Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2014-01-15 (03)TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: LU 13-0040, Appeal of Staff Decision on a Residential Infill Design application DATE: January 3, 2013 ACTION Hold a public hearing and issue a tentative decision on LU 13-0040, APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to the R-7.5 zone standards in order to construct a new single family dwelling: An exception to increase the maximum allowed lot coverage for a structure greater than 31 feet in height from 25% to 33%; and An exception to reduce the required 30 -foot rear yard setback to 25 feet. The applicant is also requesting to remove three trees in order to construct the dwelling. FINAL STAFF DECISION / REQUEST FOR HEARING AND APPEAL On December 11, 2013, staff approved the applicant's request for RID Review approval as described, above. On December 20, 2013, Daniel Johnson and Elizabeth Bounds filed a request for public hearing in opposition to the application (Exhibit Al). FINDINGS Background Per LOC 50.07.003.3.d and LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii(2), the RID review procedure is as follows: ® Staff makes a preliminary decision on the RID application and sends written notice of the preliminary decision to property owners within 300 feet of the site, the neighborhood association in which the property is located and all adjacent neighborhood associations. Comments on the preliminary decision are due within 14 days of the notice date. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 5 If comments are received during the 14 -day notice period, then staff makes a final decision on the application, taking into consideration the comments that were received. Notice of the final decision is mailed to anyone that commented on the application and the surrounding property owners and neighborhood associations described above. The final staff decision may be appealed within 15 days of the date of notice of final decision. The preliminary staff decision on this RID Review application was made on October 29, 2013 (Exhibit D1). During the public comment period that follows a tentative RID decision; nine comments were received on the decision (two in support, seven in opposition). On December 11, 2013, staff made the final decision approving the applicant's request as described above, subject to the conditions of approval on pages 16-18 of the final staff report (Exhibit D2). On December 20, 2013, Daniel Johnson and Elizabeth Bounds filed a request for public hearing in opposition to the application (Exhibit Al). Comaliance with Applicable Review Criteria The written request for a hearing filed by the appellants does not specify the reasons for the appeal (Exhibit Al); however, the appellants submitted written comments in opposition to the application during the preliminary decision on the application (Exhibit G201). The issues raised in that letter by the appellants along with all the applicable approval criteria are discussed in the preliminary and final staff reports (Exhibits D1 and D2). CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0040 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of LU 13-0040, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant/Owner Shall: Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan and elevations illustrated on Exhibits E4 -- E6, with the following modifications: Show compliance with the Vision Clearance standards of LOC 42.03.130 for the proposed d riveway. Submit a "Notice of Development Restriction" for staff review and approval containing the following restrictions: a. The dwelling on the site received exceptions to lot coverage, rear yard setback and side yard setback plane standards for the R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and was specifically approved for its design. No external additions or alterations of Page 3 of 5 the dwelling (including changes to or removal of approved building design features, colors or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning Division File No LU 13-0040, 3. Record the "Notice of Development Restriction" required by Condition A(2), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office, and submit a copy of the recorded Notice of Development Restriction to staff. 4. Apply for and obtain a verification tree removal permit for the following trees approved for removal in this action: three 30" oak trees. The verification tree removal application shall include an 8'Y2" x 11" copy of the tree removal plan, and a mitigation plan showing replacement trees on a 1:1 basis. Replacement trees shall not be dwarf or ornamental varieties and shall be at least 2 inches in caliper if deciduous or at least 6-8 feet tall (excluding the leader) if evergreens. B. Prior to Any Construction Activity on the Site, the Applicant/Owner_5hall: 1. Install all tree protection measures as required by the Code Requirement (1), below. The tree protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by City staff prior to commencing any construction activities. 2. Apply for and obtain an erosion control permit, and install all erosion control measures C. Prior to final Building inspection or Occupancy of the Dwelling, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the dwelling complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions A(1), above. Code Requirements: Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the Development Permit approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of this approval, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08,020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. Page 4 of 5 c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note: The applicant is advised to take part in a post -Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer you an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure you understand all the conditions and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. If you like to take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are 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. Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. EXHIBITS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL Al. Letter of intent to appeal the final staff decision submitted by Daniel Johnson and Elizabeth Bounds, dated December 20, 2013 B -C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. STAFF REPORTS D1, Staff Report (Preliminary Staff Decision), dated October 29, 2013 D2. Staff Report (Final Staff Decision), dated December 11, 2013 Page 5 of 5 E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1 Tax Map E2 Vicinity Map E3 Existing Conditions E4 Site Plan ES Elevations E6 Floor plans E7 Photographs of dwellings within 200 feet of the site E8 Graef Street elevations E9 Elevations for 16621 Graef Circle (LU 13-0048, Johnson) E. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1 Applicant's Narrative, dated September 16, 2013 F2 Fire Marshal Comments F3 Lake Corporation letter, dated September 11, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99): None Support (G100-199): G100 Letter from Carolyn and Robert Vivian, dated November 7, 2013 G101 Letter from Judith Colwell, dated November 12, 2013 Opposition (G200+): G200 Letter from Beatrice Neuburg, dated November 12, 2013 G201 Letter from Dan Johnson and Liz Bounds, dated November 12, 2013 G202 Letter from Ron and Mary Schilling, dated November 12, 2013 G203 Letter from Susan Hanneman, dated November 12, 2013 G204 Letter from Vincent Liguore, dated November 12, 2013 G205 Letter from Margery Koll, dated November 12, 2013 G206 Letter from Bruce Henderson, dated November 12, 2013 Date of Application Submittal: August 12, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: October 4 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: February 1, 2014 12/20/13 Daniel EJohnson Elizabeth CBounds 7720S\VMacadam Ave #1O Portland, OR97229 P|annin�and Building Senices City of Lake Oswego POBox 369 3BOAAvenue Lake Oswego, 0H97[84 Re; Request for aHearing DPP19�1I3 {3 DEC 2 0 2013 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Please accept this request for ohearing regarding the Resideotia\Infill Design Review for the property located at1664SG,acfCircle, Tax Lot 7IO7oftax map J1EO3C[. Thefi|enumberbUUl5-UO4D.Thedatcofthefina|dcrisionwasDacemberIl,2O13, (see final staff report cover sheet attached) Our property address; l66216raefCircle Lake Oswe8o,0r87035 Our current mailing address; 7720SWk8vc;dannAve, 41O Portland Or, 97219 Thank you, Elizabeth [Bounds EXHIBIT A-1 LU 13-0040 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPLICANT/OWNER: Edmund and Mary Ellen Lehl TAX LOT REFERENCE: Tax Lot 7101 of Tax Map 21E08CC LOCATION: 16645 Graef Circle COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: R-7,5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Www LU 13-0040 STAFF: Leslie Hamilton, AICP DATE OF REPORT: October 29, 2013 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: February 1, 2014 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Bryant The applicant is requesting a Residential Infill Design (RID) Review approval for the following exceptions to the R-7.5 zone standards in order to construct a new single family dwelling: • An exception to increase the maximum allowed lot coverage for a structure greater than 31 feet in height from 25% to 33%; and • An exception to decrease the required 30 -foot rear yard setback to 25 feet; and • An exception to the width of the projections allowed in the northern and southern side yard setback planes from 33% to 49% and 48%, respectively. The applicant is also requesting to remove three trees in order to construct the new dwelling, II. PRELIMINARY DECISION Approval of LU 13-0040 with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided on pages 11- 12 of this report. EXHIBIT D-1 LU 13-0040 LU 13-0040 Page 1 of 13 3 IV. M F11 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego CommunitV Development Code (LOC Chapter 501: LOC 50.04.001.1 LOC 50,04.003.7 LOC 50.05.011 LOC 50.06.001.2-50.06.001.3 LOC 50.06.002 LOC 50.06.003.2 LOC 50.06.006.3 LOC 50.06.007 LOC 50,06.008 LOC 50.07.003.1 LOC 50.07.003.5 LOC 50.07.003.7 LOC 50.07.003,14 LOC 50,08,007 R-7.5 Zone Standards Oswego Lake Setback Flood Management Area Structure Design -- Residential Parking On -Site Circulation -- Driveways and Fire Access Drainage Solar Access Utilities Application for Development, Burden of Proof Conditions of Approval Appeal of Minor Development Decision Review Criteria for Minor Developments Residential Infill Design Review Standards B. City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks [LOC Chapter 421: LOC 42.03.130 Vision Clearance C. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551: LOC 55.08.010-55.08.040 Tree Protection FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The property is approximately 4,446 square feet, and is located on Graef Circle, a local street. The property abuts Lake Corps property to the west (Exhibit E1). 2. The site is zoned R-7.5 and is vacant. It had previously been developed as a consolidated site with Tax Lot 7100 to the north, and a number of accessory structures were located on it. Abutting properties to the north, south and east are also zoned R- 7.5 and developed with single family dwellings (Exhibit E2). REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Neighborhood Meeting No neighborhood meeting is required for a RID application. B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.3.d, the City will send written notice of the preliminary decision on a RID Review application to the neighborhood association, all adjacent neighborhood associations, and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. If no written comments are received during the 14 -day comment period, then the decision becomes LU 13-0040 Page 2 of 13 final. If written comments are received within the comment period, a final decision shall be made upon consideration of the comments and a notice of final decision shall be provided (LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iii). Burden of Proof Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. Vl. MINOR DEVELOPMENT A. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2) describes an application for an RID Review as minor development. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; R-7.5 Dimensional Standards FLOC 50.04.001.1 The site is zoned R-7.5 and is vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a new single- family dwelling on the lot. The matrix below illustrates the R-7.5 zone requirements for setbacks, height, floor area and lot coverage. Site Development Requirements for Primary Structures in the R-7.5 Zone Required Proposed Front Yard 25 feet 16.2 feet* Rear Yard 30 feet 25 feet** Side Yard (interior) 5 feet minimum, 15 feet combined 5 feet (north) 10 feet (south) Base Height, Lot with Sloping Topography 32 feet 32 feet Lot Coverage (primary structure > 31 feet in height) 25% or 1,104 sq. ft. 33% or 1,455 square feet** Floor Area, including garage 3,285 square feet 12,241 square feet *Under LOC 50.04.003.3.a, Front Yard Setback Averaging, if there are structures on both abutting lots that are non -conforming to the front yard setback standard, the minimum front yard setback is the average of the abutting yards, but no less than 15 feet. As shown in Exhibit E3, the abutting property to the south has a front setback of 22.5 feet, and the abutting property to the north has a front setback of 9.9 feet; their average is 16.2 feet. **RID exception requested. LUI 13-0040 Page 3of13 5 As illustrated in the table above and in Exhibits E3 —E5, the proposed dwelling complies with all of the site development limitations of the zone with the exception of the rear setback and lot coverage. The applicant is requesting RID exceptions to these standards, which are discussed under LOC 50.08.007, below. In addition to the standards outlined above, the dwelling must also comply with the structure design standards as discussed below (LOC 50.06.001.1). Oswego Lake Setback [LOC 50.04.003.71 Primary structures shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels which constitute Oswego Lake, its bays and canals. As shown in Exhibit E4, the proposed dwelling will be located 25 feet from the rear property line. There is an existing boathouse and stone fireplace that are located within the Oswego Lake setback; these are permitted uses in the setback and will remain. This standard is met. Structure Design Standards (LOC 50.06.001.21 Street Front Setback Plane The front profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height, sloping towards the rear of the lot at a 6:12 pitch, up to the maximum allowed height of the structure. An individual roof form may penetrate the setback plane if it is less than 1/3 of the structure width; two roof forms may penetrate the setback plane if they are less than Yz the structure width. As shown in Exhibit E4, portions of two front gables penetrate the front setback plane. These projections represent 40% of the structure width. This standard is met. Side Yard Setback Plane The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet in height, sloping toward the center of the lot at a 12:12 pitch. A roof form may penetrate the side yard setback plane if the projection is less than 1/3 of the structure width. On the south elevation, a portion of the proposed dwelling extends into the side yard setback plane, (Exhibit E4). The width of the projection is 14.08 feet, which represents 48% of the width of the dwelling (note: the width of the dwelling does not include eaves, as depicted by the applicant). This standard is not met. On the north elevation., a portion of the proposed dwelling extends into the side yard setback plane (Exhibit E4). The width of the projection is 14.5 feet, which represents 49% percent of the width of the dwelling (note: the width of the dwelling does not include eaves, as depicted by the applicant). On the north elevation, this standard is not met. The applicant is requesting exceptions to the side yard setback plane under the RID criteria. The exception criteria are addressed below under the RID analysis, Side Yard Appearance and Screening These