. The Commission also finds that tree protection fencing will be
provided around trees to remain, and an inspection by staff will ensure protection of
26 adjacent trees during construction.
2?
28 c. The Commission finds that no reasonable alternative exists to the removal of the
29 identified trees because an addition to the rear of the garage would require two windows
30 on the main house to be blocked, and would technically reduce their 3 -bedroom house to
31 a two bedroom house due to lack of egress from the upstairs bedroom. The Commission
32 finds that the staff recommendation reducing the size of the garage width by two feet, and
33 installation of landscaping, including appropriate trees and/or shrubs, and groundcover in
3.4 front of the garage addition would mitigate for the impact on the neighborhood aesthetics
35 and property values.
36
37 The Commission also heard testimony from the neighbor, Mr. Wheeler that the garage
38 addition would have an even greater impact to aesthetics and property values because the
39 roof would change from a hipped roof to a gabled end that would increase the bulk of the
40 structure near the north property line. The applicant later testified that the roof form
41 would remain hipped and that the garage wall will be closer to the property line, but the
42 bulk and height of the structure as viewed from Mr. Wheeler's property would remain the
43 same.
44
45 d. The Commission finds that the tree removal is not for the purpose of providing views.
PAGE 2 TC 02-0318 (AP 02-06) - 1478
12
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
e. The Commission finds that the proposed replacement of trees on a 1:1 basis meets the
Code requirement for mitigation, and that additional landscaping in front of the garage to
mitigate for the visual impact should be imposed as a condition of approval.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED BY THE COMMUNITY FORES'T'RY COMMISSION of the City of Lake
Oswego that:
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] is approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval
set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order.
2. The conditions for TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] are as follows:
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit the AviDlicants/Owners Shall:
A. Submit revised site and building plans showing a reduced width of the proposed
addition from 15 feet to 13 feet.
B. Submit a final mitigation plan showing the size, species, and location of three
replacement trees in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55.02.084. The
mitigation plan shall also include the size, species and location of plant materials and
groundcover to effectively screen the garage wall along the north property line. The
vegetation shall be of a type that will grow a minimum of 8-10 feet, and that can be
maintained in such a manner that it will not impede on the access easement to the
north. The mitigation plan will be subject to review and approval by staff.
C. Apply for a tree protection permit, and install tree protection fencing around the
remaining trees that are within 15' of construction activity in the following manner:
i. Fences shall be minimum six -feet high chain link fence installed around the dripline
of the trees, or 10 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater, unless the location of
the fencing is modified by recommendation of a certified arborist. The tree
protection fencing will be subject to review and approval by staff.
ii. Signs shall be placed on the fence that clearly read "Tree protection area, Do Not
Disturb. No fill, compaction, or storage of materials shall occur within the tree
protection zone. Do not move tree protection fencing without prior approval
by the City of Lake Oswego."
iii. Notify all contractors on the site that preventing damage to the trees, including the
bark and root zone, is a priority and failure to adhere to the tree protection
standards, including moving or removal of fencing from its approved location,
could result in the issuance of fines or a stop work order.
PAGE 3 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478
a
6
S
9
1 it
1fl
12
1_
14
1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
D. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake
Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego
Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised
to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations
that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered
Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal
laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such
advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or
regulation.
1 CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Community
Forestry Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
DATED this 21 day of / y (9 �`S - , 2002.
1
�eremy Fried, Chairman
Community Forestry Commission
Jessi�4 Sarver
Assistant Planner
ATTEST:
ORAL DECISION — August 7, 2002
AWES:
Fried, Cory, Owen, Wagner and Morton.
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
WRITTEN FINDINGS — Ausgust 21, 2002
AWES:
'DOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PAGE 4 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478
14
i
APPROYED
City of Lake Oswego
% Community Forestry Commission Minutes
August 7, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jeremy Fried called the August 7, 2002 meeting of the Community Forestry
Commission to order at 6:11 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A
Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present were Chair Fried, Don Morton, Erin Wagner, David Cory and
William Owen.
Staff present were Stephen Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Hamid
Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner; and Jean
Hall, Senior Secretary.
III. MINUTES
Mr. Owen moved for approval of the Minutes of October 11. 2001, with a correction
to the second paragraph of page 2 stating that a certified arborist would be able to
identify a "hazard" tree. Mr. Cory seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cory,
Mr. Fried, Mr. Morton, Mr. Owen and Ms. Wagner voting yes. There were no votes
against.
IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
None.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
TC 02-0318, a request to consider a tree -cutting application at 1645 Lee Street, Lake
Oswego. The applicants, Stephen and Melinda Todd, are requesting the removal of
three trees in order to expand a two -car garage to a three -car garage. Staff coordinator
is Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner.
Chair Fried opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to
be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits,
biases or conflicts of interest.
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission
Minutes of August 7, 2002 EXHIBIT C-1
A P 02-08
Siva-vn 0(X q e_s
15
Mr. Owen reported he had visited the site. No one in audience challenged any
commissioner's right to hear the application.
Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She reported that the
applicants desired to remove a 12 -inch diameter cherry tree, and 10- and 8 -inch
diameter maple trees to accommodate an expansion of their existing garage. She
explained that each trunk of the twin -stem maple had been counted as an individual tree
because the split was below ground. She noted the proposed development was not close
enough to the Resource Conservation District at the edge of the site to be subject to the
Sensitive Lands Ordinance. She noted there was an improved access easement along
the north property line that served both the applicants and their neighbors. She
explained that the application had been tentatively approved by the staff, but was being
contested by a neighbor. She then discussed the criteria that were to be met to receive a
Type II tree -cutting permit. She advised the application met Criterion 1 because the
removal was for a use permitted in the zone. She advised that the application met
Criterion 2 because removal would not had have a significant impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks.
She anticipated that new landscaping in an existing area of bare dirt under the trees
between the garage wall and the access easement would improve that arca. She said an
existing rock wall that was to remain beside the garage would help maintain soil
stability there. She observed the trees were spaced far enough apart that their removal
should have no impact on existing trees and shrubbery on the site. She explained that
staff found that Criterion 3 had been met after the applicants and staff considered
alternate site plans that might lessen the impact of tree removal on neighbors at 1611
Lee Street. She reported the alternate site plan would have impacted two windows on
the back of the house and required a tandem garage configuration. She said the
recommended condition for landscaping would help reduce any potential visual impact.
She said the proposal met Criterion 4 because removal would not provide or enhance a
view for the applicants. She advised the Tree Code required mitigation and the
applicants proposed to plant three trees in the rear yard and had agreed to a staff -
recommended condition to provide screening for the garage wall. She said that
although staff found the applicants had met Type U tree removal criteria, they were
withholding their recommendation until all testimony had been heard. She pointed out
staff -recommended conditions of approval were listed in the staff report.
Applicant
Melinda Todd. 1645 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified she and her husband
planned to expand their garage to accommodate their child's vehicle, a workshop and a
gardening shed and increase the value of their property. She related they were also
improving their backyard with nine new trees. She said the applicants would agree to
soften their neighbors' view of the garage with landscape. She said the proposed
development would have no impact on the neighbor's access to their garage or access to
property. She recalled the Deputy City Attorney had advised that a quiet title action
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 2 of 2
Minutes of August 7, 2002
16
brought by the neighbors was not at issue in the tree removal hearing. She clarified the
existing access easement belonged to the Beaudet's and was over the Anderson
property. She reported the proposed development had been approved subject to a tree
removal permit. She reported the applicants had not been successful in their attempts to
discuss the issue with the Beaudets. She said the applicants had agreed to reduce the
proposed width of the garage extension by two feet in order to accommodate
landscaping.
During questioning by the Commissioners, she explained Photograph 7 showed the area
of the proposed garage wall and it was 8 feet from that wall to the property line. She
pointed out the locations of two small rock walls. She confirmed that the reduced
garage width left a 10 -foot setback to the garage wall and she stated that the applicants
had not yet created a landscape plan for along that wall. She clarified that the landscape
plan would not include large trees that might impact the access easement in the future,
but would feature screening type vegetation. She clarified that the applicants desired to
maintain access through that area to their backyard. Mr. Pishvaie clarified staff
recommended landscaping would include vegetation that would grow to at least 8 or 10
feet tall.
None.
