Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 1993-01-20
r, • :,. AGENDA a 4.: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD `.. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE ...' Wednesday,January 20, 1993 v• t,. 7:00 P.M. Agenda Book 1• CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL September 23, 1992 October 5, 1992 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING IZR 13-90II(Remand), a request by OTAK; Inc. for ap +oval to construct a r P 33,000 sq. ft. retail/office center in four buildings, The proposal is a redesign of a project that has been remanded from Council following an appeal. The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and ' Westlake Drives (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 1E 6). Staff coordinator is Robert Galante,Seniva j Planner. Continued from January 4. 1993. The meeting has been continued to provide an w a opportunity to submit additional written testimony and to allo rebuttal of that testimony by . ' the applicant. • DR 16-92, a request by Blockbuster Video to reopen the public hearing to take Additional evidence on •' ti access and site circulation only. The site is located on the south side of Lower Boones Ferry Road across from the intersection of u Road is Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner, (Tax Lot 4300 of Tax Map 2 lE $CB). Staff coordinator SD 19-921VAR 18-92(a-b),a request byOTAK q Inc. (David Bantz) for approval of a minor partition involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas-fir Grove SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets) to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot parcel, The parcels are both proposed to be 21,256 ` square feet in area. `r Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage. but will take access from Wells Street, which is a private street, The applican 's proposal includes a Future Street Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street,as required by LOC 411/.120. The site is located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 g 'y (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 lE 101DD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler.Asp yi t Planner, y ;' • { r � � ` GENERAL PLANNING &ppoint a DRB Member to attend the January 28, 1993 public hearing of the Pathways Committee(Hearing Body) cr DTHER BUSINESS-Findings, Conclusions and Order DR 17-84(Mod. 9-92)\HR S--92 - Thompson Vaivoda & Associates, Inc. (Second Vote) • PD 2-90(Mod. 10-92) - ACE Partners (Second Vote) • DR 18-92 - Northwest Spring Mfg. Inc. PD 2-92 - Land Development Consultants Vffi. ADJOURNMENT • s `• TIY Lai Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come a go as you please. • • DRY' Me gra. Ste, Skip St may,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Ncx nan Sievert,Vice—Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner el A Imam i 3loomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner Rcrt Foster Hamid Pishvaie,Dcv.Review Planner Giruger my Catherine Clark,Associate Planner ° Martha Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner • Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary ., Yvonne DcBartola,Senior Secretary •'• • . ._ .. t� S , .. .. ... ... .,_. , ... i ', _ . ,' off '•:�;,.:. it � \,\KC Cj• s� o• 4 y. c "xst'r� • 0REGO , • d •_. -iL.•� t • DEP. \1}=NTOI PLANNING .AND Dr \'FL( )1'\1I.N 1' _ MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board FROM: Robert Galante, Senior Planner •`f . SUBJECT: DR 13-90II, Revised Plan/New Written Testimony • DATE: January 13, 1993 At your meeting of January 4, 1993 Mr.Bunick,owner of the neighborhood commercial site, submitted a sketch site plan alternative to the original proposal. The revised plan was submitted to address the issues raised in the staff report; particularly regarding the preservation of trees. The revised plan does not further reduce the overall size of the proposed development but is shown to save additional trees. ' • Since the plan is sketchy, is at a reduced scale and it does not include proposed grading. It is • • difficult to determine the ability to save all the trees shown on the plan. Staff continues to recommend that the overall size of the development be reduced, The alternative plan also appears to place parking lots and larger buildings closer to abutting single family residents. In ' addition, the crossings at parking lot driveways makes the alternative plan somewhat less pedestrian friendly. Attached you will find written testimony submitted within the January 11th deadline required by ,. the Board. This material was forwarded to Mr, Bunick so that he can rebut the opposition testimony at your meeting of January 20, 1992, The following list describes those exhibits: • 231. Letter by Leonard Stark,dated January 11, 1993 232, Letter by Michael Collmeyer.dated January S, 1993 233. Letter by Ray &Laura Sahlberg, dated January 11., 1993 234. Definitions of"Shall & Should" by Erin Meadors, received January 11, 1993 235, Summary of Council's Comments Regarding the Remand by Erin ; Meadors,received January 11, 1993 236, Testimony by Erin Meadors addressing Exhibit 230, received January 11, ;. 1993 s ` 1 • • ., r.,. . ie. '__, • hV l' 01.E r, -,..• '1. . ':.'•I+yt 1, • • ia'..1 11%1'41'r t0;$It v i 11;'I I i V\ 'II'1 It ...6 ,'tat Y a • Iw l!..1 t ' 1J ' + ' . w a t 237. Testimony by Erin Meadors addressing Neighborhood Compatibility— 'r Scale &Design,received January 11, 1993 238. Photos by Erin Meadors,received January 11, 1993 239. Cover of Westlake,A Planned Community, submitted by Erin Meadors on °, January 11, 1993 240. Portion of the Final Development Plan and Pro gram submitted by Erin Meadors January 11, 1993 for Westlake, 241. Portion of the Wetland Mitigation and Grass Line Swale Design Plan for '� Pointe South Apartments by IES Associates, dated September 17, 1989; submitted by Erin Meadors January 11, 1993 242. Site Plan&Revised Site Plan submitted by Erin Meadors,January 11, 1993 1 RO/t* I�9uldt°Pat+>DR13-01UMnmo.ln3 , ., r:• 1 k � 7' U ,r, . w r; i k 1: • I. 1 K „ U • 1 S . 4 M• r•. � r • :.v b '4 r 114 1'))) 11 3-#1 ,U1.. Jn / 1 ! / 'r EXHIBIT c La r.., Cc. ►3- C2ZL D it /1, S'`c i le, r 7-a id L t 47, - C/.1 A t. IQ /e L..d is-‘) f/J )%1 .-r t.1 n 1, l.+ > Je LS....., /2.. tJ 1 ;, /0 , n .t' L� 2.+ y7 , CL G c • L <Lc �^ S �-/ e j C t - 1- 7, `,J. L ` ;.a `* Ak1� C3 s, r . 4 4 U J T ry ir 7= dii-t is/ G is ^-Z-....1 Ap t sJ 17 L)r- 2" L, z 14.)2- L i c./ L - A p LI a•7_.n , • .. 7—abe, OIJ i Lo L .2— 1iS✓ I L. c )%dttc1(- 0 -7 V , • 1 -14-,4 T ---- /.t ,t 1 ,5-1A1 l. n /f3 !g' 11 to w a ).-) it A [.► 0 / v 4-t. A-- L (.. r. t—y,, ,...y. -Y <c,,..r 7- ? ,, !, r CL g' AI ) 1 "71-1u ,- r f Gc„) i0 ip., hll0 `2 1 , G. , A. L L-. S' L z LF J ,/1 r•Cv,1,i / 1 //� y'` �/`�` Q !7 a tr I G /-' /7" C' / H A t•. ! id ,,ia.,G Z -.. M 'A��. .. 'A• ' • 11i .. ' ..�� a :.� ..• t. /( G.. G_c., Li r r- 1r cr /-1_ '?' /4 h r/7 L... c 7' / cs /v 4 t ,t S7 `i/cam Cr-'ltr- a t 1 ,f CJ ..% 2. Goa —.y.y t'..7 /f G^G] v / YL IM-'f L /./ p L.i0 l to C J T•• 1/'\) /✓ 7 clr 1..) "'7/+•d / r /4 a L. p t.. h W h- r'7 7, , . r---� -}0 `7''' I . / 1..5 CJ t.-/ / /is/ C 1 ` J V Y'-1. 1'C "7° >1 X , '7 1✓ 4 , :r . C 4-4- 1.-1f1-L/i L ^'"'Z zrf'- /C l/7 h J / C /1 ( 4-Y1 h / r c ) I —Y ? )? d.7' ..T ••‘. 'L iter, S".4 `.. / .t S 1 .i /v i I�I •z � i,, , _ '_- - 4-L /'-/c ,1 4 1 pod 1 10 t_..1% LA.... hl 7 P P r 1 J c3 t._.,._, `--0 6'l 4: c /'J '✓ I C7' lc- —1' / '7 /.3 A t./t • c, F l 4 -" s x s ALL., et-, H.,7 —z' /,i / rL, IF. rP • l /s/12' Ci F., LD f 2 t_ s► ld A 7, p / a !� ./ Y id A T 1 ---' r / /2 k G /. K S ��o C. [7 I VL c c t L 1-t 7 y? .7. /.... t Z. / /...' t /i.. 1 /-t. / A a`. A 1 4) I kJ 4 .... J. A. 1 uy /3 4 /'L yL I e.+-t•. .---P h J .i-.) A. L c.s L/ e ` ' t.-... ,1" / G7 11.-✓ CI r �... if cis 1 Ph 12 C4 "7 "z'« /f /,"-+ lw r t.--4 t•dv /^i a t .t ._!' -- rt /1, 1-, r L./ .t 1.I t d c3--,-..-7° 4 L...14 l.a. c �J 16, 4' S / /, /t' \r ,,/r7 a /4 d S"a I...141 /> n k 12 et, 1 ICI. "-,'41 t A Le..� 2 4_, C.. c f .!rf 1" r I—r✓7 1 I•/ t c/ Li A. /e. ye. P c k / , --7 e.a. / /7 4U c yc y p / 7- ? ,-i L t— ,e /0 )1 ti..L 2' 6. ..W /../ 07 ,r/e.t-- A c e n N . r/..1 p k.A! ..,I4 -.7' .1' ,A„ la L •,1 dv N 4 r' 7' r/ i ! -;"' at, r'v,-r r /P L.rr ti/ tr'd `z'C.t /t ILL 1 1 h / /.l - ''4 4—, 1`j /' // 1L u'..t dC a`,,, ty , k/v 1,4 7 A —7- e £ 2- c4::. L. 7 ?r-2 ,...,/ L. 1r"J i 1,-, C b *7-/ / 4.-- d L./i 24 f'./ Li r/../a vC/,I )b)U ,,,/1.1. G.,4 (,, • �'l,/.ld/h. LLy /C, ..-ei+... ...... ` "3: - , .'Ci '`u S'. 1 rV. 1e M G G Y N / P rr A 0. 4,di4./A' c-A..J-& t Z.a 9 ?'e-,...z. .. Q p. 6 • e — •- - 1 A10—Lake Oswego Review Thursday,January 7, q ,W+ m u u " , u U U '� u C d U 9' , S °) v Ci d U 'n C'i 6.0 U d l i i 4 d .0 ..i' ''_ ►. •� w a eSrs air.; E `'" tt aw�'� 2 u -6 E �la DC . 85 8b a '` ° 5,0 5 fro a = a > p u �p a' �g llx a... a.° 'S �i 0 �F�] a >•.E 3 a, a t�,,.. :� 1.= � �, � 5 o ti u - "'�� o.a w ' 8 $ u r' 0 ci C x .%., > •d0 •SO o5. ° ,ii (GUitWht iI U C� O ��' S .., H .ctg.0 .— N ! xme°o F. E d 'r 3 !iDkfl% uu) ._1L7:t• 3MI G bg 9 U P � �e� EA 9 ®I� '�:+ •d y p, a� d� c°d 3 `x�o 3 ^°�'pn a 00�•5 u u u c4 .tpq n� °� $ L o �E° 0� tt CZ c.n o cEi.' u ° , G 0 u = . E 'C7 oN .5 �3 S 4H S E u 0•'3 . R•a u;> `A a d rn ICA o 613 u 'd o •�8r >� p °k, g ;d o. ,- 9 a.a o0 0.o/� [p) ° > '� .� S«,V y.PI.1i~ S 'a•y cdpC �y ��p,M U dw , , o a u,Ovc C $ + 3 a 2 E T. 1 .a t w o fi u 0 se .� b u c� .0 b y a c Z 0'sg °C rE e l tD e4 4 u,.., >. a Q 0. 'd Q ,,, a ° ,o.§ ' C2" ">' `° 'Es�� a u�' o i~,,o 0 8 �' E 0 5 5 o u S U .o a.S a o a. u u r� o .�.o �j O O b 0 0 a,v IIA TRO/NORTNlNEST, THE OREGONIAN,WEDNESDAY,JAPv;i1AI2Y G, 1 AJ 3, . D 10.____ �____ ---®- -_ = . __ Review board delays action on proposal , . . . r , • . s LAKE OSWEGO—The city's De- The proposal by Otak Inc.of Lake design and neighborhood compati. ,„ veloptnent Review Board has de. Oswego calls for construction of a bility. layed taking action on a revised 33,000•square•foot retail/offlce center City planner Bob Galante recent- -_ plan for a t'etalliotTice center in the in four buildings on 2,8 acres, mended the board deny the project, t' Westlake area. The center would be at the north• saying the applicants have not ado• Review board members took testi• east corner of the intersection of quately reduced the size of the torn. mony on the project during a meet- Parkview and Westlake drives. mercial center. Ile said the revised tag Monday night, The plan was revised from a plan would save fewer trees than Then they said the deadline to re. 35,000•squaro1.o0t development pro- the previous one. ceive written testimony on the plan ject that the City Council rejected Nick Bunick, representing the do. would be 5 p,m. Monday at City last April. velopers, provided the review board y Hall,380 A Ave. The previous proposal called for on Monday with an alternative site Developers of the project will be two, two-story buildings and three plan to consider,Opponents request- allowed io rebut any opposing testi. one-story buildings. ed more time to review that plan, ♦ mony during a review board meet' Opponents continue to cite con' which would reduce the size of one ing r.t'T p.m,Jan.20 In City Hall. corns about traffic volume, building building and add a smaller one. • , ' 0. . . .. . .. •• 0 • Y� 1 1 \. 7 J Yw �11 i. JI . . r' , ;i • 1 • _... .:•„_._.• .... ...J e —vv 1, b686 Victoria Lourt : I.:: JAN 11 1999 • Lake Oswego , OR 9703b January tl, 1993 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego �,. 380 "A" Avenue a EXHIBIT Lake Oswego , OR 97304 cam- 212,_ t 3-6iom Dear Members of the Board : { l write to express opposition to the p coposdd neighborhood commercial development at the corner of Parkviet•j and Westlake Drives [File No . DR 13-901I (Remand ) J . Clearly, one of the most critical issues which the Development Review Board (ORB) must decide is the issue of size. You have already heard much testimony on this issue. '''. .:: ::, At this stage of the process, it may appear that this issue is as complicated as it is critical and contentious . * I would suggest that it need not be so complicated , and I would • recommend that it be addressed one step at a time; STEP 1 � Decide if the applicant has a "contract" with the City • for a 35,000 square foot development. In spite o'f. no apparent substantiation, the applicant continues to testify ¢ about a "contract" between himself and the Cit this issue, you could rely upon the testimony of the decide applicant , or you could rely instead upon the clear language '' • of paragraph 3.E. (4) of ORDINANCE NO. 1783 (which , I ..1.• M understand , is the authoritative size criterion) : "Total building square footage for the neighborhood commercial site shall not exceed 35,000 square feet" [emphasis added ) . 1 suspect the ordinance was worded to say exactly what it meant , and therefore means exactly what it says , The Gitr Council clearly has relied upon the clear wording of the ordinance and has concluded that it means what it says. 1 A suspect the City Attorney will advise you that the legal interpretation of this ordinance provision is simply that the total building square footage shall not exceed 35000 square • feet . As a result , you must conclude, I believe, that the applicant does not have a "contract" with the City for a • 351.000 square foot development. ''. .. . lb On the basis of the action taken by the City may appear that this is an issue already Council , 1t it is. However , it is a matter that has been draisedt�dCagain] ' r • by the applicant in his presentation, and I believe the City would be well served if the DRB very clearly and decisively k ;' dealt with this basic issue. In addition, doing so may well put in better focus the other "size" decisions that face the DRB. Based on the above, I am convinced that the DRB could , • if it chose to do so , move on to the next step of their decision making process having clearly and decisively concluded the following : The applicant does not have a r: , ' "contract" for a 35,000 square foot development. a STEP 2 Decide what other "size" decisions must be made by the • 0' City at this time. In other words, determine if it is now the City's responsibility to specify precisely how large this development can be or is it the applicant's responsibility to • submit a plan which does, in fact , " . . .bring the application into compliance with the neighborhood commercial designation. . . " (page 18, Findings, Conclusions , and Order / and which responds adequately to the clearly stated concerns of the City Council with regard to size, compatibility with the neighborhood , pedestrian friendliness, maintaining the 0 .. character of the area, setback requirements, reducing the parking to the absolute minimum required under our code. �` accommodating changed circumstances, height reductions, , reducing rather than creating more traffic in the area, garbage collection receptacles , etc , etc , etc . Most , if not all , of the these other issues depend upon or are directli . ,,, ' impacted by the the basic size issue . Therefore, it is not , ; in my opinion, inappropriate to mention them at this point even though we want to maintain our primary focuo on size. With the advice of the City Attorney, the decision indicated above ( if you choose to make it) should be a • relatively straightforward decision. I will not suggest how you should decide . I will not presume the outcome of this decision. It is clear , however , that your decision heroy would have a dramatic impact upon the next step (,) of dour decision making process. As a result , let us look at Steps 3A and 38 depending upon your decision at Step 2: ' Step 3A • • • If you decide that the City ( the ORB) must now specify haw large the development can be, then you must , in my opinion, beginwith the end in mind . You must keep youreye " on the bull ' s eve. You must understand and re,�iembr?r that the proof is not in the method . . . the proof ice,, in the result! The City Council very clearly ( and vary unanimously ) { ✓ a J.. A /4 . : ..-.:: :''.4 concluded that the initial proposal was too large . The record is clear that they came to this conclusion because the original proposal encroached too severely in too many ways on the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The record is also very clear that after having come to the conclusion that the project was too large, the Council , individually and collectively, then sought a method to assist • in achieving the goal . The goal , as correctly pointed out in the Staff Report , is a "substantial reduction in size" of the project . The goal is a down-sized ( "right-sized" ? ) project +' , that complies with all of the criteria of the "neighborhood" commercial designation. A . In spite of the clear intent of the Council concerning the goal , the applicant has tried to attack the method . He has, in fact , suggested a modification of the method (using his numbers) that would lead to the outrageous conclusion that the total square footage of the project should be • :. increased ! In my opinion, the method suggested by the City Council , if it is going to be used at all , must be used as • `. they intended it to be used . And , more importantly, it must achieve what they intended to achieve: a "right-sized" project that complies with all of the criteria of the • "neighborhood" commercial designation and responds to all of their clearly articulated concerns. To do so , the method must use the numbers on which it was based : " . . . the information provided by staff which documented what. the • projected build-out could have been based on the final IUD : , approvals . " (Staff Report ) . The most viable alternative now available to the DR®, if ' . it assumes the task of specifying precisely how large this project can be, is to use the Council ' s method the way it was • ' intended to be used , using the numbers on .which it was based. Another alternative wc.uld be to develop a new objective • method which would accomplish the already established goal . If the you elect this alternative, I wish you well in your endeavor ! In any event , the proper relationship between method and goal must be maintained throughout the process . + • Do not allow a manipulation of the method to lead to a subversion of the goal . Do not allow arguments about the • method to distract your focus from the goal . • Also , keep in mind that the applicant does not have a "contract" with the City for a 35,000 square foot development. Therefore, the City does not have to justify a size reduction from that level . The City does not " . . .need • to apologize for expecting the density of this particular r commercial development to be scaled back . " ( Deliberations, . • I. • . page 8) . • • • Step 38 If yo u u decide in Step 2 that the applicant now has the • responsibility to adequately respond to the comments of the City Council and to comply fully with the requirements of the ;•', neighborhood" commercial designation, then relatively straightforward and your decision is your task is simply to approve or deny the application before you. I would suggest careful reading of the Transcript of Deliberations and htheatG Council 's Findings, Conclusions and Order coupled with a careful review of the proposal will lead you to conclude that the applicant has not adequately responded to the clearly stated guidance of the City Council . The proposed project is r'ot yet in compliance with the neighborhood commercial designation. In its Remand Order , the CityCouncil found that ` , proposed design is too large in total square footage, is tooe ir close to adjacent residential development, is not sensitive • enough to or sufficiently buffered from adjacent residential development, is not compatible in design with the surrounding single family uses, and is directed too much toward ' '�'i automobile access and usage at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle usage. " The City Council was very clear in its assessment and unanimous in its findings. With respect to size, the Council 's position is as simple and straightforward as it was clearly stated . The project was just too large. 4 , I would suggest that at 33.000 square feet and at 110 parking spaces, the proposed design is still too large and still encroaches too severely in too many ways on the immediately adjacent single--family residential development . ' Building D, in particular , is too close to and not adequately buffered from the immediately adjacent residential ' eir' parcel . Also , Building D does not appear to have a "roof structure similar to surrounding homes" as required by the City Council ' s Order ( Design Guideline ##6) , With 110 parking spaces , the development is still -' directed too much toward automobile access and usage, This larger than required q parking lot indicates that this design of the project is still intended to encourage Uses that would tend to draw outside traffic . This is clearly in direct violation of the City Council ' s Findings. The applicant proposes to save only 29 trees. This is 20 fewer trees than were proposed to be preserved in the original plan ! What an outrageo.Js turn of events ! As 0 correctly indicated in the Stall Rebort, the removal of ` ' '• many trees on this so particular site will have "a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, " • F. . , i, A conclusion that the applicant has failed to adequately . respond in a qualitative and quantitative manner to the Council 's concerns is inescapable. The Staff Report is v `' absolutely on target . . this application deserves to be :,. • denied. • A careful review of the Alternate Site Plan does not , in my opinion, lead to any different overall conclusion. For ° ' all practical purposes, the Alternate Site Plan does two things and two things only: s g 9 1 ) It tacitly recognizes that the Primary Site Plan i fatally flawed, and 2) it trades one set of flaws for another. By clinging to the 23,000 square feet and the 110 parking spaces, the applicant perpetuates -iome of the most basic flaws of the Primary Site Plan. It is still too large and encroaches too severely in too many ways ' on the immediately adjacent single family residential neighborhood . In fact , it now encroaches more severely than before on some of the immediately adjacent single family parcels. It is still directed too much toward automobile access and usage, and the project is still intended to encourage uses that would tend to draw outside traffic . Also , by refusing to consider a further reduction in total building square footage and/or the number of parking spaces, the applicant forces the positive modifications n; achieved in some areas ( increased preservation of trees, size • reduction of Bldg "D" ) to be offset by negative impacts in other areas. The landscaped open space in the northeast corner of the site ( there to provide some essential buffering between the commercial development and the immediately • adjacent single family residential parcels) has been = obli ,,crated . A garbage collection receptacle is located immediately adjacent to a single family property . And a very serious flaw introduced by the Alternate Site Plan is the introduction of new points of conflict between pedestrian traffic and automobile traffic that had been carefully eliminated in the Primary Site Plan. Pedestrian friendliness • has suffered a severe blow. The Alternate Site Plan is, therefore, also fatally flawed in several areas of specific interest to the City Council and critical to full compliance , } with the neighborhood commercial designation. I urge the DII3 disapprove the Alternate Site Plan as well . The key to a successful neighborhood commercial development at this site is clearly a further reduction in size. That would very simply and quite dramatically, I believe, make possible the positive modifications we all ' desire without paying for them with offsetting negative impacts. Which brings us back to where we were at the beginning . the most basic and most critical issue the DPB must address on the proposal is the issue of size. You he e the authority and the responsibility to ensure that this development does not gain your approval unless you are persuaded that it is V ' ,.. "right-sized . " As you carry out your responsibilities with respect to this proposal , you should keep in mind two things: 1 ) The applicant does not have a contract with the City for a 35.000 square foot development ; and 2> the City does not need to apologize for expecting the density of this particular • ::' commercial development to be scaled back. • Thank you in advance for your ;< nd attention to and careful consideration of these matters which are of great aye concern to many members of the community. • �R Sincerely, MICHAEL K LMEYER • • 4 1 d V I . • • • a • �+ FILE: 13-9011A a- JANUARY 11 , 1993 a FROM: RAY AND LAURA SAHLBERG 14489 CAMDEN LANE LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 ' . . , EXHIBIT TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 'JA N 11 1993 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OEGON 380 "A" STREET. P.O. BOX 369 t ©R1n-rt LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 ` SUBJECT:' YOUR FILE DR 13-9011 (REMAND) ; i '• COMMENTS CONCERNING ` ADMISSION BY APPLICANT OF ALTERNATE SITE PLAN DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: IN DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ALTERNATE SITE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD—COMMERCIAL PROJECT, WE RELY ON THE (9 ) NINE SEPARATE GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED BY THEM AND ADOPTED JULY 7, 1992 , 1 . QUESTION: HAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT BEEN REDU IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL'S GUIDELINE NO, 1? LED ANSWER: NO. THE PROJECT ONE TWO STORY BUILDING TOTALINGr�33 , 000 SQUARE OF R FEET SINGLE STORY AND APPLICANT'S PLAN NOW BEING CC;NSIDERED• THIS REPRESENTS SAME AS FURTHER REDUCTION IN AREA AND DOES NOT MEET THE ' CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN THE CITY COUNCIL 'S GUIDELINE NO, 1 . 