standards require measures that minimize the appearance of side wall planes; at least one of the design treatments specified in LOC 50.06.001.2.f must be applied. The maximum side yard plane standard requires side walls to be divided into distinct planes of 750 square feet or less. As shown in Exhibit E4, the largest side wall plane on the northern elevation is LU 13-0040 Page 4 of 13 6 485.75 square feet. The largest side wall plane on the southern elevation will be approximately 435 square feet. This standard is met. Garage Appearance and Location The garage appearance and location standards require measures that minimize the appearance of the garage. First, the garage may not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. As shown on the site plan, the garage doors are 1.75 feet behind the exterior dining room wall (Exhibit E4). Second, the garage width cannot exceed 60% of the width of the dwelling. The garage width represents 42% of the dwelling width. Last, two of the garage appearance standards must be provided. A trellis will be provided over the garage door; the trellis is 1.75 feet in width and is 9 feet above grade. The garage door represents less than 50% of the combined width of the garage and dwelling. These standards are met. Residential Infill Design Review Standards FLOC 50.08.0071 These standards provide an alternative review process for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones that do not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code, but may be found to be otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards. In making this determination, the City Manager shall consider the dwelling size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors. When applying the RID criteria, the City Manager shall also consider the pattern and character of development of lots within 200 feet of the subject site and any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association. The Bryant Neighborhood does not have an adopted plan. The applicant has provided a photo inventory of dwellings within 200 feet of the site in order to demonstrate the pattern and character of development within the immediate neighborhood (Exhibit E7). Following is a discussion of each of the criteria: Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size Refers to exceptions to Floor Area Ratio, Lot Coverage, Yard Setbacks, Building Height, and Accessory Structures An exception to the standards listed above may be permitted when a more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The degree to which the dwelling design offers features that diminish the perceived scale and improves the perceived character is determined by consideration of distance and visibility from the street and adjoining properties, topography, building number, form, mass and orientation, and landscaping. As noted earlier, the applicant is requesting exceptions to the rear yard setback and lot coverage in order to construct a new dwelling. LU 13-0040 Page 5 of 13 7 The applicant's narrative and associated exhibits demonstrate the following design features and locational factors that diminish the perceived scale of the new dwelling (Exhibits E3 -E5 and F1): The increased lot coverage and decreased rear yard setback will not be readily perceptible. While the site abuts Lake Corporation property to the west, the shoreline of Oswego Lake is actually 5-28 feet from the rear property line. This yard area, approximately 817 square feet, is visually perceived to be part of the developed site, diminishing the perception of the structure's mass on the lot, as well as the perception of a reduced rear yard setback (Exhibit E4). As illustrated in Exhibit E7, there is no consistent pattern to the placement of structures on properties within 200 feet of the site; there are non -conformities to the front, rear and side yard setbacks. The exception to the rear setback will not appear unusual in this setting. The material choice for the dwelling helps diminish its perceived scale. As shown in Exhibit E5, the main and basement levels will be clad in lap siding, while the upper floor will be shingled. Multiple windows on the front and rear facades provide visual interest, and exposed rafters on the front gables reflect the Arts and Crafts style and the desire to make handiwork visible. These material changes and details will help minimize the appearance of bulk. Staff finds that with regard to the rear setback and lot coverage, the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than what could be approved without the exceptions, and the design features and locational factors described above will create a more positive relationship between the size of the structure and the scale and character of development along Graef Circle. This standard is met. Relationship to the Street Refers to exceptions to Front Yard Setback, Front Yard Plane, and Garage Door Openings The applicant is not seeking exceptions to any of these standards; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Relationship to the Neighbors Refers to exceptions to Side Yard Setback and Side Wall Elevation Infill that is compatible will not diminish the scale, character or privacy of neighboring houses and will avoid visual conflict with neighbors. An exception to the standards may be approved when the proposed design of a structure is equal to or better than the design of residences that meet the clear and objective standards of the zone. The design is evaluated to determine if the resulting structure demonstrates a more compatible, positive relationship to the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors. The relationship between a proposed house and the neighboring dwellings is determined by evaluating distance and visibility from adjoining properties, preservation of existing landscape features perceived to be of value to adjacent properties, topography, perceived proportion relative to adjacent properties, perceived sight lines to and from windows and decks, treatment of elevations visible to adjacent properties, and landscaping and screening. LU 13-0040 Page 6 of 13 The applicant is seeking RID exceptions to the side yard setback plane standards for both the north and south elevations. The projections into the plane represent 49% and 48%, respectively, of the dwelling width. The applicant's narrative and associated exhibits demonstrate the following: As shown in Exhibit E5, the dormers have relatively small windows facing the neighbors' properties. The windows range in size from 6-12 square feet, and the sliding glass door on the north patio is partially obscured by the deck. ■ On the northern elevation, the wall is divided into seven separate planes; the largest, on the main floor and basement, is 485.7 square feet. The other planes range from 14 - 63 square feet, Additionally, the lower section of the wall plane will be clad in lap siding, while the upper floorwill be shingled. The plane and material changes provide visual interest while breaking up the expanse of the side elevation. On the southern elevation, the wall is divided into five separate planes; the largest, on the main floor and basement, is 435 square feet. The other planes range from 4.5 -- 90 square feet. Additionally, the lower section of the wall plane will be clad in lap siding, while the upper floor will be shingled. The plane changes provide visual interest while breaking up the expanse of the side elevation, Staff finds that the proposal is equal to or better than development that meets the zoning regulations. The small windows, multiple planes and material changes provide desirable visual breaks along the northern and southern wall planes. This standard is met. Conclusion Staff finds that the resulting design is equal to or better than a dwelling that meets the rear yard setback, lot coverage, and side yard setback plane standards, Staff therefore concludes that the proposed dwelling meets the requirements for the exceptions pursuant to the RID Review standards. 2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; Off Street Parking, Loading oading anal. Bicycle „Access (LOC 50.06.0021 This standard requires that one off street parking space be provided for a single-family dwelling. As shown on Exhibit E6, two garage spaces are provided on the site. This standard is met. On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Eire Access Roads [LOC 50.06.003.21 This standard contains the geometric design standards for proposed driveways that serve as fire department access roads, and other design features such as slope and width of driveway approaches. The maximum grade and cross slope for a driveway is 15% and 5%, respectively. As shown on Exhibit E4, the driveway grade is 6% and the cross slope is less than 1%. The maximum driveway approach for a single-family dwelling with a garage door facing the street is 12 feet per garage door, not to exceed 30 feet. The dwelling has two garage doors facing the street, and the driveway approach is 20 feet in width. This standard is met. LU 13-0040 Page 7of13 9 Drainage Standard for Minor Development [LOC 50.06.006.31 This standard requires that drainage improvements be provided to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The determination of whether or not the application complies with the requirements of this standard is under the review authority of the City Manager or City Engineer. Compliance with this standard will be ensured during the building permit review. This standard can be met. Solar Access [LOC 50.06.0071 LOC 50.06.007.2 requires all single family detached structures and accessory structures to comply with the minimum shade point height standard in order to promote the use of solar energy and minimize shading on adjacent northern lots. Staff has verified that the proposed dwelling complies with the maximum shade point height standard. 2. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Vision Clearance FLOC 42.03.1301 This standard requires that no vegetation, fence or signage higher than 30 inches be located within a "vision clearance triangle." The vision clearance triangles for a driveway are formed by 10 -foot legs extending from the intersection of the driveway and the street travel lane. As shown in the photo to the right, there is a five-foot fence located within the northern vision clearance triangle. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to show compliance with this standard at time of Building Permit submittal, Options include re -orienting the driveway or removing all or a portion of the fence. As conditioned, this standard can be met. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code FLOC Chapter 551 Tree Removal As illustrated in Exhibit E3, there are three 30" oak trees on the site that are five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant is requesting to remove these trees in order to construct a new dwelling. Trees proposed for removal in conjunction with major or minor development can be granted tree removal permits if the following four criteria are met: LU 13-0040 Page 8 of 13 10 (1) The removal is for development purposes pursuant to the City Code; The removal of these trees is necessary for development because they are located within the footprint of the proposed dwelling (Exhibit E4), (2) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or flow of surface waters because the trees are not located in a steeply sloped area. Additionally, the proposed drainage facilities are designed to handle storm runoff for all impervious surfaces. The removal will also not have a significant impact on protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the trees are separated far enough from other trees that they do not provide a windbreak. (3) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood, except where alternatives to tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone; and There are many large firs, oak and maples along Graef Circle near the subject site. The trees proposed for removal are prominent and located near the front property line, and contribute to the treed character of the neighborhood. Their removal will have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. However, these trees are located in the middle of the building envelope: 12 feet from the front property line and approximately midway between the side property lines (Exhibit E3). On a lot severely constrained by size, preserving the trees would require a significant additional reduction to the rear setback. The applicant has not sought such except ionfvaria nce and the Tree Code cannot require the applicant to do so. See Staff Report and DRC Findings, Conclusions, and Order, Eslinger Builders, Inc., AP 13-03 (499-13- 00586)-1815. (Although not before staff, an initial impression is that it may be out of character with existing development pattern in the neighborhood.) Therefore, staff finds that no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. (4) The removal is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. The trees are not being removed for view enhancement because their removal will not improve any views. For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the tree removal request complies with the applicable criteria and may be approved. The applicant will be required to apply for a verification tree removal permit for the trees prior to approval of any grading or building permit. Mitigation Any tree approved for removal under the Type II analysis shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Mitigation trees shall have a minimum 2 -inch caliper diameter LU 13-0040 Page 9 of 13 11 for deciduous trees and a minimum 6-8 foot height (excluding leader) for evergreen trees. The applicant proposes three maples, each 2" caliper, as mitigation (Exhibit E4). The applicant will be required to submit a tree mitigation plan with the verification tree removal application showing the size, species and location of the mitigation tree in compliance with the minimum mitigation requirements. As conditioned, this standard can be met. TraP PrntPrtinn The Code requires tree protection measures when a tree protection zone or drip line of a tree is within the construction zone, whether on- or off-site [LOC 55.08.030(1)]. There are several trees in the vicinity of the work area that may need tree protection during site development. The protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. The applicant should propose the tree protection zone for each tree, for review and approval by City staff, on site. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. A note should be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.030]. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. As a condition of approval, as required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan shall be submitted with the building permit plans for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property. VII. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0040 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. VIII. ACTION TAKEN Approval of LU 13-0040, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant/Owner Shall: Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan and elevations illustrated on Exhibits E4 — E6, with the following modifications: LU 13-0040 Page 10 of 13 12 a. Show compliance with the Vision Clearance standards of LOC 42.03.130 for the proposed driveway. Submit a "Notice of Development Restriction" for staff review and approval containing the following restrictions: The dwelling on the site received exceptions to lot coverage, rear yard setback and side yard setback plane standards for the R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and was specifically approved for its design. No external additions or alterations of the dwelling (including changes to or removal of approved building design features, colors or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning Division File No LU 13-0040. Record the "Notice of Development Restriction" required by Condition A(2), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office, and submit a copy of the recorded Notice of Development Restriction to staff. Apply for and obtain a verification tree removal permit for the following trees approved for removal in this action: three 30" oak trees. The verification tree removal application shall include an 8%" x 11" copy of the tree removal plan, and a mitigation plan showing replacement trees on a 1:1 basis. Replacement trees shall not be dwarf or ornamental varieties and shall be at least 2 inches in caliper if deciduous or at least 6-8 feet tall (excluding the leader) if evergreens. B. Prior to Any Construction Activity on the Site, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Install all tree protection measures as required by the Code Requirement (1), below. The tree protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by City staff prior to commencing any construction activities. 