Proponents
Opponents
Kimberly Beaudet. 1611 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified the applicants
had not considered how the tree removal would impact their neighbors and they had not
discussed the proposal with the Beaudets or Ms. Anderson before the tree permit sign
had been posted. She explained the impacts to the neighbors would include erosion and
surface water runoff, which she had observed for the first time the previous winter after
the applicants had removed brush and other vegetation from along the property line.
She explained mud and debris consistently clogged a surface drain that had served well
from 1979 until the brush removal (Figure 1, channel drain photo). She related the
applicant's claimed installation of a cement apron between their garage and the Beaudet
property would alleviate the problem. She opined that the apron would be aesthetically
unpleasing, it would exacerbate the problem of water runoff that she believed was
currently being absorbed by the subject trees, and it would make it impossible to
landscape the area in a manner that would buffer her view of the garage. She said she
believed that installation of another retaining wall on the property line would create an
obstacle to access to her garage and that of her neighbor at 1372 Larch Street. She held
that landscaping of 8 to 10 feet height would not provide anywhere near the level of
privacy she currently enjoyed. She said the tree removal would have a significant
negative impact on the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to deny the
application.
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 3 of 3
Minutes of August 7, 2002
During questioning by the Commissioners, she confirmed that the photograph on the
bottom of page 5 of the staff report showed the applicant's property that was used for
parking by visitors to her property and she explained she used a graveled area there
while maneuvering her vehicle into her garage (Beaudet-provided photographs #1 and
#2). Staff advised that what happened on the neighbor's property was not an issue to be
considered at the hearing, and they advised the Commissioners to decide the application
based on the applicable criteria. Ms. Beaudet confirmed for the Commissioners that she
had lots of deciduous trees on her property and that she considered a gravel apron to be
preferable to a concrete apron. Staff confirmed for the Commissioners that the
driveway could be sloped away from the Beaudet's property and that the building
pen -nit process would require the applicants to address erosion control.
David Wheeler, 1611 Lee Street. Lake Oswego, testified that approval of the tree
removal would directly impact neighborhood character and values because it would
impede use of the access easement. He stressed loss of the trees would reduce shade
and privacy on his property. He observed that if the application were approved, the
applicants would have the only 3 -bay garage in the neighborhood. He recalled that the
applicants had changed their projected use of the garage extension from a shop area to a
third vehicle bay afler they heard neighborhood objections to the development. He
anticipated the neighborhood quiet would be disturbed by power tools while the
applicants cars sat in their driveway. He suggested that if the workshop were relocated
to the rear of the garage no tree removal would be necessary. He pointed out that even
small -sized vehicles could not access his garage without driving over a portion of the
applicant's property, which was also used by visitors to his home. He said loss of the
use of that area would constitute a significant hardship. He provided photographs and
demonstrated how the proposed design of the garage wall and its new roof orientation
would adversely impact the view from his home.
Mr. Owen observed that one of the trees was leaning at least 20 degrees and lie advised
that it would continue its incline until it became troublesome in the future. He further
advised that if appropriate species of trees were planted against the new wall that would
create a more aesthetically pleasing appearance than the existing view. Mr. Wheeler
acknowledged that his view would be improved if the garage could be buffered from
view, but he said it should be done in a manner that would not impede his access.
Frank McDonald, 101 SW Main, Portland, Oregon, 97204, indicated he was the
appellants' attorney. The Commission granted him time to testify. Mr. McDonald
contended that Type II Criterion 2 had not been met, because the applicants had
provided no evidence regarding the flow of surface waters and the staff had not taken
into account the increased impervious surface area that would result from the shed roof'
and concrete apron. He said the staff report had avoided a conclusion that removal of
the trees was for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. He contended that
Type I1 Criterion #4 had not been met and the sole purpose of removal could be to
provide a view based on the fact that the applicants had rejected an alternate plan for a
rear workshop/garage on the basis that would block their current view. He noted the
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission
Minutes of August 7, 2002
Page 4 of 4
staff report called for a final mitigation plan per LOC 55.02.084 that was to be reviewed
by the staff. He advised that section of the Code provided for replacement of trees and
did not address screening. He noted the applicants had acknowledged in their testimony
that they had not yet created a landscaping plan. He suggested the applicants could
have considered an alternate plan to build a detached shed and not remove the trees or
modify the existing garage. He said the applicants should find an alternate plan and he
asked the Commissioners to deny the application.
He referenced a recent Land Use Board of Appeals decision related to an approval that
did not specify compliance requirements for a planting plan that was to be subject to
staff review. He explained his clients questioned whether the planting plan would be
appropriate and enforced. He said that because the plan was to be subject to staff
review, his clients should have the benefit of notice. He read a letter from Mary
Anderson of 1372 Larch Street, Lake Oswego, 97034. In the letter Ms. Anderson
explained the removal of trees that buffered the site from her property would negatively
impact the value of her property. She indicated she was also concerned the proposed
development would make access to her home more difficult (Exhibit G20). Mr.
McDonald then clarified for the Commissioners that it was Mr. Wheeler who was his
client.
Mr. Pishvaie advised that the Tree Code was not a land use law and that the application
should be decided according to the applicable criteria.
Rebuttal
Steahen Todd, 1645 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, pointed out on a photograph of
the area along the property line where vehicles parked inside the property boundary. He
held that because the new construction was to be set back 10 feet from the line, access
issues were not pertinent to the commission's decision. He related that he had observed
the neighbors accessing their garage for several months and they seemed to have no
problem pulling in. He reasoned that because the applicants' brush removal activity had
begun this spring, the debris the neighbors had observed was most likely from the
subject trees and their removal would alleviate the debris problem. He clarified the
applicants never intended to use concrete for the apron. He recalled Mr. Wheeler's
testimony about the design of the garage and he clarified that the design of the
extension would be the same as the design of the existing garage, except that a small
garden shed would be attached to the back. He demonstrated the shape of the roofline
for the Commissioners. He said if the workshop were located at the back of the garage,
it would not be as easy to use and would require the removal of a bedroom window -
which would eliminate one bedroom - and double the cost of the expansion. He opined
that the neighbors' view of the garage would be improved by the landscaping around
the garage extension.
Staff then confirmed the application met the applicable criteria and they recommended
approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Sarver confirmed for
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission
Minutes of August 7, 2002
Page 5 of 5
f
the Commissioners that the conditions would be enforceable and she advised that the
commission could impose conditions of approval to mitigate a potential impact on the
neighborhood.
Chair Fried closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Mr. Owen advised that a mitigation plan to screen the garage wall that would include
trees that would grow to at least 8 to 10 feet high could improve the neighbors' view of
the garage and enhance their property value. He observed the subject trees were close
to the property line and one tree was a weak and leaning specimen that would worsen
over time and should be replaced. He said the testimony had not provided him with any
grounds to deny the application. He suggested that the apron could be sloped toward
the south. He opined that the project could be accomplished in a manner that would not
harm the neighborhood. Ms. Wagner advised that as a landscape architect, she was
aware of methods to aesthetically screen the garage wall and that erosion could be
easily controlled by installing low ground cover and other planting methods. She noted
the City would enforce the landscape plan and the neighbors would also be watching.
Ms. Sarver confirmed that staff would review and enforce a landscape plan. Mr. Cory
indicated he could find no reason to deny the application, and he observed that
replacement of the existing unattractive twin -stemmed maple tree next to the garage
would improve the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Fried said he saw no reason to deny the
permit.
Mr. Owen moved for approval of TC 02-0318. Mr. Cory seconded the application
and it passed with Mr. Cory, Mr. Fried, Mr. Morton, Mr. Owen and Ms. Wagner voting
yes. There were no votes against. Chair Fried announced the final vote on the findings
would be held on August 21, 2002.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Election of officers
Mr. Fried nominated Erin WaLmer for Vice Chair of the Communitv Forestry
Commission. Mr. Owen seconded the nomination and Ms. Wagner was re-elected by
unanimous approval.
Mr. Owen nominated Jeremv Fried for Chair of the Communitv Forestry
Commission. Mr. Morton seconded the nomination and Mr. Fried was unanimously
re-elected as Chair.
Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Report
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission
Minutes of August 7, 2002
Page 6 of 6
20
Mr. Cory reported that Task Force members had agreed to recommend to the City
Council that the City employ an arborist and develop a tree technical manual similar to
that used by the City of Palo Alto, California. He also related the participants were
discussing changes in tree mitigation requirements.