2. QUESTION: HAS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SC REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CODE ANDDEVELOPMES BEEN END(ICED AS STANDARDS? : .. . : • ANSWER : NO, THE NUMBER OF PARKI:1G SPACES RE MAI T 110 AND REPRESENT NO CHANGE FROM THE APPLICANTS INITIAL PLANK AFURTHER, ' PARKING SPACES ON THE ADDED BEEN NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE 'AND ABUT THE RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARIES WHICH EXTRA NOISE AND CONGESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS, IN ADDITION, THEEHE NINE SPACES SHOWN JUST INSIDE THE ENTRY FROM PARKVIEW DRIVE • CREATE AN UNMANAGEABLE SITUATION SINCE TRAFFIC INGRESSING AND r ' EGRESSING TO AND FROM PARKVIEW DRIVE WILL ADD TO THE NARROW—NESS CREATED BY THIS BOTTLE—NECK , 3 , QUESTION: HAVE THE SETBACKS BETWEEN COMMERICAL BUILDINGS AND THE BOUNDARIES WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ANSWER : NO, THE OPEN SPACE LAWN AREAS EIN THE ENORTHEAST EN SAND SOUTHEAST CORNERS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AND SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS , .w. WITH 25 ' SETBACKS BEEN SUBSTITUTED. BUILDING "I)" , STRUCTURE IS SET BACK 10 ' FROM THE OPEN SPACE AND THIS STORY HAS NOT BEEN . i CHANGED FROM ThE APPLICANTS INITIAL OFFERING , 4, QUESTION: HAVE THE BUILDING UTILITIES BEEN SO DESIGNED AS TO BE NOT VISIBLE? ANSWER: IN FAIRNESS TO THE APPLICANT, WE WOULD PRESUME THIS • • 0 1 • • fo WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED, 5 . QUESTION: HAS THE DESIGN BEEN ORIENTED TOWARD PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE USE AND IS THERE ADDITIONAL BIKE STORAGE PROVIDED? ' ANSWER : WE THINK NOT . IT WOULD APPEAR THE DESIGN IS REALLY p ` : MORE ORIENTED TOWARD AUTOMOBILE ACCESS JUST LIKE THE GREENSTREET PLAN REMANDED TO YOU. IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THE SMALL SKETCH , BUT WE DON'T REALLY SEE ANY PROVISION FOR BIKE STORAGE, THE PEDESTRIAN PATHS ARE BISECTED BY ENTRIES TO PARKING AREAS " CREATING HAZARDS AND THERE IS NO CONTINUOUS FLOW OR ACCESS TO ALL ''',',. .. - THE BUILDINGS FOR THOSE PERSONS ON FOOT. SIMPLY STATED, IT IS NOT VERY USER FRIENDLY. • 6. QUESTION: HAS THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS BEEN MADE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE DWELLING HOMES? ANSWER : WITHOUT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS ' IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT GIVING THE APPLICANT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT CONSIDERING THE INITIAL PLAN MADE SUCH CONCESSIONS ONE IS LED TO BELIEVE MOST OF THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET , THE REAL • PROBLEM STILL LIES WITH BUILDING "D" WHICH IS TWO STORY AND DOES K . ` NOT IN OUR OPINION BLEND IN AND BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE SAME PROBLEM EXISTS WITH APPLICANTS INITIAL APPLICATION. IT'S TOO BIG AND TOO CLOSE. 7 . QUESTION: HAVE THE MEDIAN ISLANDS ADJACENT TO THE SITE BEEN REDUCED OR MOVED? ANSWER: NO. 1 e p ry `-. 8 . QUESTION : HAVE THE GARBAGE COLLECTION RECEPTACLES BEEN RELOCATED AWAY FROM THE BOUNDARIES WITH SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES';' ANSWER: NO, AN ADDITIONAL REFUSE ENCLOSURE HAa BEEN ADDED IN THE NORTH AREA PARKING SPACE PERHAPS 25 ' OR 30 ' FROM A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT , WE CONSIDER THIS TO BE TOO CLOSE TO THIS RESIDENCE AND WILL BE A CONSTANT SOURCE OF POLLUTION, NOISE, AND A NUISANCE FOR THOSE PEOPLE DWELLING IN THAT AREA , 9 . QUESTION: DOES THE PLAN INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF NATIVE TREES USED AS REPLACEMNT TREES WHERE NATIVE TREES WOULD BE VIABLE? ' '' ::•' ANSWER : THE APPLICANT STATES THAT AN ADDITIONAL 23 TREES , .: WOULD BE SAVED WHICH GIVES AN OVERALL NUMBER OF TRESS TO BE SAVED OF 52 , THIS REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 51% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WILL BE LEFT STANDING : CONCLUSION : IF WE MAKE AN OVERLAY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATE PLAN OF THE SAME SCALE SIZE AND COMPARE IT TO THE GREENSTREET PLAN SUBMITTED TO YOUR BOARD (EXHIBIT $ 4 ) YOU WILL NOTICE VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL BUILDING AREA HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 2000 SQUARE FEET AND THE TWO STORY BUILDINGS HAVE ',; BEEN REDUCED TO SINGLE STORY UNITS ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE , THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT REMAINS MUCH THE SAME , ESSENTIALLY DEVOID OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE USAGE , IT IS STILL FOCUSED TO 1 ENCOURAGE USE OE OUTSIDE TRAFFIC WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH WHAT A NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL CENTER SHOULD LOOK ' AND BE LIKE , THIS PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THEREFORE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA , i • .,,, . y . NORMALLY EMPLOYED (AND USED HEREIN) FOR A COMMERICAL SHOPPING PROJECT LOCATED IN A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY DO NOT APPLY IN • THIS INSTANCE. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS ALTERNATE PLAN. ENCLS. 1 . ORIGINAL GREENSTREET ,;• 2 . COPY OF APPLICANTS ALTERNATE PLANT NO, 4) r .. t-. 7 • I•.•r '1 t • • • : • • a J r • ... 4 t 1 ��• X • .•1 J : 4 • . • • • F . {,d • • • r. wJ - 1 �. 1 * . .. 1. 0 f ))/ / r ' II ) L1V17tllllre »/tU•J I ¢} + _. TliE ., 1 ES r 1.• ) ( 11 •) { RNCe gll,l ) J j0ICICICICICICIGIP1 • 1 aU1 C In.s N.w w.w I f ) i + I ;I: II �e e ¢ C C U11++) (II .�.0 C.. _ 9 .i • o ill 1 i yl 1 {. - .........,.... ..... IYC •�I ...6. ...0 ! ...e 1 ri r1 ° .e. li I I I ,, n ' .,C C Itrolyl In'g •rr (a I M�' 7e 1)• N'U' M.W 7t7 Ir ,N'•d 1,i''ar , '.R. le'-A• �• ' 1 1 rl; ) i � . ,I I I i ) { (t1)� - OFFICE/u�rtu to i ' I ..j �, i. C.` C C C .. \� ° �, C , 4 h7ati1 i II I 1I I •I I �, k ° e� 1 III %/ , 11 _ C A C 0 0 M v' `• / M Y M y -11 i wc '•Y I }i� i y• \ r C : ° i.°�.. `, 14C, I i•e tYxle'A' \I 2 III I ., (l .l 1 r{ C C ICY MANI ( 1:( 'I ( t Pt 1!i 11 ((..... i )C dit ( H II '1 I7 U' Y.q tYk le6' ti, I , I1 III J t 1 VVV 1(1 • ) ) 111i 1' 1 I' .1, �frE t�1AN /ill 11 ^s 1 1 f ,. `'T Ai,MU • V '• 'y CWIW ,r' . i. 1. i /CC/ kiln.. II AN �.... l 1 • r . , \ , • • 1 • I _ .r • 1 V `j+ -3 . .l�S` f Iwo'.a... ,�,;j,vva/jra v r y1l77,1i r ► '~ I1�, + � •�� plb�r 0,,�. H. Jr7 .. _ o s1 a�i , O �" . , r • a,yw,a • ' • rr • O +• .•'• r4 `Ye,C• 4., SW L� 443 k ~ ~!•k-1 '•f ,,' •rY...0 .t pil: •'. • .• V rl1. f .'Y. iM • t YT14. 1 .`yU�r ? `t:' :fit .r" II:. I kEILb.1 .fI I ` ... ,.�.�,,.,, a osstop ratcnsli n lrcw •�vd. - � 'i t. t %1 Eat w pp��11 pkjMan ore4.t i. J , 0 w, ��� � '�ad • • 3•lru4.t $3 /'41(rpm! trod S • ` " � 1 io . a. COG luto(�. __ 07, ,. }; �" t\ _ , • s,(ukl s the souc is dl Y, lft ,_ IIIIHII to 'drrvawy r " hurL C) > r d i bid .�A� ... hat G• w�tlps'di i rho M't't� J f o rar tOU+ a«9 fie/ $.0 sq.tt; 'flat apolel+il�n • a) i eta dhf� fa. IrA '� I ' _, a� t-� P I a rt C. h,i U1 . . Cf 1:. .L :1CI S: � g ...A, �ITa r otak • . ii.•t'. , 3. ( . .lil, .4 ' 11 i V ~ ��• ' yr,Ikii� ' I I II I I I I f/ Y �,,r •••'f ,/:r' roI. c, • rie fita &aye')vcr 10'I1'4�- , (�7 ,Peon 4, 1,fJ•'`' Tr ' , r„+.vt Yq rp• �•xr•I�,`•.'• 1'f r• `.'r - ti."011a``r• 1pf,. LJ , I , is . ±� Y�A4 ttgl.tal ptimv (at) •_ eli��. IU 1▪ �Dr, a r i'r . • . ,, • r i0�'A�/ �N 1 `� '"` *Ill /, i.," � • i" Ho Part in LFQCtS 1 (113w .�•FT.) dlgr•IS 0113;• bb VP"It!. 'i ", � ,R?i�'r!�` '� 1 I • r, f(: I a ) aaIOOo �•ft. " �9 kiwi• UfCd ..) i 0 • '1',: The Development Review Board From: Erin O'Rourke- Meadors 1?egarding: DR 13-901I--Definitions of" Shall " & " ,S'hauld " rjA N .1 1 1993 a SHALL 1• ( generally used in the first person to denote simple future time) plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go today. 2, ( generally used in the second and third persons to denote authority or determination) will have to, is determined to,promises to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it. . ffiebster'.s'Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the Eilgli,slr Language, pergc' 1310 • SHOULD I. pt. of shall. 2, (used with an infinitive of a verb to form its subjunctive) ; Were he l t arrive, I should be pleased, 3, must; ought(used to indicate duty,propriety, or to • • expediency) : You should not do that. 4. would ( used to make a statement less direct or t blunt) : I should hardly say that. 4feh,s'ter s Encyclopedic (/ncrbridged 1)ictiorrcny of the English l.cu{t,nage, page 1320 r EXHIBIT i- • .,, , ,.. . . .. . ,. . . . Atz. l 3-R o1r.... •' .., . . . . . •.,. ‘, . .-. , .. . . . . . . . . . . . • •• . . •• . . .., •.: . . . . . /1 • • •1 • • • • • • 4 •I a • • 4 Ay' - .. .- r . ,. .. r. a-�' �✓ J\ W_ "4 C �4 q I • to The Development Review Board • vni; Erin O'Rourke-1Vleadors Ron,: • F. + Regwd,nt,r DR 1 i-90I1 • • Attcreh'd is a semis (7)page doeli,ni.'iit which.'ee s to summarize the ('oitti il'1• .r Design Guidelines, the Findings, Corlchisions and Order and related 1)ehberation • crllnirrelita. This dociiinerit is hei ig submitted ho provide assistance to rcltulerirrg a `• decision. consistent with the intent of Council iii remanding this app/katlotr. • i • • 1 • A. EXHIBIT F3 a, DP, 3-96 LZ" i fig• • • J w e 1 ".ANI) PM H'ILI,I,V; '17) ST..-I T•: I hl..17'l NI':I,Ef/...EPS I';4R ENOUGH H?OA•I I.1'//.41' I THINK IS: IPIOIR/ l II•I7I WOCI.1) 1J1 V),II:" ,• .• . ( om,„,,,J1) ,Anderson, I kliberal ,nl, Ic 't1 I . IS a.r " ALL 1RIG117: 17l1INK THAI 1'! hRYBOD' UNDERSTANDS THE IS,S711 S III;'RI';,. • RIGHT. WE'RE IN REA'IANI) OR DENIAL" " WE'RE IN DENIAL. WE'RE IN ALL KINDS OF'CONDITIONS." Mayor Schlenker, Deliberations, Page 19, Design Grtidelina. "The total square footage of the project shall be reduced. As a guide for determining the appropriate reduction, the DRB should consider the • difference between the current projected densityof the ,Westin►ce PUD at build out versus the projected density at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981." • " The Council finds that the proposed design is too large in total square footage..." Findings, Couclu"/ons and Order, Page 9, lines 5 & 6 '. " Because the square footage is staled in terms of a maximum allowable amount, ,''' ' however, the Council concludes that the ODPS does not preclude the Council from reducing the allowable square footage at time of specific approval in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan direction that the Commercial district he designed to be compatible and in scale with the surrounding residential development." Findings, Conclusions and Order, Pages 9 & /0 . PJI�Ss1S: " So my concerns are in terms of the size,. " "So I'd like to look at the square footage and possible reduction of that..." , • •• — Deliberations, Page .3 Schlenker, " And so, I would agree the I'd like to reduce the total square footage." Deliberations, Page 5 Anderson: " But I think that, obviously if'this project is scaled back, then it would be • • more appropriate. l elncel'allons, Page . • y • • 1. r; ,r 1. � .Ili � {...� •s L ' � e 7 TA.• " Which leads me to a third point And. that has to do with the compatibility of this project with the neighborhood and, like the others ot'you who have talked, I believe it should be scaled back." L)eliberaiion, Pages 'ct ,S "And when we look at that issue, if we get to that and look at it, I think we have ''v to be sensitive to the fact that, or at least try to reach some sort of objective method of " • ' determining that, rather than just trying to pull numbers out of a hat. And one of the ways might be looking at the percentage of density that exists now versus that which was ' . planned, and realizing that the density has been reduced by the market forces in that area as well as by choices made by the developers." Deliberations, Page 8 " So, I don't think that we need to apologize for expecting the density of this °. particular commercial development to be scaled back." Deliberations, Pages 8 & 9 • � " Some of the figures that we had with, that perhaps the single family is projected would be like below 70% of the total amount that was originally allowed, and the multi family would be around 90% of what was originally allowed" Deliberations, Page 25 "Schlenker: " The overall consensus is, what I'm hearing the Council say, is yes, move forward with the neighborhood commercial, make sure it is neighborhood commercial, scale back the square footage, the size of the project, increase the setbacks, height I think • there's four out of five who feel that height may be an issue." Deliberations, Page 10 Galante: " And I think the Board is really there to serve the Council and that they will respond and do the job like you want them to, do in the proper format. And I think it's a good way to put it back in front of the design professionals that you've • charged with that job." Deliberations, Page 15 • S.ehlenker: Okay, the Chair has heard the recommendations and they seem to be thoroughly consistent with our staff." • Deliberations, Page 15 ,_ '• • Design Guidelitte. .'." The number of parking spaces provided shall be reduced to " the minimum number reti aired by the Lake Oswego Code and Development Standards." . •. 0 tl • • 1 3 "...the Council concludes that the weight of the evidence supports the appellant's argument that the focus of the project is not "neighborhood" commercial and that the design is not r '; compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, In making this determination, the Council ' is guided primarily by special Commercial Policy VI,,.It requires the center to be designed to assure that.height and setbacks are compatible with adjacent residential areas•.•lo j rother , �> > " encourage walking and biking and alternatives to the curl��nrubi/c,r. Findings, ('anchrs ons and Order, Page 1 The Council finds.that the proposed design.. is directed too much toward automobile J access and usage at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle usage." Findings. C'arrchtsions and Order, Page 9 y r " The Council agrees with the testimony of the appellant and several of the opponents that this neighborhood commercial site should be designed to serve the neighborhood and should not be designed or built for business that would tend to draw a significant amount of outside traffic into the neighborhood." ' Findings, Conclusions and Order, Pages 1,1 & 15 • The Council commends the neighborhood's acceptance of this designation, because the Council stronglysupports p pneighborhood commercial development i • and• p b p ent at this site the neighborhood commercial concept in general. The Council notes that the new State • Transportation Rule requires all metropolitan jurisdictions to reduce automobile lop Findings, Conclusions and Order, Pages 16 clr 17 ' ' as;, So, I'd like to look at the square footage and possible reduction of that, possible reduction of parking." Deliberations, Page 3 ' • Councilor Mike Anderson: " 'i also feel that the issues around size, height, traffic, setback requirements and compatibility with the neighborhood are issues that need to be t considered.,." Deliberations, Page -I • Mayor Schlenker: " We're trying to find ways to allow people to do their shopping closer • to home, have more walking, to do more bicycling, have more neighborhood environment, to leave the car parked, do more walking,,." 1)eliberwwwns, Page •1 I am interested in reducing the parking to the absolute minimum required under our • code and increasing the bicycle, the bike racks, the bike storage to promote bicycle • storage." l)eliheratious, Page 5 • A. • if, • : • , + 4 ' ,i., • a ;• Cbristuan I think that r.'ith neighborhood commercial, they really should be "neighborhood" commercial businesses And that people feel comfortable going over and doing their small shopping and sending their small children to." • S Deliberations, Page 6 Cour_cilarl ike Anderson, I \Aould reiterate; the same conditions. In addition .looking at the design concept in terms of public access and community usage, pedestrian access, etc., and the parking issue, limitations that are allowed under the code for the amount of • building space that's finally allowed." •"'•. Deliberations, Page 23 &sigi: Guideline 3: "The setback between the commercial buildings and the boundaries with the single family residential parcels shall be increased, or the two ,:. story buildings shall be relocated so that only one story buildings are directly adjacent to the single fancily parcels." • "...the Council concludes that,.,the design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,...It requires the center to be designed to assure that height and setbacks arc compatible with adjacent residential areas " Findingr, Conclusions& Order, Page 8, lines 8 - IS r " The Council notes, however, that Section8 (5) of the ODPS states that " any provision ' of this section may be modified by specific phase approval or the site and building approval. When read in conjunction with ODPS Section 10 and LOC 49.405 (1), the Council believes ODPS grants the City the flexibility to impose different and stricter' requirements at the time development is proposed if the City concludes that such "<''• requirements are necessary to accomplish the purpose and requirements o"the Comprehensive Plan and Development Standards." Findings, Conclusions&Order, Page 10, lines 8 17 " The Council agrees with the appellant's observation that the .e subsequent amendment to the PUD which changed the surrounding development from multi-family to single family is • a substantial change in circumstance that requires a stric,er review for compatibility in •" terms of scale, design and setbacks." Findings, Conclusions& Order, Page 10, lines 18 - 22 ''+,• Mayor Schlenker: I am concerned about setbacks. I, again, do not know what is compatible with our development codes, but I would like to, see greater setbacks if at all • s possible " i • 1)t'ltherantln.l, Page .7 ,tii,'' ' : iio : am : , 1 ` rr, i 1 C.'• • :1 t ,, rncilur Date Anders " Where once was planned multi family, now exists single , , i , family, And, that's anotherreason for taking a stricter look at compatibility here, and I �'� \` agree that we uu;,ht to focus some attention on setbacks " .,; Deliberations, Page . .', i Mayor Schley: " The overall consensus is, what I'm hearing the Council say, is yes, move forward with the neighborhood commercial, make sure it is neighborhood < commercial, scale back the square footage, the size of the project, increase the setbacks..." Deliberations, Page 10 1: • Puskas& Okay, I'll just reiterate what the criteria for the remand would be I'rom myself. .,4r e ,d, Reduction in the size, a reduction in the square footage, parking, possibly height, and setbacks, a greater setback consideration " ' Deliheraliotis, Page 23 + ro city Attorney Jeff Condit: " Well, I have three questions ,,.The first one is, is everybody. are the people who said " go to one story" firm in that or are they willing to go with Dan's `' mote flexible " we want scale to be appropriate but not necessarily limited to one story." Because I think that's an important instruction to give back to the DRI3 If you really believe it ought to be just one story then we should say that. But if you wanted to go for scale, some sort of reasonable compatible scale, appropriate scale issue that would give . them a little b:t more flexibility than, and we need to know that too." Deliberations, Page 28 1.' ',,''' ' 0 i . . Punkas: "Yes. I would really be looking more at scale ..Two stories that would be very acceptable and I think really enhance the shopping area. Over by Albertson's is the ' Chamber of Commerce building, Bill I-Ieadlee's. That's a nice 2 story approach Something like that's certainly might be compatible the neighborhood and remain around two stories " Deliberations, Page 29 Councilor Mike Anderson: "I would agree that the scale needs to be compatible w th the rest of the neighborhood." ' • Deliberations, Page 29 • O vusnm t " That it could be two stories such as Country Square or Headlee Building." • :' ! '`' Delibe'ratluns, Page 29 '~ •• Councilor Dan Anderson. "Well , the difference there in may mind is that it's not next , door to a two story home, a two story single family home, So that's the difference and I ' «' think that that diflet'ence is worth noting " . r Pe/thew/urns, Pao, d31! Shcettki. " It sounds. Counsel. that people are not opposed to two story, it's the design of the two story and the compatibility with the surrounding," . n r .. 1.: • \) . 1)c'llhent uj1,.s, l'ui;c' 30 , City Attorney Condit " And the closeness ot5that two story to the adjacent houses " Delibercllions, Page 30 Design Guideline i. " The design shall be oriented more toward pedestrian/bicycle use. Additional bike storage shall be provided." Please refer to 11w preceding. deliberations1'C'gal'cling:'educ/lon in squareJoolage, I'ednelion in parking spaces and height.se/back considerations for gllidcince regarding • Design Guideline 5• Design�n Guideline d, The design :and materials shall be made more compatible with the surrounding single family homes. The buildings shall be no taller than the adjacent two story homes. Roof structures similar to surrounding homes shall be used: Flat roofs shall be prohibited." Chrismai "And then the appearance•..I'rn just saying that it should be the standards to some degree that the houses are." Deliberations, Page 6 r•rjy. • Please refer to the preceding de//bc'/'atio11A'/'L'gclrC/ing 1'c'Cillc'lioll in•1'Ci11CJ1'C'footage, re'dnciloll in parking spaces'allc/height setback considerations fen.guidal k'u I'egclrcling V. Design Guideline 6, y.1 Design Guideline 9, " The plan shall increase the amount of native trees used as replacement trees where native trees would be viable." • Any redesign should maintain the current design's balance between tree preservation and development, As a design issue related to the Council's above conclusion that the project needs to be made more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, however, ' the Council concludes that the applicant should use a greater percentage dilative species as replacement trees where such trees would be viable This would be more consistent with the ODPS rot- the Westlake NM where substantial efTorts were made to preserve the existing vq.ctation " 1'•inchu,�gs, i'!)llc/n.slun•s and Order, 1'c1,> es 13 tt� 13 • • C'tutncilo.L12an_Anderssw. "When the project is scaled back, perhaps we'll Lind that we can • • be even more sensitive and allow rot the trees to be even, that t'drested area to be more • • i ! - '.• .Y .f 1. -� _ I•.I '1 • • 7 enhanced. And I also think that might help to dissuade usage from outside the • neighborhood if that forested area remains." ",;. 1:•)r/1her'aliwati', 1'crgc;26 • • • Pr v • • • •p +. Z, • • i d • • i . � r • , b' • +, �. • e - Yip a'r , , . 'r r•n _ ' • • f `k •A , .. U .. � r To: The Development Rey ie« Board Moat: Crin ()Rourke-Meador /&t cu•thnr,,• DR I;3-9011--l::rh/h/r 231) Those portions of Ordinance 1783 R. the Final Development Plan and Program for ,; Westlake submitted by Mr. 13unick at your meeting of January 4, 1993 fails to address the t • issue at hand. Specifically, the projected density at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981, Said information is found in Amended Exhibit K-Land Use Density & Disiribiltinn A • certified copy of which is attached, which substantiates the allowable density at the time of 1 • approval at 1527 dwelling units. Also, attached is a letter and accompanying enclosure submitted by Mr. '!"imolhy Ranris, ,11 dated December 15, 1980, regarding a revised Westlake Benchmark Schetlule. This schedule indicates the maximum total number of permits which can be issued by the end of • r tt ` ' each year. Please note, at the end of the sixth year a total of 1527 can be issued • • is .• , • • , . , ,t. 0 d EXHIBIT .cam__14) P.- I.3 o.LL ,� Ar r. e ` • , yrt • • 1 •f. " • • ' • • • • • • >•. IAA •.+ j J . .. ,J. .. / Multi / Family ! - ` " f 14♦8 ACRES / . , 1„/ ,,,. , n • °' LJ `r"D USE DENSITY a DISTRIBUTION 1 M LAND USE ACRES UNIT -RANGE S'in;te Family 80.8 198 to 248 r e Family 7,4 32 to 37 Stsyte Family 8.8 40 to 46 Slt;o Family 56.4 291 to 394 Total 153.4 561 to 725 Mutt Family 9,5 152 to 171 Muir: Family 14.8 222 to 266 Muth Family 13.8 110 to 138 a ',, MuO! Family 18.9 109 to 227 • a. •, TOt01 .. ' 57♦0 673 to 802 210,4 1234 to 15ir' i 1 :;l h,tr•.,'r,:`Yikf r7t rder 11 tha 1..loy 01 l♦•?i:o , ♦:•hl,,,,o t: th`,!•J; f.c.f'lry Vol; thu tCro9Gtrltt a :rL'C ,,.,� i.rfts .r+rtt3:I f:':�p,r r,t tt1r�original thc,r f In th, tlWz of . goteic'art!or•u a+9r:o nt the CU'44 t.glc, m Gr i, /22/f,...,,,(2... ,. •''' City For ,` •. �. I Park . , 4 12.0 ACRES I 1i`C��� t•.. / • • ` w • D • • • • • „ . AMMENDED r w • , �, IT I A L D E N S I ,NFO T Y PLAN Designed ESTLAKE , Drawn ____—_. • Checked Scale tfrisll1'..........eoject N . • I1ltohror:,V, recorder of the City of Lake •. i and corraot'ccpy of the orlq el t ere° n t a i a o `ea recordir oy�oo of the City of Lake°awego, �� • ,L'.,, '( ;it .K�, { -..,-' ., y Recorder .. . • ` • a P t O'DONNELL, RHOADES, GERBER, SULLIVAN & R'AMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW , ,mARK P O !DONNELL 17:7 N W NOr1 :::turf :3ARY L RI1IMUL9 CANIIf EF: E -HOMAS A eviller' +'URiLAt ti c+H[UUN vd2U+ EDWARO J SULLIIAN r J, 'I.)• N URAr 5. •t 2 . 'IMCTHY RAMIS J 22 .t40 dNBT �ft(t; jt, �� e ...CNNETH M ELLIC'TT SC3 :.t10 '1-:S a. PLEASE RCP.,. PORTGA,4 Crr..E December 15 , 1980 ,t Lake Oswego City Council City Hall � A Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re : Westlake Benchmark Amendment Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council : Attached please find a revised benchmark schedule for Westlake, "�» • There 's only one change from the document approved by the Planning Commission. In the final yea - we have added additional units in order to make the schedule co:.+respond to the outer limits' 411, of the density provided for in the Final Plan and Program for Westlake. • In the event that you approve our application , this change in the benchmark provision would make the approval and the benchmark consistent . Very truly yours , • • Timothy V. Ramis TVR:mch • 4 , enclosure ,y J . ' ,.*:..:•q• 1 y'. • .. • ,, , ... 1 • SIX YEAR BENCHMARK SCHEDULE FOR WESTLAI't- Westlake will be developed over several years , - t ,R ' • table indicates thr --- * ,1::;'?C'L- t)f' h(, r ri; issued by the end of each year, cH • at Maximum Total ;lt_ f nd of ,L ' FIRST YEAR: Single-family permits Multi-family permits 12t SECOND YEAR: Single-family permits Multi- family permits :'5U ��'- THIRD YEAR: Single-family permits Multi-family permits i7� ' FOURTH YEAR: Single-family permits Multi-family permits 100 v Y { r FIFTH YEAR: • Single-family permits Multi-family permits 62J SIXTH YEAR: Single-family permits 74b Multi-family permits 781 L { r Y a� 1• Exhibit BF Rev i.r;ed .t a • ,• :U • To: The Development Review Board From: ErinO'Roarke-itileadors • Regarding: DR 13-9011--Kruse Oohs-Neighborhood Compatibility-.5'.ale &Design • 1 THE OREGO_NIAN, '1'ri[IItSI)AY. i)LC.EN113i;i: 2.1 I ' COMMERCIAL Lake Oswego Oks GENERALC zoning property 4,45 BUILDABLE ACRES for commercial use LAKE OSWEGO — The City 52,300 SQUARE FEET/ Council has approved zone changed 11 7S3 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE to allow a small retail and common ,{ vial complex at the southwest corner of Jean and (bones Ferry roads. The 4,•15•acre site had been zoned for industrial use, and the planning! • Commission recommended that It he changed to a general commercial Holtman Industries of Portland, 1 `', owitut of the property, proposes do eelopmg 52,300 square feet of rutail Nimes. on the site. The development would include 4,2O9 square feel ul space for a restaurant and parking • for '209 vt.hirles, according to the �� proposal. ,lean Road splits the property into two pieces of 1.9 acres and 2.5 acres Access to;each parcel would be from Juan (toad. NEIGHBORHOOD C()NINILRC1AL 6BUllD BUILDABLE ACRES +�RUaF 0..*Kv 1[ 05WES60, ORZOON 33,000 SQUARE FEET; ' 12,692 SQt_`ARE FEET PER ACRE • , ya EXHIBIT i py a 17Iz~�► W7 ` 1p v {/ 1 + S.A�'�t,i' J• A - � QUES�'1OIY ,IS A 1-4,000 SQIJAARI� FOOT, OR . - 9000 -y SQUARE FOOT, TWO STE ORY OFFICE BUILDING. '` COMPATIBLE IN SCALE W ITI-I A 2500 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME?`.'`? L_. 0 1 1 r i CITY OP LAKE oswE00 4y EUlidlno Division PERMIT APPtICATlON FOR o W"Wp aH..ton0 0L.M.A Al aaidro:1CMIg1aai*aAppweaSAllwa f n' Pi$Mt40 is-If .m.l 5211 Carman,Court \oIAKIA yyyy nAutWCK 105,13 o1411 KIC11Kt h0 117117 tot I to00 3 eutomwu Pot lk Maid 11110CS100 turnout! 