2. Apply for and obtain an erosion control permit, and install all erosion control measures. C. Prior to Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of the Dwelling, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the dwelling complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions A(1), above. Code Requirements: Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the Development Review permit approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of this approval, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. LU 13-0040 Page 11 of 13 13 b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note: The applicant is advised to take part in a post -Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer you an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure you understand all the conditions and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. If you like to take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are 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. Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. Prepared by: Leslie Hamilton, AICP Senior Planner Reviewed by: Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney 14 Date Date LU 13-0040 Page 12 of 13 Approved by: S. Hamid Pishvaie Assistant Planning Director EXHIBITS A -D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1 Tax Map E2 Vicinity Map E3 Existing Conditions E4 Site Plan ES Elevations E6 Floor plans E7 Photographs of dwellings within 200 feet of the site E8 Graef Street elevations F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1 Applicant's Narrative, dated September 16, 2013 F2 Fire Marshal Comments F3 Lake Corporation letter, dated September 11, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99): None Support (G100-199): None Opposition (G200+): None Date of Application Submittal: August 12, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: October 4, 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: Februa 1 2014 Date LU 13-0040 Page 13 of 13 15 16 0 APPLICANT OWNER: Edmund and Mary Ellen Lehl -TAX LOT REFERENCE: Tax Lot 7101 of Tax Map 21E08CC LOCATION: 16645 Graef Circle COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST FILE NO: LU 13-0040 STAFF: Leslie Hamilton, AICP DATF OF REPORT: December 11, 2013 120 -DAY DECISION DATE: February 1, 2014 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Bryant The applicant is requesting a Residential Infill Design (RID) Reviewz approval for the following exceptions to the R-7.5 zone standards in order to construct a new single family dwelling: ® An exception to increase the maximum allowed lot coverage for a structure greater than 31 feet in height from 25% to 33%; and • An exception to decrease the required 30 -foot rear yard setback to 25 feet. The applicant is also requesting to remove three trees in order to construct the new dwelling. L A tentative staff decision for this application was previously mailed on October 29, 2013. The revised staff report is prepared in response to comments received prior to 5:00 p.m. on November 12, 2013. The final staff decision will become effective unless appealed within 15 days of the date of the Notice of Final Decision. The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on December 26, 2013. The original decision also analyzed exceptions to the Side Yard Setback Plane standards based on an erroneous measurement by staff; the proposed structure actually complies with the Side Yard Setback Plane standard on both the northern and southern elevations; therefore, no exceptions are necessary. EXHIBIT D-2 LU 13-0040 LU 13-0040 Page 1 of 19 17 IV. V. PRELIMINARY DECISION Approval of LU 13-0040 with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided on pages 16- 17 of this report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Osweizo Community Development Code fLOC Chanter 501: B. C. LOC 50.04.001.1 LOC 50.04.003.7 LOC 50.05.011 LOC 50.06.001.2-50.06.001.3 LOC 50.06.002 LOC 50.06.003.2 LOC 50.06.006.3 LOC 50.06.007 LOC 50.06.008 LOC 50.07.003.1 LOC 50.07.003.5 LOC 50.07.003.7 LOC 50.07.003.14 LOC 50.08.007 R-7.5 Zone Standards Oswego Lake Setback Flood Management Area Structure Design — Residential Parking On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Drainage Solar Access Utilities Application for Development, Burden of Proof Conditions of Approval Appeal of Minor Development Decision Review Criteria for Minor Developments Residential Infill Design Review Standards City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks f LOC Chapter 421: LOC 42.03.130 Vision Clearance City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551: LOC 55.08.010-55.08.040 Tree Protection FINDINGS A. Back round Existin Conditions: 1. The property is approximately 4,446 square feet, and is located on Graef Circle, a local street. The property abuts Lake Corps property to the west (Exhibit E1). 2. The site is zoned R-7.5 and is vacant. It had previously been developed as a consolidated site with Tax Lot 7100 to the north, and a number of accessory structures were located on it. Abutting properties to the north, south and east are also zoned R- 7.5 and developed with single family dwellings (Exhibit E2). REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Neighborhood Meeting No neighborhood meeting is required for a RID application. LU 13-0040 18 Page 2 of 19 B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.3.d, the City mailed written notice of the preliminary decision on this RID Review application to the neighborhood association, all adjacent neighborhood associations, and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. During the notice period for the preliminary decision, nine comments were received (Exhibits G100 — G206) — two in support of the application and seven in opposition. A summary of the subject matter of the comments received are addressed in the discussion section of the criteria that is relevant or related to the subject of the comment, with the exception of the following, comment which does not appear to relate to any applicable criteria: Comment: This is a poorly thought-out division of a long-standing larger property. Response: Tax Lot 7101 was originally platted in 1923 as Lot 511 of the Lake View Villas Plat. For decades it was developed as part of the abutting property to the north (Tax Lot 7100). It has been a legal lot for 90 years and as such can be separately developed from Tax Lot 7100. C. Burden of Proof Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b, the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. VI. MINOR DEVELOPMENT A. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2) describes an application for an RID Review as minor development. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; R-7.5 Dimensional Standards [LOC 50.04.001.11 The site is zoned R-7.5 and is vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a new single- family dwelling on the lot. LU 13-0040 Page 3 of 19 19 The matrix below illustrates the R-7.5 zone requirements for setbacks, height, floor area and lot coverage. Site Development Requirements for Primary Structures in the 111-7.5 Zone Required Proposed Front Yard 25 feet 16.2 feet* Rear Yard 30 feet 25 feet** Side Yard (interior) 5 feet minimum, 15 feet combined 5 feet (north) 10 feet (south) Base Height, Lot with Sloping Topography 32 feet 32 feet Lot Coverage (primary structure > 31 feet in height) 25% or 1,104 sq. ft. 33% or 1,455 square feet** Floor Area, including garage 3,285 square feet 2,241 square feet *Under LOC 50.04.003.3.a, Front Yard Setback Averaging, if there are structures on both abutting lots that are non -conforming to the front yard setback standard, the minimum front yard setback is the average of the abutting yards, but no less than 15 feet. As shown in Exhibit E3, the abutting property to the south has a front setback of 22.5 feet, and the abutting property to the north has a front setback of 9.9 feet; their average is 16.2 feet. **RID exception requested. Comments Received and Response Comment: The non -owner applicant is requesting exceptions to City code setbacks on all sides of the footprint, as well as an over -height exception. Overheight roofline exemption and the requested setback exemption from the northern lot side will negatively impact the solar values of the adjacent small cottage redevelopment. Response: As described above, the applicant is not requesting exceptions to the front or side yard setbacks, or to height. The proposed dwelling complies with the Solar Design standards of LOC 50.06.007. Comment: The multi -story wall of the proposed residence, combined with the requested reduced setback on the northern lot line, will significantly and detrimentally impact the visual and general aesthetics of the existing cottage (Johnson). Essentially the existing windows of this cottage, which are not allowed by City code to be moved, will largely be blocked by the multi -story residence within a few feet of the existing cottage. Response: The applicant is not requesting a reduction in the required side yard setback. There are no windows on the proposed dwelling that are directly opposite the windows on the existing dwelling to the north (Exhibits E5 and E9). The westernmost window on the Johnson dwelling is six feet from the rear wall, which is roughly in line with the required 30 - foot rear setback; therefore, the proposed dwelling will not block windows on the Johnson dwelling to the north any more than a dwelling that met the rear setback of 30 feet. As illustrated in the table above and in Exhibits E3 —E5, the proposed dwelling complies with all of the site development limitations of the zone with the exception of the rear setback and lot coverage. The applicant is requesting RID exceptions to these standards, which are discussed under LOC 50.08.007, below. LU 13-0040 20 Page 4 of 19 In addition to the standards outlined above, the dwelling must also comply with the structure design standards as discussed below (LOC 50.06.001.1). Oswego Lake Setback (LOC 50.04.003.71 Primary structures shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels which constitute Oswego Lake, its bays and canals. As shown in Exhibit E4, the proposed dwelling will be located 25 feet from the rear property line. There is an existing boathouse and stone fireplace that are located within the Oswego Lake setback; these are permitted uses in the setback and will remain. This standard is met. Structure Design Standards [LOC 50.06.001.21 Street Front Setback Plane The front profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height, sloping towards the rear of the lot at a 6:12 pitch, up to the maximum allowed height of the structure. An individual roof form may penetrate the setback plane if it is less than 1/3 of the structure width; two roof forms may penetrate the setback plane if they are less than % the structure width. As shown in Exhibit E4, portions of two front gables penetrate the front setback plane. These projections represent 40% of the structure width. This standard is met. Side Yard Setback Plane The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet in height, sloping toward the center of the lot at a 12:12 pitch. A roof form may penetrate the side yard setback plane if the projection is less than 1/3 of the structure width. On the south elevation, a portion of the proposed dwelling extends into the side yard setback plane, (Exhibit E4). The width of the projection is 11 feet, which represents 29% of the width of the dwelling (note: the width of the dwelling does not include eaves, as depicted by the applicant). This standard is met. On the north elevation, a portion of the proposed dwelling extends into the side yard setback plane (Exhibit E4). The width of the projection is 10.5 feet, which represents 28% percent of the width of the dwelling (note: the width of the dwelling does not include eaves, as depicted by the applicant). On the north elevation, this standard is met. Side Yard Appearance and Screening These standards require measures that minimize the appearance of side wall planes; at least one of the design treatments specified in LOC 50.06.001.21 must be applied. The maximum side yard plane standard requires side walls to be divided into distinct planes of 750 square feet or less. As shown in Exhibit E4, the largest side wall plane on the northern elevation is 485.75 square feet. The largest side wall plane on the southern elevation will be approximately 435 square feet. This standard is met. Garage Appearance and Location The garage appearance and location standards require measures that minimize the appearance of the garage. First, the garage may not be located closer to the street than the dwelling. As shown on the site plan, the garage doors are 1.75 feet behind the exterior LU 13-0040 Page 5 of 19 21 dining room wall (Exhibit E4). Second, the garage width cannot exceed 60% of the width of the dwelling. The garage width represents 42% of the dwelling width. Last, two of the garage appearance standards must be provided. A trellis will be provided over the garage door; the trellis is 1.75 feet in width and is 9 feet above grade. The garage door represents less than 50% of the combined width of the garage and dwelling. These standards are met. Residential Infill Design Review Standards [LOC 50.08.0071 These standards provide an alternative review process for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones that do not meet the clear and objective development standards of the Code, but may be found to be otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards. In making this determination, the City Manager shall consider the dwelling size, relationship to the street, and relationship to the neighbors. When applying the RID criteria, the City Manager shall also consider the pattern and character of development of lots within 200 feet of the subject site and any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association. The Bryant Neighborhood does not have an adopted plan. The applicant has provided a photo inventory of dwellings within 200 feet of the site in order to demonstrate the pattern and character of development within the immediate neighborhood (Exhibit E7). Following is a discussion of each of the criteria: Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size Refers to exceptions to Floor Area Ratio, Lot Coverage, Yard Setbacks, Building Height, and Accessory Structures An exception to the standards listed above may be permitted when a more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The degree to which the dwelling design offers features that diminish the perceived scale and improves the perceived character is determined by consideration of distance and visibility from the street and adjoining properties, topography, building number, form, mass and orientation, and landscaping. Comment Received and Response Comment: The property could accommodate a small single level structure that meets lot coverage standards. Response: The Code allows for a number of variances and exceptions to certain Code requirements, provided that all applicable criteria for the variance are met. While a dwelling could be constructed that meets the setback and lot coverage standards of the zone, it is the applicant's option to request RID exceptions to the rear setback and to lot coverage, and the applicant's burden to demonstrate how the proposed development meets the criteria of approval for the two RID exceptions requested. LU 13-0040 22 Page 6 of 19 As noted