\111. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Fried adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/a, 14AP / �,,L
Jean Hall
Senior Secretary
L:\CFC\minutes\08-07-02.doc
City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission
Minutes of August 7, 2002
Page , of 7
21
I. CALL TO ORDER
DRAFT
City of Lake Oswego
Community Forestry Commission Minutes
August 21, 2002
Chair Jeremy Fried called the Community Forestry Commission meeting of Wednesday,
August 21, 2002 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Human Resource Conference
Room of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
I1. ROLL CALL
Chair Jeremy Fried, Commissioners William Owen, David Cory, and Don Morton were
present. Commissioner Erin Wagner was excused. Staff present was Hamid Pishvaie,
Development Review Manager and Debra Groves, Administrative Support.
M. MINUTES
Chair Fried inquired if everyone had reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting.
Chair Mr. Fried stated that strong feelings do come up with these types of cases. Chair
Fried inquired if there was anyway to show more sensitivity in the matters. The
commission agreed that they had done a good job reviewing the issues.
Commissioner Morton moved for aaaroval of the Minutes ofAuzust 7. 2002.
Commissioner Owen seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Fried, and
Commissioners Morton, Cory, and Owen voting yes. Commissioner Wagner was not
present. There were no votes against
iV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
TC 02-0318. The applicants (Stephen and Melinda Todd) are requesting approval to
remove 3 trees in order to expand a two -car garage to a three -car garage
Chair Fried inquired that everyone had a chance to review the Findings for the above
case. Chair Fried asked about paragraph C pertaining to the design and confirmed that
this was not their area of concern.
Mr. Pishvaie clarified that this section was talking about an alternate location that relates
to the site plan and not the building design.
Chair Freid asked that mitigation does not eliminate the impact but lessens the severity,
Mr. Pishvaie agreed.
CFC Meeting
EXHIBIT C-2
AP 02-08
-1-wo ►Pc� , S
ti V
August 21, 2002
Page 2
Chair Fried also asked about such issues as the roof form, that confilicting facts were
presented, and that was the commison to assume that the facts by the applicate were
correct.
Mr. Pishvaie clarified that this was up to the Commission, but that is related specifically
to the building design.
Commissioner Owen questioned Sections D and E as being contradictory. Paragraph D
is related to tree cutting not for the purpose of providing a veiw while paragraph E states
that we are going to mitigate the visual impact. Additional discussion was offered that
one statement was from the applicants and the other from the complainant.
Mr. Pishvaie clarified that view enhancements are really for the applicant that may
request a tree removal for a the purpose of immproving his or her view of a vista, not the
view from one house to another.
Chair Fried confirmed that all had read the iindings and agree with the document.
Commissioner Morton moved for approval of the Findings. Conclusion and Order.
Commissioner Owen seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Fried, and
Commissioners Morton, Cory, and Owen voting yes. Commissioner Wagner was not
present. There were no votes against.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, Chair Fried adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Groves
Administrative Support
I d6ininutes\082102.doe
24
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISIWI
APPLICANTS:
FILE NO:
V. Stephen & Melinda Todd
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
PROPERTY OWNERS:
STAFF:
V. Stephen & Melinda Todd
Jessica Sarver
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 1305 of
July 26, 2002
Tax Map 21 E 15BA
LOCATION:
DATE OF HEARING:
1645 Lee Street
August 7, 2002
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
R-7.5
McVey -South Shore
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-7.5
1. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicants are requesting approval to remove a 12" Cherry, an 8" Maple and a 13"
Maple tree. The trees are proposed for removal in order to expand an existing two -car
garage to a three -car garage.
11. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Citv of Lake Oswego Tree Code
(Chapter LOC 55)
LOC 55.02.080
Criteria for Issuance of Type 11 Tree Cutting Permits
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061
Nat- 1 nf R
EXHIBIT D 95
0.0
A P 02-U8
LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit
Ill. FINDINGS
A. BackQround/Existinf4 Conditions:
The site is approximately 15,030 square feet in size and rectangular in
shape, Exhibit E1. There is an existing 2,432 square foot single-family
dwelling on the site that was constructed in 1990.
2. Access to the property is from Lee Street, Exhibit E2. Properties abutting
the site are zoned R-7.5 and developed with single-family dwellings.
3. The property slopes down from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot
eight feet over a 150 -foot length. The trees are located along the north
side yard of the subject property on a small slope, adjacent to the access
easement that serves 1611 Lee Street and 1372 Larch Street, Exhibits E1
and E3.
4. The applicants have applied fro a building permit for the proposed
addition. Building pen -nit 02-1693 has been reviewed and is on hold
pending a plumbing permit for a rain drain, and approval of the tree
cutting permit. Exhibit E3 illustrates the garage and shed addition
proposed by the applicant.
5. The southeast corner of the property is within a non -delineated Resource
Conservation (RC) District, Exhibit E4. The proposed addition is
approximately 45 feet from the RC boundary. Since the proposed addition
is more than 35 feet from the RC District boundary, as it is shown in the
Sensitive Lands Atlas, the development is not subject to the requirements
of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance [LOC 50.16.015 (1)].
6. The property was posted with a public notice sign regarding the tree
removal, and a letter was sent to the neighborhood association on May 21,
2002, Exhibit F1. The application notice period commenced on May 21,
2002, and concluded on .lune 4, 2002, in accordance with the requirements
of LOC 55.02.082.
7. Comments were received from the property owners at 1372 Larch Street
and 1611 Lee Street, both located immediately to the north of the subject
property, Exhibit F2. Mary Anderson, the owner of 1372 Larch Street,
raised concerns about a retaining wall that she understood the applicants
would be building along the property line that abuts her access easement.
She indicated that the construction of the retaining wall would impede
access to her home, and would require the removal of a large cedar in
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
Page 2 of 8
��N
order to widen the driveway for adequate access. The applicant does not
discuss or show a retaining wall on the site plan. The proposed addition
will be set back eight feet from the property line and will not impede or
alter the existing access easement in any way. Because the addition does
not alter or impede on the access, it would seem unnecessary to widen the
driveway to 1372 Larch Street and remove the Cedar when the current
driveway width appears to have adequately serviced that lot since the
house was built (see photographs 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit E5). Mrs.
Anderson also raised concerns about erosion and runoff from the site, and
the loss of vegetative canopy to screen the garage wall.
The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet,
raised similar concerns about erosion, runoff, access, and aesthetics.
These issues are discussed on pages 4-5 of this report. In addition, they
argued that the proposed addition would not meet the setbacks of the zone,
because the northern property boundary platted in the County records is
inaccurate. Staff observed a property pin set by a surveyor (Photograph 7
of Exhibit E5) along the north property line that confirms that the
proposed addition actually exceeds the minimum 5 -foot side yard setback
by over 3 feet. Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Beaudet claim that the current
northern property boundary as depicted is inaccurate because they are
initiating a quiet title action, claiming that they own by adverse possession
a portion of the Todd's property alongside the proposed addition. The
Deputy City Attorney advised staff that the City must examine the
application based on the legal property boundaries as they now exist, not
what a court may rule sometime in the future; until a final court judgment
is entered, the legal boundaries are not changed.
The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street also raised concerns about impacts th.,11
the proposed addition will have on the access driveway to their lot. Upon
inspection of the site, it appeared to staff that ample room was available
for cars to enter and exit the garage at 1611 Lee Street using the paved
access easement that serves as their driveway, (see Photographss 4 and 6
of Exhibit E5). The proposed development is set back eight feet from the
edge of the paved driveway and does not appear to impede or interfere
with the neighbor's access in any way.
8. The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street filed a request for a public hearing
regarding the applicant's proposal, along with the applicable fee on July 3,
2002, Exhibit G200. They indicated they were requesting the hearing
because the proposed development would have a significant negative
impact on erosion and soil stability, as well as the character, aesthetics,
and property values of the neighborhood.
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
Page 3 of 8 �� (
N
B. Compliance with Criteria for Aooroval:
The applicants are requesting approval of a tree removal permit under the Type II
provisions of LOC 55.02.080. Tree removals under this standard must meet the
following criteria:
LOC 55.02.080 — Criteria for Issuance of Type lI Tree Cutting Permits
"An applicant for a Type II tree cutting permit shall demonstrate that the
following criteria are satisfied. The City Manager may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. "
1. 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 regulations.