170.10 PI ill $1411.1.4 3).S] 011,1 ?OM It Do JAI.— aNt414 M- 1 CLUCK A -. 71ui itu CK 51.11 al 111 �'.• 1 •> 1111401111 337,50 01 III ',�-t'• 00.10. "Male etAtl. ILU III 1.a sa•••t•ki Conk. saws 44.CH M4 Cw 10.11 P1111 1700 SW Cipl!•I M41' 1370 41t4A0CA\ 13,30 01111 ►1td 1711f 211.2377 414114• ),11 m n. wAll•111 310,00 10 141 040000000 10171 Or,I,C IQ y... .A1111100 550,00 01111 A 1 It*I0111 3115.00 01 III Ft+'0 m.Awb Alin 1u•oord ^'t"'1 115•1111 110.41141a 101.03 ,.4111 " y1.. 1• _I tMhlblf+t 0W 100 1.0r4 1,43 d elw1K411 I. WIN 511.1111 .00 01114 tut 3/4• UmvlwA. 11,31 MPG OHO noK 104tZ11lo 4,11.. WU..Q.a*t. MI Cut ,00 D/F1 i i'T.1I" twuoln wn.4 nowt Itt0111 U"1140r4:1 ,p0 0110111 le) '‘ ',.'. • y. WCIAM It' ',00 1-� • l ••IUI 1114,151.00 Ws" 11I{+.1(A s, , l , a-7 � d1,µ, IU -'•. :.. td1 4,1,1. pQ,{ t ���� 1t9 MIMI IYW Y11 ISAal[1.1t In d or 1•y !� .' 1 !4f 1 vd.Hl(t(,.wn Ira UMtr Ky nAhuMd K Gw1 in "c 1hdwlt Kl•.1 K CMYratt• kt .1 • Coos 01 a..u.Hed.d Won.lawnon • KW Pun MU51 show 1cD1oSi 01 nu11d+nd an 0d41o1n11016 induulVq Woul,1.10.101.10,r1 buidlnp101 •Otadmp P•001•10 oolud•l000pnohy 411001101001 Inloosis is d,I.m*ned try*I.0111.44 IU.•ey •CM.q.ol UM Pismo'mum wtos soO1np UM of OulY10.1 ind tvoDo.e01,•w tow .V:I'L '..'', 'I r1/4—,A Q,,,,,,,,..4.(2,,,, N . , . : ., Lg • 1 p , , t,.1 yb l 1' ,1 ti r ,l 'r d' 0•I.d .+r.. .` - - Y ,+. .. 3• 4.• - 'tl ,r nIESTION: IS A 10 FOOT REAR I;-1 RD SETB.4 C"I& FOR BUILDING " D " COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHICH REQUIRE A 25 FOOT . ' REAR YARD SETBACK??? ,r i 85703i` SF o " 3 • •rif• 1 .01'7.. ;1p•• S� i rl y/•0 iYs " N s15000 SF o , 1960 SF II .. • J`' �, ", yef Ea E®MENTTILITY IN I SI3a,A• '52 E 84.4Ei 5000 °=•`g S_87'45'30"E cat r».�1 �_- :'A � U✓ �. - .,.. 99;83. ,^"tu ' EASEA7ENT TIIITY . ,._ V oN. Al2l .y_• -.- -" ��..'.' • M 18 53on- �,,1 I, # • ' u 5 0000 SF 5 , tao S • O h! S 87'45.'.3QwE... Ir.r ' •» ,y, t it {r .t ` ;;� • 105-00`" It ro ; v�i 5Z/., 'TNT 1' , • r SEE ACCESSWAY NOTES ON SHEET 2 N +� + • 'CO 7 i 2C) •'/� � :, �ti, aR; A' `� i 2J.00 :;"4; 5486SF M Grp 5139 SF m 65715 Z,. to Ir ? ' Nit' 528Z I j , N "�5 a E --- _ _F..__._ _-- __�__ 1.1 110 00. .. „;rt' �..... •_ 91,03 � rl r N 87'45'30' 201 03 �� tl,' 1`;,1 1 ( /. .,, / ,i� l `. 1 o.' y r .., i.' y �� r 1 r �I r 1 .. � 1 •, . I is ' l Tit i '/i7, 1.1 V ti "�`--`S= , n4'•�'l, r "hU LEGEND SUrr %[)^L/f:4 YZ?I`l/ ") 'f` t.) file .1' ell . .. `` C' • ' ` ' c1k' . • CEHOTES' �5^ RCN ROD WITH rEIwLOW, PLASTIC CAP 15 ` .� `p�"„' 1 O ND," Iw . �'DENOTESr' t 30" IRON RCO iv'"„ YELLOW, RL _ CAP ED I,b1' TAXO. . t', r.A S t 4- ElNI NOTES 'J.N 'rE',- .M ,h "E :NF " AB.v E ..O BE SET .�, ' 9 '`o ^w,',. ='•'- N3 OF THE . 1 MPROvE t�� ..K-H I ti -Ni .:K `'.A..RA. INS "� r wN"i 2NE�ER _L''b: r h. , Y'r .,RDAT I ON.. g p - 0 i sl. •. a.1:1 z .. 3 No, 20 i.,. : 1 ;347 -• ; -,- r` S • r J �,• NOTES - , Yt m ,. ';3'�r f�'I "..�; y `` Foil ,ref, �y / ( � 1 `,� . S 9p 1, / Fca DUT8c,J�tios SUk,., f, .r Z,r��ti•Ys�l' f7lrv'" . 'YZ.,. ' AND BASIS OF FEAR I NOS. SEA P. S. 20470, 1 ,;1 ';;� t p' :'ix,r'i• 2, ) SIX FOOT WIDE PUB l � C FL4 AL_ �' ,� S'1`iAl:e'`BE NO VEH I CULAP ACCESS TO LOT 1 ' R I vE, 13, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 31 ANI� 2 gL0CKN� LOTS pAPKV I EW ,m» - �RIV51 1 • • , , , • . • • " •T"..' • • ,t•' . • • , .• • a o. • . • . • • • . • •. • • • .• I. • • .4. a• . „ .• • • • • • • • • •.• • -• • • . " : w,tr 4 ^ `ez. .' .iy ^s +r•t ... .,I a,i.. •+ 'LQ'.,...7,, '.�Llt,t 1'!*c 1 • tAi�„r))f•l.�+L,!!,y . f .l .. , .7 • c�,. t. «� Ht`r.l{! r A,.Illj .th, Y.K 4`. x>N•- yy x;,,143„P 1' .. I. a�"r.�,.:f 1.µtii• ' .., , T .1 s :k tc.•`• i4. , .. .r , ,f r,..A r r/i}dt• •; „ r • 1 ? r .i.•:l ' • ' • r•'j • • a' 0 Q • Err. it,,,' hr a n,:r �I,!.S` Eris wore rug,, *` _'" 1 ,M+t ,� ®ifelEriiliiBlEriiIN ?,•+ ;It.* t r G'.' gin esstestimirso is • +:,» `J:'' u taislErErorIErEror fee f o b ' c �•: •�,r`.�� > ' „'d { t rt•/ r. rY ' f ,11+ H,r ""mil �.Jam- .•"��'�. 1• , •,1 1 • k ..1 {' ,� '1. .w��. i . .. k,' ...' - .'1 1 •. ' -� t + TS4n nr � �� 'wt � '+s �li�+ss.J} 1 ' f .,� ti ).r t �! .*r •.:� rw - f 11: • J�.'4"f••u. e ^ .I.i t'••�, F' Ys. d' A•y., * y. i . J r • 1 i 7• . r Ay y ' r. 4.1 • , n-.:., x. for.'. K t•,.; f �'' ,,,,r.r S •0.1 a.7" _ _ t` In.. ;,i;t P it t•�4 i.. rr,!.r tt { t I' .}5`Y +ii. p!`rk.! `.� .!ems ��1� V t .•.:.• 1S.,: ,, + - •i.. \ .t 4 .,f�.' u •! . 4, . l.: . . .., ..4.',i1.412. 11.11,12:gtscallit 4,7.)....•f2..s,i-,sz-4 -_, ': „ . , ...._:%16,,,I..... ro. ,,.It,.. 11. i +. Fh• ' f, r ti. .• .. y ... l • •,1,_`_�� �'' • t. i �,' • • t....4 . „ • • r f' i • • 'r♦ `1...', ,f.+ .` •y1:, lkft ,.}doh.;,:4 0.; r t(11 iy4 • .:;1;,..�? `''�\a.�w�f1 ,rltr yi,*�'i�i,-•� ±}+f)w �ae .t+A . :S a 11 r• t`L,r�" ,1 Jt.44 r,�� ��. • • yt • - .+ EXHIBIT 1. . f. ':JI a ri a ®7 • :4'• •• • 1••• Ii0 a •x • • • • • 41 • ,Y t p'W e• 4 w tY E. r a � I , . . ., . ....„. ,... . . ...: ,..\ .,, . , . . , .... .... . . . r5 .. Qi. . . . •1 .. ,. ... t . ... . . . .. . . . . , . • . . • , . .. 4. . , . . .. ... JI , . .. . h , . . . • . .. 4.. ., ..4 1• . . ,, .• 1 Y :.i. , .. , r . . , r .:. ..•.. ..• • \V*,. stiake r J ... a ] 'lt' CD/ y(homesite development eorp• W, 5 4 • EXHIBIT tj b1:)--. 13-a'10. a I• 1-•o `�1 t. �u I I r "� I ,JUN I :7 193[J t_ PLANNING DEPTH ` r ty . 0 „, . . • • • tl, y.r 1 i. Residential Community Prepared l) /� 1 �.. . .. ... d._a_. .�� �. -loniesite Dev( Iol)rrme11t ( :�►, { Co]]lll]ercI�il C:onunultity Prepared for the Church (►f Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. by—Philip Thompson, AIA Pearse O'Doherty, ASLA James Hall, AIP David Evans & Associates Consulting Engineers 0 r.r • . a , • • • l i • • } FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' , , AND PROGRAM FOR WESTLAKE Section 1. Introduction ": ui' 'Phis final development plan and Program is submitted under the terms of Chapter 53 of the Lake Oswego Code. It shall be the sole basis for• eval-cation of all phases of the Westlake development on any issues that it addresses. The final •, development plan and program includes certain documents required :1 t �. by Chaptet 53 and a written text specifying the criteria for evaluation of the various phases . ;'.`; Section 2. Exhibits The following exhibits are attached and incorporated herein by reference in order to meet the requirements of the Cod. •Yq sections indicated: r 1 . Amended Exhibit K - Land Use Maps specifying densities and uses. 53 .320 ( 1) ( a) - (b) , (3) . 2 . Exhibit BA - Final Proposed Layout . 53 . 310 ; 53 .320 ( 1) ( a) - ( b) , ° • • 3 . Exhibit BB - Utility Plan. 53 .320 ( 1) (b ) ; 53 . 350 ( e ) , 4 . Exhibit BC - Open Space and Phase I . 53 .320 ( ' ) ( a-c) . � . 5 . Exhibit BD - Open Space . 53 . 320( 1) (c) . i 6 . Exhibit BE - Open Space Easements . 53 . 320 ( 1) (b ) ; , 53 .350 ( e) . �J 7 . Amended Exhibit i:, BA - Westlako Land rise Density & Distribution. 53 .350 ( a) - ( b) . 1 EXHIBIT 0sN ^ V i- AL ELCPMET PLAN & PRCGRAM I i O' b ' FOR WESTLAKE ( DECEMBEP .6 , 1980 ) i DP- 14"10 1 L., ,• Exnib ,t "A" , Crdinahce No . 1733 qaia• , ,srr 1n (JIB 1� .�I L. . t • r• ' ' t. 14?r: 8 . Exhibit BJ, dated December 16, 1980, Declaration of Restrictions . 53 .350 ( c) . 9 . Exhibit BG and Amended Application dated 10/24/80 - Stages for Development of Private and Public Facilities. 53 .350(d) (e) . 10. Exhibit E - Letter of Authorization from LDS Church . 53 .350( f) . ti X II" 11. Exhibit M, 0, AE, and AF - Drainage reports . 53 .320( 2) (b) . Section 3 . Standards for Final Plan and Pro ram 1. Uses. . A. The type of uses allowed in any given phase and area of the development will be those indicated on amended • 3 . The only use allowed in those areas indicated for s c-='-=' - •y ..ses -s single- family ' 1 ings and multi-family dwellings D . The use of the four acre site adjacent to Kruse ' 1111 Way designated as a church site will be allowed only as a VIII conditional use after approval has been obtained following the procedures and standards in effect at the time of application for t, the use . The site is intended as a multi-purpose church center a'.��d --- ...wed .i3es ..'�^.- ..de -?: r -es !or ai•n'ra . conferences em:el:2 • . ••.... tne J...,'a? .:f.s to .i :Pri arCa , a nape: for - .+ ilk :, r: v. . 6s , ..._.'.w _ tr. - .1:a4a arestde`.z and ...area r 'eke . 1 . ;r: .na l,:- -A -". " - • .r na: 5:-.7: ` r rr tall , al .. -• .l • a.- `r - : -.'n r.., r-ii-L:7.. = h -♦♦n ♦ ♦ : .- .-.4•... .a...... a... . . . . . aN.: , is basketball court and stage, a kitchen, church classrooms and l ` church .leaders ' offices . All parking ng will be accommodated within w.' the designated four acre site. E. ( 1) The uses 'all owed on the three acre neighborhood commercial site include: a. Variety or dry { goods store . b. Bakery. 4. , 1 c. Barbershop. d. Beauty shop. e. Clothes cleaning pickup agency, including y '' pressing. f. Confectionery. g. Delicatessen. h. Drugstore, including fountain. i. Florist shop. j . Frozen fvodilocker, excluding wholesale storage. • v�--'' k . Garden store . * . ' 1 . Grocery store , including meat market. m. Hardware store. F . e n. Laundry pickup agency. o. Office or clinic for the following : • ( 1) Accountant. ( 2) Architect or designer . ( 3 ) Attorney at law. ( 4 ) Dentist. `J . • ( 3 - ::`SAL `J "LOPM NT PLAN & PROGRAM ` .J i E$luAirn ` L/wlr ZME�� � 16 , 1980 ) } .l 4 I 1 r • 4. " (5 ) Doctor or other practitioner of the *' WIER • healing arts . • r �. ( 6) Engineer or surveyor. V . (7) Insurance agent. r ( 8 ) Real estate agent. e y o. Radio or televisio, service shop with �;•`' incidental sales . (2) Conditional uses permitted . ` a. Fowling alley or comparable ,commercial amuse- y • in meat, or facilities related to ti:e conduct of recreational activity. b. Building supply outlet. C. Automobile service station . ;y' „., • d. Restaurant ( excluding drive-in types) . ', ( 3 ) the similar uses which provide goods and . r • services principally to the residents of the development and other residential neighborhoods in the vicinity may be allowed after approval by the City staff. ( 4) Total building square footage for the neighbor- hood commercial site shall not exceed35,000 square f• ' pet. ': 4 ' (S ) Limitations on use. . ._W. uses on the site shall be subject to the following -\' '' ' '' y conditions and limitations: a. All business , service, repair, Processing " • storage and merchandise display shall be a conducted wholly within an enclosed building.. ... , „ .. except for the following : ( 1) Cf=-street parking or loading � ( 2 ) Drive-in windows , C1)- �' ; . FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5 PROGRAM FOR WESTLAia ^vrrun: . , , j 1� .. .. .. , -. •try'. -' �' Y +` Y , J ,1 0 .., r kr { • (3) Display of merchandise ,;, y ,—ie ... • 4 the building not extending an. • ' • three feet from the wall and required yard. 4 ( ) Display of plants . 1; b. Items produced orwares and merchandise handled shall be limited to those sold at retail on the premises . • c. Signs are subject to review and approval by the City pursuant to the regulations pertaining to signs as appli- . cable at the time of application subject to the following S + additional requirements; signs shall not be larger than one y. square foot for every foot of lotrfrontage along streets other than alleys, or one hundred fifty square feet, whichever is less . 'f Signs shall be limited to those identifying the commercial 0. 'py establishment. If illuminated , the signs shall not be of an r r 'p intermittent flashing type and shall not create or reflect sub- Y stantial glare beyond the property line . Signs shall not project above the building containing the business which the sign identi- Lies. • 3. Accessory Uses . A structure or use incidential and subordinate to the main use of the property are allowed. •.• Section 4 . Density ° The residential densities for each area wa.thin the development will be those specified on amended Exhibit E. The 1101!. unit numbers identified for any given area are limited to that • area and may not be transferred between areas . ' • Section 5 . . Y Caen Space , � There will be a total of 46 acres of open space . ":;le location of approximatelyA , r it 41 acres is indicated on Exhibit $ • * ,',. FINAL QE'`wLOPhi r".x1'r PLAN + ,r�n//''��II�ww�j���((r� +ih AI.i•`'1'� (i)- WI.w {.Ywti r1�11� Q CVVIVtiI'� r {{ 49 � M { y . 4 r v ' i • • The remaining balance of approximately 5 acres shall be �..', • .. . . . distributed equally between multi-family areas 2 and 4 and • single-family area 5 , and will take into account drainage ways . Section 6. Utility Easements The utility easements over the 41 acres of open space will be located as indicated on Exhibit BE. Through the 12 acre 1. park site the easements will be located with the approval of the of the City Engineer ''- Easements' locatd in the 20 acre open space area adjacent • to Kruse Way will be subject to the following conditions : 1 . The development easements will be 10 feet in width . The temporary construction easements shall be 10 feet in width , five feet on each side of the permanent easement. When the • improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City of r •. Lake Oswego, then temporary easements will be terminated . 2. The easements are to be staked and all construction shall occur within its limits . The construction shall be ac_ complished in such a manner as to minimize the adverse affects • upon the existing vegetation. The City must approve all trees that are to be removed prior to their remove_,. The placing of 44 equipment and materials for storage shall not occur within the easement area, unless it is immediately being used for construction. n• +'� ' 3 . The site, after the improvements are completed , shah be graded to the surrounding ground level and soil prepared to permit re'regetation. ,, . , , 4 • The site shall hay:e all materials ; «.V . and ecu+moment `‘. removed from the permanent and temporary easement area. g 3i +, ` 1 r / . . .. ,U ' Section 7 . Lot Coverage • In Phase I lot coveage will be 30% . A].1 subsequent • single-family residential phases' shall have a maximum lot r coverage of 35$ , Maximum lot coverage in all multi-family residential areas, the church site and the neighborhood commercial shall be 50% . Section 8 . Height Limitation , Setbacks, Lot Sizes , Parking and Loading 1. Single family uses : ' A. Height limitation - 35 feet or two stories and an 8 . attic, whichever is less. B . Setbacks . 1 . The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty feet. 2 . The side yard shall be a minimum of five feet : .. . : and the sum" of the two side yards . shall be a ` minimum of twenty feet on the side abutting a 9 street except that this yard may be reduced by the amount an existing lot is less than ' sixty feet in width but to notrless than ten feet. I ';. 3 . The rear yard shall be a minimum of twenty- five feet. C . Lot Size , Phase I . The minimum lot area shall be seven thousand square feet , except that the area may be reduced upon approval of the Planning Commission if this requirement is found tc we , 6,'1 I ' FINAL DEVELOPMENT ?LAN b PROGRAM I , u L ' unreasonable or unduly burdensome •r n With respect to specific property, but in no event ' shall this exception provide for a site area of less than five thousand square feet. 2• The minimum lot g width at the front building , line shall be sixty feet. 3 • The minimum lot depth shall be one hundred feet. D. Lot Size, .All Other Phases .„ 1. Minimum lot area is 5,000 square feet per l0 dwelling unit. n 2. The minimum lot width at the front building Line shall be 50 feet. . E . Parking - One space per dwelling unit ..i` 2. Multi-family Uses and Church Uses . A. Height limitation - 45 feet. 9. Set backs . , 1 • The front yard shall be a minimum of ten • feet. ' 2. The side yard shall not be less than a distance equal to one-half the height of the principal building . . C. Lot size. • 1 . The minimum lot area shall be seven tho usand five hundred square feet for each principal building thousand and not be less than two thousand 0 - square feet per dwelling unit . NAL 0.. .7ELOPMH.iT ?LAN & PROGRAM FOR W TL K E t 90 ) ba • 2. The minimum lot Width at the front buil ding line shall be fifty feet. ' � 3 • The minimum lo t depth shall be one hundred • feet. 1 D. Parking - Spaces equal to 1 .5 times the number of • dwelling units . 3. Neighborhood commercial uses: �` A. Height limitation - 30 feet or two stories , whichever is less. . 3 . Setbacks - there are no required yards. . C. Lot size. 1. The minimum lot area shall be five th ousand square feet. 2. The minimum width at the front building line shall be fifty feet D• Parking and loading 9 - As required by regulations in effect at time of request for building and site approval . 4 . Church site - Subject to same requirements as multi-family uses except parking and loading requirements wi' l be subject to regulations in effect at time of request for bui_,d-i i"^,g .' :o and site approval . S . Any provision of this section may be modified specific phase a by t e pproval or the site and building approval . Section 9 . Completion Schedule 1 . The recu=red subdivision « y imorovpmph.ts for West.', ,tie 9 a' !. , - • : SAL DEVELOPMENT ?1AN & PROGRAM . ' 0 FOR WE3TLAE (DECcMBER iS , 1980) 0 . r , • will be built in six phases . Initialfirst construction o_ the „ M phase will commence bn approximately May 1 , 1981 . Phase I will J ,, consist of entirely' single-family units . The subdivision improvements necessary to meet City requirements and thus make lots saleable will take approximately _ ' one year from the date of commencement of construction on each phase. Commencement of construction on each successive phase will begin within 18 months of the Commencement of construction en the previous phase . The date of completion of the living units Will be . , dictated by the absorption rate in the market which will be controlled by the economic climate. 2. This approval is subject to compliance with the "`. schedule stated in subsection 1 above. A one year extension for 0 1.• ' ... ' any deadline will be granted upon sixty days prior notice that the deadline will not he met . In the event that no such notice is given, or in the event that a second extension is desired , the applicant will be entitled to the extension upon a showing of one ` . cr more of the following : IA. Circumstances beyond the control of the developer causing delays; I ;' S . Undue hardship caused by failure to grant the extension Request for a subsequent extension shall be treated as a major or substantial amendment to this final plan and program . Section 10 . Conditioning of Phase Approvals " The approval of any phase may be granted subject to `k4 - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ?LAN & PROGRAM F CR EST,v T.AXE..., .,u ' ( DECE HER 18 , 1980) ri conditions that are consistent with and intended* to carry out t: e terms and intent of this plan and program, and applicable City ordinances and regulations which govern matters";not controlled by ' this plan and program ,sF. • Section ii . Declaration of Restrictions for Future Phases The applicant shall submit for Cityapproval Declarations of Restrictions for each phase, which shall be consistent with this plan and' program. • Q , »P F j . • M1 f 1• • a 4. : TA y I .I r • U._W. • • r y' A d h .• . . o • r • • .0' I Wetland Mitigation f and ;, Grass Line Swale Design Plan o , a for • Pointe South Apartments Lake Oswego, OR for 1 Dominion Development Company Berry & Berry Associates • • 5911 Orchard Street West Tacoma, WA 98467 • '7 .. by IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington 98502 • September 17, 1989 • 4 : 9 il ;-,1-1-1, . . • :e DR t 3-i0Z • z 413 tir • • • • '0 • x. • IC I y r i•�1 Ip�(� JF�fY v • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •i, r a A.4 p.. • rt, - I I • . ,J. • , III • Yi. Plant List - South Pointe Apartments, Lake Oswego Code ,;' Abbr Scientific Name Common Name Nbr Size Spacing • Trees CD Crataegus douglasii Dou PC Prunus cerasusg-as hawthorn 5 5 ' Indivl3; sour cherry 9 1 .5" 10 ft dia (cluster PT Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 10 1" 10f`t "= 3 �t c,r (cluster PV Prunus virginiana choke chart on islan. y 12 Indiv 6 eft c tr SG Salk 3 10-15 ' goldenii golden willow (cluste Individu _ a s' --- Acer citcinatu vine maple 15 6-10 ' 6 ft ct_ BA Berberis aquifolia Oregon grape 25 PL Philadalphus lewisii mockorange 24 3 w 3 PV Prunus besseyi ground cherry 20 gal (cluster. c (scatter effect) RN Rosa nutkana nootka rose 25 1 gal 2 ft c -'' ! stacgv- RP• Rosa pisocazpa snowbe,r: pea-fruit r o s e 30 1 gal 3 f.. RT Ribes triste red-floweringgal 5 ft(clusters 25 5c: currant (cluste_= SB Symphoricarpos albus snowberry of 5) SP1 Salix purpurea Alaskan willow 50 1 gal 2 ft efts SS Salix sitchensis Sitka willow 2510 2-3 gal 6 ft ct:s SR Salix rigida Mckenzie willow 10 1-2 c 6 ft ct_ „ a 4 I V6201/14rl s are 71QG z tl OAS Zi•C Weis ACJV 114ve so 6A,l lit, &) oAl pnarp, . • , • ()lit W cave 6pait7ii. f Ab.serretv .-ilid )4A Pa 01. , L ... �. r: .e r • (• • „Wetland Pla0. nts[1tS : Carex obnupta ��� xs ensolius slough sedge 250 Indio c G �. . dagger-leaf 250 Indio 18 ft ctrs Scirpus macrocarpus rush 1 c s 19F Scirpus is p bigheaded rush 500 j Polygonumleocha Palustris spikerush 1000 Indio Indiv 18„ ctrs lapathifolium Willow-weed 250 roots ;'` ctrs Juncus effusus soft rush rs to rs ;« sof,.rush 250 Ind (clusCters Scirpus americanus three-square " 18 ".uses bulrush seed 5 lbs (40 lbs/ac: jilm OT. Echinicola ;, Agrostis oregor�ensis Oregalli on beard ntgrass 5%rass , 1r° Dactylic glomerate 35% . Agrostis alba orchard grass 5% s �+ Bolcus lanatus redtop 50% 10 velvet grass 5% seed mix (100blbs/ac Fertilizer 16-16-16 10 lbs (80 lbs/act 4111 , ..: . . ... . fie t List - Detention Pond/Grass I,' . . nc . �e Swale Mitigation, Lake Oswego : ..ce: '4::= Scientific Name Common Name Nbr Size "te Spacing V ?opulus - t..emuloides quaking aspen ' 10 1.0-12 ' a ft Ctrs goldenil 1" dia (on islands • i; ja1iX golden willow `ttbs : 6 10-15 ' Individua_ } cer crcinatum vine maple 20 6-10 ' ctrs ?rums americana (clusters o: American plum 12 south side • ' ;�� 265 ft ctrs of Cosa nutkana nootka rose (cluste 1 gal 2 ft ctrs (stagger wit S�`rnphoricarpcs albus snowberry snowberrl� 20 ,• 1 gal 2 ft cars �, wx rigida Mckenzie willow • (on islar^ ft ctrs �� � - itchensis S tka Willow 10 1-2 c s"'s gal .» - :ix drummond ,ana 0_ummond willow 6 10 3 1-2 ga= 4 al 9 n . , (.. . . . , . . e . . e 0 41 '' Y Alq'111111•U011 o ' ;..r_. �1 1 R I ti . ' pit ) ( 4. ,(0... çccLcHccicH I+IwNJ..�.••Y• u) r y 1' , 11 q I rP, .41 a , I' I ( ) (11 ✓✓ % C 11j W.., �: \ e 1 . VI t 1 I . ill C C 1 • It i.E. ., )31 t 11 . ( I 1) I a.11' 11Y�1!'� Ir.' ?!.a d • 1.Ir 7',v I�q ::)Nr.i. .1d t.114. wa 1Q!' t 4 I� rr 1 (:: I 1 i _. orfce i tleTAL • U ( I I. a (•I u1(, C C C �� y ( 11 1 l 1 i7 .,.1. e c c $ 1 A • A ; I ' ,11 I, 1 I , .1` ( .1. . •, . • V 4 d' c1 c c �. I 1 y.svww� n t d, k 1• 1 c cJ .9 n . . 4 I „ty ` Israrl ` b III I 3 . , . . ... r • �' C C X I (ICJI I t , . . .. 1 I , 1 •_ . i • ..• • . . , . (I ..'.) ' ... 1.1 ( :....(,. •• (1/4„....„ . '''� ,.., 1t l 'll' Q 4 1 I H I I . t. e V`f • ` i ; ; 1 WO't 0990'9 AC . I { w vI11 ) A ) IiI1:4tto i 1 1.i '., 1,if r it;.�;1,1 11 ' \.' or,rr 'a' 4. m 1I)1 I i tart I�nN\ k '� ► i\Ua.b r''` 11 ... \°M t...-... .wlti: , • , ..„,,,...,...„ . v e . 1:j 1 \ v e - ` yr I ;VI, PI AN r,GnhUad Yw.IIr44it -i * • • y • y * 0 0 . U.' I • f f 4,,„,,,,,,,,,,„:4 VS:'. . i4),,, ,,,,.....,,,,. oit2, • j'',$`,.t'.14„,,,," A,* A • r" r '7, ` • t.e ,fGh ,A' d • l. alli j I 1' 7I I 11,�. . (• r .., i}k,#1 ptritittlat, S ,. • s 1 I �, )d�1Tdo I ,G. INS inn dtt• . . µf OP 0 1., AI, • , t' lrard1 33 fJltYtrnnl iro�l saved, is e i••i f a •'w:•+, 1 10 rktfd0 ale, ; 1 'r • ibs M►13u1 Van ;S; • �N •— s}00ts a cfncatultt•.t _` r�'r •y �'• ' ►... 1egal ill I liciAri iiii iv drl�ew�od 1,r hai'i • A �I •> - -- ' r., wat►w+ds; fat t nil- ices ��{thnh�t • • .r: ;tt.r ,,,,, ,,...., 10 • dill r e.....o I II i ;Y t�►S I•r f I a 0 ( t.ScA) I. e.,. Jig „�• ' �•• �•: otak E 4 ��, , Alp //l/// �'••,�+ti ,,r'�•1. f ' O r[ ittct able,ver 1014.43.`tlwv ().,1) .• • ... •)., '.) b 4 '•.° i .�.y . ,•.• ! t`Y► , 4 ' �tV.11,AK+I frx 1.41/4 Oro, (21) tot c b 4 ; gt7. . • ! , :, h) f ' a. ,''.1,-^ . .1 1... • ( 1�10��� f Motlnnl ' „+•f b/q At is d. , '1 •+ 'A ,A•• • J�59 1 tdr S 1' r dldl�tb yN ! �. ,, C • p� SoTp�t •1• +�f+ J. „• `�p N1t y:. P' + �, , I10 SfOfllt°� t�7•GG I lgotl •F1. • 1` t., ; , :, �1 141�r. * T.) a ,j• ., •.•j. �J ?3,000 kS�'1 t. WA Iw t LIMO � ,:. • • • • n, 1 a • ��\-AK£ QS� �4 U T.v °2EGON • D I'ARrNIENT OF PLANNING :AND DEVELOPM1;N`I' DR 16-92 STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM • TO: Development Review Board FROM: Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DR 16-92 (Blockbuster Video) DATE: January 8, 1993 • FINDINGS: 1. The applicant submitted a Site Traffic Plan (Exhibit 27) after the close of the hearing which shows the existing circulation of the Blockbuster Video and• m adjacent auto care center sites. This site plan clearly indicates that access from the Blockbuster site to the rear access road is unworkable because circulation on • t. the car wash property is presently designed as one way, in the wrong direction. Staff has confirmed that the new exhibit is accurate. 2. The site plan appears to conflict with information submitted in the application and supporting documents (Exhibits 2, Site Plan; 3,Narrative; and 17,Traffic Analysis • Report) that use of the rear road from Bryant Road could provide for safe and n " efficient ingress to and egress from the Blockbuster site. This information was the basis for the Board's oral vote to approve the Blockbuster application on November 2, 1992,• . Staff cannot recommend that the Board sign the Findings and Order when there is a material misrepresentation of the fact in the evidence, intentional or otherwise, 3. LODC 49.610(K)(L) permits the opportunity to comment on or rebut evidence or information that was raised after the close of the hearing and permits the hearing body the opportunity prior to adoption of a written order to reopen the hearing if it deems it necessary or advisable to present additional evidence, The additional evidence may be presented on the entire application or only on certain stated yi.I nut' Y PO i l�j�l1\ `.0+1 i I,lnl'1 I411 0E111.l lrl1;1111 °Li PI.11101111.1IIA 04t011 +A+I`'i' ' • 1 ::Litni, i11%P+Illf1 1±11+)Ni1o11,)(1 • i',t,A Ii111)101,10N11 • t , 4. In a letter dated December 18, 1.992 (Exhibit 28), the applicant requested the postponement of signing the Findings until further research could investigate circumstances surrounding the present site conditions. 