earlier, the applicant is requesting exceptions to the rear yard setback and lot coverage in order to construct a new dwelling. The applicant's narrative and associated exhibits demonstrate the following design features and locational factors that diminish the perceived scale of the new dwelling (Exhibits E3 -E5 and F1): The increased lot coverage and reduced rear yard setback will not be readily perceptible. While the site abuts Lake Corporation property to the west, the shoreline of Oswego Lake is actually 5-28 feet from the rear property line. This yard area, approximately 817 square feet, is visually perceived to be part of the developed site, diminishing the perception of the structure's mass on the lot, as well as the perception of a reduced rear yard setback (Exhibit E4). As illustrated in Exhibit E7, there is no consistent pattern to the placement of structures on properties within 200 feet of the site; there are non -conformities to the front, rear and side yard setbacks. The exception to the rear setback will not appear unusual in this setting. The material choice for the dwelling helps diminish its perceived scale. As shown in Exhibit E5, the main and basement levels will be clad in lap siding, while the upper floor will be shingled. Multiple windows on the front and rear facades provide visual interest, and exposed rafters on the front gables reflect the Arts and Crafts style and the desire to make handiwork visible. These material changes and details will help minimize the appearance of bulk. Comments Received and Response Comment: The oversized structure on a small lot does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Response: As shown in the vicinity map (Exhibit E2), the photos of all properties within 200 feet of the site (Exhibit E7), and the photos in this staff report, the development in the immediate neighborhood contains many non -conformities, including lot coverage, garage appearance and location standards; and front, rear and side yard setbacks. Of the 17 lots that front Graef Circle, 10 are substandard in size, ranging from 4,422 square feet to 6,505 square feet. In addition, the properties along Graef Circle include one-, two- and three story homes; along the lake front side of Graef Circle, many of the dwellings are two levels at the street and three levels on the lake side as the properties take advantage of the site topography; these include the dwellings at 16707, 16742, 16755 and 16767 Graef Circle. LU 13-0040 Page 7 of 19 23 Comment: The structure will block sunlight and views of the bay from other homes. Response: As described in LOC 50.06.007 below, the proposed dwelling complies with minimum shade point height standard of the Solar Access standard, the purpose of which is to minimize shading of adjacent structures. While there are no provisions for view protections in the Development Code, it should be noted that views of the lake from the street are currently blocked by a fence, the existing trees and other foliage (see photo to the right). Comment: The dwelling will tower above'adjacent properties. Response: The proposed dwelling meets the Code height standard of 32 feet for lots with sloping topography. This is slightly more than three feet taller than the dwelling to the north, which is 28' 10". The abutting property to the south is single story at the street; staff does not have height measurements for this dwelling and the commenter did not provide such data. F demonstrate proposed d% both abuttir taller than b dwelling is r either, and i with other d street, as illi below and h LU 13-0040 24 Page 8 of 19 Comment: The reduced setback and above -code height on the north side will compromise privacy and solar access to the home to the north. Response: The applicant is not requesting either a side yard setback exception or an exception to the maximum building height; as addressed under LOC 50.06.007, below, the proposed dwelling meets the Solar Design standards. Comment. Shrinking the house would enhance our house (Johnson, 16621 Graef Circle, abutting to the north) by creating more view and increasing privacy separation. Response: On lakefront lots, the larger picture frame windows are generally located on the rear elevations to take full advantage of the lake views; as shown on Exhibit E5, the largest windows are located on the western (lake) elevation of the Johnson dwelling. As shown in Exhibit E4, the westernmost edge of the proposed dwelling at 16621 Graef Circle is two feet behind the edge of the Johnson dwelling; therefore, lake views from the rear of the Johnson lot will not be affected by the proposed development. Additionally, the existing boathouse that is located on the northwest corner of the lot, and is proposed to remain, already blocks some of the views of the lake from the Johnson property (Exhibit E3). Because the proposed dwelling meets the side yard setback requirement of five feet, staff assumes that the comment requesting that the dwelling be "shrunk" to increase privacy separation refers to the rear setback reduction from 30 feet to 25 feet and the resulting lot coverage increase. As shown in the elevation drawings (Exhibit E5), the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling has relatively small windows (4-6 square feet) that faces the neighbor. The windows located in the "exception" part of the rear setback are 23 feet from the property line, and are partially obscured by the deck railing. The doors to the deck do not have a direct view to the large picture window on the southern elevation of the Johnson house because the picture window is set back at least six feet behind the deck doors. Staff finds that with regard to the rear setback and lot coverage, the proposed design results in development that is equal to or better than what could be approved without the exceptions, and the design features and locational factors described above will create a more positive relationship between the size of the structure and the scale and character of development along Graef Circle. This standard is met. Relationship to the Street Refers to exceptions to Front Yard Setback, Front Yard Plane, and Garage Door Openings The applicant is not seeking exceptions to any of these standards; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Relationship to the Neighbors Refers to exceptions to Side Yard Setback and Side Wall Elevation The applicant is not seeking exceptions to any of these standards; the previous analysis of exceptions to the Side Yard Setback Plane was based on a measurement miscalculation by staff. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. LU 13-0040 Page 9 of 19 25 Conclusion Staff finds that the resulting design is equal to or better than a dwelling that meets the rear yard setback and lot coverage standards. Staff therefore concludes that the proposed dwelling meets the requirements for the exceptions pursuant to the RID Review standards. 2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; Off Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access (LOC 50.06.0021 This standard requires that one off street parking space be provided for a single-family dwelling. As shown on Exhibit E6, two garage spaces are provided on the site. This standard is met. On -Site Circulation — DrivewaVs and Fire Access Roads FLOC 50.06.003.21 This standard contains the geometric design standards for proposed driveways that serve as fire department access roads, and other design features such as slope and width of driveway approaches. The maximum grade and cross slope for a driveway is 15% and 5%, respectively. As shown on Exhibit E4, the driveway grade is 6% and the cross slope is less than 1%. The maximum driveway approach for a single-family dwelling with a garage door facing the street is 12 feet per garage door, not to exceed 30 feet. The dwelling has two garage doors facing the street, and the driveway approach is 20 feet in width. This standard is met. Drainage Standard for Minor Development FLOC 50.06.006.31 This standard requires that drainage improvements be provided to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The determination of whether or not the application complies with the requirements of this standard is under the review authority of the City Manager or City Engineer. Compliance with this standard will be ensured during the building permit review. This standard can be met. Solar Access rLOC 50.06.007 LOC 50.06.007.2 requires all single family detached structures and accessory structures to comply with the minimum shade point height standard in order to promote the use of solar energy and minimize shading on adjacent northern lots. Staff has verified that the proposed dwelling complies with the maximum shade point height standard. LU 13-0040 26 Page 10 of 19 2. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Vision Clearance [LOC 42.03.1301 This standard requires that no vegetation, fence or signage higher than 30 inches be located within a "vision clearance triangle." The vision clearance triangles for a driveway are formed by 10 -foot legs extending from the intersection of the driveway and the street travel lane. As shown in the photo to the right, there is a five-foot fence located within the northern vision clearance triangle. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to show compliance with this standard at time of Building Permit submittal. Options include re -orienting the driveway or removing all or a portion of the fence. As conditioned, this standard can be met. City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks Code [LOC Chapter 421 Comment Received and Response Comment: The addition of another residence will further burden the restricted area through which a number of families must navigate, and construction will further inhibit traffic. Response: Graef Circle is a local public street that is 24 feet wide (Exhibit E1), and is a one- way street with travel flow restricted to the north -to -south direction. One-way streets must have a minimum width of 15 feet. Local streets have Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts of fewer than 1,000 trips, and single-family dwellings are estimated to generate 11 daily trips. Given that Graef Circle only provides access to 16 existing dwellings, the ADT for Graef Circle is currently fewer than 200 trips. The addition of one single family dwelling will not impact the street classification of Graef Circle, and the ADT will remain below 200. LU 13-0040 Page 11 of 19 27 Many of the existing dwellings have large non -conformities to the required setbacks along Graef Circle, which limit on-site parking opportunities; cars parked along the street or on garage approaches often encroach into the right-of-way. In addition, the existing development to the north has an illegal fence that is located within the Graef Circle right-of-way, and landscaping along the roadway further constricts the travelway. The proposed development provides two garage parking spaces, as well as room on the driveway to park additional cars off-street. Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) Comment Received and Response Comment: Proximity of the proposed house could impose foundation loads on our basement wall if not designed specifically to avoid doing so. Response: Compliance with all Building Code standards will be ensured during the Building Permit review process. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551 Tree Removal As illustrated in Exhibit E3, there are three 30" oak trees on the site that are five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant is requesting to remove these trees in order to construct a new dwelling. Trees proposed for removal in conjunction with major or minor development can be granted tree removal permits if the following four criteria are met: (1) The removal is for development purposes pursuant to the City Code,- Comments ode, Comments Received and Response Comment: The three trees are near the property line. There is almost 20 feet of tree - free access to this lot. Taking the trees down is not necessary. Response: As shown on Exhibit E3, the trees are located 13-15 feet from the front property line. The averaged front setback allowed by the Code is 16.2 feet, which is well within the canopy and critical root zone of the trees. The trees are also located in the middle of the lot when the 10' (south) and 5' (north) side setbacks are considered. Given that a two -car garage is standard in Lake Oswego, the proposed driveway is narrower, at 19 feet wide, than the Code maximum for a two -car garage (24 feet wide). Whether located to the north or south of the lot, a 19 -foot driveway serving a two -car garage will require removal of the trees (Exhibit E4); this is true even if the building envelope itself were shifted to the west. Additionally, even with the requested 5 -foot LU 13-0040 28 Page 12 of 19 setback reduction in the rear, the depth of the building envelope is 37 feet; this is not deep enough to provide tandem parking, which would require at least 40 feet of depth. Comment: A plan that meets lot coverage requirements could preserve the oak trees. Response: As described above, driveway access to a two -car garage requires that the trees be removed regardless of whether the dwelling meets or exceeds the maximum lot coverage for the zone. The removal of these trees is necessary for development because they are located within the footprint of the proposed dwelling (Exhibit E4). (2) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or flow of surface waters because the trees are not located in a steeply sloped area. Additionally, the proposed drainage facilities are designed to handle storm runoff for all impervious surfaces. The removal will also not have a significant impact on protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the trees are separated far enough from other trees that they do not provide a windbreak. (3) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood, except where alternatives to tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, and There are many large firs, oak and maples along Graef Circle near the subject site. The trees proposed for removal are prominent and located near the front property line, and contribute to the treed character of the neighborhood. Their removal will have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. However, these trees are located in the building envelope: 12 feet from the front property line and approximately midway between the side property lines (Exhibit E3). On a lot severely constrained by size, preserving the trees would require a significant additional reduction to the rear setback. The applicant has not sought such exception/variance and the Tree Code cannot require the applicant to do so. See Staff Report and DRC Findings, Conclusions, and Order, Exceptional Homes, AP 13-02 (499-13-00538)-1816. (Although not before staff, an initial impression is that it may be out of character with existing development pattern in the neighborhood.) Therefore, staff finds that no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. (4) The removal is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. The trees are not being removed for view enhancement because their removal will not improve any views. LU 13-0040 Page 13 of 19 29 Comments Received and Response Comment: Tree removal will place survival risk on wildlife. Response: No documentation was submitted to support the claim that the removal of three oak trees will place survival risk on wildlife. Additionally, wildlife survival is not a criterion of approval for tree removal in the Tree Code, Comment: Shade will be lost with the tree removal. Response: It is true that the removal of trees generally results in the loss of shade. Loss of shade is not an approval criterion for Type II removal requests, unless it is considered to impact the wooded character of the neighborhood. No evidence was presented that the removal of the trees (and the resulting loss of shade) would have significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. As shown in the photos below, there a number of large trees along Graef Circle that provide shade along the Comment: The oak trees provide canopy for herons, eagles and osprey, and