The applicants are requesting removal in order to convert an existing two -car garage into
a three -car garage. The garage is attached to the existing residence oil the south side, and
currently maintains a 23 -foot side yard setback from the north property line. The
proposed addition would exceed all of the alteration standards for tllc R-7.5 zone. The
two maples are inside the footprint of the proposed garage addition, and the cherry tree is
requested for removal because it would impede access to the third garage hay.
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
The applicants indicated that there should be no impact on any of these issues,
but did not elaborate in their application as to why there would not be any impacts. Upon
site inspection and further contact with the applicants, staff concurs that the proposed
development shouldn't have a significant negative impact on soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The trees are located on a
small slope above the neighbors to the north, and after they are removed, the addition and
a concrete apron will be built over the sloped area. Drainage issues will be reviewed
during the building permit process. The applicants will be required, as a recommended
condition of approval, to replant vegetation around the disturbed areas, which should
improve erosion control and run-off problems from the site that the neighbors are
currently dealing with. The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative
impact on adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because trees and shrubs will remain on
both the east and west sides of the subject trees, (see photographs 8, 9, and 10 of Exhibit
E5). The trees and shrubs to the west are smaller and less mature than the subject trees
and should have ample time to adjust to the absence of the trees as they continue mature.
The trees to the east are larger maples and a cedar that have grown a majority of their life
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061
Page 4 of 8
without the windbreak of the smaller cherry and maple trees and should remain stable in
their absence.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact o the
character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. The City
may grant an exception to this criterion 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 alternative 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 removal of the three trees will have an impact on the aesthetics as viewed by the
neighbor at 1611 Lee Street, and will have an impact on their property values if the
garage wall is constructed without any screening or landscaping to soften the appearance
of the garage wall. The removal of the trees will have an impact because it will open up
the area directly in front of the garage in full view of the neighbor; however, a vegetative
buffer will remain directly to the east and the west of the addition. Per LOC 55.02.080
(3), the City may grant an exception to the criterion that the removal will not have a
significant negative impact on character, aesthetics, or property values if alternatives to
tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. A three -car garage is a pcimitted use on a
single-family lot, if the structure complies with the development standards of the zone.
According to the site plan, the addition can meet the development standards of the zone.
In looking at alternative plans for the addition, an extension to the south of the existing
garage is not possible because it is attached to the home. Adding the third bay to the rear
of the existing garage would require cars to be parked in tandem, and would block a
window on the side of the house, (see photograph 11 of Exhibit E5). Staff finds that a
reasonable alternative is not possible to site the third garage bay, but measures can be
taken to reduce the impact to the neighbors in the form of a hedge, or other vegetative
screening material such as vines to soften the appearance of the garage wall. Staff also
finds that a reduction in the width of the garage addition from 15 feet to 13 feet would
reduce the impact on the neighbors. The reduction will not allow the retention of the
trees, but would provide a few additional feet to install landscaping material while still
maintaining ample width for a third garage bay. Staff does not recommend replanting
large trees along the north property line adjacent to the addition as they may impede on
the access road for the neighbors as they mature.
4. Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing
views.
The removal of the trees is expressly for the garage addition and will not enhance or
create any views for the applicants.
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
Page 5 of 8
29
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each
tree pursuant to 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall he a
condition of approval of the permit.
Initially the applicants proposed to site replacement trees between the addition and the
north property line. They later revised the location of the replacement trees to the rear of
the lot. The applicants will be required to replace the trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Staff
recommends adding a condition of approval to require the applicant to mitigate for the
impact of the garage addition by installing vegetation to screen the garage wall. The
vegetation should be of a type that can be maintained in a manner that will not impede or
interfere on the access easement of the neighbors to the north.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the information submitted by the applicant presented in this report, staff finds
that the application would meet the tree removal criteria in LOC 55.02.080; however,
additional evidence may be presented at the hearing. Following receipt of additional
evidence given before the Community Forestry Commission, staff will present additional
findings and recommendation for action on this case.
If CFC grants approval of the tree cutting permit, the following conditions of approval are
recommended by staff:
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit the :%pplicants/Owners Shall:
1. Submit revised site and building plans showing a reduced width of the proposed
addition from 15 feet to 13 feet.
2. Submit a final mitigation plan showing the size, species, and location of three
replacement trees in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55.02.084. The
mitigation plan shall also include the size, species and location of plant materials to
effectively screen the garage wall along the north property line. The vegetation shall
be of a type that will grow a minimum of 8-10 feet, and that can be maintained in
such a manner that it will not impede on the access easement to the north. The
mitigation plan will be subject to review and approval by staff.
3. Apply for a tree protection permit, and install tree protection fencing around the
remaining trees that are within 15' of construction activity in the following manner:
a. Fences shall be minimum six -feet high chain link fence installed around the
dripline of the trees, or 10 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater, unless the
location of the fencing is modified by recommendation of a certified arborist.
The tree protection fencing will be subject to review and approval by staff.
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
Page 6 of 8
i ()
b. Signs shall be placed on the fence that clearly read "Tree protection area, Do
Not Disturb. No fill, compaction, or storage of materials shall occur
within the tree protection zone. Do not move tree protection fencing
without prior approval by the City of Lake Oswego."
c. Notify all contractors on the site that preventing damage to the trees, including
the bark and root zone, is a priority and failure to adhere to the tree protection
standards, including moving or removal of fencing from its approved location,
could result in the issuance of fines or a stop work order.
4. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake
Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake
Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant
is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and Iederal laws and
regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act,
Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state
and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant,
but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or
state law or regulation.
EXHIBITS
A. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
B. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. GRAPHICS/PLANS
E1. Tax Map
E2. Site Plan Illustrating Tree Locations
E3. Site plan submitted with building permit materials
E4. Sensitive Lands Map
E5. Photographs
F. WRITTEN MATERIALS
F1. Type 11 Tree Removal Application, TC 02-0318
F2. Letters from Mary Anderson, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet dated .lune
3, 2002
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061
Page 7 of 8 31
G. LETTERS
Neither For Nor Against
G1-100 None
Support:
G101. None
Opposition:
G200. Request for Hearing Letter from David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet,
received 7/03/02
TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]
Page 8 of 8
32
NE 1/4 NW I/4 SEC. 15 T. 2 S- R. I E. W(M.
��on�y°,� CLACKAMAS COUNTY JE:
I"=100, 0.I F.
F- 0
W N
' W
H SEE MAP 2 1� IOCD
cn
R C HL -*C/1 STREEIR
T
I "' rI�2� ��_re , I ,I ►meIq.' I—-��+�v� c oe .I •f. .N • . ,....�.
, Iu
I
:1300 ��
3 q 6J7 8' ,.9
300 N0 400 1302 1303 1500
61 04 31 1100 12{1ur 1401 t400
12601 :
- -
_'u—i Mr.- "ra L_ ( -410,1 _••
17;g00 . 800 700 600 I 5-00 I 14215
1101
1.tt /
GUI, W
JLC r. 64e -J' /
+e 1 *e 161 Jo 15 .0 ui
14 Je i e
moo• 3I S 12 Je•11 { -..Ifl JD- ,.� .+`
' N 10TH) f STR E ET
j. h 1304 (,
7-02
�y
A + 2 OLLARO
S LINE F ' S
Brs' .� 1700 rz F IB LOCK �.
`1900 '+6 \ �N LINE 225 JESSEo u
v.lti � 159 n :I•
,a �✓ O /:r 2400
e0 TL iV s�-JI'C JLOJL' 4
I
COURT
S. CORNELL
2500
B ,e 2600 I.3p
p.aSAc.
�0.58Ac. 1111
2200 N n151 , au'
..,...,.. , yr
1af• �.'... .aa .� .a.� s,,.,,, h •ra
2900
,..r
� 1.2 7 0
11285 0 .
310C
Q aR"16-LL
a'
�S
tiN0.45�`�/
,.�.: NO.