5. Notice was appropriately given to reopen the hearing to take additional evidence • on site circulation and access only. 6. The staff report dated October 9, 1992, page 8, paragraph 8, expresses staff concern that a careful analysis and possible modification of the existing access to the rear access road would be required in order to provide safe and convenient passage. Exhibit 4, a site plan of the auto care site, was not an as-built site plan, but the original site plan presented in the development review application of the auto care center in 1988 (DR 3-88). Staff recommends that additional evidence is necessary to make findings that the • existing circulation patterns will; in fact, provide safe and convenient access and circulation for the subject site. This evidence could be an addendum to the traffic study which shows that access to the rear access mad is not necessary or this ' ` evidence could show that modifications on the auto care site could be made to provide access to the rear road. RECOMMENDATION Based upon current evidence in the record, staff recommends that DR 16-92 be denied; or that the hearing be continued until further evidence is submitted which supports safe and efficient access to Boones Ferry Road only, or which modifies internal circulation to provide safe and ra efficient access to the rear access road. • ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS • a, . • • 27. Site Traffic Plan 28. Letter dated December 18, 1992, from John D. Grisebaum ill V fie . t tT,.r t • �1. 0 . 0 . 0 . u a ... . b. J ..•,,.,w ♦ •a.t e ' c -.yu. ....--AA._ r J .:.m.--e.."'._"' 2 e,,M r• -,,; w+'>I` il `. 11 \ w,l 'v 1 1t �. xr. 1 •.I 1.,`}1121Gt9T TUr4.f.1 Qt44.Y'4 1 1 t4 '•IrJ 1S ppMC t.r Y. WL.91•&COLXa ♦ 1 it tg a iudBti.'t`*,:k1,.,-1 I I.41.10 M Yi..ra MO'tN Acr.o.l) r I 4j; •i 1 ,:, 1 i 1 � ! i I , l9l t,t 4 LhUtii L2 I 1+' } ., I . ali, tnw tt,6i I ' lit 1(, a. a i..1" W � II1t•1' i11( q i .) r Pn i,� 1 :‘ 5.. 1 1 .:... l w . t ) f 1_, ..- ..' " 1 I l ,d EXHIBIT , , �. I i Z i 1 ' ' /6'92- • I I [. µ t 1..1 ► 1 I a �rs� M t , I , I 1 e'1itt tItll WA L. aII t'•1 '''-' 1111 t.itl .tly'UI S LI NI i't'.i, 1 A1t_It U+IJ Attr.t-PI •I I 1 I tJC',I.1 tA • -, .11 It t?1,.t•tttteihi 4\I it I .. I PIa.t•1 ..1 I•Av.tIt., I%:'tf I,1.11 Ii r ftl,'t,II ,4 t,"I•' I �' I� 1 I ILI*I 4-t1H, 1.1tt'- 11nIH,k.itn, I I 1 II . ,.•I r .II•,. •/• e.. h a�/ �17 ALERT t2.KENNEY,JR.I 1 ,,,�, 11 trifitr irr tIIt.,iii III fdtlrr44 fililltx t/IXp•14.081, At 1 , 101111.'2u 'III, r• t-,I I IC f` F411 r .I t f,r t w L t \ ,' t i>.- i .??. I ',let° t ), .l it ,1 rk't, ,a el I ' o• . • ,1 i 1 1 f * " 4 I F I f s II r I. •••t powl,•+t,u P 1..4. t., 11 ..- .. ..♦ r ♦ t t 1 .'C I. 1 +f '�.-FFa i LIw1,1�pp,-- 1'' a it• I i .. r'1., •Z r r • Stegla uD�® TRIENT PAR NF.RS x Ve od�� moetiaa� 19 DECauSung 2 8 1232 December 18, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S, MAIL Ms. Elizabeth Jacob Associate Planner Department of Planning and Development City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: DR16-92 Property Located at 16100 Boones Ferry Road Dear Ms. Jacob: Based on new information which has been recently obtained and the necessity to further research ki•• and investigate the circumstances surrounding the situation, I would like to reschedule our '. meeting with the Development Review Board. It is my understanding that the Board will meet '. again on Monday, January 4, and I would like to request that the signing of the findings and the order for DR16-92 take place at that time. ` Please contact me immediately to verify receipt of this letter and to confirm the aforementioned arrangement as soon as possible, • Sincerely, TRIENT PARTNERS • John David Grisebaum President cc: Bob Galante James M. Grisebaum Albert Kenney, Jr. • Mark McAleenan Ryan O'Brien • David 'WaldschmidtXHlBIT • •' .: • STD REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . , . , M --PLANNING DIVISION . . ti APPLICANT: FILE NO.: t OTAK,Inc. (David Bantz) SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 PR.. .OPERTY OWNS: ,S. AEE: Joanne Skowron Michael R. Wheeler m LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: • Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD OJanuary 8, 1993 DATE r I AlumLOCATION: Between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) January 20, 1993 west of Highway 43. r OC2S.?I2.ASSOCIATION: • COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION: Hallinan 4 R-15 ZONING DESIGNATIQN: R-15 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST ` } The applicant is seeking approval of a minor partition involving a Distinctive Natural Area . (No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets) to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot parcel. The parcels are both proposed to be 21,256 square feet in area. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the Access • ` , Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, which is a private street. The applicant's proposal includes a Future Street Plan ' affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required by LAC 49.120. S II. APPLICABLE R EGG lT ATIOus • A. (fdty of T.aJ .Qswego omnrehensiye Pl=: • Urban Services Boundary • General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 - ` ♦ r .. • 4 ti SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Page 1 of 18 , •A • , . r s ., 9 ' ''. Impact Management Policies • General Policy I, Specific Policy 1,3,4,5,E 0 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3 General PolicyIII, Specific ` Policy 1 Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General PolicyII, Specific Policy 1,2 Distinctive Natural Area • No. 37: Douglas Fir Groves—SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,3,4,5 Potential Erosion Area Policies . General Policy I;, Specific Policy 1,2 • General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1,3,4 i ` Quiet Environment Policies ,� General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 . Stream Corridor Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3,4 ' General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 r • ,: Residential Density Policies ' General Policy I, Specific Policy 1,4 Residential Site Design Policies General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2 General Policy V, Specific Policy 1 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I, II Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2,3 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1,4,5,6,7,8 B, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48,015 Definitions ` LOC 48,195—48.225 R-15 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) 0 '..'! 4 . i. SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Page 2 of 18 .. it C. 01V Of set P QSw!"3go VPio ent Coda LO C 49.090 0 Applicability of Development Standards , LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Development Permits < t 1 Future Streets Plan C LOC 49.130 LOC 49.130 Classification of Development Minor Development LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49.220—49.210 Minor Development Procedures • LOC 49.215 LOC 49.300—49.335 Authority of City Manager Major Development Procedures E., LOC 49.500 Variances; LOC 49.510 Classifications LOC 49.610 Variance Standard LOC 49.615 Quasi rudicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49.65 Criteria for Approval i Conditional Approvals ; D. City of ?ke cloycgo rdo_nnient Sty' nrle).Strawn_c a ra—All Development within stream corridors, 3.015 1 2 : 3.020(1),(2),(3),(3),(5) 3.040(1) autaLigiva—All public, private streets, public pathways and parking lots. 5.015 5,020(1) ,, a t ,r 1 Parking—All development which generates a parking need. 7.020(1),(2),(4),(7),(8) 7.025 • 7.030 . Fencea—All development. t 10.010 10.020(1),(2) 10.025(2) •• 10.040 h ` Drainage for Minor Development—All minor development 12.015 12,020(1) 12.030(1) • 12.035(1),(2) Y SD 19-92�VAR 18-92 ` Page 3 of 18 4.. _. .. tau ., - a u • ,:. , - Utilities—All development requiring connection to utilities 14.010 14.015 14.020(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8) 14.025(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9) • -P� '• 14.035(1),(2) { 13i11slde Prated and Erosion Control,—All development with hillsides or erosion potential , 16.015 {` 16.020(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6) 16.025(1),(2), 16.030(1),(2),(3) 16.035(1),(2),(4),(5) 16.040 Access—All major development and all partitions of land. 18.010 18.015 18.020(1),(4),(5),(6) 18.035(1) 18.040(1) • Site Circulation—Driveways and Private .Snet,'— 19.020—All major development; 19.025 —Minor development which includes driveways. • 19,015 19.025(5),(6),(7),(11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17),(18),(19) , E. Tree Cutting (LOC Chapter 55) 8, LOC 55,020 LOC 55.030(1),(2) 1 LOC 55.071(1)(2) • LOC 55.080(2) F. Solar Access (LOC Chapter 57), : • LOC 57.005 • ' • LOC 57.010—57,040 . III, FINDINGS • A, Background: The partition proposal was reviewed with the developers (Jim and Dina McNally) by staff at a pm—application conference on September 24, 1992, The requirements of the City's land use regulations were discussed at that time, The developers held a neighborhood meeting on October 28, 1992 following posted ant • mailed notice. The minutes of that meeting accompany this report (Exhibit 12), SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Page 4 of 18 J.. The applicant(David Bantz; OTAK, Inc.) submitted this application on November 6, 1992. The application was considered complete on December 21, 1992. B. . 1. The site is located south of Gans Road, west of Highway 43. The site abuts Gans 3 �i, >' Road(public)and Wells Street(private). 2. The site is composed of 0.99 acre (42,512 sq. ft.)in a rectangular configuration. 3. The site is bisected by an unnamed stream draining northeasterly toward the Willamette River. •. 4. An existing dwelling is located on the site, at the north end near Gans Road. 5. A stand of Douglas—fir trees is located on the site as illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 4)along with an assortment of other trees. '.• Y: 6. A fire hydrant is located on Chapin Way,opposite the intersection of Morning Sky Court. Another fire hydrant is located on the east side of Highway 43 at the intersection of Burnham Road. A third fire hydrant is located at the southwest corner of Gans Road and Laurel Street. ; 7. An eight inch diameter sanitary sewer line is located along the east side of the site, in the ground and on a 120 foot—long trestle designed for that purpose. ` • 8. A two inch diameter water line is located in Wells Street, terminating at the east line of Tax Lot 900. •• ' C. Proposal: • a The applicant proposes to create two parcels from a 0.99 acre parcel. Each parcel is proposed to be 21,256 sq. ft. in area. Because one of the parcels is proposed to have no frontage on a public street, when a minimum of 25 feet is required, the applicant is ' seeking approval of a 25 Class I variance to the Access Development Standard [LODS 1 18.020(1)]. As required by the Development Code, the applicant is proposing a Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5)extending Chapin Way northerly to an existing private access easement known as Wells Street, which extends east to Highway 43. • Finally, the site involves a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Groves—SE -L ' of Hallinan and Laurel Streets). • • D. Analysis; . The application has two primary ` pP components, each specifically requested by the o applicant. These are the minor partition and a Class I variance to the Access Development Standard. Compliance with the relevant Zoning Code and Development Code requirements will be reviewed later in this report. Because the site and parcels in the near vicinity are underdeveloped as compared to the City's R-15 Comprehensive Plan designation for the area, the applicant is required to SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 ` Page 5 of 18 . � ! • r ' submit a Future Streets Plan (FSP) in order to comply with LOC 49.120. The Plan must illustrate how property within 250 feet of the development site may be served by a future street or streets and be developed at the allowed density,local site conditions permittin This provision of the Development Code is intended to assure that development of one parcel does not preclude the logical extension of public facilities,especially the streets in which those facilities are typically provided. The applicant's FSP involves extending Chapin Way northerly to intersect with Wells Street, which is currently a private access easement. Wells Street is 20 feet wide as dedicated, but accommodates a 10 ft.—wide gravel surface with a drainage ditch along the south side of the road. Beginning at Highway 43,it is currently 875 feet long with no emergency vehicle turnaround at its western terminus, and no fire hydrants along its mute. Wells Street was conveyed as an access easement by the former owner of Tax Lot 900. As staff understands it, the owner of property abutting to the south of Wells Street agreed to convey an equally wide (20 feet) reciprocal access easement, but once the existing;ti segment was conveyed, withdrew that commitment. The 20 ft.—wide easement known as Wells Street currently benefits three properties (Tax Lots 200, 900 and 1000). Chapin Way• , as it is currently known,was originally dedicated to the public to its current northerly terminus while in the jurisdiction of Clackamas County in 1910. The right—of 4 way is 46 feet wide. Chapin Way is 1025 feet long, measured from its intersection with Upper Cherry Lane, the nearest intersection providing secondary emergency access, and lacks an emergency vehicle turnaround. Based upon the distances noted above Chapin Way exceeds the length allowed by the Development Code [LOC 44.390]. • 4) . ' ' While this condition clearly predates the Code requirement, it provides a less than optimum condition; the requirement is intended to facilitate emergency vehicle access,and to reduce the inconvenience of vehicles using private driveways to turn around. The applicant proposes to construct a 20 foot—wide paved extension of Chapin Way, north of its current terminus to Wells Street with three—foot—wide gravel shoulders on each side. This improvement is proposed to be within an easement dedicated for future • street purposes. A portion of this easement currently exists (Exhibits 19 &20); the owner of Tax Lot 700 has agreed to convey a similar easement abutting the existing (Exhibit 18). The applicant purposes to construct a paved driveway in the existing access PP easement known as Wells Street, to serve a new dwelling anticipated on Parcel 2. Despite the fact that an extension of Chapin Way was a part of the design of the l lallinan• Woods subdivision (originally known as Morning Sky) in 1979 (Exhibit 22), much concern regarding through traffic has been raised by residents along Chapin Way • (Exhibits 26-37), Concerns expressed include traffic safety, speed, through—traffic,neighborhood character, and others. Staff has evaluated these concerns with respect to the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. The need to provide safe and convenient access to property to enable its „ efficient development must also be balanced by not imposing adverse impacts upon • ' existing residential neighborhoods, particularly in the form of through—traffic, . • While it is necessary to recognize the need for streets to serve future development north of Chapin Way, as well as to provide turnarounds for emergency vehicle use, these 0 SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Page 6 of 18 f 1 , Y .'` • objectives, and efficient development of the vicinity may be achieved without extending Chapin Way to Wells Street. • As such, staff recommends that the applicant's FSP be modified to illustrate a turnaround 4 at the east end of Wells Street,no connection between Wells Strecz and Highway 43, and illustration of Wells Street as a 40 ft. minimum right—of—way with a turnaround at its western terminus. The modification will accommodate all applicable Plan policies, as well as the concern of most residents affected by the proposed FSP. These modifications will be discussed more in detail throughout this report. E. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: , As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria • when evaluating a minor development (partition) and a Class 1 variance: • • 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted many of the documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. Staff has supplemented the applicant's narrative with exhibits relating to • • • development in the vicinity and required procedures. 2. For any development application to be approved,It shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: • a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Applicable policy groups are: ' Urban Service Boundary dart' These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, " which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. b This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. The City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990 demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfies this General Policy. The passage of the 17 million dollar school levy on November 7, 1989 further assures adequate school facilities. Impact Management Policies • These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive •review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will • assure conformance to these Plan policies, Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. ' • SD 19-92WAR 18-92 • Page 7 of 18 t • w ` • • • Wildlife Habitat Policie • r - i r, These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open spac e. . natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed i this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. '4. Distinctive Natural Area_asides. es These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. The site is a part of a Distinctive Natural Area(No, 37: Douglas—fir Grove—SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets). These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance ale ' , ` reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Erosion Area Policies These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the P Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. , I ' Quiet Environment Policies • These policies require the City to plan land uses and traffic flow in order to keep noise levels and disturbances to a minimum,particularly in residential areas. Entrgy Consayation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. Stream Corridor Policies These policies designate stream corridors as Protection Open Space, � p These policies allow the City to require dedication of easement in stream corridors as a condition of new development where needed for storm drainage management. These policies also require a determination of a stream corridor buffer zone to protect steep slopes, soil and vegetation from erosion hazard. Regulation of grading is required to protect stream corridors. Setbacks are required to achieve the above objectives. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard reviewed later, in this report. • Residential Density Ojiejr These policies require that residential density be appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land uses and the capacity of public facilities (especially streets). These policies are implemented through a number of Development Standards,reviewed later in ' this report. 40 : , . . . . . . . SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Page 8 of 18 •a� -. �� ' Residential Site Design Policies These policies require that re:Az:de ntia streets be designed to control the speed of automobile traffic and allows flexibility in the design of innovative residential proposals. These policies are implemented through the Utilities Development Standard and the Access Development Standard. Pete.lion hie Spe acr Pori its The polices protect those resources listed in the Natural Resources Policy Element. They are iplemented through a number of Development Standards reviewed later in this report. Transportation Policies These policies require the dedication of adequate rights—of—way and improvement of . streets when demanded requires it. These streets should cause a minimum of disruption to the neighborhood, while providing access to abutting land. These policies are . implemented through the Utility,Private Streets, and Access Developmen.Standards, �, which an:reviewed later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. b ii. For variance applications, the standards found in LOC 48.650. Z Qd uarmcnts a_nd Andysiis The following requirements were in effect on the date the application was received: The site is zoned R-15 which requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 s . ft, per dwelling unit[LOC 48.210(1)]; required minimum lot width at the building line is 8 f. [LOC 48.210(1)]; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 25% for new construction [I,3C 1 48.225(1)]. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for new construction: • • Front yard: 25 ft. Rear yard: 30 ft Side yard: 15 ft The maximum height for new construction in the zone is 35 feet on a flat lot or 43 feet on a sloped lot[LOC 48.220(3)]. Maximum lot coverage allowed for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction in the zone is 30% (LOC 48.225(1)]. • The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction [LOC 48.215(1)(b)]: • " Front yard: 25 ft. • Rear yard: 25 ft Side yard: 10 ft. • • SD 19-921'V'AR 18-92 . •Page 9 of 18 • . J Q., 111 y The maximum height allowed in the zone for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction is 35 feet on a flat lot or 45 feet on a sloped lot[LOC 48.220(3)]. • The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area(sn' ft) Width (ft.) Zeph_(ft q Parcel 1 21,256 120 180 #:• Parcel 2 21,256 120 180 The applicant's proposal complies with all applicable Zoning Code requirements. No variances from the requirements of the Zoning Code were requested. Construction of a , subsequent dwelling or accessory structures will be required to comply with required setbacks, height and lot coverage limitations upon application for a building permit . requested subsequent to this action, if approved. ' � .v to m n od R uLrements a n sic er 49) - p-- — —�-- tL1.E� � Chapl As enabled by LOC 49.215(1) and directed by the City Council (Exhibits 23,24 and 25), this proposal has been forwarded to the Development Review Board for consideration at a public hearing because the site of the proposed minor partition involves a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove--•SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets), There are no additional criteria applicable to the DNA. The proposed minor partition and Class I variance are appropriately being processed as minor development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, there is one • ' additional Code requirement applicable to this request. The applicant was required to0 • ' submit a Future Streets Plan [LOC 49.120]. • The provisions of LOC 49.120 allow that a Future Streets Plan may be required. Because of the underdeveloped nature of parcels in the vicinity, the City staff has required a FSP as part of this application. The applicant has submitted a plan view of a FSP (Exhibit 5), LOC 49.120(1) requires that the plan show the approximate vertical and horizontal alignment of the future streets to be a minimum of 250 feet from the boundaries of the Y proposed development. The FSP is required to•take parcelization, topography and natural . features into consideration, as well as comply with the Development Standards and the a Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's FSP has illustrated the location of existing dwellings in the vicinity and the topography of the area (Exhibit 5). While the applicant has not included a profile of ,,, the proposed future street, the City Engineering staff has reviewed the alignment in the ` ' field and determined the grades to be 10-15% for Wells Street and 0-3% for Chapin Way, These grades do not exceed the 15% maximum allowed by LOC 44.384(c) for `. residential streets. Chapin Way is currently approximately 1025 feet in length, It exceeds the maximum of r' 1000 feet required by LOC 44.390. Chapin Way was dedicated to the public while in the jurisdiction of Clackamas County. It is therefore considered nonconcorming with respect s` ' to LOC 44.390, which was adopted December 19, 1978. ' r • , The applicant is seeking approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the Access ` Development Standard [LODS 18.020(1)] for Parcel 2 because it is not proposed to ab '' „»: SD 19-92WAR 18-92 ;: Page 10 of 18 • • . 'r . ° • " . , . ,.'1 r J S' 1I - a public street for a minimum of 25 feet,as required. The applicant has addressed the relevant criteria in the narrative (Exhibit 2), discussed below. As per LOC 510(1), the Development Review Board must consider the followingcriteria when evaluating a request for a Class I variance: • tena a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant explains PP P (Exhibit 2) that the site Le located between Gans Road and Wells Street,abutting each by 40 feet and more than 120 feet respectively. The applicant ' further describes that the site is bisected by a steep ravine which physically prohibits ' • access to Parcel 2 from Gans Road. [The ravine is the location of a stream con'idor, the protection of which also precludes access to Parcel 2 from Gans Road, The Stream Corridor Development Standard is reviewed later in this report.] The applicant further • ` identifies that the location of the existing dwelling at the north end of the site, near Gans Road, also precludes access to Parcel 2 from Gans Road. The applicant notes that t' p site benefits by an easement for access over the private roadway known as Wells :met. Because it is private,Parcel 2 cannot comply with LODS 18.020(1) because it , ,uld not abut a street [defined as public by LOC " 49.015(41)] for a minimum of 2:' feet. The applicant concludes that as a result of the physical impediments and the ausence of frontage on a public street by proposed Parcel 2, that the site could not be further divided. The applicant contends that this inability Iii would result in a hardship not experienced by other existing parcels for which Wells Street is their only access. • • b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; The applicant suggests that the proposed partition for which the variance is requested will not be injurious to the neighborhood because it will result in only one additional dwelling generating approximately ten vehicle trips per day onto Wells Street. The applicant contends that these ten vehicle trips will result in only a minor change on traffic in the , ' neighborhood. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The applicant suggests that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property, noting that failure to approve the variance would result in this developable site remaining underutilized, The applicant contends that the variance is the minimum necessary because, while proposed Parcel 2 has nearly five times the frontage required, its frontage is upon Wells Street, which is private, , M m d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. . The applicant suggests that the requested variance is not in conflict with the Plan. The • Transportation Policies require the development of"local residential streets which provide access to abutting land." The term "streets" in these policies implies the use of .. • public rights—of—way, as implemented through the Access Development Standard and • ` ,. enforced by the definition of"street" found in LOC 49.015(41), • The applicant has not proposed to dedicate Wells Street to the public, Wells Street, as it .. is known, is a private easement in a tract of land owned by the owner of Tax Lot 900, SD 19-92�VAR 18-92 Page 11 of 18 . t abutting to the east of the subject site. The applicant has no ability to secure such dedication, though to do so would eliminate the need for this variance, . The applicant has proposed to comply with these policies through the adoption of a 0 , , , ,, - • Future Streets Plan. This plan, even though modified, will provide a guide for the site to eventually abut a public street,despite the inability to achieve such at this time. The proposal does not therefore conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis The applicant suggests that both parcels comply with the Basic Design Standard found at LOC 57.020(1), which requires that at least 80% of the proposed parcels be designed to have a north—south dimension of 90 feet or more, and have a front lot line that is oriented °' within thi lY 0 degrees of a true east—west axis. Because two parcels are proposed both must LOC 57.005(5)defines "Front lot line" as meaning, "A lot line abutting a street..." The term "street"is not defined in the Solar Access Ordinance, and the definitions in that chapter do not rely on definitions in other chapters, as is the case in Chapter 48 (Zoning) and 49 (Development Code). Absent this definition, compliance may be achieved with ' f the Basic Design Standard by providing a front lot line on a private street that is oriented — r within 30 degrees of a true east—west axis. The south line of Gans Road and the north line of Wells Street are oriented within approximately 6 de degrees from a true east—west axis. Both proposed parcels have north—south dimensions in excess of 174 feet each. Both parcels comply with LOC 57.020(1) and are solar lots. Both must further comply with the provisions of LOC 57.035 regardinlio g .` ° Parcels 1 and 2 and from shade from structurres and non—exempt subsequent on ono the sites R themselves. Subsequent development is also be subject to the Solar Balance Point Standard(LOC 57.050—57,090). This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis ` This ordinance implements several Comprehensive Plan Policies regarding Distinctive Natural Areas,Protection Open Space, and Wildlife Habitat. The ordinance requires a tree cutting permit in order to remove any tree in excess of five inches in diameter. LOC 55.071(2) would dismiss the typical criteria for issuance of permits [LOC 55.080] if the • removal of specific trees were proposed as a part of this land use application. The applicant has included an inventory of the trees on the site and the mass location of $ the tree grove associated with the stream corridor bisecting the site. This tree grove is a tl J Distinctive Natural Area (DNA) and is required by the Comprehensive Plan to be preserved, As such, a conservation easement will be required as a condition of this action, if approved, to achieve this objective. This is discussed below' regarding the Stream Corridor Development Standard. However, the applicant has not identified either the building envelope in which " construction is likely to occur on Parcel 2, and has not illustrated specific trees proposed for removal, As a result, should this application be approved as submitted, subsequent development of either Parcel 1 or 2 involving tree removal would be subject to the • ;. application, fees, notice, hearing and appeal procedures required by LOC Chapter 55, 41) • - • SD 19-92WVAR 18-92 • `' Page 12 of 18 • q • As submitted, no alterations are proposed for the existing dwelling near Gans Road. The location of a new dwelling on Parcel 2 has not been suggested, but could be sited to avoid , all trees illustrated on Exhibit 5. v • c. The applicable Development Standards .0 z Corridors (3.005—3.040) 0 This standard requires the location of the stream corridor boundary or buffer zone. No development may occur within this buffer zone. The standard identifies that a major stream corridor exists when the stream is associated t with a Distinctive Natural Area [LODS 3.015(5)]. The Douglas—fir grove, which is located along the stream corridor,is a DNA (No. 37) as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. LODS 3.020(2) states that a buffer zone of more than 25 feet on each bank of the stream may be required if it is part of a DNA. Additionally a 10 ft.—wide special stream corridor setback will be required along each edge of the stream corridor buffer zone in which no structure may be located. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. U The applicant has illustrnted the location of the stream and the edge of the stream corridor buffer zone on the site plan (Exhibit 4). Based'aeon field investigation r performed by the Engineering staff, the limits of this buffer zone were established and required to be surveyed The applicant's site plan illustrates as little as six feet between the top of bank and the m edge of the stream corridor buffer zone at the westerlyhour minimum 25 feet required by LODS 3.015(4). Staff believetwhile of the sthe location ite, instead oof f he ° ` the stream corridor buffer zone may have been mapped correctly, the topography appears to be incorrect. • , This inaccuracy may not be of great concern, because, as noted earlier, the stream corridor buffer zone of greater than 25 feet may be required because it is part of a DNA. Based upon the limits of the DNA forest cover centrally located on the site, staff recommends that the stream corridor buffer zone be expanded to the north and south edges of that forest cover, as illustrated on•Exhibit 4. This expansion will protect the natural resource and processes found within both the DNA and the stream corridor, as required by the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, This will be required as a • condition of this action, if approved. Street Lights (5,005—5.040) • This standard requires that development which includes public and private streets provide • street lights at an interval necessary to satisfy the ill;tmination levels specified [LOOS 5.010]. Three utility poles exist along the north edge of Wells Street, one of which is near the { southeast corner of the site, Street lights exist along the existing right—of—way of Chapin Way abutting the Hallinan Woods subdivision, The applicant must install a street light on the existing utility pole at the southeast corner of the site in order to provide proper illumination for access to the site. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved, SD 19-92WAR 18-92 • Page 13 of 18 • t 1 y; a • , Puking g and Loading (7.005--7.040) 1 This standard requires that each single familydwelling0 e ., spaces in ac provide two off—street parking lition to a garage or carport. Both proposed parcels are of adequate size to satisfy this requirement. This will be assured upon application for any building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Fences (10.005 10.040) Fences are limited to four feet in height in a front g yard,and six feet elsewhere on a parcel. The unfinished or structural side of a fence shall face the owner's property. No fences are proposed as a part of this application. This standard will apply to all fences subsequently constructed. Drainage Sranr➢arri for Minor Deveionment (12 5 This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant proposes to install a storm ` drainage line along the easterly line of the site in an easement dedicated for that purpose, as illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 4). The final design of this line has not been submitted, but will be required prior to final plan approval as a condition of this action, if approved. This will assure that the width and alignment of the proposed easement • • complies with the provisions of LODS 12.020(1) and 12.025(1) before the easement is dedicated on the final plan. Utility Standard(14.005— 14.04Q) This standard require s that infrastructure improvements be installed under ° possible. These include streets, water, sanitary sewer, street lights, power,andnfire here hydrants. .: The applicant has proposed to extend Chapin Way north from its current terminus and to °`• intersect with Wells Street, a private easement for access. The applicant proposes to construct a driveway from this intersection to serve a dwelling on proposed Parcel 2. The ` ' applicant proposes the Chapin Way extension to serve two purposes: To meet the City's , requirements regarding the provision of a Future Streets Plan; and to enable compliance • b , • with LODS 14.025(8) which requires that a hydrant be no farther than 1,000 ft. from any of the lots. , The applicant has submitted one design for the FSP, which is discussed earlier in this report. The fire hydrant nearest to Parcel 2 is located on Chapin Way opposite its intersection with Morning Sky Court, approximately 470 feet from Parcel 2. The second nearest fire hydrant to Parcel 2 is located at the intersection of Highway 43 and Burnham mad, approximately 1,375 feet from Parcel 2. • A fire hydrant located at the southwest corner of Gans Road and Laurel Street is approximately 250 feet from Parcel 1. If the applicant's proposed FSP is not approved, the proposed minor partition will not comply with LODS 14,025(8)regarding fire hydrant location, An alternative would be ok,"' to request a variance to the requirement and achieve fire protection through other means or to construct a public waterline in a public utility easement to a location within 1000 • . , ' • SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 ` Page 14 of 18 of Parcel 2. Depending on the action taken regarding the FSP,conditions will be imposed to achieve compliance in this regard. As proposed, the applicant's FSP would connect Upper Cherry Lane, Chapin Way and Wells Street, which would create a loop between two locations on Highway 43. A number of neighbors have expressed their concerns about such through—circulation (Exhibits 26 through 37). While fully capable of being constructed, based upon grades alone, to do so would be imprudent in light of these objections and relevant Plan policies, • reviewed earlier in this report. An alternative FSP is in order which provides a future alignment to serve the underdeveloped neighborhood between Chapin Way and Gans : Road, west of Highway 43, eliminate;i the proposed connection between Chapin Way and Highway 43,and provides adequate emergency vehicle turnarounds at the east and west ends of Wells Street. These alternatives will be further discussed in Section II•c. of this report,regarding conclusions reached about the application.• �•,: ilsi •de Pt�Eutnand Erosinn ('ontml (1h OQ5 if(14(11 [Note. This standard was in effect upon receipt of this application rather than a recent :. • ;. revision.] This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing,cutting and filling of soils on slopes F,reater than 12%. LODS 16.036(2) requires that development applications illustrate where grubbing,clearing or removal of vegetation is proposed and methods of protecting soil during construction. LODS 16.035(4)requires an Erosion Control Plan when a site examination confirms the '+., presence of highly erodible soils. The ditch along Wells Street is subject to erosion due • to seasonal volumes of storm runoff. Y • The applicant is PP proposing to install a storm drainage system to collect and direct this storm water to the stream corridor. The applicant will be required to submit an Erosion • 1 , 1 Control Plan which complies with the provisions of LODS 16.035(4)(b) as a part of the • final design for storm drainage improvements discussed earlier in this report. This will be required prior to final plan approval, and will be a condition of this action, if approved. ' :' • Access Standard (18.005— 18.040) • • This standard inquires that each parcel about a public street for at least 25 feet. The , • ' W applicant has requested a variance from this requirement, which was discussed earlier in this report. Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways (19.005— 19.040) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The driveway proposed on Wells Street west of the intersection of G� Chapin Way is estimated to be approximately a 10% + , Parcel 2, based upon the topographic information provided on�the siteplan ement and 8% on � (Exhibit 4),No chanes are proposed for the existing drivewa associated with the dwelling on Gans Road. The proposal is capable of complying With the standard, which will be assured • +' ' upon application for any building permit regtiesr Id subsequent to this action, if approved, • d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • ' 40 There are currently no such plans which affect this site. The applicant has submitted a Future Streets Plan as part of this application, which was reviewed earlier in this report, SD 19-92WA12 18-92 Page 15 of 18 1 F. Conclusion: ,, • Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal 0 -: .• . , , (particularly the FSP)can be modified and made to comply with all applicable criteria , , through the imposition of certain conditions. The minor partition complies with all requirements except the Access Development Standard,for which a variance was requested. Provided the proposed Future Streets Plan is modified to comply with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies (Quiet Environment, Residential Site Design and Transportation Policies, specifically), the applicant's ,gym, requested variance would satisfy all applicable criteria. These modifications would involve providing emergency vehicle turnarounds at the east and west ends of Wells • Street and terminating access to Highway 43,from Chapin Way, as proposed. The applicant's proposal can be modified to expand the stream corridor buffer zone to • y include and protect all of the Douglas—fir Grove (DNA) illustrated on the site plan, which is bisected by the stream corridor. This modification would comply with a requirement '' ' of the Stream Corridor Development Standard. DI. RECOMMENDATION Provided the modifications noted in the conclusions listed above are made to the proposal in compliance with the applicable regulations specified in this report, staff recommends approval ', of the proposed minor partition [SD 19-92], Class I variance [VAR 18-92]. Staff also recommends approval of a modified Future Streets Plan. These approved applications and the i , modified Future Streets Plan shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall design to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, a storm0 ' drainage system along the east property line of the site from Wells Street north to the stream corridor channel. This design shall comply with the provisions of the Drainage , Standard for Minor Development (LODS 12.005— 12.040). This design shall be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval. 2. The applicant shall modify the Future Streets Plan to illustrate an emergency vehicle turnaround at the east end of Wells Street(with no physical connection to Highway 43), , and a similar turnaround at the west end of Wells Street. This design shall be submitted v along with a profile of the approximate vertical alignment of Wells Street prior to final plan approval. 3. The applicant shall apply for and secure approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which requires that a culdesac not exceed 1000 ft, prior to final plan approval. 4, A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 4 and modified by conditions 7 and 8) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the CityManager shall, in writing, yearAdditional g grant a one extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with ' development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be ' granted or denied and if granted., may be conditioned to require modification to bring the • project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding ` • development. 0 . ' SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 • Page 16 of 18 • . • - , •gib :., The final plan shall reference this land use application--City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development,File No. SD 19-92/VAR 18-92. 5. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office. 6. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement for future street ' '''' improvements anticipated in Gans Road and Wells Street. This agreement shall apply to both parcc;s as approved. 7. The following notes shall appear on the final plan: Parcels 1 and 2 are solar lots. Development of structures and planting cf non-exempt 1 t' vegetation on Parcels 1 and 2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance(LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding ' ° upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1 and 2. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the,final plan or plat. 8. The applicant shall dedicate the area illustrated on Exhibit 4 as a forested area, bisected by the stream corridor to the City as a conservation easement. This easement shall be m illustrated on the final plan. The following note shall appear on the final plan: • 'The conservation easement shall be protected for the purpose of providing a scenic, ' aesthetic appearance,protecting natural process and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life and property by a professional arborist, and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements '•in these areas, including landscaping or structures which : .'.. ,,;:• 0are in keeping with the purpose above must be approved by the City of Lake Oswego." 9. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of this ' approval. 10. The City shall allow the removal of only those tees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory structure on Parcels 1 and 2. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.010- 55.135 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). 11. The applicant shall install a street light on an existing utility pole located at the southeast corner of the site as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. • 12. The applicant shall install the storm drainage system required by Condition Number 1 as a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action. • 13. The City shall record a copy of the modified Future Streets Plan with the County Clerk and the City Manager. The recorded instrument shall reference this land use r•' • application—City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning & Development, File No, SD 19-92/VAR 18-92, The lot pattern shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant approval for the creation of parcels in that configuration. a • SD 19-92WVAR 18-92 • Page 17 of 18 ; EXHIBITS 0 ,. 1. Tax Map ,' 2. Applicant's Narrative 3. Vicinity Map (Applicant's Exhibit 1) 4, Site Plan (Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan; Applicant's Exhibit 2) 5. Off—site Analysis/Future Street Plan(Applicant's Exhibit 3) 6. Notification Map (Applicant's Appendix A) 7. Mailing List(Applicant's Appendix B) 8. Affidavit of Posting Notice (Applicant's Appendix C) 9. Affidavit of Mailing(Applicant's Appendix D) 10. Certified Letter Receipt(Applicant's Appendix E) " 11. Letter Sent to Owners/Neighborhood Association (Applicant's Appendix F) 12. Minutes of Meeting with Neighbors; 10-28-92 (Applicant's Appendix G) 13. Solar Access Analysis (Applicant's Appendix H) 14. Minor Partition Application(Applicant's Appendix I) ' 15. Class I Variance Application (Applicant's Appendix J) 16. Letter of Authorization from Property Owner(Applicant's Appendix K) 't 17. Soils Report—Carlton Testing, Inc. (Applicant's Appendix L) 18. Letter to E. Elliott from R. Chevrette; acknowledged December 24, 1992 19. Future Street Easement from J. &D.Todd; dated June 15, 1992 20. Final Plan (portion); SD 1-92; dated June 15, 1992 • 21. Letter from P. &J. Instenes; dated December 29, 1992 ?� 22. Conceptual Streets Plan, SD 10-79; dated March 9, 1978 23. City Council Meeting Minutes (portion; VI.B. Written Communications) of May 21, 1991 24. Council Report Regarding Minor Development Involving Distinctive Natural Areas, dated June 27, 1992 • r," 25. City Council Meeting Minutes (portion adopting VI.A. Regarding Distinctive Natural9 "A ,„ , Areas) of August 6, 1992 26, Letter from P. McGuire, dated January 3, 1993 27. Letter from D, & B. Schramm, dated January 5, 1993 , ' 28. Letter from C. & S. Dummweber, dated January 5, 1993 29. Letter from D. & B. Reis, dated January 5, 1993 • 30. Letter from H. &J. Cohn, dated January 6, 1993 ;11. Letter from D. & C. Dooley, dated January 6, 1993 32. Letter from D. & C. Carter, dared January 5, 1993 33. Letter from J. & A. McCroskey,dated January 6, 1993 34. Letter from W. &B. Spencer,dated January 6, 1993 • 35. Letter from W. Cox for T. &M. Lasley,dated January 6, 1993 • 36. Letter from E. &D. Zajonc,dated January 5, 1993 37, Letter from R. &J, Hinzdel, dated January 6, 1993 • 1110 ,i. , • SD 19-92WAR 18-92 ' Page 18 of 18 ; TT. l " ; ,�. , . . . • " J • .. It IIIUI• j U31 z .l 1 Idi•i' AH1aM 1" 11•INf)f S . W .•.tr3 us..: ♦„Aa.,..•^ate. cr— W ( 1 m "�12 �1 lll. .•em' Jt..• (�...........1...A..1.1.1P, n J�/•J I I� ?- J13 •Ir ,,••••. .y •Ir ytlU 12llirAt.To ar,: .\i1311 4JIAC" Fi, Jt •.i` jiit IM` IO11At101! I,: kv a..'.ea" ti,::::(..t..,..:;:. 1)1! 8 , Jr•ii I• UU 1,; I`.lDB Ac I 11l:. • d�' r N , III! ,', L I , h' not iow0, Ai(t xI�ary a LIMITS �^^� ... wl Cr I',§a( 1 1.•I 1 y G \ $tl8 r .. ..._.. ..�. - - •I t.J I .,I. ir ..,,, ,.?. ..._ ., �y i \ Z L i I,b00 • 1 1 o ! 1210 •1 �`,� .:/! l 4• a .} 1tI 1� �•\ Y i lud 1•i ./l.Y . ( 1. r i J ,'1 I • • ' Il! a !If rr' /piktAttle .51 I . 1;1. .. 1 ,ikiiiel .. �tf .,ARIL dtl1• ( OM .iLJJ I ..7 t. y IW"F. si {� ( rr4 tt. " +=!13 l` Sty" LIAMiti•N 0. iA �I r•;� JA I 4y(Ai F 08'ill) ✓J 12UU le,In Ar " `` J J°iA I 15 / .• ' ♦ ' ..i,4„r.5 }i Imo �� -..J�•..•i .i _BSI t t,Y4 • 11001 r tH u' a .� c ff 4 I , I55 At `Ip I 1. 1 I,1Jd„1 ; Y�1 1 " 700 a 0, wy IJ1 2 11 • ° 4 4�gY•JJ 1 n I +9Ac t . rJ:N�I 1 1�00 ,a. +.f } l!!! d - 1 t.r•tl. I iAli nw.1 1. '�!W! ; it ;, ;: 1 OW • to 7 • + SS rr..a e . " u .... 0 2 •t I _ Jut - 1 „II," :a:1sIU i h y"1 ( r-IIH1 1i'Ji,'.,i N 1 i i dtJ•JJ Iv .4d1 NI. rnsr,J \r• a.\34 .1.4 .,.I..J An.• •I , ,l• • �qJ I. r1i ••. • .Y 1••11N.• ♦JJ J • 'Y' 0A 4`!('/ !JI 1/,1!'! • e 14; .•J ea d 1•. MJ 11 „.n,1•.v.r r.Ir. A mot g400~ G4U! G /a U115 }} a ... ,a •:, ,.\"A,.I•,,.Ml AI ♦•1•1 I, Jl G4U1� I t. •1� 1,- if. 4'v. ♦r„e ."-.t~�11..' rj•d�•IJ ••1 Alit ylv.Y !: II!! �4 {+ :�•,, b3U? Ill! i, 4 1 \.J`r , t 2J` :11 IZIU.I r J +vACA' � 1•d o •rJI.. ... 1 1 ' ow 11100 i ? ,515 r 1 S I� 1)1 I• iI C7 t\I 1 A .1 '1 1ti mu i i l 1 Po RI 10 • :� " y i� h .1I 1•- , 1, •IJ1 �.1•f,}rY• +did , 1 11r1/ 1 ' ', \ ' • ..1;'. ,.A I •'�:.'I ef... .r • 11 141J \ ` i\I\I��Irw�Wv i11, w11I`Jd, •1•..v 1.1 1 4 ,I� 1V I IIIIt�l I 1,1 1 , , 0 4 f 111)I 1 I�`L.Y. A�y v•r1 .1"• • II/, .1 r }: �CK STREET 111, '1 ti I " t,a 1 ri..:._ reJv ! :r Jlyl G405 1••a 3 i 13ot, OI ni i tY_' .y.�1..c 6,3 : Y191 r•' I?j GJOa G401 lito �, y�_r �i .ladJ�,4'• HAZEI•vncn'rLn — :, isle, x IH , , ra: 4nn )Il' LANF t/7 �+ 1 G4U3 , 1— I a� i q11! �, " 21 'd QOI eo IJI to 1�) t� 7 ' ; �; ' 1 IIiO �c1 rit�6404 11 a 1 4 e 1, 1 i1 t A — al a'''� S J L J 1 'it er i h 4, + I?, 5 r sl� . o P. v.02 _..1It 1 J '1 00 1 f, :g 1 9 ..l YY 1 yil ,, i, '•Nil 'Ti% 1 h ��d.bNJr. Ito, b70t1 re+•� I G1151 ,,atl A, . .} Nif • 2�00 I �ti ,'. 1 o I f1114. I \,mh 1• 1- 1 _•.., .1, t l t, t i I • 4 EXHIBIT ';' , So lei-I' vaire o•i • • 4.A A6 t4 Vc V • • • • • • • • •• 9 • `1 • • 4 v I i GANS STREET NOR PAI TCION A, ,• . t A . Request for 2-Lot Minor Partition with A Variance Prepared for: James & Dina McNally • • Prepared by: X H I B I T C , OTAR, INC. J 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road y.got Sa\VM.18-1 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 635-3618 4 • • + I'\F , ' 1 GANS STREET MINOR PARTITION • Project Summmary • OWNER: Joanne Skowron 1052 Gans Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 DEVELOPER: James & Dina McNally • 9625 NW Roseway Portland, OR 97231 283-0801 APPLICANT: OTAK, Inc°.rporated 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Contract: David Bantz 635-3618 ry: LOCATION: 1052 Gans Road • LEGAL: Tax Lot 1000 2 1E 1ODD SITE AREA: .99 Acres „ ) ZONE: R-15 EXISTING USE: One Single Family Home• PROPOSED USES: 2 Single-Family Lots LOT SIZE: 21,256 sf per lot • • i• • i • r .i ,. J..tl1 -.� •,9 •. GANS STREET MINOR PARTITION 00 Table of Contents I. Statement of Intent U. Site Information Exhibit 1 -'Vicinity Map ' ' III Description of Proposed Development Exhibit 2 - Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan Exhibit 3 Off-site Analysis/Future Street Plan IV. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies V, Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Standard , , . f VI. Compliance with Development Standards • VII, Compliance with Other Applicable Lake Oswego Ordinance Provisions VITT, Justification for Variance Appendix A. Notification Map Be Mailing List C. Affidavit of Posting Notice ' D. Affidavit of Mailing E. Certified Letter Rece. t F. Letter Sent to Owners/Neighborhood Association " G. Minutes of Meeting with Neighbors (10-28-92) H. Solar Access Analysis ;, I. Minor Partition Application J, Class I Variance Application r K. Letter of Authorization from Property Owner •" • L. Soils Report - Carlton Testing, Inc. • • • ', 0 40 . .,, ' y • , + :I • 0 • ff • Of* I. STATEMENT OF INTENT The• following is a request for approval of a 2-lot minor partition with an access Vari&lnce. • • r,: • • • • • • • • • j T .1 • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 oe • • • • /a r • -2- • • .. .t c\ • II. SITE INFORMATION The subject property is located at 1052 Grins Road and contains .99 acres. The site o ' currently has one single family dwelling. The property is zoned R-15 (15,000 sq. ft. V :I per dwelling). The site contains a fairly consistent tree cover and has a drainage way bisecting the site from west to east;lust north of its center, The southern property line abuts S.W. Wells Street which is a private roadway. • f • • • { r ` • t v • • 1 , • u J t ` Y -3- I. • • , , 1/ t . Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed partition will result in two lots, The existing dwelling Mill continue to ` have access from Gans Road while the newly created parcel will access Wells Street, a private roadway. The following is a summary of the size, frontage, lot width and lot • depth of each lot. li • Lot Width at Parcel # Area (so. ft) Frontage (ft.) Lot Depth (ft.) Bldg.Line(ftU 1 21,256 120.775 176 120,77 2 21,256 120.775 176 120,77 1.. • • • • • { .. 