tree removal is only requested for a large dwelling. Response: Habitat protection is not a criterion of approval for tree removal in the Tree Code. Under Front Setback Averaging, which does not require a variance, a dwelling on this site could be built 16.2 feet from the front property line, which would compromise the root and overall tree health for these trees. Additionally, as described above, access to a two -car garage, whether on the north or south side of the property, requires the trees to be removed; the size of the dwelling is not relevant to the access issues. Comment: As green areas around and between houses disappear, there will be an impact on the overall environment. The removal of trees decreases the production of oxygen, which balances the production of carbon monoxide. The impact on the bird and LU 13-0040 30 Page 14 of 19 squirrel population affects the balance between the number of species including insects and small rodents. Response: Environmental impacts (wildlife habitat, air pollution) are not criteria of approval under the Tree Code. Comment: Wedging another large house into a small lot does not address the majority of the goals your department professes to embrace when considering these variances to the codes that all citizens of Lake Oswego must abide by. Building another residence to garner additional tax revenue will not necessarily offset the loss of revenue brought by decreasing the value of already existing homes that may be caused by the impact of the action. Response: The proposed dwelling meets the majority of the zone standards and all of the dwelling design standards, as analyzed in LOC 50.04.001.1 and 50.06.001. The applicant is requesting exceptions to two standards: lot coverage and the rear yard setback. The front setback reduction is not a variance to the code standard; it is allowed by right if one or both abutting properties have a non -conforming front setback (LOC 50.04.003.3.a). As shown in the survey (Exhibit E7), the abutting property to the south has a front setback of 22.5 feet, and the abutting property to the north has a front setback of 9.9 feet; their average is 16.2 feet; the proposed dwelling complies with this setback. The impact to tax revenues, whether positive or negative, is not a criterion of approval for RID exceptions. Comment: The house will not fit the character of the neighborhood (with the requested exceptions) to lot coverage, front setback, lake setback and height. Response: The applicant is only requesting exceptions to lot coverage and the rear setback. The proposed dwelling meets the height standard of 32 feet for lots with sloping topography, as analyzed in LOC 50.04.001.1. The proposed plan also meets the criteria for Front Setback Averaging because the abutting property to the north has a front setback of 9.9 feet (which is requested to be further diminished to six feet under the RID criteria for exceptions, LU 13-0048), and the abutting property to the south has a front setback of 22.5 feet. The proposed setback of 16.2 feet is therefore compatible with the development pattern in the neighborhood, as shown in Exhibit E7. See discussion under LOC 50.08.007, below, for the analysis of the RID criteria of approval. The application does not include any exception to the lake setback or to maximum building height. For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the tree removal request complies with the applicable criteria and may be approved. The applicant will be required to apply for a verification tree removal permit for the trees prior to approval of any grading or building permit. Mitigation Any tree approved for removal under the Type II analysis shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Mitigation trees shall have a minimum 2 -inch caliper diameter for deciduous trees and a minimum 6-8 foot height (excluding leader) for evergreen trees. The applicant proposes three maples, each 2" caliper, as mitigation (Exhibit LU 13-0040 Page 15 of 19 31 E4). The applicant will be required to submit a tree mitigation plan with the verification tree removal application showing the size, species and location of the mitigation tree in compliance with the minimum mitigation requirements_ As conditioned, this standard can be met. Tree Protection The Code requires tree protection measures when a tree protection zone or drip line of a tree is within the construction zone, whether on- or off-site [LOC 55.08.030(1)]. There are several trees in the vicinity of the work area that may need tree protection during site development. The protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the trees. The applicant should propose the tree protection zone for each tree, for review and approval by City staff, on site. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City. A note should be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.0301. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. As a condition of approval, as required by LOC 55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan shall be submitted with the building permit plans for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6 -foot high chain link fencing supported by 6 -foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart. 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property. VII. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0040 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. Vlli. ACTION TAKEN Approval of LU 13-0040, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant/Owner Shall: Submit final building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan and elevations illustrated on Exhibits E4 — E6, with the following modifications: a. Show compliance with the Vision Clearance standards of LOC 42.03.130 for the proposed driveway. LU 13-0040 32 Page 16 of 19 2. Submit a "Notice of Development Restriction" for staff review and approval containing the following restrictions: The dwelling on the site received exceptions to lot coverage, rear yard setback and side yard setback plane standards for the R-7.5 zone through the Residential Infill Design Review process and was specifically approved for its design. No external additions or alterations of the dwelling (including changes to or removal of approved building design features, colors or materials) shall be permitted, including changes during construction, without prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego, per City of Lake Oswego Planning Division File No LU 13-0040. 3. Record the "Notice of Development Restriction" required by Condition A(2), above, with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office, and submit a copy of the recorded Notice of Development Restriction to staff. 4. Apply for and obtain a verification tree removal permit for the following trees approved for removal in this action: three 30" oak trees. The verification tree removal application shall include an 8%Z" x 11" copy of the tree removal plan, and a mitigation plan showing replacement trees on a 1:1 basis. Replacement trees shall not be dwarf or ornamental varieties and shall be at least 2 inches in caliper if deciduous or at least 6-8 feet tall (excluding the leader) if evergreens. B. Prior to Any Construction Activity on the Site, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Install all tree protection measures as required by the Code Requirement (1), below. The tree protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by City staff prior to commencing any construction activities. 2. Apply for and obtain an erosion control permit, and install all erosion control measures. C. Prior to Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of the Dwelling, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the dwelling complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions A(1), above. Code Requirements: Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the Development Permit approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of this approval, and can be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6 -foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall LU 13-0040 Page 17 of 19 33 also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained Note: from the City Manager and project arborist. The applicant is advised to take part in a post -Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer you an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure you understand all the conditions and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. If you like to take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. 3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are 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. Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. Prepared by Leslie Hamilton, AICP Date Senior Planner Reviewd b - cf Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney by: S. Hamid Pishvaie Assistant Plannins Date a /a li off,®1 Date LU 13-0040 34 Page 18 of 19 FXNIFIITC A -D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E1 Tax Map E2 Vicinity Map E3 Existing Conditions E4 Site Plan E5 Elevations E6 Floor plans E7 Photographs of dwellings within 200 feet of the site E8 Graef Street elevations E9 Elevations for 16621 Graef Circle (LU 13-0048, Johnson) F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1 Applicant's Narrative, dated September 16, 2013 F2 Fire Marshal Comments F3 Lake Corporation letter, dated September 11, 2013 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99): None Support (G100-199): 6100 Letter from Carolyn and Robert Vivian, dated November 7, 2013 G101 Letter from Judith Colwell, dated November 12, 2013 Opposition (G200+): G200 Letter from Beatrice Neuburg, dated November 12, 2013 6201 Letter from Dan Johnson and Liz Bounds, dated November 12, 2013 G202 Letter from Ron and Mary Schilling, dated November 12, 2013 G203 Letter from Susan Hanneman, dated November 12, 2013 G204 Letter from Vincent Liguore, dated November 12, 2013 G205 Letter from Margery Koll, dated November 12, 2013 G206 Letter from Bruce Henderson, dated November 12, 2013 Date of Application Submittal: August 12, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: October 4, 2013 State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: February 1, 2014 LU 13-0040 Page 19 of 19 35 36 o� U G U 0 -o aae 3i z dvw 33S �� ��� by .o � UCD CO C 7 W (n p N •.v m W \ \ n a'd �F{ 3� a a �s....N 4wa: Nor Q 006E d � ���z�i,o �� r. t° l `>_ `` •�.�..� 2 p°i tlbW Q�` Wo a , % r�h.�;ig r° ms's it Vt ` \` `�\p fi$a�•a�l/ ,ok •-�`` o''iS0 ��oa7S ti��� 8� � m_ �°a^�ti �a `e+,d ia�N��2, � LJ � � \�N / ` 08 .�a qs p — � � G w is ~ 0016 a� \° N ° x�cb��, M d, \ 0 �,� �F a �Qb:,,R +F5✓ or 3jo qb�' Y s $ � �\p ri4 si �� \ a OD fn o g $ �./ mks .' ':^ '� •'� '.a,.� :"'f o �kp o :.3 ?$i°r; \'A °d 6 "� C3 Q = �` �/ 1Y1 -" �9� na v a 8 ie o es'6 a° !1J �� /` : 0 a •Repo ° 'f°.✓ - \ pi 'g.,y 2 n s,: ~'' y,.- rp•"N, J S O LJ by o Q M 3 v aas, N S o` ��t_ \ <$°$0" (°`.' O a`�• 'm s� � ry p ce �-$ter 45 d, $. -•O '". > S'e9p i. \ \\ & 05/ \'ipb• �i5 ,�w / / I \ �(� 9¢0® 'i �� s-�.'".- yp 0 L6 04 g ' ID � •. $ : � / cb >,r a p' � wry /'� 2-' a l 'gig"601, \� ^ '\ c a' ,a'r' v y N •�'�ii oa "/ a°� s-� 'raQJyas �g �"« fi \6\a0 ai d� `-S1tW 7 $i^R AlI�,A�� 0096 .�. .. �9.��."• .pkv m Willi \ � \ 4v� N •� �� CSR✓�/� �o-� =lei-- � �- � � � $��o==� • EXHIBIT E-1 LU 13-0040 37 38 0 FEXHIBIT E-2 LU 13-0040 \ � c K 2 / \ � « § < / \ t� / \§ cz ?\ \( = g << I * � K 2 \ \ Q» \\ey\\ Lj t� / \§ cz ?\ << 39 40 10" STORM DRAIN TO LAKE --DRAINS DIRECTLY NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE NGVD-29 DATUM LAKE BASEELEVATION = 99.7' CONCRET FLOOR ELEV. = 103.40' LOWESTST FLOOR �, ho WALKWA I#5- FINISH 050' ` 1 � TREE MITIGATION : EXISTING REMOVE (3) 30" DECIDUOUS REPLACE WITH (3) 2" CALIPER MAPLES STONE SEAWALL � EXISTING cry, 4 `n "°"- BOATHOU EXISTING 8,p CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO STONE STORM SEWER LOWER LEVEL STEEPS FIREPLACE EASEMENT 165 SOFT. RAIN GARDEN FOR RAINWATER DISPOSAL N 30°47. ORIGINAL ,ini� DO" c/ 40 10" STORM DRAIN TO LAKE I EXISTING CATrO BASINS Ep -' " .•.its (DRAIN DIRECTL TO LAKE) PAVING EXISTING TOP OF BANK ELEV. 101.50' 10.00 20.00 81, C.S.P. _} �'xj_ VI NEW DRIVEWAY — — CONCRET LOW POINT �, ho WALKWA I#5- FINISH 050' ` 1 � j a� „ EDGE OF crww''' EXISTING EXISTING PAVING 4 `n "°"- BOATHOU 1,001 SQ,FT, MAIN LEVEL PROVIDE NEW WATER LOWER LEVEL STEEPS `"' T X02 ELEV.103.40' v m = - LOWER PATIO ELEV. 103.20' - SCALE 1" = 20'-0" ROOF PROJECTIONS m p -' ' THROUGH SIDE AND MI FRONT YARD SETBACK ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE = -1� - - - ' FAIN LEVEL PLANES (HATCHED AREA _ (25% + 15% BONUS FOR UNDERSIZED LEGAL LOT) @ FLOOR ELEV, 112.E 79 SG. FT TOTAL AREA 1,106 SQ.FT. + 166 SQ.FT. = 1,272 SQ.FT, TOTAL / (4 5% OF 1 758 SOFT, i TOTAL RObF�EA) / PROPOSED 1,463 SQ.FT. NEW LOT COVERAGE (191 SQ.FT OVER MAXIMUM ALLOWED) _ _ o RIOGE:j - - RIDGE 16645 GRAEF CIRCLE EXISTING BOATHOUSE 220 SQ,FT. WALKS AND DRIVEWAY BEYOND ROOF 495 SQ.FT. LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 109 ci P REVISED OCTOBER 1, 2013 _...- ._...41 6'x3' WINDOW 110 1 k WELL o\ 7 - o p4n CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO r, coo STORM SEWER 112 � tai?�1 IU 0 ; > EASEMENT c'j4 '. •1.- .,..,5 wo *6 f�o�m REMOVE30 ( 3 'CLUS f / NEWCDNC I DEC DTUOUES21 x2'00" DfiiVELIIAY . 1I 5' WIDE PRIVATE MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE 6'x3' WINDOW WELL RELOCATE AC UNIT TO APPROVED LOCATION FOR 1W, jj )Ag L%C�S NORTH) (REMOVE C6 PROVIDE NEW WATER METER AND LINE TO SEWER I EXISTING CATrO BASINS Ep -' " .•.its (DRAIN DIRECTL TO LAKE) PAVING / " TIEIR METER EXISTING CITY WATER MANHOLE 4 IE 105.08 10.00 20.00 81, C.S.P. _} �'xj_ VI NEW DRIVEWAY — — _1 Q.0 T — v CLEARANCE EXISTING DATER LINE (HATCHED) CLEARANCE (HATCHED) GRAEF ` 1 � �~ CIRCLE EDGE OF AREA CAI CUL ATIONS 4,416 SO.FT, LOT AREA PAVING 1,001 SQ,FT, MAIN LEVEL PROVIDE NEW WATER 881 SQ.FT. UPPER LEVEL AND SEWER CONNECTION 359 SQ.FT. GARAGE 2,241 SQ.FT. FLOOR AREA INCLUDING GARAGE SITE PLAN PER CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1,243 SQ.FT. BASEMENT LEVEL SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 3125 SQ.FT. TOTAL LIVING AREA 0 10 20 30 40 50 169 SQ.FT.DECKSDECKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE = GRAPHIC SCALE (25% + 15% BONUS FOR UNDERSIZED LEGAL LOT) 1,106 SQ.FT. + 166 SQ.FT. = 1,272 SQ.FT, TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS PROPOSED 1,463 SQ.FT. NEW LOT COVERAGE (191 SQ.FT OVER MAXIMUM ALLOWED) NEW ROOF AREA 1 760 SQ.FT. 16645 GRAEF CIRCLE EXISTING BOATHOUSE 220 SQ,FT. WALKS AND DRIVEWAY BEYOND ROOF 495 SQ.FT. LAKE OSWEGO, OR. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS = 2,475 SQ.FT. OR 56% OF LOT SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 REVISED OCTOBER 1, 2013 ADDED CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO STORM SEWER EASEMENT ALONG SOUTH PROPERTY LINE EXHIBIT E-4 LU 13-0040 OVERALL WIDTH OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ROOF _16'-3 3/4" _ OVERALL WIDTH OF ROOF PROJECTION 6x10 OUTRIGGER BEAMf THROUGH FRONT YARD SETBACK PLANE /TYPICAL i FLESS THAN 1/2 OF OVERALL WIDTH @FRONT OR TWO INDIVIDUAL ROOF FORMS) /2x6 TRIM BOARD ON ROOF/DORMER 2x1O BARGE Bo. PROJECTION THROU MAX, HT, 135.50'(28'- 32'ABOVE LOWEST ADJACENT FRONT YARD STBAC COMPOSITION SHINGLE PLANE (HATCHING) ` GRADE_WITH SLO PING TOPOGRAPHY) _ _ ROOF / D E ROOF ' DORMER _ TYPICAL / PROJ CT PROJECTION THROUGH ®_ _ _' 4� �q P°CH ��� SIDE YAR SIDE YARD SETBACK PLANE (h PLANE (HATCHING)r GUTTER 0 ,,, 11 ETCHING) 2x8 FASCIA BD. - UPPER CEILING CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING UPPER LEVEL WALLS 6" CEDAR LAP SIDING MAIN AND LOWER WALLS TYPICAL SIDE YARD 12 PITCH r—z— ,tee pLANECK - �� UPPER FLOOR 2x6 OPEORELLIS ON x10 SUP ORT BEAM WRAPPED,616 POSTS i SIDE YARDit SETBACK r r CO t 7:1= u MAIN FLOOR ELEV. 112.50' -_ r PLANE - Y e -.