DLC
46�f 3 _,Q1
j
v
i
J
EXHIBIT E-1
A P 02-08
Ar
North
-4
10690 LCG O1.1 VUl 1 1V6 1 V1 LVA Lb
Lake Oswego Oswego Heights
Oregon 97034 Clackamas Co. =r'
/ b
Ul
01
4 t'
�e l0
.,
COW- , o1b
Lee Street - Paved
EXHIBIT E-2
AP 02-08
61/ 2r717
-110-
LU
EXHIBIT E-3
3"t,
�
,
i
23'-011
21'-m
CGfECT NEU
ifER TO
EX15TWj D9.
--- \ o
NEW 5NED
0
EX15TINU
/ SHEAT PUMP
• II , / --FBVYE 11'0 MAPLE
EXTEND EXISTING
RELOC:.ic 8-0 MAPLE RIDGE
QS hFTER
EXISTING GARAGE
<� NEW GARAGE
ELECTRIC ,lE!'ER
IIICTITT R T NEW
l` ER TO
I EXISTING 0.
Ell
KEW
/ "—CONCRETE N'RN
i/
/ =c
I
EXISTING 5aE /
/ X16TING !DATER LINE
/
EXISTING
/1—Expc6ED XLFfGATI
ml
m
f
L `J1�01� 1
.� 104
EXI%c.-TING DWELLING
A
�-� ADDITION ► W4
7 T r t- /- A r-) h/" t- ,-, i I I 11 n
L3.A.
EXHIBIT E-3
11' () 2 - 0ti
'SEX' !MAP PAGE 37 NEXT MA! , 4'
LAA W N 537 US - - .. _ .r W
,_� w W �'AN' pst� N 1 M N N J16809/ m SECTION
11 .o I I °n II / LAR, W
�l m LARCH STREET pqG E 46
O N O N CA 1( d (L)I R•• 119
O tl p G I C 1611) I O� jLARCHty IN •a• l:�i
°, m rn k
691 !!f
(LEE) 1372 Q 1 O
w
r `" cryo LA 699 a E) . ` . P I >>9,�1c SENSITIVE
— ASPEN _ STREET
LANDS
169 � � � .� � m �•.•.•. .-. 75 . 1797 v
tv • • . . . . . .(LeE)•
...
•.•.•.•.•••.•.•.•.•.•. . • . .• . . . 1151
Stream
. . . .�.�.•.�.T•G_2�.�.�.1Z05 '161 w - Corridor
-��' 'f'lL - •6� . . . . . .... . EP
...........�WC�. . . . . . . . . . 01
ru
V � � N •.
11s CURNELI_ COURT .' •.:.. �,S • W Wetland
1 17151 17141 l •' (RP)
/ 1 (CORNELL (CORNELL
RE • • -•—•-- "` '� W '�' w.
A f STETS STREET)
N • • v +
_ ;.77
ORNE I 17285
STREETS) lCORNEL,
STREET) STREET` I• • . . 1188
f :•:.: Tree Grove
I
iI 9
9 � • ' (RC)
- _a
CLACKAMAS COUNTY
_ VNj
o P \
w
17345 1 w
DRIVE I1B
I _"
� 1733a w I (� Resource
N X
17367 W^
17376 17384 Z
17369
L7 17392 Insignificant
vaoa / Resource
11 Ld
TRACT F
1:11:7:4:3 17426 I
Ln TRACT 0 TRACT C // $ERGINS
Ul
SCALE;
CD 300'
0
0 100 zoo 000
Feet
EXHIBIT E -4W 02-08 GEOGRAPHICAL
fm1 T.—...........
p0005489.jp9 (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
P V) 1
Existing garage on the Todd's property at 1645 Lee Street
EXHIBIT E-5 1
AP 02-o8
kv�e.vi ,peer
1 A
M
p0005490.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
7 \o olm
Location of proposed garage addition. The white stakes show the location of the
proposed access pad to the third bay. The cherry (foreground) and two maples are
marked with yellow ribbon.
42
TIJIS DOCUMENT
-4
'D
I A s 1-1) Eti',.N REPT Ior.r 0 G-RAPI- fF--/
p0005490.jp9 (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
I ok 2 -
Location of proposed garage addition. The white stakes show the location of the
proposed access pad to the third bay. The cherry (foreground) and two maples are
marked with yellow ribbon.
42
V:
J�qq.. • .Ar r M Y'ai,'�. 1.•.
' �` r i �'• ` l �1' .. Imo..
«�. x °�''{{'�•� �� }!�y ' `� � �►1 T i=ii
� r� � � h; •:A�p�jH:, �,�i' .flit} � ^y�'•�� �`�r .,�',,�+iMttt° wy►�• �` 1��
_•h.•.i� I.�.jr�i,'µ
�
NSVA
'of NN
Mfr
t r fit" /,��� •� '�".'�
ik
•+,t* � • -. ��4.. " �' lar. hti� .1lr�iM �i'_� ti:.
- "`:, ,per. }art •... �'•,
p0005492.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
?VN0-�O v1
The garage at 1611 Lee Street as viewed from the proposed location of the Todd's
garage addition. The white stake in the foreground represents the edge of the
proposed garage wall. It also appears that a car is able to adequately exit and
enter the garage at 1611 Lee Street using the paved driveway.
411
p0C^_5493.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
-PwO�-O
The two maples proposed for removal is shown here with a yellow ribbon tied
around the trunks. In the background are two cedar trees belonging to the
owner's of 1372 Larch Street.
t
12A
P0005541.jpg (1792x1200x16M jpeg)
Access driveway to 1372 Larch Street (facing east). The maple further east of the
two maples marked with yellow ribbon will not be removed. Tree protection will
be required for this tree during construction.
46
_2A
Properti lin
P0005540.)p9 (1792x1200x16M jpeg)
Corner of proposed addition
View looking east down the access easement that serves 1611 Lee Street and
1372 Larch Street. The property pin is marked at the edge of the driveway
pavement. The line drawn in the right hand portion of the picture is the
approximate location of the proposed addition. The addition appears to leave
adequate room for access to 1372 Larch Street.
qi
P0005732.jpg (1792x1200x16M jpeg)
12" cherry to be removed
Picture taken from Lee Street looking slightly northeast. The maple tree and
small trees and shrubs, consisting of a rhododendron, vine maple, and small cedar
to the west of the cherry tree will remain on the site.
View from the south property line of the Todd's looking; north.
p0005737.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg)
?�Nukt>
8" and 13" maples to be removed
1
IM
�9aplc to remain
C
p lqcy� I I
P:::E?40.jpg (1200X1792xl6M jpeg)
'I, s
ce
. _ � , A a�;,,� . � ^t,ie". � �.., ��� •rod. ,gs'
y H,
M
� z '� � F �yxxp dgipS�. «. {r6 .;t"'ti` .�\ 1^. • �` v •��Y�
Y!
s.
t
� .,.y � .Y • u Aq f '
� i "kh'Yt1
- d h�i.'';t+� � �F� �'Yjyik "� ,'� yt ti � � °• .t
North wall of the present garage at 1645 Lee Street. Note roof line sloping
away to soften the visual impact of the structure from neighboring property,
m
i
co
tJ �
�m
v
C
L�
�..• FYI- � ! � � ��
Sk r
N
� rIL�Pr
7
M1Wl��vy .
" ,`wx.,t �. w s;�s A f; -�` A rr ��•�yh � f *.meq %..
♦v yr }�. 1 �'�' - . �, 1
I A7
i a �
z�+gx4�i.0•,drt 'i} 1.. "A •'4
a _ 'tom �.�•'� - a •t,
wz
)a•d 4 e .� J' .'4
., 1µ
.. .. .� •,1 Air �:: ' � ) � , �Ipn� ' "� �'� � i
ql r.
ti
•j�• •;fit,' � y •• i�' �
�`. 7a �•T ��� R
•axr.
+ti
V.
y ti. , a �- . !!� `y., 1 y �.wu Vii. ,•'^
i., sw
00,�s"1�/�' �y� �`a ,, p•
.v�`' N^{I aF y/r,y't� .'.T"�•� 1t�� �+�„f' r i *�low'.+w►" .',::pr; x f..
vir+�.7t'yi"If"�rn
! a ♦ rp "y a• � !Y S
a t"hthr 1tf�,
elm. ..
iw
77,7
4"7T TIP,
Q -r v le
7.