1 • '; ti • • • i . • -4- • - :� ui • v • Y l ;.a 46 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVEPLAN Applicable general plan policies and specific policies are listed below in bold type, followed by findings of compliance. URBAN SERVICES POLICY III ,, . The City will; manage and.phase urban growth within the Urban Services Boundary*, with a logical planned extension of basic services. ,1' The rope is c psi 'property rty grated by the City as an In:•znediate Growth area. Urban levels of service are being provided for the following public facilities or services: • a. Water-An existing 2"water line exists in Wells Street to the east of the subject property and an 8" line exists within Chapin Way. b. Sanitary Sewer - An 8" sanitary sewer line r,rs along the east edge of the :,' property and within Wells Street. c. Adequate Streets - SW Gans Street abuts the north edge of the property and a private street, S.W. Wells Street, abuts the southern edge of the site, Commitments have been made to improve S.W. Wells Street to City standards in the future. Access to Wells will be via S.W. Chapin Way which will be improved to Wells from its existing terminus approximately 200' south of Wells St. The extension of Wells St. will include a 20' paved section, d. Transportation Facilities - No sidewalks exist in the neighborhood, •• e. City Police Protection - No problems were identified by staff of the pre- application conference. J, f. City Fire Protection - A hydrant exists approximately 450 feet south of the property within S.W. Chapin Way, g. Parks and Recreation Facilities - The site is not a potential park site as identified in the comprehensive plan, • h. Adequate Drainage - The site drains to the drainage way which runs through ' the site, i, Schools - The City has determined that its role is to coordinate with the school e • district and monitor impacts. The school district is the service provider for ^•� school, The school district is currently increasing school capacity with funds ' from the bond measure passed in November, 1989, The proposed for one additional homesite is not expected to adversely affect provision of urban levels of education by the school district, . IMPACT MANAGEMENT POLICY I . • The City will protect natural resources and processes from adverse impacts of development, within reasonable cost limitations. The City will: „L• Assure that each development seeks to preserve and maintain natural • , 410 features and processes. , • fir` -6- • iii �, Y;, e , • Y a y r '` •,P . n 1;,•.,9 f by �. ��' M •' a • %7. • Each development shall seek to provide, in accordance with the a. 4 applicable plan elements: 0 -' a. Open space preservation b. Preservation of trees and groves c. Protection of soil from erosion , d. Provision of pedestrian and bicycle circulation 4. Regulate the density and intensity of development in hazardous including steep slopes, erodible or unstable soils and flood hazard areas, with particular care to assure safety and prevention of damages •to adjacent areas. • ' y 5• Actively seek to identi fy and preserve open space areas through purchase of other suitable means including trade-offs for increases M. J intensity of land use otherwise compatible with plan policies. 6. Assure the addition or replacement of trees removed during building A and development, where it is appropxate to the overall appearance of the development. Developers will be responsible for assuring survival of required tree plantings through one growing season. , ► a5- A tree survey has been submitted which indicates a significant grove of Douglas-fir • exists north of the drainage way within the drainage way and in that area which will tel ' ' • t' • be the northern portion of the newly created parcel. The majority of the trees found in the southern portion of the newly created parcel are smaller maples and alders, The only area to be impacted by the proposed development on the newly created parcel is the southerly portion near Wells Street, No development will occur within the significant Douglas-fir grove, will be taken t Assure the survival of trees apreserved on the site, any wetlands, Care Yte, , IMPACT MANAGEMENT POLICY II The City will : • 1. Place principal responsibility on the developer for demonstrating how a proposed development complies with comprehensive plan policies and standards contained in regulations or requirements. •• 2. Prepare and carry out regulations requriyig development proposals to •identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts, including particularly: ° A II a. traffic or safety improvements needed for access, circulation, '!h parking oi'autos, bicycles and/or pedestrians; separation of auto and other circulation or to reduce or eliminate traffic impacts on 411) •*, '.. . , adjacent areas, or to facilitate use of public transportation, b. public safety, ty, especially emergency services accessibility. • ; r Y • • 4A t • 11• • ?.1• 1 c. utility service needs, especially sanitary sewer, water and drainage including all surface runoff. d. preservation or maintenance. of natural site features such as trees, unusual plants, views or streams, soils in accordance with Natural Resources policies. e. noise, glare, and visual impacts on adjacent properties. f. public cost impacts,assuring that development: 1)pays for Costs • of facilities required to serve it, or 2) ameliorates the public cost impacts of the development. g. energy efficiency. 3. Review developments for compliance with the Development Standards a ' and other applicable City Codes. Development at maximum density in `. any zoning category will be allowed only when facts presented to hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards and other • applicable Code provisions. • rt' F The proposed minor partition meets the applicable comprehensive plan policies and standards. This is documented within Section IV of this Application, t J All necessary public utilities are available to the site with the exception of public access A variance regarding the public access requirement is being requested and is discussed in more detail in Section VIII, The vast majority of natural site features found on the property will be preserved. This includes all of the large Douglas-firs and the drainage way, > • Any costs necessary to serve the newly created lot will be paid for by the developer y, through either Local Improvement Districts or through direct payments, • 4, ,• The proposed development is designed to maximize its solar potential, Sections IV, V, VI and VII of this narrative will show how the proposed development complies with the applicable review criteria. Section VIII will show how the proposed lot frontage variances meet t;, applicable variance criteria, •, • • • .7• 1. '.(� J r 4 , J •. • • • IlVPPA CT MANAGEMENT POLICY III 0 v "J • The City will: 1. Require new buildings and development to pay for an equitable share , ,r of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of the ` • development, including but not limited to: a. street and traffic safety improvements, .including off-site improvements, y b. drainage and surface runoff c• water and sanitary sewer system • d. buffering from adjacent land uses e. natural resource protection provisions . ;• •• k + • Residential developments will be required to proviclepark and space land or recreation facilities or fee in lieu. open .All public facilities necessary for the proposed development will be paid for by the developer. The proposed development is not subject to the open space provisions requiring a minimum of 20% open space to be set aside, However, much more than 20% of the site will be left natural as private open space, e , • OVERALL DENSITY POLICY I The City will: 1. Assure, using the detailed studies of the water, siiwer and street • systems, that land uses and densities planned for the Urban Service Area are coordinate with and do not exceed the capacity available or planned for any system. Planningfor • expansion of water, sewer, drainage or street will take ' into consideration: • a. The cost effectiveness of the expansion, that is, the cost relative n i • • to the users' benefit. b. The distribution of :;,,; cost relative to distribution of benefits, that is, whether the cost can be allocated equitably to those creating the demand. „, • Partitioning the subject property will assist the City in achieving planned densities, thus maximizing the public investment in basic facility systems. It will also assist the . • City in achieving required housing densities as mandated by the Metropolitan Housing Rule, M. -8- } 1 OVERALL DENSITY POLICY II The City will: 1. Encourage land use patterns that minimize or disperse air pollutants, • i.e.. ti a. Preserve open space areas. b. Guide growth to areas less prone to air inversion. c. Minimize traffic congestion. 2. Develop a transportation plan for major streets that encourage citizens to reduce air pollution, for example by mass transit use, bike riding or car pooling. The proposed development minimizes the need for newly planned roads, thus maximizing the utilization of an existing road. The subject property is not located in an area prone to air inversions. The proposed development provides open space and ' will preserve trees, which will help minimize air pollution. • WILDLIFE HABITAT POLICY II •� The City will: 1. Protect ponds, wetlands and stream bank vegetation in their natural state wherever possible. The proposed minor land partition will not impact the wetlands or stream bank vegetation found on the property. Development will occur ofly within the southern e portion of the site which is approximately 150 feet from the drainage way. WILDLIFE HABITAT POLICY U • The City will: 1. Protect upland habitat. Site development procedures will provide 4 • incentives for preservation of open space, natural vegetation and fragile slopes. • 2. Protect water front habitat. a. Development that requires excessive removal of stream side vegetation, alteration of stream banks : ad filling of upstream channels will be restricted to maintain riparian habitat. • tl. _9. il` b. Development along streams will be encouraged to preserve 0 • ;• • , r natural stream bank vegetation or provide appropriate replanting. c. Floodway and floodplains will be identified and, where possible, natural meandering channels and wetlands will be preserved. As mentioned previously, upland habitat will be left undisturbed except for clearing for the proposed dwelling, No disturbance will occur along the stream or stream bank. Wetlands will be preserved. DISTINCTIVE NATURAL AREA POLICY I The City will: 1. Encourage the use of trees and plants within residential, commercial and industrial areas as part of the management of air and noise quality and to provide natural beauty. The subject property is located within Distinctive Natural Area Number 37, The is designated' gnated as a Distinctive Natural Area due to the presence of a Douglas- fir grove in it and the surrounding parcels. The Douglas-fir grove will be left intact in "4 order to help air and noise quality and to retain the natural beauty of the area. ro" POTENTIAL EROSION CONTROL POLICY II • The City will: 1. Designate areas with severe potential for erosion hazard as PROTECTION OPEN SPACE. • h • , 2. Encourage land uses which maintain trees, natural vegetation., and ground cover. Such uses include: golf courses,park lands, stream bank vegetation, greenways, Public Access Open Space. The subject property has been desig nated P P tY at PROTECTION OPEN SPACE but not due to potential erosion control, The only portion of the property with the potential for severe erosion would be along the drainageway where th3 steepest slopes occur. No • • disturbance will occur within this area, This area will remain private open space. • • POTENTIAL EROSION CONTROL POLICY IV • The City will: • 1, Require land developers to control peak runoff on their site, where • • practical, in order to protect property and stream channels downhill • from present and future runoff. -10- J 2. Require that land identified with a potential for severe cold erosion hazard, will be maintained in open space, unless substantial evidence demonstrates that engineering can effectively overcome soil .: , limitations. 3. Reduce density from that permitted by the zoning code or previous development approval,if detailed site plan shows a decrease in density is necessary to eliminate a hazard. The runoff from the site will only be increased by the amount of impervious area associated with the proposed house and driveway. Erosion control techniques will be implemented during construction of the proposed dwelling. • The site has not been determined to have weak foundation soils or Slide Hazard Potential. A detailed soils report will be submitted with the building permit a application. A preliminary soils report is included as Exhibit L in the Appendix. " • , ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY II ,4 . 4 The City will: 2. Actively encourage residential site development winch reduces the , • total amounts of street and utility line footage and maximizes usable ' ' open sp-.L_,e. ' ' . '..6 0 ..; 5. Promote energy efficient site design through the design review and subdivision process by such means as permitting zero lot line siting, common wall construction, and flexible setback requirements K` .. (compatible with safety standards) and consideration of solar , orientation, landscaping opportunities and sens1tivL y to site's natural features. • No new sewer or water line will need to be provided as a result of this development and J4 the horn,construction techniques being proposed. Approval of the requested variances will all;,., the creation of a building parcel with no additional "street" construction. . The proposed development maximizes the solar potential of the site. Both of the lots • meet the basic solar requirements, ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY V • The City will: f . 1. Develop a,system ilf bike trails and sidewalks from residential to commercial areas and schools with access to transit stops. • • .i. 4* ''. 4105. Require coordination of transportation system and land development, A • R, A 1 y " • L 4y1. + . . 4 i 'i • r 'r STREAM CORRIDOR POLICY � �' , The City will: 'i U 2. Designate for special protection stream corridors with a potential for severe erosion hazard. (LOPR.I: Engineering Geology identified these Stream Corridors) �.a The City may require dedication of easements in stream corridors as a condition of new development and may purchase easements in existing developed areas where needed to provide for storm drainage •wr management and future access for construction and maintenance. The stream corridor which bisects the subject property has not been designated as having a potential for severe erosion control. As mentioned previously, the stream corridor will not be impacted by the proposed development of one single family dwelling on the subject property. STREAM COR.R.IDOR. POLICY II The City will: k 1. Protection Stream Channel. Stream channels will not be diverted unless it can be shown that the diversion will have no negative impact on downstream beds or stream banks. ' A 2, Protect Stream Corridors. a. A buffer strip of vegetation will be maintained adjacent to all stream banks. Depth of the necessary buffer will be determined accordingto physicalthe P Y aspects of stream corridor, including: i. steepness of adjacent land (the steeper the slope the greater the potential for stream damage) ii. potential for erosion hazard iii. width and velocity of the stream iv. nature of existing vegetation v. runoff volumes expected at full development of the drainage basin involved ,,,° vi. awareness that neither an optimum or minimum '6• i . protection distance can be applied to all situations h , • '" b. Mining, excavation, stockpiling of soil, kP� ggrading and earthwork r ; construction(including cuts and fills)will be regulated to protect ` stream corridors. .... `W 0 -12• Y• b•* I 3 Prevent damaging increases in storm water runoff which will threaten downstream corridors. Approval of land development, can be conditioned on receipt of a plan for retention of peak runoff in an amount commensurate with,the land use change proposed. 4. Maintain water quality in streams and assure that water discharge into r lake and rivers does not deteriorate water quality in the lake and rivers. The stream channel which runs through the subject property will not be diverted as a result of the proposed development. A buffer of approximately 150 feet will be ' provided between the stream channel and the dwelling to be constructed on the newly created parcel. The buffer will contain native vegetation which will nGt be disturbed. • No detention of storm water is necessary as the amount of increase will be very minor. �° It is anticipated that approximatelyeore foot lot .r will be developed with thedwelling, driveway00 and patio.feet This onle y b4%-6 16 5% of the parcel. ,! No water quality feature is necessary due to the minor development proposed. " STREAM CORRIDOR POLICY III '. The City will: 2. Require adequate setbacks from the high water mark of streams, to prevent damage to public and private property. The required setback will be at the point established by the City staff as being the top of bank of the stream corridor, However, the actual setback will be approximately 60 t • from the stream corridor and 150 feet from the center line of the streams. , . SOCIAL RESOURCES POLICY V The City will: 1. Provide for and encourage the formation of neighborhood I • organizations, These organizations, when duly. , . recognized under criteria outlined in the citizen Involvement, may: a. determine neighborhood boundaries b. make recommendations for policies and actions affecting their • neighborhood p. c, engage in comprehensive planning for their geographic area and its relationship to community-wide planning Both the Citizen Involvement Program and Role of Government Elementa. outline procedures and responsibilities of Neighborhood Organizations. a. r� -13- • i ,' 2. Plan for preservation and development of neighs rhood features • ;. which focus identity and encourage social gatherings and interaction q • within the neighborhood. Such features include: 'e• r;�I� a. neighborhood parks �'�' a1sYP">• b. pathways and benches tiro ' c. historic sites d. distinctive trees or views Open Space, Residential, Natural Resources and Parks Elements • w' • include detailed policies. A mee‘:ung was scheduled and held by the applicant to discuss the proposed project with {: the property owners and renters within 300 feet of the site. A r+utnmary of the meeting • is found as Exhibit G in the Appendix. Notice was given as required by LOC 48.801 and 49.610. No distinctive features were mentioned that would impact the development of the subject property. • ECONOMIC RESOURCES POLICY ry The City will: 1. Establish policies and standards to protect residentially developed ,f ; neighborhoods from heavy traffic and incompatible land uses. • The proposed two-lot single family development will be compatible with existing land y uses, Traffic, both vehicular and pedeatrian, will not be• � greatly increased by this project. • • RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POLICY I • The City will: 1. Assure site conditions, including: • a. Physicvd site conditions, including: • •i% •, slope, in general, the steeper the slope, the lower the density which will be permitted. such hazards as flood-prone areas,erodible soils,landslide hazards or high groundwater. Densities should be lower in areas of potential hazard, and buildings should be prohibited in areas of confirmed hazards. iii. preservation of natural features, especially streams, tree groves or individually fine tree specimens, or distinctive areas as identified in the Open Space elements. iv. minimizing disturbance of ground cover and soils, • • b. The capacity of adjacent streets. Developments of density level R-O, R-3, R-5 should have primary access to a collector or arterial -14- i1. street. In no case should a medium to high density development generate vehicle trips which exceed the capacity of adjacent '' streets or intersections. c. The capacity of public facilities and services, especially water, ,' sewer, streets, and drainage systems. The developer will be responsible for the costs of public facilities and services v ' reasonably attributable to•and required by the development. { d. The site's potential to handle adequately the proposed density, including: i. its size and shape ii. ability toprovide pub safety x , services in. internal circulation and parking iv. screening and privacy "'•' v. drainage �' it • e. Proximity to public transportation. Medium to high density development should preferably be located within walking distance (1/4 nile) of bus lines. 4. The City will assure that the final density of any site can be established at such time as project review can reliably determine that the density is in fact suitably related to site conditions, surrounding land uses and public facility capacity, including Development Review. Plan policies allowing density reduction, including the Growth Management policies, are implemented through the zoning and development codes and the development standards. Residential . Density policies will allow maximum plan densities when it is established that the Plan density can be achieved within the clear and objective standards found in the implementing codes and standards. . • The subject property is well suited for the proposed density, All necessary public facilities and services are available at acceptable levels. The cost :• .. • • of providing services to the individual lots will be paid entirely by the developer, A tY: ►1 . The proposed development is the maximum allowed. -15- • • 1 • PROTECTED OPEN SPACE POLICY I1. The City will designate the following lands as PROTECTION OPEN \' SPACE; Stream Corridors Floodplains Willamette River Greenway Wetlands • Oswego Lake Hillsides Distinctive Natural Areas Weak Foundation Soils High Ground Water Areas • Slopes with Potential for Erosion Hazard Slopes with Potential for Landslide Hazard • A portion of the property has been designated as Protected Open Space, An approximately 90-foot-wide section through the middle of the site has been determined to be a stream corridor, In addition, a Distinctive Natural Area designation which includes the - Dou lasfir grove also is desig nated�' as Protection Open Space, This area 1• is found almost entirely within, or north of the Stream Corridor, PROTECTED OPEN SPACE POLICY I. The City will require the uses of lands so designated in accordance 4110 with the policies set forth in the NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY . . • ELEMENT, in order to preserve essential natural resources and processes, avoid natural hazards and damages and to preserve • significant natural features in the community. As mentioned previously, no development will occur within those areas of the subject property designated as Distinctive Natural Areas, Care will be taken during construction to protect the Distinctive Natural Areas from erosion or other damaging effects, • TRANSPORTATION POLICY I The City will: • 2. Require dedication of adequate (but not nxceseive) rights-of-way to provide space for planned vehicle travel loans,left and right-turn lanes where indicated, bikeways, pedestrian paths, utility lines and landscaping in accord with the Transportation Plan. Such public ' • rights-of-way should be: -1,6- fr. .�/ .�r �F. 1 a. dedicated by property owners as a condition of development approval, when it is established that the street needs of the land .. development are reasonably related to the planned street. Such ' dedication will not exceed adequate right-of-way needs at full development, in accord with the land use plan. ' b. preserved, free of structures, until such time as the street and other facilities are designed and constructed, 3• Improve streets as planned when demand requires, in a manner which allows for the most effective and efficient expenditure of public funds, As a result of this proposed development, adequate street easement will be provided in order to provide reasonable access along S.W. Wells Street, a private roadway, This easement will result in future right-of-way dedication when the exact alignment Wells Street is established. This requirement is consistent with Conditions imposed on tax lot 600 of 21E 10 DD to the south and east of the subject property. The dwelling,and other improvements,proposed for the subject property will be located to allow adequate setbacks from the ultimate right-of-way of S.W. Wells Street, Rather than improve the street adjacent to the subject property when the remained of S.W. Wells remains unimproved, it would seem appropriate to require the property owner to sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements beyond the <"(10. proposed driveway access onto the newly created parcel. "'x TRANSPORTATION POLICY II The City will: 1. Manage public rights-of-way in a manner which best meets community • • and neighborhood needs, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses x of the rights-of-way will be varied, in accord with the particular needs, ' expected vehicle traffic, available funds,physical conditions or desires , reflected in each situation. Use includes: a. vehicle travel lanes • b. left and right turn lanes • ' c• acceleration lanes d. bikeways e. storm drain system f. utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc,) • g. street tre:...s h. pedestrian paths i. equestrian trails j. ;°nn-street parking• L •• ' 40 k. trareet lights 1. mail and newspaper boxes In. bus turn-out lanes w -h a , .,. ' t , �. "d _/ .. .. f .. .. ` r!" a .�• ' ..a, V .f n. pedestrian shelters • . o. open space/plantings 0 -... : . , 2. Recognize that there will be competing priorities for use of public ; rights-of-way,and determine the most effective use of space and public funds as each right-of-way is designed and developed. For example: a. highest priority for right-of-way use will be given to the movement of traffic,including vehicles,bicycles,and pedestrians. b. higher priority public needs may preclude on-street parking on arterials and collectors. ' c. Both on-street and separate pathways will be considered, with . , :; appropriate design based on terrain,available funds or volunteer work projects, etc. (See Bikeways, Pedestrian Paths and Equestrian Trails - Open Space Element). d. Short-term needs for two or three vehicle travel lanes may be • met, and adequate right-of-way preserved in open use until such ; time as planned street widening is necessary. Such planning would allow current construction of pedestrian paths, etc., in their permanent location. e. Neighborhood right-of-way use will be designed with different emphasis than major street designreflectingdiffering � g priorities outlined in Transportation Policies III and W. 1^, • As mentioned above, S.W,Wells Street is currently a gravel private street, It currently 0 provides access to four dwellings, As a result of this partition, S.W. Chapin Way will • be extended northerly to S.W. Wells Street, The extension will be limited to a 20-foot street section, The same improvement will be made to Well Street from Chapin Way to the driveway proposed on the newly created parcel, a'' TRANSPORTATION POLICY IV The City will: fi *, 1. Plan a Residential Neighborhood Streets System, which assumes: 0 a. minmum disruption of neighborhood living b. adequate safe circulation from properties to Major Streets System 4. Develop local residential streets which provide access to abutting land. These streets will serve local traffic movements and will not be • intended to accommodate through traffic. e• ' 1 a. traffic volumes less than 1,200 vehicles per weekday in residential areas are desirable. b. local residential streets can include a variety of designs, . • t including cul-de-sacs, lanes, one and two-way streets. 