- — - -2x M '--- -7- - mI 77 i CD dl ,,, 11 ETCHING) 2x8 FASCIA BD. - UPPER CEILING CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING UPPER LEVEL WALLS 6" CEDAR LAP SIDING MAIN AND LOWER WALLS TYPICAL SIDE YARD 12 PITCH q ,tee pLANECK - �� UPPER FLOOR 2x6 OPEORELLIS ON x10 SUP ORT BEAM WRAPPED,616 POSTS i STREET ELEVATION MAIN FLOOR ELEV. 112.50' ' -BASE FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT-'`_ - @- -�~�-—~�------ �+l - moi_ .._� FlNISH GRADE ORIGINAL GRADE FRONT SETBAGK ' EXISTING GRACE r -EXISTING GRADE 7RAADINE @@ PROPERTY LINE; ELEV. 107.0 4 AB VE LOWEST ADJACENT EXISTING FINlSM GRADE � ENDICULAR PERPENDICULAR ___------�i' L__Q______—_—___---____�.__ � RP TO ROOF 16'•0" QTO ROOF cr GARAGE DOOR LESS THAN 50U OF WIDTH OF FRONT ACADE LOWEI FLOOR ELEV. 103.50' LOWEST ADJACENT EXISTING /FINISH GRADE @ PERIMETER OF HOUSE) 11 ___-�_--...,..,..�.�_�...�._.�.._.Y.�._ ELEV. 03.40` __-A, MAXIMUM FLOOD ELEVATION ELEV. 99.7'_NGVD_29 FRONT ELEVATION (EAST) SCALE 1/8" = V-0" 16645 GRAEF CIRCLE EXHIBIT E-5 LAE OSWEGO, OR. LU 13-0040 41 } ROOF!DORMER PROJECTION THROUGH SIDE YARD SETBACK PLANE (HATCHING)---- .' PAINTED METAL1 RAILINGS �y �' SIDE YARD \ SETEACK i PLANE--_/ O B u,E =1 �I �I I n -d N I I I 1 EXISTING GRADE: PROPERTY LINE RPENDICULAR TO ROOF r' _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ --MAMAUM FLOOD ELEVATION ELEV. 99.7' NGVD-29 REAR ELEVATION (LADE SIDE) (WEST) SCALE 1/8" = V-0" 43 OVERALL DEPTH OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ROOF 14'-1 3/4" OVERALL WIDTH OF ROOF PROJECTION THROUGH SIDE YARD SETBACK PLANE (LESS THAN 1/3 OF OVERALL DEPTH FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL ROOF FORM) 1 MAX. HT. 135.50' (28' - 32' ABOVE LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE WITH SLOPING TOPOGRAPHY�_� _ _..------------------ r -1 MAIN FLOOR ELEV. 112.50' ;TION THROUGH ROOF/DORMER kRD SETBACK PROJECTION THROUGH (HATCHING) FRONT YARD SETBACK PLANE (HATCHING) FRONTYARD ` . SETBACK LINE 1 � I __ � ill ■_ .... ._ N ��- -WINDOW WELL j�f _ORIGINAL GRADE @ NEW FOUNDATION E� ELEV, 103.50' LOWEST ADJACENT EXISTING FINISH GRADE PELEV. .4 \ ( / @ PERIMETER OF HOUSE) EXISTING GRADE @ PROPERTY LINE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 44 MAIN LEVELFLOOR PLAN - 1/81, = 1'-0°° 1,001 SQ.FT. MAIN LEVEL LIVING AREA 881 SQ.FT. UPPER LEVEL LIVING AREA 1,243 LOWER LEVEL LIVING AREA (BASEMENT) 3,125 SQ.FT. TOTAL LIVING AREA 359 SQ.FT. GARAGE 2,241 SQ.FT. FLOOR AREA INCLUDING GARAGE FLOOR AREA IS LESS THAN MAXIMUMS 338 -ALLOWED 89 SQ.FT. MAIN LEVEL DECK BO SQ.FT, UPPER LEVEL DECK 169 SQ.FT. TOTAL DECKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE a 21'-S 1/2" --CABINETS L 9' 1 CEILING GREATROOM 19.6 x 14-0 FIREPLACE _c CABINETS REF 106"08" MICR PDR 9'1 CEILING KITCHEN A 15-0 .-------------------------- -------------------- a I 1 116645 GRAEF CIRCLE LAKE OSWEGO, OR. ENTRY EXISTING BOATHOUSE BELOW -- - ------- ---- ------------------ ----- COVERED DECK D 11 -2 x 8-0 + PATIO DOOR F ENCH NORY HAS OOR PDR 9'+ CEILING GARAGE 18-9 x 19-0 OVERALL -------------------------------------------- '0 DOOR 7 ------------- ------ ----------------------- iPEN TRELUS ON 6xl 0 GROSS BEAM 7 ---------------------- IT-1, 1/2" F EXHIBIT E-6 LU 13-0040 0 P!TJ 45 '-e ^�1 ° o ° ° ° I ° 5'•0" 161-11 1/2' 40'-0" 11-21/2" ' 5'-Q' , 11-4114, -- VAULTED MASTERi_-_____. OPEN RAILING �� I J-+ SUITE o� COVERED jI i 15-0 x 17-2 ca a ROOF DECK 10-8 x 7-2 ° k N a ° HALF WALL O N Ikll ° � - I ,.-. --- HAS LINEN ° C�+-I -����+ 4+LuaET -, yV4 rl 5-8 x 10-6 OVERALL 1 ° - � VAULTED BR 4� DAN 11-0 14 ~' BATH -1 ° I L T 1V-1 1 1/2" 5'-31/2" 5' - --- S EQGEOFFLOORBELOW -- - - ------ —, OF ROQ B 0 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ° SCALE 1/8" = 1°-0" k 881 SQ.FT. LIVING AREA , 80 SIGH. DECK 16645 G RAEF CIRCLE a LAKE OSWEGO, OR. ° 46 - - - -- - - - - - - � 9 3 € y EXISTING BOATHOUSE 3 i �_ --_-__ _21=551/2"— 8'-61/2• i \ CRES C D E o EP EDGE OF DECK ABOV COVERED PATIO Ac 8' 1" CEILING 13-6 x 8-6 OVERALL a = FAMILY RM 20-0 x 18-5 OVERALL UP MECHANI T a" CEILING i FURN BR -5 c 11-6 x 12-10 + f 1 M _ 3. x INDOW WINDO ' WELL T WELL w 8' 1" CEILING o a �� LI EN 7` 8"CEILING � s ® �R-2 13-10 x 14-0 BR -3 I � 15-9 x 13-0 i � Tue;sHWR J � '.- ----*-------------------------------- — — -------------------- 14'-11 5'-11 1/2" 2'4" 16'-9112" w 10' 0 40'-Q'I 51-01, -- - - e - --- LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLA e s SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0° 1,243 SQ.FT. a 6645 GRAEF CIRCLE LAKE- —®_ - - - ®— - - - --- - - — - — - — - -- 47 48 pni I#: EXHIBIT E-7 LU 13-0040 -7 I 49 � \ � � � I#: EXHIBIT E-7 LU 13-0040 -7 I 49 vu 01 vc as CL LU cz uj ®p uj 1 LO 3- .. a i,K �ay� � ` V 56 uLJ uj Cua LL- < LU> =-j CD us u� J cry � �CC CD r�LLJ �< cra T X e\j Lu co Q0 T u.� v ca LL uLJ c� LO ls- co c� (T� L -W LU uJ O CL. CD ry�ry L.L uJ ,w,^ �vIq ® -D l TW y L.L- uj 7—C. -d S2T x LLJ to T"- I- -. •�•@Q LU;- T L-L—U cc:< CDU EXHIBIT E-8 LU 13-0040 57 58 59 60 September 16, 2013 Department of Planning and Development City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97234 Applicant: Maywood Homes Inc. Subject: Application for Exception to R 7.5 Zoning Requlations Residential infill Design (RID) Review Pre -Application Case File No.: PA 13-0045 Property Address: Legal Description: Tax Lot and Map No: Zoning Neigborhood Association: Abutting Neighborhood Associations: +4clicant Request: M ..x ij .i 16645 Graef Circle Lot 511 Lake View Villas No. 5 2 1 E 08CC 07200 R-7.5 Bryant Neighborhood Association Evergreen, Blue Heron, Childs, Lake Forest, Lake Grove, Lakeview -Summit and Rosewood. The Applicant is requesting two exceptons to the R-7.5 zoning regulations in order to allow the construction of one new single family residence on an existing undersized, vacant legal lot. 1. Exception to Lot Coverage Standards: The applicant is requesting an increase of the allowable lot coverage based on the overall height of the new structure. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 25% of the 4,416 sq.ft.lot area which is 1,104 sq.ft. for a structure that is a max. 28' in height, (32' overall for sloping topography). The proposed total lot coverage would be 1,463 sq.ft. which is 33% of the lot area. The proposed 33% lot coverage is allowed for a structure up to a maximum height of 23', (27' overall for sloping topography). 2. Exception to Rear Yard Setback Standard: The applicant is requesting a 17% reduction of the rear yard setback from 30' to the 25' Lake setback. EXHIBIT F•1 LU 13-0040 7 --0 5 61 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CALCULATIONS COMPREHENSIVE FLAN: Comprehensive plan designation: R-7.5 ZONES AND SITE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FLOC 50.02 Base Zonin Distritcs fL0050.021 The zite is located in the R-7.5 zone district. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS L0050.04 : Residential Low Density Zones (R-15, R-10, R-7.5) [loc50.04.0001.1 Maximum Floor Area: 3,338 square feet: [(4,416 sq, ft. - 5,800) x 0.191 + 3000 sq.ft., plus 600 sq. ft. if a garage is provided.] Maximum Floor Area will be 2,241 sa. ft including Garage area Basement Floor Area will be 1,243 sq. ft. and is not required to be included in the total Maximum Floor Area and Boathouse is 200 sq.ft. and is not required to be included in the total Maximum Floor Area Yard Setbacks (Primary Structure): Front Yard: 25 feet (16.2' with setback averaging) (see Front Yard Setback Averaging below) Interior Side Yard: 5 feet minimum, 15' total for both Rear Yard 30 feet required 25' reguested) (see Oswego Lake Setback section below) Yard Setbacks (Accessory Structure under 18 feet in height): Front Yard: 25 feet Side Yard' 5' Rear Yard 25' (see Oswego Lake Setback section below) Existing Boathouse is to remain and is entirely within the Oswe o Lake Setback Maximum Base Height (measured to the ridge): the base standard is 28 - 32 feet for lot with sloping topography Maximum Base Height will blunder 32 feet and the lot has slop in to o ra h Maximum Lot Coverage: 25% of the lot area for structure over 25' in height, or 1,104 square feet. Note that the existing boathouse is not counted toward the lot coverage. Re nest lot coverage will be 331/o.(1,463 s uare feet . Front Yard Setback Averaging [LOC 50.04.003.3.a]: The front yards of the dwellings on the abutting lots are less than the yard depth required for the zone. The existing abutting front yards are 22.50 feet and 9.90 feet (see attached survey) The average of the abutting front yards is 16.2 feet which is less than the minimum 15' allowed. The Front Yard Setback will be 16.2 feet based on Setback Averacinsx. Oswego Lake Setback [LOC 50.04.003.7]: Except for a boathouse / dock and other uses listed in Table 50.04.003-2, structures must be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line abutting Oswego Lake. No new structures will be built in the Oswe o Lake Setback The existing Stone Fireplace and Boathouse are to Remain 62 OVERAY AND DESIGN DISTRICTS LO, -50.05 Flood Management Area [LOC 50.05.0111.1 .50.05.011.10]: The site is located in the Flood Management Area. The base flood elevation is 99.7 on vertical datum NGVD-29. Based on the attached survey the the entire lot except the boat slip area in the existing boathouse is above the base flood elevation. The Lowest Floor Elevation will be 103.40 which is 3.7 feet above the Base Flood Elevation of 99.7 NGVD-29 . 103.40 is 2.7 feet above the minumum required elevation for Living Areas DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOC 50.06 Structure Design- Residential Zones [LOC 50.06.001.2 - 50.06.001.3]: Street Front Setback Plane Floc 50.06.001.2.b -dl: The Front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front yard setback and extends up 20 feet, then slopes to the center of the lot at a minimum slope of 6:12. Two roof forms may project into this plane if they are less than 50% of the structure width. Two separate roof forms arolect into „the setback plane a total of 16'-4" of a total structure width of 44 feet which is 37% of the total width of the structure. This is less than the maximum 50% allowed. Side Yard Setback Plane - Interior Yard LOC 50.06.001.2.e : The side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extend upward to 12 feet andslopes toward the center of the lot at a 12:12 slope. An individual roof form may penetrate this plane if it is less than 1/3 of the structure length (measued @ 12 feet in height). Two or more separate roof forms may penetrate this plane if they are less than 50% of the structure length (measured @ 12 feet in height). One individual roof form will oenetrate the side yardsetback plane at both side ards One side will Denetrate fora length of 12.83 feet of an overall len th of 42.41 feet at 12 feet hei ht which is less than 1/3 of the length. The other side vard will be t3enetrated for a length of 14.14 feet which is 1/3 of the length at 12 feet height. These are below orequal to the maximum allowed penetration, Side Yard Apl2earance and screening 50.06.001.2.f.1 -iii : The maximum side yard wall plane will be up to 750 square feet and must be offset at least 2 feet for at least 6` in length from other side wall planes. One contiguous maximum side vard_olane will be 670 square feet and the ooposite contig uous maximum side and lane will be 470 s uare feet which are both less than the maximum 750 square feet allowed_ Gary e A2pearance and Location Standards,(LOC 50 06 001 4.a.vi-v-v A front loading garage shall comply with these standards: The Dwelling shall be closer to the street: The exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space shall be closer to the street than the garage door. Garage Width: The garage elevation shall not occupy more than 60% of the width of the combined facade of the dwelling and garage. Garage Appearance: Garages must comply with at least two of the following design standards: Additional 2 foot setback; individual garage doors of 75 sq. ft. maximum; individual garage doors that do not exceed 50% of the width of the combined dwelling and garage; decorative trellis above garage door at least 12 in. deep and at least 63 6 feet tall extending across the length of the garage door opening. The ara a door will be set back 18 in. from the closest front dwellin wall of habitable space. The individual garage door will be 16 feet long which is 400. of the combined garage and dwelling which does not exceed the maximum 50% allowed and a there will be a decorative trellis above and across the garage door. Parkin LOC 5006.002 One off-street parking space per dwelling unit is required. The ksntes rac sen he off-street e fo pa total of four offstreet arkin P two off-street ak _ . the drivewa sus,,,,,,,,, aces. Fences FLOC 50.06.004.2 Retaining walls four feet in height or greater, measured from the top of the retaining wall to the top of the footing, must meet setback requirements. The maximum height of a fence is six feet, except where a fence is within 10 feet of a property line that abuts a public or private street, in which case the maximum height is four feet. The rock retaining_walls on the site are existing and will remain. There are no new -retaining walls or fences proposed for the site. Drainage Standards FLOC 50.06.006.3 The existing site is currently landscaped and includes existing stone retaining walls and ste s anda large lawn area which extends into the Lake Corp _property which abuts an existing stone and concrete seawall. There are three existinci lart q deciduous trees grouped together at the front center of the site. Because of the location on the site the existina trees will have to be removed. The site slopes from the existing street down to the large flat ]awn area ad"acent to the I ke. Also included on the site is an existing stone fireplace that is inte ral with a stone retainina wall alonq the south interior DroDe!jy line There is an existing boathouse that will remain on the site. All new roof drains will be routed to a new rain garden located at the existintt lawn area adlacent to the lake The new rain garden will be designed to condition the stormwater beforedrainin into the lake. The new Dwelg Iexisting ground water ,gr g toward the -lake which will be handled with foundation drains around the new foundation that will drain into the new rain garden. There is an existing stormwater line draining two existing catchbasins located along the edge of thepaying at the existing street at the front of the 12ropeLty which are located -along the highest area of the property. Solar Balance Point I[LOC 50.06.007.21 Formula numbers based on the proposed dwelling location SRL - shade reduction line =9 feet from Northern property line N - North-South_pLoMerty dimension = 55 feet Main floor elevation = 112.50 feet Street front elevation = 113.00 feet Shade point elevation height as desi ned = 132.97 feet The Maximum Shade Point calculated based on the formula provided = 22.60 feet Maximum shade Point elevation height = 112.50 feet + 22.60 feet = 135.10 feet Maximum allowed shade point elevation = 135.10 feet >132.97 actual shade point The maximum allowed -shade polnt standard is met with the proposed design. Utility Standard [LOC 50.06.008.,1 ,-�50-06-008.61 All utilities are available to the site and will be addressed at time of building permit There is an existing 6 in. water main available and located in the street at the front. There is an exianc 8 in. sanitary sewer line located in the street at the front and another 8 in. sanitaU sewer line located in the lake at he rear of the propeIV 64 There is and existing 10 in. stormwater line running from two catch basins located at the front of tbS_property in the street. along the Southern interior aroDertv line into the lake. Vision Pleance„F LOC 50.06.011.1 - 50.06.011.31 A vision clearance triangle on either side of the driveway is required as follows: No structures or vegetation taller than 30 in. above the driving surface are allowed within a vision clearance triangle with 10 foot legs that extend along the edges of the driveway and travel surface of the street. The vision clearance trian le is met as shown on the Proposed site develo ment plan. ADJUSTMENTS, ALTERNATIVES AND „VARIANCES FLOC 50.081 Residential infill Design Review FLOC 50 08 0071 Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size LOC 50.08.007.3.b.i 2 Criteria: The new dwelling will be located up to the averaged front yard setback which is consistant with the allowed front yard setback standard. This reduced front yard setback is also consistant with some of the dwellings located in the neighborhood. The new dwelling will have the upper level front and side walls stepped back from the main level exterior wall to reduce the overall impact on the street and neighboring properties on either side. The main level roof and upper level roof forms will be sloped @ a 4 to 12 slope which will keep the overall height down as low as possible to further reduce the overall mass of the new dwelling. The street facing walls will include some large windows both on the main and upper levels to provide a visual connection between the occupants and the street. The main entry will be located on the street facing main level wall and will include some sidelites and a small covered entry porch to increase the connection with the street. The garage door will be provided with a wood trellis framing the door opening to provide some visual interest around the garage door. The topography of site slopes from the street down to a flat lawn area adjacent to Oswego Lake. The main and entry level floor of the new dwelling will be located 6” below the elevation of the street, which is level across the front of the property. The new dwelling will take advantage of the existing slope by having a basement under the main level to provide a connection between the living area and the rear yard area. The adjacent houses in the neighborhood all have this feature if they are located on lake front property. The new dwelling will be one structure. There is an existing boathouse which will remain on the site, at the rear of the property. The size of the lot precludes building more that one structure in addition to the existing boathouse. The new dwelling is designed with a roughly square footprint minimizing the size and length of each side. The upper level walls are stepped back from the main level exterior walls further minimizing the the overall mass of the new dwelling. The orientation of the house dictated by the lot dimensions and orientation. The front walls are oriented facing the street and the rear walls are oriented facing the lake. Most of the major windows are either oriented facing either the street or lake. The front yard will be lanscaped with new trees (mitigation trees) replacing the trees that will need to be removed for the new dwelling. The front yard will be landscaped with shrubbery and some ground cover plants. The front yard area 65 to be landscaped is relatively small, approx. 