AIL -i
� a tr,►* ,
� •1 fl,r 'a ti` t� 1 � J,11 O.A
1 _ \ f � � � � SNP'•
Tightest possible turn; SUV unable to navigate in and
out of garage without extending beyond easement.
v -t
This turnout has been continuously used by homeowners of
1611 Lee Street since 1990. Proposed construction will
eliminate this area and compromise garage access.
Westward view from 1372 Larch Street showing the turnout across from
the garage at 1611 Lee Street and the narrowness of the driveway beyond
the turnout; a privacy hedge on the property line would worsen access.
o'>
M
a� . 1 � �� .
.� ,r .;,,� _ ��. �!;' f • . ,
�. . .$j.. t �; . . C
.A ... P . � aF �r ._ .
��*{ ,q 1 �1
�,�gA.�"� Md {�f' �M1 � � qp �H���y� � ��p
�� �h �� P'^" ) f'� 'm,qv���
. �'f�� f� - �.'J _ ��
� �}' •. ��.: � ,�.�� t... . .
w��� .1 u�.. �+ �,4.'.Y` ..��� F - ,
g t'
- ' � ����, .. ��. , g � . . ..
�� � '.
+ r� �
''� : x` t��4 .,,.r� a• , '
� i,
�rx,.;� �AY-. �.� . r"' . ."�I�'r .�k' �.,�.
�M ,�} , , �r`a . ,;, y �.. ::s,
1 � M. ?m . . M "��,' i,4.�.4 � &.'�,� ��r � � �; .
':���. '9� . - u ! 'r .
. �� M
tl� . !� � X� � � ',���� �dl `��'w�',
+ . � �, � � � a � '� . .
tl�'�1:i' � �� y�J�.
� '4.�.,� i� � ,���I k'C..
- �P,r :y� R p,`��� A�;,�,_T, f�"��y ... .
IIP
�P' �yy u yG • �1 � • � !1
/p� �
9 '��'j''- ' ".�ta� ' . '�.���'� .
_ � � � ,���_i� � +� � �' ; , ���
':�� . . . � 4 �� „ , � �d1Alt �,��*.,: y"'"+' ,� ��.. .
S
w a. ��� - . " �� , {f a iF:�. - 1 + �r,�, �i iik!' .
^4
w. f •.�� � �
5' •,°4�'� �~ � . *, .� L�1� ,� ..r � .
� �
w ,
, .�u, 'A� . 1 t�'
; .: �u"' ��' •+'� i
� ,� .
..�, .'_ "� �
o � ���',`,".�
'tj
f_, :,:y�" .� . S `�'� f�+M,� .r, },�f ' ..
���,,� r y;:•� p>�.`;S�
t '�t+��'!g `
��;, � ��.
. �;�,�� ','��'°�°"`�'a ���' ..,
r
� � �� ,j���'�� , �.� �« � y��
�R . iM �C'�'Ve'.�1 � `���i ��., ��dY+,..� '�
t ,�''�.Fn�'�", �+� �.�+,��' "�� �.:, 1�� 1 ;
-�;4 � m':,�yr �•s� A N,r�.�*w, � +,��.
� •.. b ,� e .u.!' w�. ��,�
- .. i �i�e : - ��
�a.'� t. . _r` ..wtv +� '"` ��.ti- , .N p 3 .
r.
� a��a�► � .rr'!�. �'� u^ � ����Y���"�'y r r"tiY � 4 "�� '��'4V�"� �e
���.- '++#' ^�. ,�,�•
}:� A�,�}�.���.� r"<��` _.4 l�x�, n�� ,� 7. .nn �' �'�.Ylu,9('�+ r : r�+-e! 1��„ � , ,� .aY�.y� ,.�
.�� .�"T�' ��w'}yy'11d�7 � �Pr � � ��6r�,�� ��^'�� q 'fiy��Ys� �++� ..e ��' 4 ..rr'� M��r .`�
�A r ,�j��;r � a�� d �� 1�N� ' �` g<. �� - �`'`� x' � n �.' t''n ��t� ,�-. � '�* � ,� `:
�",� X. '"i+"�� �,�� S;t r�; �� �;�'' � j��` i �, � cs�' � ° i.. i`
y�*'Yr M x '��, : ,��e ; �h ��K" m p;. �. ��r�,� � �Ja ,.,y� ��z"`�i L a � M�t"
�9;„. '";� �y�,-� r �'° _, �' " . � '�. �, °�li ,�" ^�'�„ �'* � � . �'`: `�+�,�"
� . A �u'�� R a
:..it�'�� '4 �• a!` l..,x � . � +xh � ,Mt�.
4`V Ga r�h� � . . - A .
N kk MM � . � 'C�'1�
�' ., ��,"`��a��' Tt-..,;�„ �,,,a. � �� . ,r .. � � F � � ..n }:t�,� - � r ��,+N'b" �C'
�'��. ��„ryh. . �t .s+t 't' �9 .� r� '��tF �,t v °' a �� �w � *fi`�`'�.' �t. .�� r, �y'��
T� e v �.r'., . �. .. .hY w_' � �,...�c , fi � yY � 11�� �,.�i
,�„���,y �1.�� .,a}ey�. ,�e rk r .� �� ���i �r. � e� „� ' :wA4t���y,{ �4�'..� .r•� r.�" ';� '' 1 h�A i § ��;`���,'�'xA
�w�;',�{,+��'d• i r�y- ""y �,»1 r,,.� r A � �eM �JP�'�1�v,�i'.. . �� . � _ ��a��1� �`• ��c�{'�".
,"`art�"��k .+� 'r �s � � � f`��,� � • ..� �s�be •,. � ���%�.
p�* � 'y�, '� P ��� . . � , . . .,�;9f'1�N,jy ��r+•'.,y
,,,. • . . . ?" �«,:�r'` , '�'�..`*. a�„'
�R �-a3 � . ,' ' � . � , � �' E,� p` . �. , - � .
„y .. : +.' ��+ �, , .'�.�.k�'0 °�� d`.. • } ���.�� &` ,�. .�. � y �� . � � n. .,`a�i
�� ���, #Ay _n ' 1` . MJ' ' � ,Rr �a�� } � p *+,.� • �f .. , -� �
.
�_ . . ' ' . ' ' ' .
,. 9
_ . . r�x r a� �,� .�y . , .� „L .'yb 'W, 'n ..y M. l'"d °'"��1y:
� � ���� �� .,..'�` � .N'
� .�4 ... ' �� s .`r' y�-
,q :� _.'f ��,��P"�R r'� '� _ . � �
a ,�
� �
�
a a.��''R'��;,�`Y M� -xl� .��'� �. r'�' ; . ..' N_ � � �,
k°e ��'�� �.,. �,�` � + ��"
. �.�r ,� �`"
� � ,!' ��" ��" • Y " .
�i s����: �� 'k` r �;�
d „� � i :� .�,' i 3 ii
aa�. N"=.�_�F/, �iF� .�( �.•I
• , �, a
7�' � .
,�
� da +l�. ' . ,�K,,
` �'e" .G ky��,a.'�T'�"_ � '.�P' _.; C..���
�1 �� F,
I'
3 1
� •
� '�.,.,.< ..� ..
:'�. �:.�... .. - . ..��� �. . �..: __ . � .{':. ��',.
� - ,
y .�� ,e:: '� .
.. �y,. : .. ,.� ; :' . � '� �
I
Applicant: i
Tree Removal
Application
.54� 4 �7l oljl
Address of Tree Removal:
Property Owner: S/vJ'YI P r
Size, Number, and Type of Trees to be Removed:
Iz�l
i
Permit No. 0,2—o3p,S
Fee: 1.j/ , v.0
Receipt No.1ZLpq7
Date:
Phone: & e/-' '-f, �� d- (c;
Phone:
Reason for Removal:11ey1 ��j?j vj
1 agree to comply with Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 55, regarding tree removal. I grant permission to the City of
Lake Oswego for employees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for removal and investigate
any trees that may appear to have been already unlawfully removed.