111) -18- 4 •' S. r A. 5. Assure the function or new neighborhood streets by approval of land uses and activities compatible with the scale of neighborhood streets. '1 0 . 6. Maintain existing quiet residential streets. When planning choices are made, put the priority on neighborhood livability and minimum necessary scale. (See Residential Policies.) 7. Plan with neighborhood representatives for the use of public rights-of- way in the neighborhood. Such uses could include: a. bikeways ' b. pedestrian paths ' c. on-street parking d. street trees and other landscaping e. utility easements and street lights f. sidewalk extensions at cross walks to shorten the street width a pedestrian must cross g. wheelchair ramp at intersections h. public places with benches, landscaping,, etc., in alleyways or street endings. 8. Plan with neighborhood representatives for the design of Residential Neighborhood street improvements. Street standards should be ' flexible enough to: 4 , a. be compatible with the social and topographical features of the particular neighborhood. b. provide capacity adequate to handle planned land uses and activities. c. provide solutions to drainage problems. • d. provide for safety of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists e. cause minimum necessary disruption to the neighborhood f. incorporate neighborhood aesthetics planning in right-of-way design The proposed development will generate approximately 10 additional vehicle trips per day. The additional traffic should not have a negative effect on ay) ability of Chapin Way to function. The improvements necessary for the future Wells Street should include storm sewers, street lights, street trees, sidewalk(s), and on-street parking. The exact improvements should be determined by the City with input by neighborhood repreCentatives as d'. required by Sections 7 & 8 of this policy. • • =19- , .A v tr'-fir` I r'. • '1 • t. ' ;ty ` i t t • Yr:-- Y Y .• V. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDICNANCE RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY 43.205 Maximum Density, Density Bonus 1. (a) The maximum density for each site in the R-7.5, R-10 & R-15 zones expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable acre is computed by dividing the net developable acreage by the �..' minimum lot area per unit and rounding down to the nearest • whole number. .; I (b) The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review, pursuant to LOC Chapter 49. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 2. The maximum density in the R-7.5, It-10 & R-15 zones may be increased if specifically allowed by the terms of this chapter or LOC Chapter 49. The maximum density bonus will be determined • • by the specific applicable Code provision. However, the total number of allowable units shall not exceed by more than 25% the • number of units allowed in the zone, or allowed by the special use housing provisions. Findings: No density bonus is being requested as part of this application, 48.210 Lot Size: Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer 1. The minimum lot area for each dwelling unit is as follows: Lot Width at • Zone Lot Area Per Unit Building Line Lot Depth R-15 15,000 Sq. Ft. 80 Feet 100 Feet ` • 2. Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced for projects reviewed as planned developments pursuant to LOC 48,470 to 48.485. • However, the overall density allowed on the site may not be • exceeded except as allowed by LOC 48.205(2). • • Findings: Both lots meet the lot area requirements. 48.225 Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage for buildings and required T: parking is: R-15 detached - 30%. • • Findings: Both lots will meet the 30% lot coverage requirement. 48.215 Setbacks • -20- • .. t !9 • ! l /.i <<1 V . 1. Except as otherwise .''. provided in this section, or LOC J 48.535, the following setbacks are required in each zone as ti listed: Yard Adjacent Other Zone to a Street Side Yards Rear Yard_ #: �y Front Side R-15 25' 25' 10' 25' Findings: No setback reductions are requested, 48.220 Height of Structures: No structure shall exceed 35' in • height. Finding s: All structures will meet the height restrictions imposed by this section, • • i • • • 4, y, { • • • • `21k • ,. ., i • f,• ,. VII. CONFORMANCE 'WI' H O'rR APPLICABLE LAKE OSWEGO ORDINANCE PROVISIONS CHAPTER 57 - SOLAR ACCESS An analysis of the solar characteristics of the proposed lots is found as Exhibit H. The analysis reveals that both lots meet the solar requirements. Having • both of the proposed lots qualify as "solar lots" results in 100% of the lots , meeting the requirements of the code. • • • • • • • • • " • 410 .r, -22- VI. COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I.. M. Section 3.020 Stream Corridors: Standards for Approval 4 q ' 1. Development withii. the Major Stream Corridors Buffer Zone, other than that allowed by subsection 4, shall be allowed only to the extent that it preserves, enhances, and is compatible with the natural features of stream corridors. Such - • development must satisfy the criteria listed in • subsection 3 of this section. 2. A stream corridor buffer zone or more than 25 feet on each edge of the bank may be required if necessary to prevent,erosion, aid in drainage control or if it is part of a Distinctive Natural Area. 3. The hearing body shall find, based on specific site information, and analysis of the plans for the .< " proposed development, that all of the following criteria are met: , a. the development cannot feasibly be located elsewhere than in the stream corridor buffer zone because of physical or topographic conditions; b. location of the development within the buffer zone is necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; • c. the development will cause the minimum degradation, or loss of natural features in the stream corridor necessary to accommodate such work; and d. the development uses design techniques including density transfer, to minimize intrusion into the buffer zone, • 4. The following types of development are allowed in the Stream Corridor Buffer Zone. The Standards set forth in subsection 3 shall guide the actual development, but shall not prohibit it: a. unavoidable road or utility crossings (bridging recommended where possible technically and financially); • • b. drainage management improvements,v p. emeixts,such -23. ' dT as detention or retention ponds, check ' dams, erosion control or bank stabilization; • , . c. minor realignment of the stream channel; d. open space or recreation activities,such as +r pathways, nature study sites, picnicking; and, :• e. storm and sanitary sewers. h 3' 5. Easements in Major Stream Corridor Buffer Zones • may be required for storm drainage management and future access for construction and maintenance. Section 3.025 Standards for Construction 1. All development will provide erosion controls, drainage management, landscaping or other appropriate means of assuring the health and quality ' 0of the stream corridor ground,water,vegetation,fish ' ',�', and wildlife habitat, and aesthetic appearance; 2. nt . In addition to, or as replacement for, existing 0 • • vegetation these areas shall be landscaped with t . ecologically compatible trees,shrubs,and permanent ground cover. Findings: The stream corridor has been designated by City staff and is reflected on the site plan. A rear yard setback of 25 feet will be F, ",�>,. .r provided from the stream corridor. No degradation will occur within the storm corridor, The only development within the 25 foot buffer will be the 0., .` existing sanitary sewer line, located along the east property line, �. ,` and a storm line which will channel storm water to the drainage ' way, No additional easements will be necessary. Erosion control techniques will be utilized during the construction of the ". dwelling and utility installation, No vegetation within either the stream corridor or buffer area will be removed as a result of ' this request. . 4 i I. 110 • n • . , ... .. -24- . I 1 f. • i t, • Section 5.020 Street Lights: Standards for Approval 1. Residential Streets a. Equipment Standards • i. The type of lu vninaire to be used shall be approved by the City Manager. . "�•, ii. The luminaire shall have a protective finish. iii. The lamp post may be wood, anodized aluminum of other materials as approved by the City Manager. • • b. Lighting Standards ` • .i. The maintained level of illumination on all public and private streets shall be between 0.15 average footcandles and 0.40 average footcandles (measure on the street). ii. The uniformity of illumination ratio shall - be between 4:0 and 10:1. • iii. Cut-off light distribution luminaries will be utilized. z:. Findings: Street lighting is currently not provided along S.W. Wells Street and will not be installed as a result of this proposal. However, future street improvements would likely include street lighting, • 2. Arterial and Collector Streets Street lighting standards for arterial and collectors shall be determined by the City Manager, who may require an independent engineering study to determine the appropriate lighting system. ' • • 8. Public Pathways and Access ways Low level lighting of less than 0.3 average •foot- candles; and with a maximtm, uniformity of illuminating ratio not to exceed 20:1, shall be • .° required unless the applicant can show that no night `' use of such facilities is planned. Findings: Not applicable, No night uses are planned, • • 4. Parking Lots • Findings: Not applicable, No parking lots within development,• r • • a' ‘25- • Section 7.020 Parking and Loading: Standards for Approval 1. The dimensions and layout of parking spaces and the number oi''parking spaces specified for each type of use are the minimum standards. Up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided hi compact car spaces. 2. All required parking shall be off-street. Parking may be located in a required yard, except where in LOC 44.382 and LOC 52.480. 3. Design shall insure that the parking of any vehicle �' shall not interfere with the parking or maneuvering • of any other vehicle. 4; 6 • Findings: Off-street parking spaces will be a minimum of 2 spaces per home site. Section 10.020 Fences: Standards for Approval 1, The maximum height of a fence or g hedge used as a 41) •. ,,v fence within a residential front yard or side yard forward of the front building line shall not exceed 48 • inches with the exception that fences at intersections t ti shall comply with LOC 50.350. 2. Fences shall be a maximum of six feet in height in residential zones. Fence heights in other districts shall be determined by the Development Review , • Board during review of proposals, or by the City Manager for minor development proposals. Findings: All fences will comply with the above standards, M Section 12.020 Drainage Standard for Minor Development: Standards .. for Approval , •1. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be • conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and ,, surface runoff) do not adversely affect other property. 2. Site Discharze.° • Where conditions permit, individual lots shall be developed to maximize the amount of .• .26- . storm water runoff which is percolated into the soil and to mni,;-iize direct overland runoff into streets, drainage systems, and/or adjoining property. Storm r water runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces should be diverted into swales, terraces, and/or water percolation devices on the lot when $. possible. • • • Section 12.035 Procedures The applicant shall submit the following information: 1. General Information: Information concerning ; ' clearing, grading, vegetation preservation and drainage improvements. • p Findings: All applicable information has been submitted. Site drainage will be channeled to the existing drainage located south of the proposed dwelling. v Section 14.020 Utility Stands^rds: Standards for Approval 1. Utilities Required. The following utilities, on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Standards, Plans, and Specifications. a. Sanitary sewer scythes b. Water distribution systems c. Sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and bicycle paths • d. Street • name signs e. Traffic control signs and devices , f. Street lights, which shall be served from an " underground source of power g. Underground utility and service facilities, as required h, Streets • i. Provision for underground television cable The City Manager may require utility design be prepared by a registered engineer, ! o Findings: The plans show the design ' ' ' . gn of the existing sanitary sewer,• proposed water systems, and storm sewer, • 2. Easements or right-of way for utilities and associated • f and related facilities shall be provided by the 4 property owner, Easements for anticipated future • -27- -4 . • �- r yE • • • utilities or extensions may be required by the City `'• Manager. Findings: An expanded easement along the east property line will be provided for a storm drainage line which will drain water from Wells Street. 3. Sanitary Sewers shall be installed to serve the development and to connect the development to existing mains. Findings: The utility plan shows that sanitary sewer is provided to the • development. 4. Design shall take into account the capacity and grade • to allow for desirable future extension beyond the development, and where required by the City Manager, extended to the upstream property line to allow for such future extension. Findings: Not applicable. rt 5. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall 1 be designed and constructed in conformance with the Uc. :•' City of Lake Oswego Standards plans and Specific40 • - ations, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: i. Pipe size and materials ii. Manholes ' iii. Cleanouts • iv. Backfill requirements v. Service laterals Findings: The utility plan shows the layout; of the system. 6. All development shall be served by service lines,main a. water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts which provide service within the City. , Findings: The utility plan shows provision of water service to the site, • 7. Design of water system improvements shall take into• •, account provision for extension beyond the development to adequately grid or loop the City system. Findings: Not applicable. -28- �. ,.r • 1A J 8. One water service line shall be provided • g vided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each building in the development. The system shall be designed to supply fire flow requirements of LOC Chapter 45. Findings: The utility plan shows how the newly created parcel is provided • Y ` with water service, • Section 16.020 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: Standards for Approval 1. All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation, and soils. • Fiz,clin ' , gs: The plan shows that the design of the project minimizes the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation, and soils, 2. Designs shall minimize cuts and fills. Findings: Cuts and fills will be minimized, Any gt°ding will be limited to building and utility construction, 0 3. Cuts and fills shall conform to the tai/iunum require- � ments of LOC Chapter 45. • Findings: The construction plans will be prepared (and reviewed 4 staff) to conform to LOC Chapter 45, by City 4. Not applicable. ,, 5. Cuts and Fills. On land with slopes in excess of 12 Y 4 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45 as follows: , a. Toes of cuts and fills shall be set back from boundaries of separate ownerships at least three feet, plus one-fifth of the vertical heights of the cut or fill. Where a variance that re uii°ement sloP e is requ.ired from . . provided. ' easements shall be b. Cuts shall not remove the toe of slope where a severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists (as defined in this standard). c, Any structural fill shall be designed by a registered engineer,in accordance • rdunce with standard ' "-29- 1• • B0, , v • engineering practice; the engineer shall certify t that the fill has been constructed as designed "• � and in accordance with the provisions of LOC Chapter 45. d. Retaining walls shall constructed in accordance with Section 2308(b) of the Oregon State • Structural Specialty Code. Findings: A. If structural fill is necessary, it will be placed in accordance with standard engineering practices, On-site observation and certification will be provided for any structural fills. B. No retaining walls are proposed. 6. Roads shall be the minimum width necessary to provide safe vehicle access,minimize cut and fill,and provide positive drainage control, all in accordance with LOC Chapter 44. Findings: S.W. Chapin Way and Well Street will be improved to provide a ' ' 20' paved section to the driveway of the dwelling or proposed Parcel 2, 18.020 Access: Standards for Approval 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. • c. Classification of the public street from which the • access is taken(residential,collector or arterial). • d. Traffic volume presently carried by such street, • e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an ` arterial street is prohibited where an alternate • access is either available or is expected tty be ° available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4, Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such is not .,, available. -30- • . ,, r p 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets • across adjacent yroperties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. i; Findings: A variance is being requested for parcel 12 from the a' requirement of having 25 feet of frontage on a public road, + ` The variance criteria is discussed in Section VIII of this document. Parcel 2 has 120+ feet of access on a private •roadway, , 19.020 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets: Standards for Approval - Major Development Only • F. 1. Private street standards.• , . • 0 Findings: Access to the newly created lot will be via Wells Street ' which is in private ownership. Wells Street will connect to Chapin Way which will be improved to Wells Street. a 2. a. Only one driveway per lot is permitted �.' unless the lot frontage is greater than 75 feet. For those lots, a circular driveway may be approved by the City Manager upon finding that the additional intersection will { not cause a traffic hazard. b. Driveways on corner lots shall be a « , minimum distance of 30 feet along the P •,: " , property line measured from the property• corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City Manager. k,ii `i' Findings: The standards above will be met, . y P • ., ,tom -, -' -. - ,' . rr' + �. �' 1 • M � . Sn a .. vm. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE • $ The criteria for obtaining a variance are found in Section 41).501 of the Lake Oswego Development. The criteria are listed below: a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, ' c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make ` reasonable use of the property; and, • ' d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The requested lot area frontage variances meet the above criteria in the following manner: a. The subject property fronts on both S.W. Gans Road, a public right-of- ways and S.W. Wells Street, a private roadway, The Gans frontage is approximately 40 feet and the Wells frontage is for the full 120.775 feet. Providing both lots access from S,W, Gans is prohibited.by the location of the existing house and the steep ravine which bisects the site. The subject ''. property has an easement over the private roadway allowing access to the subject property. Failure to approve the request to allow the creation of a parcel without 25 feet of frontage on a street, which staff says means I iy' public street, would result in the parcel not being developable for an additional parcel. This would result in a hardship not experienced by .• 4,: other property owners along S,W, Wells which also utilize S.W. Wells for their only access. 1 The proposed development will not be injurious to the neighborhood. The minor land partition and variance will result in one additional building Y� site and approximately 10 vehicle trip along Wells Road. The additional i building site and resultant vehicle trips will have only a minor change on the neighborhood, c. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use ` of the property. Failure to grant the variance will result in no additional s.' utilization of the site and vast underutilization of a developable parcel, The subject property has almost five times the necessary amount of frontage but lacks frontage on a public street as determined by City staff. , d. As mentioned in Section N of this Application, the proposal is not in conflict with The Comprehensive Plan. ' In evaluating a request for a variance the granting authority shall consider the following factors when determining if a hardship exists: • • 1) Physical circumstances related to the piece of'property involved. . -32- i 2) Whether a reasonable use similar to the like properties can be made of the property without the variance. 3) Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. • 4) The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied. The requested variances meet the above factors in the following manner: • 1) The subject property is located on a private street similar to other parcels in the vicinity and many other properties in the City of Lake Oswego, , 2) Many parcels in the area have been developed on lots of similar size and other parcels utilizing Wells Street as their only access have been developed with single family homes. In addition, the house to the east of the subject property utilizes Wells Road as its access, Failure to grant the ` a variance could result in the property being utilized in a manner dissimilar w• to like properties in the vicinity. • 3) The hardship of having access only from a privato street was not created by the applicant or property owner. 4) The economic impact upon the proposed builder of the newly created lot and the property owner would be an inability to create and build on the proposed parcel Section 48.650(3) of the Lake Oswego Development Code States: No variance may be granted which will permit a use not permitted in the applicable zoning district or which will increase the allowable residential density in any zone. Granting the request variance will not permit a use which is not currently permitted :`. within the R-15 residential designation, nor will it increase the allowable residential density of the R-15 zone, K • . ... i ... -. .., . -33- rW F .. A� °".4 0! 'gr.% •r w •Zrel. •Yq, �,," , . vy•4 IC IT R IR s. - - 9dARAm. ►alAllq >s ..,., M ,h • �► F r ;;+ f� o•c '� a�aauF+wrlr nr lC 7J �." ,f:V`I .{• •A e\\ i;IOW LBP tr tY 1 •^ "Ii ti Rr . 7G a• " nn•n,•. HIP a B o rr I `I lal +Iws.,xk:: qhy ` • z •,' ,, �ausctls• SKI u za ";41.ns.� u ,..i _.:_^ r "C4 v n • ...r, sw • b G•••Hry ,. ' R ' ?twit a /f Y/atau1 s, 'CM a, AL"C s Y•MtC11Lt1 Ct r......, 7 •ila cr. rrterrr- • ` + �• R. =0'c M= HUBE' WwAAO11TrT —RO•r. r,� ;.al1,•, .;:.�: �SIuaVIAIrO• bs / 4ra� slhll r. lir Y.AaCAAA II .ro•.•. •' 0 S� �''n'Yi AIYIIOa(1 g AOt' Cr• _ I lllurt «•• , CARAWAY R a..4 •. , fiti� +cAAtr� e,, if., �+•�sw= Gi��" V r. (° ii, •• OCAIASON Pow'►. •• M . 4 y — • .... ' 4 .... pC3M•�♦‘'t sr r ft �/:f'�Lb 1Mg Mato - ��{ �� ,�11/ ♦ „ a� Sf,,A = S , taus si s 1 r ., r(1/urw�\•a . , r `iV7oN,Ora S• t nlne y COrDMIPJ��r t• r0Y•�� 1k ' ` \ u rf ,,.A't"I� . ' 1 u,.. w0ar6tO,1 �I I..•IavY•.,n +��•9 rr1'°n \ wR so, "- i1� SR1 .. .. , S. A«I, ti i iiit•'llr D.a ,.•, •', . A r . r ' ; .. R "ti n vlsl.�I ] .J tt' _ o'F' •� rON ko. ., s t 'f o, '^MOaaar7 ,yY s' r-1 ST,.' 4 -•N 9' .Q t ► Stare �•.. a•, 4 yi ► YY•«�, 11Y'.pWY•-. •w '�•�r QA a, , •` - '�f . ^ - • i k I 'r1 r` '"'•"• 1 'I V. ♦ 'Sjx*'\ 10C±,..RI ^ l c� w� •�' 1 o r 9i 101111+M'O 'I ,�4 CAISi �•� 4ay 1• PIE' ♦.•• '►. I' 49 t1 i, ,., • .`• , �' ^ O 'W 7'11'' • �S• '4 a0,11Ny11', lA*tb. t, r ' 11- �j' • : '9,�el. • ' rba, 'llvw!1,0 1 � y • •,s _‘14 r rtcllvorp il >i y ; A .YY:�-- i ,� o a, ili t MAtnwS l t ••,r,, r . . "_ W,C• ; I �f 1l; ` '�1 a • • ► 'r•7C,O�ISs'tY•• ' • • I,. • 't F A. Y _ Nt Lake -�` 1� l� �. ' Zr* j� 3 a. �" g „Oswego o- Yv,All YdF R ; t, PA " . rf) ` _�A,1.• �` 114 � t.a ""1 A r4Y 11jy • �,u ; ^ ., •.. . RD i r^ — 'f' t1'ZyS.• ► WO• AMAMIAi y.1� «1 ~ r A r x�t , lKYIA NaM.•SS aW+, 511 Y! 1r•ly .. yy 9 • 'I M . •.F 1•.•� •GOB 8 .•.,`, ` r.� n� .,b ,1► A M 06 i' Jp g,i s ,,.., i�"'•. . '94* r' r .t� �� �w • Ar '•VA t{KNNr : u toA• ,"1' / .tl��t°K 1 P. ra �ii M.ow..*m a oa +a GA A t•u t t[) Q..�� �� ' ! q !, •• • C ..• I O• �• 'a`tulrolr L. ar iv' .`� r cote 7NFr (� u3t - �, o cowl"lry cl„ 9 ■ i ,qA.y• u •U,,.'0 Club• ,�vcre �•LII, ,0„, '' a ^wa • !' ' T t10A1 AD ','1 sMAt aJrilif I ' 1 yy • •r '•,n 1•,� t t,, J W.rnt': ., fI,' a'tbK„tX ,�• • • ��'' • • lltrub # . bWrt ,-,, �. b >/ rry IlN.rt, a wi- 4, .. n �,y,A irvs • s • I• ,.,fir - 1 (�rll1'� qe,L' ♦�Q1 [ �, N tu, N Vs,. Y. A n"• r -u. • �f• 1���y�ll•,.!,V1/ �It����C!�„: W "4I _'7 a Ie 4 io, 1i- { !+11',`��. .f •�/1 4y,t 'NKN T. 4 II, (Tr . ,.• . .... ♦ ` '{a nv. 1 1Naat\ '}, ;�„> ,. :% • 3 4 C sm �-- F, rvk ,4 td 5t,�m • tact/ 1,110 �4 �, A1N� , r, ; r✓ „! f iu. 'G2 -Vr �'•Vj •.r.t,q_-Jv`Ciy • C H ► +, Ou rialdli 1f�"" .!�> , 1• ,t `a 9Jr G AO 4 �'•"*'`' \v��r? 'J'F �,, Jltt'1 •d.. i BL V a ." FIrm1At ,,, f" .+•» t i, y s . '4 '3 p'�' % t ifit"' _ I.•r,, i gl.I't 2'1r;1 �1 r'4i. •r\,. •n 4i• y »,_ s L•� , E - ;sr1 MINN • w •.w, . • . fin` r„, F UT • 1 6'1•. 7 Q rt_t' .•l ♦.. } ♦ ¢ I „ ' ,ip .a _ '}, ,..auY•I•i r •• • '/, �rr..� .�LS/� ♦� 4w._ _.. / I i'yr1N. j•.+�/A err 03.1 1y�,• r,iTF •` , • -.� CharYY n,�r ��• f r lAl !. •r{R 1 s ,• ••'•% ., !" i DM'r ',_limb 1 . 4. •„ .. r*:""1` ... COPS ..1 • P'tea M !` 1 • • •AA .• ♦t ODAaltl l 8 t 'Lr1A1� r •r • .( 1 Y •�r `• ,, • < 1.r . y t: ,1,♦Iw'.f0[ .I - CHI ar� r a n r{ - • y..wy -1 r ,, •.d" L. w_tt.- Q'�! r fl 4 - • 4• ••S�yl• �•i+. r: • a.. a r v ..,,elf ''• ♦/,• • 3 • 1 oaa ` 8" +ft, •d 1 r'!,•1 ,' ,•7 r r y{4, , N•••t• C 4 . t'...• V.,. •J�`r1 °' .r'-' r' rV',FTV�•� •{d. •Z• z '. -, r,wfstnl, 0100• ; • 5 I BIRCSIS RD E'. rib_ / ,.• et *. r+ 4.4''' - • vr .04 ,Y , •I+-,4 r OR ��} •tti0. • • Jud�,yi •., �.}•-�! 'W1• ,`utsl•Ip,l: ' ' .,I.1' ;T, //♦4� ",MA' "'II.,a�r•'`v` •�,^w j i y`' K •s 'ow,a......4.1 q 3 rr11 r �j 't -'' r• }ry. ® 4.r• V' - - '7• • f l M .P t '.11 N1r r a v0 {jf' �,�f C' aI. > ♦ µ. 1'• ',,G �.I.Fli,i •r• IA NT , r,,...-,;. yj�4.4 ,r... 44 %; 41' Gb •!/='C 1:ei». 1 I r}-...•o f .t 0.t ., .• ^0. va �,r O A4 , _`-..�'7 T S •�p �r 1�� t' '1'I�y� �.ti/y, q R •"S 1 4 0• 6t ai 'L " 1117C4�Yli� R� MY3��j((((( �`4' -;S Y I « NKItaAsld ►-.-tnyr, u t • 2 • 'k,S,'t`0'd ., ",•.r:4 t::,,. °I 44,j.9 �`4Atb, - 1 r iµf.. jss •. :�: � .•: 'In,i1` b ota ,t t.Nlt ts r r ., Yo}ir,,.-�!t�y n1r 'Z-1,t to, IAAY mo "'"1 41,(1«I� sNllo . �' . EXHIBIT ► r!, sw I -a, -j 3, r uti11+ • q • �' • ) oe•t•.0 a 7b LI-I (8 '� rA':ta A , • F '' r4 � r� h i 7 :ltlly I a p • r :NIA 11H. ,aja4ay n Ito�ll . yur ", ` A b rlrw„ S " ► \'1. 4`♦ ,:y..•,• i 4 i* C � 1 • -r .. � � ` II t a e i•. ' 0 0 0 . , 4 • • • l ... !no Of►noronP 'MEE%EGET.° _-�. . 1 _..