24'x 16'. The left side yard, (south side) will be small shrubs and ground cover, and will also include a gravel or stepping stone walkway to the existing stone steps to the rear yard. The rear yard will be maintained as an existing lawn area but will also include a new stormwater rain garden to handle the stormwater run off from the new roof. New House_ Relationship to Street' The new dwelling is located up to an averaged front yard setback, halfway between the 22.50 feet front yard of the existing house to the South and the 9.90 feet front yard. setback of the existing house to the North, The averaged front yard setback will be 16.20'. The front yard will include a two car wide driveway and an entry walkway. The areas of the front will include some tree planting to replace the grouping of existing trees that must be removed for the devlopment of the lot. Deciduous trees will be used for landscaping to provide for sunlight during the winter and shading during the summer monthes. The main entry to the new dwelling will face the Street and there will be large windows facing the street from the main floor Dining Room and the upper floor Master Bath and the separate Bedroom, Some of the adjacent properties are dominated by large parking areas in front of the houses between fenced off private areas. The front yard area of our project will have some landscaping but will not have any fenced off private areas. This will provide more open area adjacent to the street, The current state of the property includes a 6' tall slatted chain link fencing located 10' from the front property line and extending completely across the entire 55 feet of the property width. The area in front of the existing fence is not landscaped but is covered completely with bark chips. The proposed new dwelling is designed to provide for a comfortable interior living area while minimizing the overall impact on the existing neighborhood. The new dwelling is designed to achieve some basic requirements on the main floor. The design incorporates a two car garage. Graef Circle is a narrow one way street that doesn't provide enough width for on street parking, so it imperative the overall design include enough on site parking for the new house. A two car garage and two parking spaces in the driveway will provide four on site parking spaces which is about the minimum a single family dwelling should provide. The adjacent homes have a similar amount of on site parking, either with a single car garage and driveway space for 3 or four extra autos, or with 2 car garages and a minimum of 2 spaces in the driveways. The Interior living space on the main floor provides for the minimum area required for a Greatroom 1 Living area, a nicely sized Kitchen and an adequate Dining area. The main floor will also include a small Laundry Room, Powder Bath and a stairway to the upper level and lower level. There will also be a small outdoor covered deck area to take advantage of the peaceful lake setting from the main floor. The total proposed main level living area is only 1,000 square feet which is a small but comfortable size. The main living areas will be open to each other and will have a large amount of windows facing the street and lake with some smaller windows facing the neighboring house to the south which will provide some solar gain during the winter. The exterior will be a combination of a mid century design utilizing and low pitched 4 :12 sloped roof with some craftsman elements such as cedar shingle siding and beam outriggers supporting the roof eaves and a trellis above the garage door opening. The barge boards at the gable eaves and the fascia boards at the roof eaves will have some width to provide a strong horizontal design element. The upper floor walls and roof will be stepped back from the main level exterior walls on the interior sides to 66 reduce the overall impact of the new dwelling on the neighboring properties. The upper level floor will include a Master Suite and Master Bath. Also included on the upper level floor is a second Bedroom with a small separate Bathroom and a small covered deck area directly above the main level deck. This deck will be off of the Master suite and will be an the back of the dwelling, facing the lake. The basement level floor will include a Recreation Room a Bathroom and three additional Bedrooms. Two of the Bedrooms will have window wells facing the interior side yards. One of the Bedrooms and the Recreation Room will have windows facing the back and the lake. There is also a patio door off of the Recreation Room to a small covered patio under the two small decks above that will provide access to the reworked existing concrete steps to the boathouse and rear yard. The new dwelling has to be located with the wider side yard setback along the southern interior lot line because an existing 10 in. city storm sewer line runs along that property line. The existing neighborhood is composed of a mix of older and newer housing types, both traditional styles with steeply pitched roofs and contemporary mid century styles with low pitched roofs. The proposed dwelling will fit very well into the existing mix of housing styles and finishes in the neighborhood. Type 11 tree removal criteria [loc 55.02.080] Three 30" deciduous trees will need to be removed from the site to develope a new dwelling. There are no other options, such as relocating the proposed dwelling on the lot because of the size of the lot and the existing city storm drain on the site, the existing boathouse and the location of the adjacent house on the north side of the lot. The 3 trees to be removed will be replaced with (3) new 2" caliper maples. See the site plan for the proposed location. 67 68 • Memorandum P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503 635-0275 Zoutendijk@ci.oswe og or.us To: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner From: Gert Zoutendijk, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: June 19, 2013 Subject: PA 13-0045, 16645 Graef Circle Plans Received Date: June 17, 2013 ACCESS Access is adequate for emergency vehicles. WATER FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION Hydrant location and water flow for fire protection are adequate. EXHIBIT F-2 LU 13-0040 69 70 September 11, 2013 Larry Todd Maywood Homes, Inc. PO Box 210 Lake Oswego OR 97034 RE: 16645 Graef Circle, Lake Oswego OR 97036 Dear Larry: 700 McVey Avenue P.O. Box 203 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-636-1422 Office 503-636-3226 Fax www.lakecorp.com This letter is in regards to Condition A.2: "Obtain and provide a copy of a letter of approval from the Lake Oswego Corporation regarding the storm disposal into Oswego Lake. Runoff from any new impervious surface area may require pre-treatment before being discharged into to the lake." It appears as though all roof and solid deck structures run to a continuous gutter and all downspouts drain to a rain garden or other treatment facility. As long as this facility is properly designed we are fine with the overflow draining to the lake. In addition road and driveway runoff drain to a preexisting storm sewer catchment in the right of way. We are also fine with this condition. Rest regards, �7 1 "IT � Jeff Ward Lake Manager EXHIBIT F•3 LU 13-0040 71 72 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Reference File No. 13-0040 Rip Review for 16645 Graef Circle Nov � � 1 tY 10f ^ 0 � My husband and I moved into our house directly across (Graef Circle) from Edmund and Mary Ellen Leh] in 1971, and became good friends with them throughout their lives. I always expected that the "vacant" lot owned by them would one day become a building lot and that a home would be built there. While we enjoy the old oak tree and benefit from its afternoon shade, it is very old and unhealthy looking, and has had soil covering the root crown for many years. It makes me concerned that it could topple over. If the city had an arborist, they could confirm the health of this tree. Because of the above reasons, my husband and I are not opposed to the planned building of a home at 16645 Graef Circle (or the removal of the oak tree) and in fact, believe it will increase home values in our neighborhood. Si Cerely,° Carolyn (and Robert) Vivian 4191 South Shore Blvd Lake Oswego, OR 97035 EXHIBIT G-100 LU 13-0040 73 From; wicolwe4l ph dColl] To: dan1iirQ sli Subject: 16645 Graef Circle - Request for Response Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:22:41 PM Hello, Ms. Hamilton This email is in response to notice of preliminary decision re a variance at 16645 Graef Circle and request for comments. I have no objection to a change in setbacks, lot coverage, or projections which has been requested. 16645 was purchased in 1948 by Mr. and Mrs. Lehi and has been a separate building lot since the time of the plat in the 1920's. While I have not walked onto other properties, many houses on Graef Circle appear very close to property lines. It is my opinion that the house plans proposed by Mr. Todd will greatly improve the look of the neighborhood and will also result in an increase for property values. The proposed plan fits well with the look and size of other homes in the area. Moreover, it will allow neighbors to be able to see the water and to enjoy the lake. The view to the water has been obscured by a high fence, structures behind the fence, and overhanging tree branches. I also want to clarify the issue of the oak trees which Mr. Todd has requested to be removed. I have heard this referred to as "tree," whereas it is actually three trees. I think the high fence has also obscured this fact. I have been in charge of maintaining Mrs. Lehl's property for the past five years, and the three trees drop much debris. There is much of the sage green algae growth on the trees, resulting in many dead limbs. Some of these have dropped onto the roof of the house next door. I have needed to do cleanup after strong rains and winds, and on more than one occasion I have swept the street of many"slimy" twigs. Moreover, the amount of dropped leaves in the fall creates some slick areas on the street when it is wet. Finally, I question the health of the trees themselves. Mrs. Lehi wanted no changes to her property while she was living, but it was my opinion the trees should have been evaluated by an arborist in view of possible future safety issues. There is no wildlife on the property to be disrupted that I know of. I have not noticed squirrel nests -- possibly due to the presence of overhead wires and traffic. Geese and ducks freely roam the seawall, which will not be disrupted. However, I have noticed fewer fowl in that very shallow end of West Bay since the Lake Oswego Corporation installed filtration equipment. In summary, I believe the trees should be removed and that the proposed building will have no negative consequences to the surrounding area. Please let.me know if you need any further information. Judith C. Colwell, Ph.D., M.B.A. Personal Representative for Estate of Mary Ellen Lehi 74 =EXHIBITG-101 To Whom It May Concern I am writing to comment on the city's preliminary decision on the Residential Infill Design (RID) exceptions for File No: LU 13-0040 at the location of 16645 Graef Circle Tax Lot 7107. The city has granted exceptions on lot coverage, rear yard setback and side yard setback and approved the request to remove three trees in order to construct a new dwelling. As the owner of the adjacent parcel I object to this decision. The increase in lot coverage to 33% with a 25 foot rear setback and allowing wider projections on the northern and southern side yard setbacks is not in keeping with the density of the neighborhood. The adjacent houses will be crowded and suffer a significant reduction in natural light. The proposed multi story 3000 square foot home requesting lot line variances will block solar access. This will impact the nature of the existing gardens and the interior daylight of homes that have been there for more than sixty years_ The trees that are proposed for removal are more than 100 year old oak trees. They provide shade for existing homes and gardens and provide a roosting spot for wildlife such as eagles, osprey and herons. Removing these trees will negatively impact natural wildlife that has thrived here for years. Lake Oswego is designated "Tree City USA" which emphasizes natural resource conservation. Allowing removal of these trees is out of character for the city and shameful. Oak trees are part of a remnant contiguous oak grove that is more or less 150 years old. The three trees are near the property line. There is almost 20 feet of tree free access to this lot. Taking the trees down is not necessary. Graef Circle is a narrow one way street with very limited parking. The addition of an oversize dwelling with minimal setbacks will exacerbate the existing parking problem. As it is, guests must always park in the street because most of the houses do not have any off street parking. I would like to register my disapproval of the City of Lake Oswego staff decision on this file. Sincerely, Beatrice R. Neuburg 16661 SW Graef Circle Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 u EXHIBIT G-200 LU 13-0040 75 Page 1 of 1 Subj: Fwd: Proposed house in the lot adjacent to 16621 Graef Circle Date: 11/7/2013 5:46:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From:yrl`�nor�k�ur�sCcorrEcast.net To: 'Naltne c(Daol.caU2 Dear Graef Circle Neighbors; We are not in favor of the proposed house plan, per the recent RID mailing, adjacent to our home at 16621 Graef Circle. 