3” ature of Pr6p Owner (required) —__._ ____
� p �' ( q ) Signature of Applicant (indifferent)
The City must sign for trees located on public property including rights of way
Tie a ribbon around the tree(s) and restrain your dog on inspection day. Trees that are not marked cannot
be reviewed. Permit Type (Fill out with City Staff)
71 TYPE I
Submit: (1) Removal site plan
*TYPE 11 *
Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Questionnaire, (3) Mitigation plan
To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Post sign, (3) File Certification Form, (4)
Stake building envelope & driveways
Wait: 14 days until the comment period is complete, the City reviews the request, staff
makes a tentative decision, and there will be a 14 day comment period for the
71 DEAD
public to request a hearing. You will be contacted if a hearing has been requested,
Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Photograph of tree / tree
mark with yellow ribbon if
required.
71 HAZARDOUS
Deciduous trees require a site visit by staff between November 1" and April 150'.
Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Photograph of tree / mark tree with yellow ribbon if
required. (3) Arborist's Report and (4) Hazard Evaluation Form.
n EMERGENCY
:1 VERIFICATION *
Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Photograph of tree / or mark tree with yellow ribbon
Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2) Mitigation plan, if required
(Prior approval)
To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Stake building envelope & driveways
OTHER
Buddirr� permits gill ,rut ht, issued prior to tree removal or tree protection inspection and approval.
City Staff to I- i I I Out:
Intake Stant
R7 5`
Zone Tax ID %'G/31J�4EZ3 4 Due Date
e.g. (R2 I EMCB 2100).
Planning or Building File # -fi-crKM Cohr,,,,).,r Mitigation Plan Approved/Denied
Removal Approved/Denied Decision Staff
Re ued ii''J Afar• 14, 2002.
I:\formslapplctns�trce permit apps\tree permit applici Vf�CarilT > >
�� EXHIBIT F•1 b ncyucst:
AP 02-08 Sign posted
f:�AcTeA Due Date
w
TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE
I he City's Tree Code discourages the removal of trees because they are a valuable community
resource that contribute significantly to Lake Oswego's quality of life.
a hhe City's Tree Code requires a Type II permit for the following situations:
Removal of a tree on a residential property (that is occupied by a single family dwelling) that is larger
than 10" in diameter or more than two trees in one year that are 5" or greater in diameter.
• Removal of any tree(s) that is 5" or greater in diameter on a non -single family residential property or
any vacant site.
.'a Type H permit may only be approved if you can demonstrate through the required application
materials that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Please be as thorough as possible with your
answers, as a simple yes or no response is not adequate.
Please answer the followinU questions:
Is the removal of the tree(s) for purposes of landscaping or constructing a development that is
approved or allowed by applicable development regulations? 1
1 j =Y'v,CZ412P kj )2eY/j'Ji Z -j e -z y�
Will removal of the tree(s) have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks?
Z�_%e-5 e_ / 5 mut S
Will removal of the tree(s) have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property
values of the neighborhood?
No
:. Is removal of the tree(s) for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views?
/ Gc C1
Theity ma)rprove a tree removal request if it is demonstrated that no asonable�-lilternative exists in
order to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City
may required alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping design
that would lessen the impact on trees. Mitigation for the removal of each tree is required as a condition
of approval of a permit, if approved.
Revised October, 2000 l:\fonns\applctns\trec pennit appsAuestionnaire (type ii trees).doc
66
City of Lake Oswego
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pending Tree Cutting Permit
_ 1 j��, f � c/
Name of applicant , "L- -//� /�, P 0 1/ / G' 2 Tree Permit No.
Applicant's Phone Number
I, 5/.��� C do certify that I am, or I represent, the party requesting a
print your name
permit to cut trees on property located at ljl,,�
number r address or location
Pursuant to LOC 55.02.082, this notice has been prepared to notify the neighborhood association of the
pending removal. I will mark the proposed trees with ,yellow tagging tape and post a public notice
sign on the subject property prior to ,your receipt of this notice. You may submit comments on the
application in writing within 14 days of the date of this notice. I understand that I am responsible for
maintaining the notice and marking during the entire 14 day comment period.
Signature
Notice Date: 5�� �--
Neighborhood Association: /'7d/� s6191 —
Map & Tax Lot:%. [--hS
REVINDER: A tree cutting permit is required to remove trees larger than S inches in diameter.
Topping trees is prohibited in the City of Lake Oswego.
City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department 503-635-0290
6 1!
Revised October, 2000 l:\fonns\applctns\rrec permit appslpublic notice letter.doc
June 3, 2002
Community Development Dept.
City of Lake Oswego
380 A St.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Td Whom it May Concern:
RE iv;=c;
.' UIN 0 4 200?
CITY 'F LAKE O N—CGC
Dept. of Planning & Development
I am writing this letter in regard to a pending tree cutting permit submitted by Steve and
Melinda Todd, at 1611 Lee St. in Lake Oswego (Permit #TCO20318). The trees that they
are proposing to remove are located between their house. and mine. which is located at
137? Larch St. The way the lots are situated, the ±font of my house faces towards the
north side of their house, and mine is accessed along an easement driveway, which I
share with David Wheeler and Kim Beaudet who own the property at 1611 Lee St.
(formerly 1314 Larch St.).
There are several issues that I am very concerned about in regard to their proposed
development. The major issue is the access to my home. Access is very difficult even
now, due to a very narrow opening at the entrance to my lot. There is a large Cedar tree
on the north side of the easement at the entrance to my property which allows barely
room enough to get a vehicle through. I understand the Todds are proposing to build a
retaining wall at the edge of our paved driveway along the easement, which I believe will
severely impact accessibility to my property, both making my daily life difficult, and
negatively impacting my property value should I decide to sell my home at some future
date. Further, I'm afraid that if they are allowed to proceed with their plans, I will have
to remove the Cedar in order to be able to get into my driveway.
My property is located downslope from the Todd's home. I am already experiencing
problems with mud and plant debris washing down and pooling in my driveway during
the rainy season. I feel with the loss of the trees, and clearing of other vegetation that this
erosion will increase and I will be dealing with increased amounts of mud and debris
accumulating on my property.
The last issue is one of aesthetics. When I purchased my home, one of the main qualities
that I enjoyed about the neighborhood was the natural feel, privacy, and seclusion that
this wooded setting provided. The trees in question provide a very nice natural screen
between my home and my neighbor's home. These trees form a large almost solid
canopy between our homes, and their removal would open up this view directly onto the
proposed garage extension, which would greatly change the natural feel of my setting.
Please take this information into consideration when reviewing this case.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
1�-�
1457,
Mary Anon
1372 Larch St.
Lake Oswego, OR 97031
EXHIBIT F-2
;AP n2-08
.M
DAVID T. WHEELER and KIMBERLEY A. BEA UDET
Community Development Department
City of Lake Oswego, Oregon
Dear Sir or Madam:
R E C c 1 v
June 3, 2002
JUN o ,I .002
CITY Cr LAKE OSWEu0
Dept. of Planning & Development
We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street (lot 1302 on the attached map), formerly 1314
Larch Street. Stephen and Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and
are applying for a Type II Tree Cutting Permit (#020318). Our property shares an access
easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street (lot number 1303 on the attached map)
owned by Mary. Anderson. Due to the allowed construction of the homes in this
neighborhood, our front door faces the side of the Todd's garage and the site of the trees that
are proposed to be removed. The Type II Tree Cutting Permit application filed by the Todds
should be denied because the application has failed to demonstrate that three of the approval
criteria have been satisfied.
Section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego Code ("LOC") requires that "the tree is proposed
for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or
allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswee_o Code or other applicable development rezulations."
Emphasis added. The application does not meet this criterion because the proposed
development does not comply with the required setbacks. In this case, the property lines on
file with the County do not accurately reflect the actual property boundaries. Specifically, we
have taken steps to initiate a quiet title action to establish that we own by adverse possession a
portion of the Todd property due to our continuous and open possession of a parking turnout
that has encroached on the Todd property since approximately 1992. In the event that we
prevail on the quiet title action, the proposed development will encroach within the required
setback.
Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property, the proposed
tree removal will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and the flow of
surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is higher in elevation than
our property, and once the trees are removed, the soil will not be anchored and it will erode
and wash down onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and
other landscaping already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install barriers
along the boundaries of the easement earlier this year to keep the surface of the easement and
our driveway from being continually flooded with mud and plant material debris.
If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the
character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC
55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common
access easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed
development constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property will be impeded,
which will decrease the value of both properties. This will occur for several reasons.