1) It does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The RID proposal is asking for variances to a) overall lot coverage, b) front setback requirement, c) lake setback requirement and d) overall height. A different house with the proper proportions, fitting the neighborhood character, could be constructed to meet all of these requirements. We actually spoke to the builder a few months ago about shrinking his plan by several feet to better accommodate our home and the character of the neighborhood. We offered to pay to have his draftsman redraw his plan prior to submission to the city for permit. He was not open to do so. 2) We understand the three 150 year old Oregon White Oak trees would also be cut down as a part of RID request. In our case we shaped our project around, actually featuring, our 150 year old Oregon White Oak. A project fitting the character of the neighborhood, and the lot coverage requirements, could also incorporate the white oak into its plan --as we were able to achieve. 3) Shrinking his plan would also enhance our home by creating more view and increasing privacy separation. We are limited by what we can do to our south elevation relative to property line location. We always new that a new home would eventually be built their but presumed we could achieve a win-win with our new neighbor and the neighborhood and city. 4) Proximity of his proposed house could impose foundation loads on our existing basement wall near his garage if not designed specifically to avoid doing so. He assured us that his design would not impose loads on our basement. We have not seen his design in detail to determine if that is the case. Nor is their evidence of this requirement in the RID process. We took on our project with a mission to make it fit with neighborhood history, character, requirements, and as an enhancement to our neighbors who have lived on Graef Circle for lifetimes. We are open to a home constructed in the lot adjacent to ours that fits the character of the neighborhood, enhances our properties and community feel, and one that fits within current zoning requirements. We don't think this one does. Sincerely, Dan Johnson and Liz Bounds 16621 Graef Circle This message, including any attachments hereto, may contain privileged or confidential information and is sent solely for the attention and use of the intended addressee(s). If you are not an intended addressee, you may neither use this message nor copy or deliver it to anyone. In such case, you should immediately destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Thank you. ..J 7 EXHIBIT G-201 LU 13-0040 76 A7 1n11 n nr Programming and Services Department City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Ron and Mary Schilling 4144 Southshore Blvd. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 To whom it may concern: My husband and I live across Graef Circle from the proposed RID at 16645 Graef Circle. Our home, known as the McCall House, is a designated historic site. It is one of the few remaining examples of cottages built as summer retreats. The English Cottage style was designed by architect and builder, John Graef. The Graef Circle neighborhood is characterized by older homes, towering trees and a spirit of community. When we bought this house fourteen years ago, we didn't just become members of the Lake Oswego community, we became members of the closely knit neighborhood that is Graef Circle. The atmosphere is one of old neighborhood friendliness; we all look out for each other. We bring in the mail and paper, water gardens and yards and babysit pets. We celebrate holidays together, and we frequently come together in the middle of the Circle to discuss what's going on in our lives and in the community. Since we moved here there have been a number of variances granted to build larger homes on the small lots, which have restricted the views we previously enjoyed, decreased the amount of available sunlight, and invariably increased the number of cars that are parked on the narrow, one-way circle. We are already burdened by the increased traffic that resulted from the left - turn restriction to West Bay, which resulted in a number of cars daily making use of Graef Circle to turn around. The addition of another residence will only further burden the restricted area through which a number of families must navigate. Not to mention the long process of construction, which always inhibits the flow of traffic. EXHIBIT G-202 LU 13-0040 77 We are also concerned about the blithe manner in which you address the removal of a very old, large oak tree. For a City that prides itself on the preservation of native trees and has a restrictive permitting process for the removal of trees, one has to wonder how you came to judge this as an appropriate situation to remove a tree that should not be removed under your own criteria. Finally, there is the issue of the green footprint that this house would represent. As green areas around and between houses disappear, there will be an impact on the overall environment. The removal of trees decreases the production of oxygen, which balances the production of carbon monoxide. The impact on the bird and squirrel population affects the balance between a number of species including insects and small rodents. Wedging another large house onto a small lot does not address the majority of the goals your department professes to embrace when considering these variances to the codes that all the citizens of Lake Oswego must abide by. Building another residence to garner additional tax revenue will not necessarily offset the loss of revenue brought about by decreasing the value of already existing homes that may be caused by the impact of the action. 78 Re: LU 13-0040 staff report and prelim decision To Whom It May Concern: As a fifteen year resident of Graef Circle I wish to state my disagreement and concerns with the exceptions and variances being granted for the above named project. I do realize that infill in Lake Oswego is inevitable, however I also believe there is appropriate and inappropriate infill. The property in question was the unfortunate result of a poorly thought out division of a long standing larger property. The proposed construction is next to the original house of the property. The original house is being restored by the new owners and has the south facing wall ON THE PROPERTY LINE. Allowing reduced setback and above code height on the north side of the proposed construction would seriously compromise both privacy and solar access to the home being restored. Allowing reduced setback to the water side of the proposed construction will also compromise views from the original house to the water. Graef Circle has an extensive oak canopy which provides shade and wildlife habitat. The three trees proposed for removal are quite old with large trunks and ensure an intact canopy for herons, eagles, osprey as well as other species. Tree removal is only being requested due to placement of a large (3000+ square foot) dwelling on a lot that is under 5000 square feet. The party requesting the exceptions for this infill is not Edmund or Mary Ellen Lehi (both deceased) as stated in the application. The applicant is actually Judith Colwell, who gained control of the Lehl's assets in Mary Ellen's elder years. As such, Mrs. Colwell has no vested interest in maintaining the character of Graef Circle, her interests lie rather in the bottom line of the sale. I believe there can be a more appropriate structure, smaller in scale in all dimensions, for this small infill lot. Thank you for considering my input. Thank you, Susan Hanneman 4212 South Shore Blvd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503 707 1615 C> EXHIBIT G-203 LU 13-0040 79 16767 Graef Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Regarding: File # LU 13-0040/Final Decision -October 29, 2013 November 6, 2013 Dear Sirs: I am writing to request a public hearing be held with the City Recorder to appeal the City of Lake Oswego's preliminary approval to develop the lot at 16645 Graef Circle. The current design under review does not comply with the R-7.5 zone standards for this neighborhood. The proposed dwelling is requesting multiple variances with exceptions in the zoned height, rear set back, as well as boundaries on both the northern and southern side of the property. Additionally the proposed structure has requested an exception to exceed the zoned lot coverage of 25% to 33%. An oversized structure on this small lot would not fit with the character of the neighborhood, blocking sunlight and views of the bay from other homes in the neighborhood, negatively impacting the quality of life for those of us who live in this beautiful neighborhood. It is very concerning that the applicant has requested removal of #3 -30 inch oak trees to accommodate this oversized structure on this lot. These trees are remnants of an oak grove that is decades old and provides a habitat for eagles, herons and other wild life. The removal of these trees places at risk survival of wild life -dependant on these trees. Graef Circle is a narrow one way street. There is no parking along this street and it is a significant concern that a design that does not plan. for off street parking will further burden this street. If additional cars are parked along this portion of the street where the road bends it would make it difficult for support vehicles such as garbage trucks and fire trucks to navigate the street. It is critical that this concern be taken into consideration prior to approval of these building plans. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this appeal and request for a hearing. Sincerely, Dn S Vincent C. Liguore D.D.S 80 EXHIBIT G-204 LU 13-0040 2 Gerald E. Koll Margery M. Koll 4162 Southshore Boulevard Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 636-8813 November 6, 2013 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File LU 13-0040 —16645 Graef Circle We wish to register our objection to the development plan for the above property. The property could easily accommodate a small single level structure that held to the lot coverage requirements of the code. The height of the proposed structure towers over the adjacent properties both on Graef Circle and across West Bay. We also object to the removal of the street -side trees and the shade that will be lost by the removal of these healthy, old, and large trees. EXHIBITG-205 LU 13-0040 81 82 November 7., 2013 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Attn: Leslie Hamilton AICP PO Box 369 380'A'Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: LU 13-0040 Graef Circle Residential Infill Development Ms. Hamilton: Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment on the proposed residential infill development (RID) LU 13-0040. As a resident of Graef Circle, I want to object to the City's preliminary findings of approval for this land use application. Our residence is adjacent Gane lot removed) to the proposed infill development. As neighbors, this is our first opportunity to hear of and review the proposed lot plan. Several issues are of significant concern to us as neighbors; the footprint of the proposed residence on a small infill lot resulting in several proposed lot setback exceptions, removal of three large Oregon oak trees from the historic canopy, the impact of the building footprint and height upon the character of the neighborhood and immediately adjacent cottage renovation. At heart of my objection is that few to none of these exceptions would be required if the proposed 3,285SF building footprint was adequately suited to the small infill lot size. Generally, we are in favor of infill IF the development meets and enhances the character of the neighborhood without negative aesthetic and natural attribute impacts. A sensitive, appropriately -sized building footprint could be made to work on the existing lot without the requested exceptions to City code and associated canopy impacts. The ONLY driver for these requests and associated neighborhood impacts is the proposed residential footprint, .presumably a result of non -owner economic 'penciling' of the infill development which is not. part of the City's RID code. Alternatively, an example of a sensitive, appropriately -sized residential cottage redevelopment -by -owner is now before the City on the lot immediately next door. If the developer had taken something of this character in their redevelopment planning, fewer exemptions would be requested with no impacts required to the native canopy and neighborhood aesthetics. Lake Oswego is a designated 'Tree City USA' community. I cannot rectify the City's tentative approval for removal of the three large -diameter 150+ -year old Oregon oak trees, remnants of the dominant native canopy in this neighborhood, with this designation. As residents we regularly see blue heron, eagle, and osprey roosting in these trees and the adjacent native canopy. in re -building our home which is within this canopy, we carefully sized our home and designed it so that only one limb had to be removed. The adjacent current re -building of the small cottage between our home and the proposed 3,285SF residence has similarly taken a respectful least -impact approach to retaining the remnant Oregon oak trees on their small lot. As to access into the proposed infill lot, there is adequate room on either side of these trees for a drive. As these trees are on the lot line adjacent to Graef Circle, the reasoning behind their removal is only to accommodate an over -sized home for the lot size which then requires exceptions from City planning code criteria and removal of the remnant Oregon oak trees. EXHIBIT G-206 LU 13-0040 83 November 7, 2013. Planning and Building Services Department, City of Lake Oswego ,.C: ,LU 13 -OW Graef Circle Residential Infill Development << 12 As to the impact of the.oroposed building footprint and height upon the character of the nelghborhoud and immediately adjacent cottage renovation, the non -owner applicant is requesting exceptions to City code setbacks on all sides of the footprint, as well as an over -height exception. Lot coverage increases nearly 1/3 over that allowed by City code (25% to 33%). Side lot setbacks increase nearly 1/2 more than that allowed by City code (33% to 49% on the northern side lot and 48% on the southern side lot). Front yard setback has been requested to be reduced from 25 -feet to 16 -feet, thereby impacting the three mature. Oregon oak trees. Rear yard, setbackis proposed to be reduced from 30 -feet to 25 -feet, impacting the lake view from the adjacent cottage redevelopment. Overheight roofline exemption and requested setback exemption on the northern lot side will negatively impact the solar values of the adjacent small cottage redevelopment. The multi -story wall of the proposed residence, combined with the requested reduced setback on the northern lot line will significantly and detrimentally impact the visual and general aesthetics of the existing cottage being redeveloped. Essentially the existing windows of this cottage which are not allowed by City code to be moved will be largely blocked by the multi -story residence within feet of the existing cottage. How can this proximity and visual/solar blockage be considered by the City as not having a negative effect upon the adjoining residence and neighborhood aesthetic? Such negative characteristics are not representative of our neighborhood. City code requires that an exception to the standards may be permitted when a 'more positive relationship between the size of the dwelling and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways'. It is my strong opinion as a neighbor that the proposed non -owner dwelling footprint does not meet this basic code criterion for allowing exemptions, but significantly diminishes the character of our neighborhood and adjoining properties due to its oversized scale for the small infill lot. In no way does this proposed infill improve the perceived character or aesthetics of our neighborhood and existing natural habitat, nor does it create a more positive relationship with the neighborhood. In fact, .it has the _opposite -effect upon adjoining properties and the natural environment. A more sensitive, appropriately -scaled residential infill could achieve both City infill goals as well as require fewer exceptions to City code setbacks without removal of the three historic canopy Oregon oak trees. Sincerely, Bruce Henderson 4212 South Shore Blvd. 84