EXHIBIT F-2
A P 02-08
- 2 - June 3, 2002
Firstly, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of obtaining a
building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as allowed
by current building code. Construction of a solid retaining wall between the new construction
and the easement will be required to provide an adequate substrate for the proposed structure
modification, and to minimize soil erosion. However, such a wall will severely limit ingress
and egress along the easement and into our driveway, and may necessitate the use of a "3 -point
turn" to enter and exit our garage. It would also limit the size and type of vehicle that could
access either our property or the Anderson property, including fire and rescue vehicles,
moving vans and other commercial equipment. This will encroach upon our rights of use and
enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability.
Secondly, the trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the
other 12" in diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet
above the ground, and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature
trees are approximately 40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages
not only the Todd house but other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house.
This screen is particularly significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the
south side of our home. Removal of this greenery, and the proposed replacement with 2"
stock, will require many years to reach maturity and negatively impact the privacy we
currently enjoy.
Thirdly, if the tree removal is allowed, it will likely result in the need to cut down a
mature red cedar on the north side of the easement, between our home and the Anderson
home. The current width of the easement at that location is only 8 feet at present. Access to
1372 Larch is currently possible using one or two feet of a graveled shallow bank on the Todd
property, which is shielded from their house by native plant material. Therefore, granting
permission for removal of the Todd trees will likely result in loss of four, not three, mature
trees in this locale.
Rather than approving the Type II Tree Cutting Permit, the City should require the
applicant to modify the location and design of the proposed structure so that it will not
encroach within the setback or impede access to our property and the Anderson property.
Such a modification will also alleviate the need to remove the trees adjacent to and on our
property, which will eliminate the significant environmental impacts. Such a modification to
the proposed development is permissible under LOC 55.02.094.2.b.
Sin =&Iy,
David T Wheeler
Kimberley A. Beaudet
1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034.6000
PHONE: 503.697.8624 • FAX: 503.697.8624
_ - - - _ _ _.- ... __ I-.--.--.,.-.— - A_
DAVID T. WHEELER and KIMBERLE Y A. BEA UDET
AP
July 3, 2002
1W z
Community Development Department 3' '
City of Lake Oswego, Oregon 11%r•4.:w 1�
RE: Request for Hearing for Type II Tree Cutting Permit #020318 O p"Y 51 J —1) --
Dear
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter and the accompanying $118 appeal fee is a written request for a hearing for
Type H Tree Cutting Permit #020318. LOC 55.02.085. As explained in more detail below,
the Type U Tree Cutting Permit application should be denied and staff's tentative decision
should be reversed because the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the applicable
approval criteria.
We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street, formerly 1314 Larch Street, Stephen and
Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and have applied for a Type H
Tree Cutting Permit (#020318) that has been tentatively approved. Our property shares an
access easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street owned by Mary Anderson. Due
to the allowed construction of the homes in this neighborhood, our front door faces the side
of the Todd's garage and the site of the trees that are proposed to be removed. The Type II
Tree Cutting Permit application should be denied and staff's tentative decision should be
reversed because the application has failed to demonstrate that two of the approval criteria in
section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego Code ("LOC") have been satisfied.
Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property, the proposed
tree removal will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and the flow of
surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is higher in elevation than
our property, and once the trees are removed, the soil will not be anchored and it will erode
and wash down onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and
other landscaping already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install barriers
along the boundaries of the easement earlier this year to keep the surface of the easement and
our driveway from being continually flooded with mud and plant material debris. Based on
the existing inundation, and additional erosion that will accompany the proposed tree
removal, we have taken steps to initiate a suit to establish an easement by prescription to
maintain our ability to access our garage and property.
If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the
character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC
55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common
access easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed
development constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property will be impeded,
which will decrease the value of both properties. This will occur for several reasons.
EXHIBIT G200
_
AI) 02-08
i wv kt.&1e;
_ 2 _ July 3, 2002
Firstly, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of obtaining a
building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as allowed
by current building code. Construction of a solid retaining wall between the new construction
and the easement will be required to provide an adequate substrate for the proposed structure
modification, and to minimize soil erosion. However, such a wall will severely limit ingress
and egress along the easement and into our driveway, and may necessitate the use of a "3 -point
turn" to enter and exit our garage. It would also limit the size and type of vehicle that could
access either our property or the Anderson property, including fire and rescue vehicles,
moving vans and other commercial equipment. This will encroach upon our rights of use and
enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability.
Secondly, the trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the
other 12" in diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet
above the ground, and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature
trees are approximately 40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages
not only the Todd house but other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house.
This screen is particularly significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the
south side of our home. Removal of this greenery, and the proposed replacement with 2"
stock, will require many years to reach maturity and negatively impact the privacy we
currently enjoy.
Thirdly, if the tree removal is allowed, it will likely result in the need to cut down a
mature red cedar on the north side of the easement, between our home and the Anderson
home. The current width of the easement at that location is only 8 feet at present. Access to
1372 Larch is currently possible using one or two feet of a graveled shallow bank on the Todd
property, which is shielded from their house by native plant material. Therefore, granting
permission for removal of the Todd trees will likely result in loss of four, not three, mature
trees in this locale.
Rather than approving the Type H Tree Cutting Permit, the City should require the
applicant to modify the location and design of the proposed structure so that it will not
encroach within the setback or impede access to our property and the Anderson property.
Such a modification will also alleviate the need to remove the trees adjacent to and on our
property, which will eliminate the significant environmental impacts. Such a modification to
the proposed development is permissible under LOC 55.02.094.2.b.
Sincerely,
David T Wh ler
Kimberley A. Beaudet
1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034.6000
PHONE: 503.697.8624 9 FAX: 503.697.8624
74
?9:'16/2002 12:43 5034946071 DAVID T WHnIEER MD PAGE 02
c O • 6039446I 1 a PACs 2/2
Art 3, 2002
To 'Whom it May Concern:
18172 writing this 10tter, As I va be unable to attend the hearing a-.,,, a.. µ,$tbCposed
devebprnemt at 1645 Lee St,'
I have previounly txpreased concerns to the City about this develbpnlrut, as my home is
located innnediaftly to the north oftho r:. �,. age at 1372 Larch St., and
If&--1
&--1that is ofd prrojem will Dave a ,.. , impact on my property, bothaesdxdcally and
in MY property value.
1 ami' •, , ..61 ,11 d ahoy:,:+ WVal o€free maplea.whichice kxated-nm the
l .... " ., of the Todd's property and the property J= wet of mire, own,rd by Dave
Wheeler and Kim Beaudet. Thome trees create a vistal boomer betwvean the prole,
add to the natural feel of the neighborhood, and ate amde dMing the firer, mouths.
Their removal will opan up this ares.. and ..., : ,:,.,,:, the visual impact by the garage
extension, which will extend out to very near amine and my neighbors, Dave Wheeler and
Kim Beaudets' property,
I am also way concerned about bow this project will impact across to mty home. Access
>s already very difficult, and I believe that this project wr7I make ray access moredifficult. I am already experiencing problems associated with their project activity. The
maining wM has been disturbed, and large rocks have been moved stage our easement
which Was pmv'iously clear of any of these rocks Today, while trying to bock W car out,
I backed into some of these rocks and was f� ...,. rat to damage ami car.
Tors Prem has 3kcady created a eeortaw ammumt of stress Arid tension in the
nmghborhood- I have come home from work several tunes to furl various stakes and
markers placed on my property, with no txPlanm ion from either the Todds or the City as
to what tbese matkcrs mean. The only tffie my neighbors (the Todds) have acttenVed to
contact me rig tk pm ject was on July 3 at 7.15 in the .... , - ..: jug as I was
lduving for worms I am gcneraffy home -in the cven�, r3aaid my pie number is listed in
the book I del that if I had been included in on coin =WCation mmch earlier in this
Process, Possr`bly I would have experienced less shm during this etrhre prroee�,,,
In may, I would request that the City take A very close look at the situation, and
r'r-00ider Mmhng a permit for the removal of the three mrple trees I have cloyed the
natural feel of this neighborbood since purchuing MY home here nine years ago. This is
one of the main reasons I moved surto this area It is very diSaMirging to think about the
possibility of these trees coming down, and the tmcercfirty of not knowing how many
other trees may come down as well that don't require perrraits,
Simccrcly,
ary
EXHIBIT G201
AP 02-08