- _. - ";. _a.r - - _... . -` I IlppOyltllNi 10 A AlPtn Wuu STRICT re I il.y V ..l ` .�• T. YAKI • . .•� Hy Dl N01lf 71•IPI • 7'lPll INIO - f 011101Lf 7 NAPll1•(/'TACO • wAiln OW 1 MOO . •- VoU0 AM,f•.1A' OlNOI[f IMAKtf,1'11' IIII mot. •-,•T • •u" M 01•091O t%Ilnf10M f rn0 I10 Of C/IArN WAT • WAitn lkM . • c 4 rPOrOStO or a1t1Ptl b . ... d.. aAMunV uwin � {/{///'''���DnANAat fAu11lNt 1•0A.111A4V'TWA lA3l1NNT / 'i p10pO11D 110PN PnANAOL IASIMI NI //�' (/N 1' 4 we ki,:" �� .,'� _a__— tp � 'e 1 1 1 �, Y•...e.�,"_" �, la�„Aw 11AN GALAS MWO ,.,•.4s�✓ .. \ ,. , I1� IJ.IL..n lln I i'r —y'� �` ` \k -,1 +A ,A� QII'„ �trHO l , INO OI rnOr011P nY.v7.l n1'tn 1..13..."19 0In (1" ;\\ \ \ �.,```I I/ Q•11'A tArn01L1MNi TO N7111W A.... - 1 WILTS n STOUT I...L.t.11n fl�ll t}Mi NO \ IA.A'O+ - 111 ux11 ♦ NOOSE ..--�•'- 1 \\' \ \ �,111,1i.,1' -` � UfAN.INu/.•.1J ! II•A(� Arrliut„• MU NW/a...tw1 P...1 I 1 I.N IN.•I.,IMM PINT\ . w4.r. Ir.w P.uv I• ♦ \ ` 1 71A ar. /' uln'++L^J LW tlu• ♦ 1IPAQ\ • \I1 ItY� fe'It A slit rto$ yr A•rw (L � lig 1 ! S PITWe°;" � r�\�! I \t 11 � � J, �l .� mr.. h..iu14 t1.n111..+ �) }},, a1P111ntl tar Z A1 ,a\.z.) 40, - 1N —'-' nnru}Lt1 aaIA tmd.1/dllrl �, 1 I ....� .. "��'•�%^-�" "'' • InV attr. 71i11NNrN"�- (MUM/O ro p •4 EXHIBIT 'i..,�Id_ a //w�� r _A>ib a.e.%r , IM1.11 OTC i !!•..Awn . E./ ' .1 l' I),, 111r1 U7 .____ Q Z - 1�^-,a\ tQ�94. 11:U7:Ct A,iNAUY1l trial 1�1�*4\0Vill a ,. I•IA al AlinAiNL lane.t 1 P ' _ I OP Ih n LAnlNlb f/l1 POLA 1'0 l 1/1 °tnnlNla aAll old + •I!Y««� 1 \\\ Y CAl�10AD SECTION FCI) —y • I . 1 Q11APM WAY E%TENSION I •r" I 1 a S W.WELLS STREET V,t 1 C.,'-'� L. . I .r.o....1,„ .. � EXHIBIT 2 . . .- NO0IN AC AIt 1'•in II• •••' • ',.1..tr' ,`•• \ I �q�A5.L00 ' ' Ot1NItkS1PlE1 t Fte�kr'.A DEC i. 8 !1 , ,Y it .1 ' A « ,. _1 ± , _1 • ' _ • . . .. aa I 4 ,t... ;.;t. •.it _ I l ., of _,- PACIFIC I I \ rC9:r- 'turn { H W Y 43 ) `---- :TT-I—n-17T (IL\\ II I 1 I 1---- I I I 11 BULLOCK - _� _ I 1r / ta -/114 • k 0 11111--r—J,/ r_...„.„1„..... ..... 0 N 4 . ,... ..: ., . ii --3- ND INJ 17-'-' . , r • il( ..___Aa.,,-, ____,...,.,,,:. ._ , 4,,„,_._ ,, ..._ r i . , .., . ,,,,...-1 Aillti f---1 . — os)-'4 N K...?� �J:Oa= ...`s,. . M n�.\ kLTMdO FIRE HYphANI , ,: . r,_ 411- -all 0'"C�y ... . T O pOWEII POLE. . .. . .J1 p AZI23.1--.3.-• .\ C il r__,17.-j L.,,..„ W c,T-4.„ -il z b.11,1): if, 1 m ,...41.....----\ 1/4.....1...)\ k\ .g. . tu f3, si 11) 1 ..,illill alr=III 1. ))))1 1 ,:7 `13 \ II, \ 7._ N al g t-- fi I 1; Q 1• H LLIN4N ` ` + 'NOV 0 :1J;';� t , N\L-1 ) ., `74- i 6 r , ,,,..\,,.\\„, , % ,...., .. _ ....., .... . , ., \ ",. 0 • (.. /al trial ( ' 4 \ . to It. r-. "N / , I - - ' "I, ij I 014 • EXHIBIT 3 maws /c.LL;N r IW'•N hY'. L4346.L00 . ', . • , - - r 1A 7 ti hD V • • .Ir ra•a.r .a.y� J7a.wa ..\. ...... .\w -.���'•,/jy,�.✓af nr 1 i I ^,N ;;W ::ru . . .. f' , , .�0 .. • INI n I•/, I1r,•,.• y ' .. ..1IU O i 4_ •,Uln' 1:1U11. 1 �Ir1` u. h 17! • N 'id,�lj,l Cl4 l /)� OEi 1 hI ` I �!, �`111l71 Q �J�,Z-i'v,r.. l0M1I a \ _ ,• I • + • L'_ r JJ♦ 1• , r FFFF 1 I 4 <. . 1, 1 YATES —_s__m I NI `•1 I. I• <. •• `'I fU `C I ii tti' —.y' . ; V.. _ _ STREET r. v,,cnleo IOY '• ; ' liit 1I9 b ^ y 8y NO .' MOy q 1J r. Y,-'i.tl 1 I (' 1 i h1 la u I I y 4 f� ,17 Na �. w - ec_�.�. r 7 p .7J'Is. 4v i p, » =._.lalL'-.._N 1 ~ dW ~ O I'� '.1 1. . 4.1l1i. VI N a i 17U 1796 DRIVE: `'CC l • 3 J•a..._,., .c.._sa. IV E: c b I Q`- �. Sul ., .. x U IA.Ul ld\I t l �': ,. la; •.�IU -:• ^' ID of I� �, I b ; •g _'' "1" , , . y' J'a♦ .•JO•.r v�' '�-�= .....�.`te_,..enl ill \ I r.•'�w...%I..• 'Nr•.11 " JRJ.• • 41'.�' "• - 'l11!....... 11 f I,. .i,: 4' II. n ���JJJ G0'8RI EN g _ _*r• ,�.aS ♦+�•++'uri" ;� .1/ ,� ^ J t1 ..,. n nlnrr•r1 vEli ...4--.11! " li' 1i . � , Il e`'I I �a ae4 ��.J` n.(� ' .. Wy `y3r � ill t _.U '• ^fu '. ti lT3, +,.. _.. ..,. s �Olu ni ` ii :! .�•'(�, «W b�Jn Cq r .. O I 7l ` ..,. itt . 1 I. 1 y Il k oN �4 O II I M,"� it - .t!r -^Al I n I; I _. ` 1 1A r .r - '' D !Pi- ,rl , p ° N I I (U T I .161 \� • 4 . �Nlr� 1t ._. ... V' 1 1II y �,�1 1K�7 raa.r• "7 'VI N.A 1ic, II e•.. l N b { 110A1 ti ,1 "..• 1; 1'b ,J„'' Iin174' .'......;nirt... •.. y^ rN.'1r•,. .,,. .� 1 IIo 4 t Y �� w t w.I N ,. ✓wr a "'�'7ti�7�•""' 14 � , tl • 'l _ �,N '(,��.. l i 11 • tAtCil I I 1 i 4 0. OIt A) l I. 1, i.e. in e'1..6. _ •�...4.0.�1'r -. \ l 0 • - » 1 Z n h No F. ;�j 31, m1 .It. 1!t -,.s ';t . • ` Z ... •"J�Jt..wiw• ti I{ Y ° ( • O I F+ i .. o .y t. _U 1,4 . 4.#1••••It L"/I— r, itill t U3 , Not ' , ' m;l 0� -.�-dS..._.�IL.5tt'4�JJ \ h 14 •I._ t ,� M 5• •t , l 7!- ..., In .1'! ». I.....•L'!. !' 1/1 • N` Y 1,1 •,- +�1v. mil+ wdtlJ „„ t, f .. is it N STREET • ,, _C,lit,1 `� J rem 'V� .rr1. t �h• . u O- , «L.,b 1 .0 *rr„`�""' .�J yI01 7. _.v.._. _ 79' \ ant! tar, • M• •�aa r. +1 !-.`yam '� y V ' y 1plyi I F. ; � e0 •"to-' �„ttN (n :•, w l N 14 V \ 1 E'':1 1. r~ Una • nN i.,•e••,N i CITY 414 nk /.1 9 • !•f•1 , . \ �J I_� lb lN� .-v_. C 'I ,aok. IwL•t fU �.jJ ''1 s.. , „1 , rr.V 3 m 1 �`'� m y ter" t0 ; Au l f�i r1 U l • D ' jo -+ • • =. t�'t�-fas3 Nu ent4) t•r' 1•. g Will E. Spencer Robert Mogental, Vice Chair • S•,artzr.,, iorriage Beverly Spencer Hallinan Hghts. Neighborhood Assn • ?� 'ming Sky Ct. 16400 Chain Road • =s.-��'�:wego, OR 97034 p 1170 Hallinan Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Bernard S. &Jeanne M. Welch James M. & Rosalyn B. Hinzdel t-C Chapin Road 12652 Sherwood Drive ...:=.�_ C�=.uvego, OR 97034 1250 Wells Street Leawood, KS 66209 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 o-,•. & Debbie J. Todd Occupant Elizabeth Elliott�05,a in Road 1305 Hallinan St. PO Box 214 -aka Caufego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 4 " .a+;= sego School District Lake Oswego School District , '•'r a,C•C lwthorne Drive g Antonette E. Duncan ,t,�,; 2455 SW Country Club Road 1'107 Yates Street =i:e Os �ego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 w K. a Emily F. McGuire Leland & Evelyn Harriman `• .v �; ��:�Street y Arthur & Blanche Banache PO Box 5S2 7308 S. Bonarden Lane .-. C •,a go, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ' Tempe, AZ 85283 a.a, - 1 Katherine Kelley Gordon O. PrledmanJr.�- - JDonald & Dona Lee Koepke 4Z 3 Cars Street 1046 Lund Street 1427 Aspen St. ,..ke nAwega, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 `''".:-r. Ronald G. & Claudia L. More Randall Lee & Mary Jane Hargens ". .. .:n,W Street PO Box 665 ,�a Cs•�urrga, OR 97034 West Linn, OR 97068 1026 Lund Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • C. R. & 'Mary Sue Lauersen Clarke C. &Alice T, Foster Stephanie Ann Allen Cars Street 1036 Bullock Street • 208 Laurel Street • -a. e Cs u'go, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 g Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ar,-Je A.. zledman C,Cia..: • . & Phyliss Bulow Alan &Jeanne V. Fox Paul H. & Mau Jean Hauser a 975 Lund Street treet 980 Lund Street ._x_ 2s�r=+moo, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT • ' -7 (3ft') .. f EXHIBIT B . „ ereI E. Moodhe (:aurel St, Harold EE,. & Linda L. Clayton Jack V. & Norma R. Fritz • :axe Oswego, OR 97034 311 Laurel Street 327 Laurel Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034•i Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • can, M. &Ann E.Jacobsen Ronald D, & Barbara A Lane 338 Laurel Street 1023 O'Brien Street 1Occupant Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake3 0 O'BrienStreet Oswego, OR 97034 �� Ede a M. Gloria Meiusi Ede S. Xavier r Met Michaell D, Conley Robert A. & Rebecca H. P. Marks 1043 O'Brien Street 407 Laurel Street em,er, CO 80236 Lake Oswego, OR 97034... ` (:.nkC Oswego, OR 97034 a ' 1 Donlan F. &Angela M. Jones Thomas & Shirley L. Kornelis +''F ems' Laurel Street William F. & Donna M. Blakeley William L, & May W. Jones Lake Oswego, OR 97034 410 Laurel Street 1024 O'Brien Street ° Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • �. udaa L Buckley Renee G. Phipps O'Brien Stteet 3951 Calaroga Drive Occupant 1044O'Brien OB e Oswego, OR 97034 West Linn, OR 97068rien Street • LakeOswego, OR 97034 • • Richard S. & Nancy), Dorr Milford W, Portwood Karla M, Ariens ' 302 Laurel Street 1024 Gans Street David T. Yett Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, CT 97034 1038 Gans St, r Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tony Wan PAT 16495 S Pacific Highway Z J�r �I N s�-CN "' 4 L ti�t�e I st ,Lake Oswego, OR 97034 1_411( e., Os w9 p OR. 6)7034 Lied ien Rahman ,regon Dept. of Transportation r� ,;. _ O32 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. U %'""'"y a _ r n • Milkaukie, Oregon 97222 L LL;r N . a , ®� 'NOV 6 1992 j y • 1. .. 1' ♦ , - /4• bOS LABELS CHARLES & SANDRA DUNNWEBER EDWARD & DONNA ZAJONC - SD t9-92NAR 18-92 16431 S CHAPIN ROAD 15461 CHAPIN WAY t LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 CON D & CONNIE SUE DOOLEY JACK & VIRGINIA WILBORN WILLIAM & ANNE DUNN 16491i S CHAPIN WAY 16521 S CHAPIN WAY %LARRY & BEVERLY SOKOL , LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 16825 S CHAPIN WAY LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 L RY,& BEVERLY SOKOL JOHN & ANNE MCCROSKEY OCCUPANT ',Ee25 S CHAPIN WAY 2662 GLENMORRIE DRIVE 1380 MORNING SKY COURT LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 aARDA BODE J & A VAN WITZENBURG DAVID SCHRAMM w20 SW CHAPIN ROAD 16826 S CHAPIN WAY 16830 CHAPIN WAY LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 DAME. & BETSY MAE REIS VIRGINIA MULLEN t�1 S CHAPIN WAY 1345 S CHERRY LANE LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 • • • • . y t • I Name of applicant Pre-App. No.P ? 3- z erect Property: Tax Lot(s) lCrxn _ Tax Map(s) I E I©-tom p ss or General Location: t� C� �z s. . -hl s 4 Ak'k`WAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE • I Dina McNally do (represent) the swear or affirm that I am re ) party initiating interest in a: posed minor partition affecting the land located at :152 Gans Road, Lake Oswego, OR , and that pursuant to LOC 48.801/49.301, did on the yL w • day of October , 19 92 personally post the notice indicating that the sip may be proposed for a mi nor Partition application. The sign was posted at intersection of Wells St. & Highway 43 & west end of Wells Street. (state location on property) This 15th day of October , 19 92 , Signature � 0 i. , , �� Subsiibed and sworn to, or affirmed, before me this 15th day of October , 1992 C---iiyol ( D., ./!1-/,.4. .. 11 Notary Public f r the State of Oregon My Commission Expires: 6-29-93 WITELN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: _ , ..,.. City of Lake Oswego • Land Development Services Division E X H I B I T P.O. Box 369 1. 8 , .. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT C a. . ' J AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING • 4,. STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS County of Clackamas ) 1�+ ha Mc A/ i I, /Va �` `, being duly sworn,depose and sn ip / I� J1Z.. Y P ythaton � iy„� / 1 ,I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the atttach7ed list a nAoticce of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. u I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office at Lake Oswego, Oregon with 1 �y postage prepaid thereon. s Imo.._ IA44 Signature A/d1.,.......„ 441..---- . . . Sus 'bed and sworn to me before this t q day of 0 C-4-0 --g•r--- i . .. 19‘4-, , . ... ,... . EXHIBIT . ."` • I q , BARBARA O.PARR NOTARY PUBLIC•ORE dl A op 6t'�-9x\Vl .t�- My Commission Expina Notary Public — ' My commission expires: --7- -? Pre-App, No.: • • EXHIBIT b - 'A• t ; - . - - 'r ' .''. )� a ,. t�,: ;�q �.•� ,,,' t • C , r )''' ' • e .: ! = 0 •e.. \ \) r• CIZ a- 2 <5! _Ix' I PC y e of a" *1 ,_, N 3 ; i ' -\ .c 7.12 ?z #r' • • . ra. lik .1-' ct -6 ,..' , c '44 es, 1 .2. 2 1•:•• ,i•li ? , t . • SS V I. I . O V p C tl a .L \'t I 1 .Q 4iil �(2a e C 2 =3 .G'-d .�. 066L aunr'008E 'ua od Sc ® SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete Items 3 and 4, 1 Put your address in the"RETURN TO"Space on the reverse side,Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you.The return receipt fee will provide you the name of the person delivered to end a the date of delivery. For additional foes ma following services are avaoaote. Consult postmaster for-fees aria cnecu homes'for additions)servicafs)requested. • 1. 0 Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address, 2, ElRestricted Delivery . t (Ecru charge) (Extra charge) 3. Article Addressed to: 4, :641clo Number Kobcr4 MD ellial VI CC 5� c o- ape of Samoa: 1-I A I1I VIAI/1 H I �t'F$ NC Jk ilnr14pQ4 u Registere — ❑Insured Al5g.i Certified 0 coo • } "--1 O I' 1 N N G t ❑ Express Mail 0 r Receipt forMerchandise L A U$ W C�O d D O 7 Always obtain signature of addressee I ram. J or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Signature Address a 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if X 'I V1 t requested and fee paid) 6. Signature —Agent , • ,r 7. Date NrReliverylo ft3 • PS Form 3 11, Apr. 1989 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT . 1, EXHIBIT 10 ' . EXHIBIT E • ¢ m• ,t a e 9625 NW Roseway Portland, OR 97231 October 16, 1992 1 RE: Pre-Application #PR43-92 i '. Dear 2—: I am the daughter of, and I am representing the property owner of 1052 Gans Road. . We are consiaering proposing a minor partition of this one-acre parcel into two parcels. Prior to applying to the City of Lake Oswego for the necessary permits, I would like to • discuss the proposal in more detail with the members of the neighborhood association and surrounding property owners and residents. Per the requirements of LOC Chapter 48.801/49.301, you are invited to attend a meeting on: 41) ,.. , Wednesday, October 28, 1992 } at Property Owner's Home (Joanne Skowron) • -' 1052 Gans Road w, Lake Oswego, OR ;:y 97034 Please note that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the appliation to t development e c ,Iopment plans. r7 I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 283-0801 if you have any questions. h Sincerely, t ` ., EXHIBIT r II ( r) DINA McNALLY gStai9-42w.4 a.l8 •. . ~•♦ 0 , .. . w. • , EXHIBIT F ,, a ;r • • • 9625 NW Roseway Portland, OR 97231 October 16, 1992 Robert Mogental, Vice Chair Hallinan Hghts. Neighborhood Assn. 1170 Hallinan Ct. . Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Pre-Application #PR43-92 Dear Mr. Mogental: I am the daughter of, and I am representing theproperty We are considering proposing a minor partition o this rparcel of into2 Gans Road. Prior to applying to the City of Lake Oswego for the necessary permits, I w two lilike to discuss the proposal in more detail with the members of the neighborhood association '. and surrounding property owners and residents. Per the requirements of LOC/49.301, you are invited to attend a meeting on: Chapter { Wednesday, October 28, 1992 y •. •1 r 'r at Property Owner's Home (Joanne Skowron) • 1052 Gans Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 r•. Please note that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary develo ' These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to h ye cit , pment plans, I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 283-0801 if you have any questions. Sincerely, b14--,.. VI,k.4/(01i/L • `" DINA MCNALLI` • . ., pp • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING November 28, 1992 • ATTENDEES: Sunny Want ;1"-: i+ir. & Mrs. James Hinzdel) ••', ` Paul McGuire 1065 SW Lund Street David Yett 1038 SW Gans Street Karen Ariens 1038 SW Gans Street Mr. & Mrs. Carl Lauerson 1023 SW Gans Street Dina McNally Developer Joanne Skowron Property Owner David Bantz OTAK • . David Bentz, Planner for OTAK, Inc., began the meeting at approximately 7:05 p.m., with a brief explanation of the proposal. It was explained that the proposal would result In one additional lot accessing from Wells Street, no vegetation would be removed from the drainage way and that a variance would be needed since the proposed parcel would not access a public street. It was also discussed that a"future street plan"would be submitted to show that the proposal will not preclude future development of other parcels in the vicinity. " �rSTIONS/ISSUES RAISE BY NEIGHBORS: David Yett - Does development involve Gans Street? t" • • No, • M• Mary Sue Lauersen - What design will house be? • • Tranditional saltbox, Paul Mquire - Your development is acceptable to me although I have great concern about • future development on Tax Lots 100-600. I want to make sure that the future street plan is acceptable to me. I am also concerned about second growth Douglas-fir being maintained and if I may be impacted by a local improvement district as a result of development in this area. • Sunny Wann for Mr. & Mrs. Hinzel- What size house are you proposing? Approximately 2700 square feet. When will development occur? ," At this point, we have no way to determine if or when it will occur although we hope for early spring. • • How long will Well Street be the sole access point? That has not been determined. EXHIBIT 4345ticx.MTG ' L VZ C2 " 0 1192,04 19 IlAVAa.,11i-`o.: - EXHIBIT G P • • What about sanitary or sewer system and any new underground or above ground utilities on Wells Street? • Sewer connection will be at west end of Wells;sewer already in place and all other utility hookups will be at west end and not affect Wells Street adjacent to your home, u • The meeting ended at approximately 8:40 p.m. • • • • • • • • • • • • • :.r r • • 43351NEIGH,MTG 2 1192,04 • SOLAR ACCESS EVALUA•1'IUN _ IIASIC Itiif)UIItIiMI N I'IA)IS SU1.AI(111.1)0 LINE l.UIS I?XI MI''i'LOI:S •••• """_"'" "' lixbling __. . .�.v II/S Dimension Orientation Existing Street 1'ck N Lot N In Feet In l)cgtcea DiaIsnoa Orientation 2026 Exemption Iknally/Coal Amenities Shade Pattern Notes 2 t1'. c ' • • • 4 • • • '' EXHIBIT • I J L.....„,,,..4.113 1. ...•nun; r ... ..• m •IUI'nLNofLulr�• � . ,. � �. _� 2 LOI'. Meeting Haslo Iletlulteutettl 2 k Solar Lots.• LOTS Meeting Solar'Wilding I.1.;o ti w.. " . ..• % Solar Lola- Ioo LOTS Acquiring Perfottrnnoo SI.tidmtdi d ,_ W • « » cl utr 1 O'I'S Using 20% ., lit nitti • 1.0I'S [;xctnplet!tot e r • • w Lot Line Adjustment Fee; S475.00 Minor Partition Fee (Administrative); $1,000.00 Minor Partition Fee (Hearing Body); S1,000.00 - t el MINOR DEVELOPMENT : •: LAND USE APPLICATION for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OR ADMINISTRATIVE AC TION OWNER *APPLICANT ,: .VXE -xt.r,nr.� �� ..k.or om, NAMES tza i',, z -�--� ADDRESS iosz Cx11,-Is COMPANY STATFtr)s; Zlpq ADDRESS ITX�,.©. STr1TF=L ZIPq`tc , NE (? ,-gZG4 PHONE , - 1 1=SCRIPTION OF PROPr lY (TOTAL PROPERTY) `"-- TAX MAP 2 I 5. t O Up TAX LOTS(S)ICixLOT SIZE qq � or 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, METES AND BOUNDS (ATTACH COpyAcres/Sti,lrt.) PLAT NAME LOT BLOCK ) F=^PERTY OWNERSHIP LIST For minor partitions, attach two sets of labels listing the names and addresses of the owner of properties located within 300 feet of the subject roe sped renters ownership list is incomplete, this may be cause for property ng the hearing o oadmins If tratipye decry ".= e decision, ;;� , ' :' • fp EXISTING I r1 LA-el.1 1-, PROPOSED 1 EXISTING STRUCTURE I / - 12OT DES�RIPflQN t. :� 'PhEHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION ` •'` IBORHOOD ASSOCIATION _ �:.. _ ` =�_., OUS ACTION .. .� . �.� .� EXHIBIT • TILE N0, RECEIPT N0. PRE "�P MEETING \ t�� RECEIVED BY DRB OR PC HEAR]NG DATE RECEIVED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CO1.4PLETENESS CHECK DATE FINAL ACTION TAKEN PROJECT COORDINATOR _ 1.•' - '. �..t to an on-site inspection by an employee of the City of Lake Oswego, Property Owner's Signature 111 \Jo 441•(.6C.)1 " ,4 ;it; '. ipi....,_ Property Owner's Signature ~: : :piicant is not the property owner, he must attach documentary evidence of his authority to act .as .,w ,,,c , application r u r • * EXHIBIT I CLASS I VARIANCE t+ee: �s.00 MINOR DEVELOPMENT LAND USE APPLICATION for ADMINIS'TRATIYE ACTION • 0 s . -' DMIEi3 *APPLICANT z u; NAME..Jc:In -) --_, _e7vr.:1-m NA .T \1L L 1 5r7 ADDRESS IDS2 C tv,, >-Z4:4 COMPANY Cf7T, t j_,--,G CITY L.o. STATEoP_ ZIP ADDRESS t'''.1' $SIGNATURE c_ �1l4�44•; _.5'6 (I P4 r CITY 1- .o, STATEoL' ZIPq'}f �- , ' PHONE G '0-,3'1ct4 PHONE C3 - �1 4R DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (TOTAL PROPERTY) TAX MAP Z l 1 t7r TAX LOTS(S)Jct LOT SIZE_ .�q,__ ,y- Y °T (Acres/Sq.Ft.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION, METES AND BOUNDS (ATTACH COPY) PLAT NAME LOT BLOCK PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LIST For minor partitions, attach two sets of labels listing the names and addresses of the owners and renters �v" of properties located within 300 feet of the subject property ownership list is incomplete, this may be caus for posttponning the hearing or administra If thetive property 'SE decision, EXISTING 1 :1-.31r- •crxt-,-„ley 1-n► ROPOSED -:_r, Lv -,11>) 1-�cs .s } EXISTING STRUCTURE(S) 1 d t.,k,e.l.i't N--,�-� JZ PROJECT DESCRIPTION A • r 1t�rt--- ,►-4:1 `(,ot -, -4-- ca-oG-t� 'i L .,-.-t,_,ri 1 c-.s."i- uG►i'-1czk1^1.--.,P -J -, �'f 7•-®.C _.1.19 --1,,-?1-`, i C,�j_Y . 1' 7 A t Y•_11^v- 2.S'�5 r }� yr . 14,C Sz.j C.�x) LA 1%11�,c- ["] ["1_-1 . ‘--4,/['J1''�.'�.}'�i 1 lr_�l_-6L1:—, ` q ZONING 2- 15 J 'may l`'' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DES IGNATION 2- • • EIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 141.1 1 ir- 1�, E X H I B I T 1• PREVIOUS ACTION �1,-,e, I • ' DONOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE hf-9z�Veu.t��+ • • FILE NO, �' PRE—AP IviE,ETING , RECEIPT NO, DRB OR PC HEARING. • RECEIVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION• DATE RECEIVED COMPLETENESS CHECK DATE___ FINAL ACTION TAKEN PROJECT COORDINATOR I consent to an on—site inspection by an employee of the City of Lake Oswego, Date , l S, Property Owner's Signature 4 CA.ILGt-6e( )%'t ‘J- LZUi i?..-.,, Date Property Owner's Signature *If the applicant is not the property owner, he must attach documentary evidence of his authority to act as see;:: in making application, , • h u EXHIBIT +I • • As the owner of Tax Lot 1000 21E 10DD, which is the subject of a minor partition and Class I variance, I hereby give OTAK, Inc, the authority to act as my agent in making the above mentioned application, • $ 10a/a/i1t,(.. )S/ ftJ 7-"� //, 3- q z._ Property Owner Date • • • • • �'4! • ` . r f. • • k? ' • EXHIgtT i41411) ts • • • • •J_1 t • 1• r Y EXHIBIT K ' • •. a o' r Construction inspection & Related Tests Carlson Testing, Inc. ' P.O. Box 23814 • ` Tigard, Oregon 07281 October 1, 1992 Phone(503)68�!•3480 '! #CP-7875 FAX#684•0064 :I. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT DATES COVERED: September 30, 1992 PROJECT: McNally Residence ADDRESS: 1052 Gans Road INSPECTOR: M.F. Schrieber, P.E. a. 09-30-92 : CTI representative visited site this date as requested. I understand that the property will be split into two lots with dividing line to be surveyed along a drainage course that courses easterly through the property. • The property north of the drainage course has a house already present. The property south of the drainage course is heavily wooded. From my visual observations of the property, I did not notice any tension cracks or leaning trees, so the ground south of the draw appears stable and capable of supporting a residential r structure with footings designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1500 to 2000 psf. I recommend that a Geotechnical Engineer be present during site clearing/excavation to confirm that loose ' material is not present beneath footings . Our reports pertain to the material tested/inspected only. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office. If there are anyfurther questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. .�,, ,�� Respectfully submitted, ;_" ft % CARLSON TESTING, INC. ir (;),y/A....4 j F: . . mew ' e- Michael F. Schrieber, P.E. , ..;y a iv- ��f Vice-President MS:llo P``' Geotechnical Engineering �, S i' y cc: Dina & James McNally 1 EXHIBIT a,r '� 19-42\V/ 1aA0 .:, f. • EXHIBIT L . ;w s . , /.. e t , " . . ,, . . . , , , v c.zch"• ..... .. _ ._ „ DEC 4 c oneco� 2 . ���^ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '` December 11, 1992 • Elizabeth Elliott M .. . . P. O. Box214 LEXHIBIT Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 z6' . p: . 11.42 • RE: Extension of Chapin Way ►1Gw.d�-y2• Dear Ms. Elliott; I have prepared the enclosed plan in order to illustrate a possible extension of Chapin Way to Wells Street. The extension would be situated partially on your property and partially on Tax Lot 600(we have already obtained a future street easement from the . .. ..'' 0 owners of Tax Lot 600 as a condition of their recent lot adjustment). As you are aware, we have a Mending partition application for the Skowron parcel (Tax _ `fit. 1UU)� In order for their application to be considered complete, they are obliged to demonstrate that they have adequate access to their lot. It is the City's position that o � 5 Chapin Way should oe extended to provide access to the Skowron par l parcel. Without question, any future development of your parcel would require and o your of-way dedication and the extension of Chapin Way, rig - of-way We have requested that the Skowron application contain a guarantee =reservation that they would be able to secure the necessary right-of-way to extend Chapin Way. If you would be willing to sign a commitment that you would dedic3 to a 23' wide strip of land along the easterly line of your lot, we could process the Skowron application without further delay. If a decision approving the partition is rendered, you q, • would be obliged to sign the actual document that dedicates the 23' wide strips A • ` ... sample deed of dedication is enclosed for your reference, r A. • You will note that my sketch projects the existing 20' wide pavement of Chapin Way in a gently curving fashion. The exact alignment has not been designed and would depend upon more detailed analysis gat the surrounding area. In any case, no more than 23 of dedication of right-of-way from your property would be required to accommodate the anticipated extension, Q ,, In closing, I need to state that your agreement to provide the right-of-way for the road p extension must be binding not only upon yourself but also upon your Successors in • iKU".\':1‘t tote • I'tt.l UIUt r I►tt\ 1t04 • 1 , +Il r 11tiN'No l)rt��;Ull'hlly4 • ► tl 41 h15.U? ll + 1:1\ 151111 t,S±tt t,H • • Elizabeth Elliott December 11, 1992 Page 2 >:• • interest,in the event that ownership of your parcel changes before the street ;' construction begins. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter,please feel free • to call me at your convenience at 635-0278. Sincerely„ • 40* i 1, �.�•:!'/✓'� ' • `" , ��,,.✓_J_ Russ Chevrette Engineering Technician r, RC/kaa Enclosures • c: Mike Wheeler,Associate Planner ; Wayne Halverson,Engineering Development Coordinator tRus 92.2t<ccrc Emottl2/1 I agree to make the foregoing dedication to the public. DATED this day of 19 . Elizabeth Elliott ` • • • DEC 24 IS:2 410 . 4 0. V • FUTURE STREET EASEMENT • 4 PARTIES: °' EXHIBIT H I B I T JOHN L. and DEBBIE J. TODD (hereinafter"Todds") i ti (4s1 Grantor: Grantee: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ( i herein�,a CY I�i•'ilaYAvs.l�-9�. fter" t " , " RECITALS: The Todds own ro e p p rty in the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon described Book 678, page 684, and book 549 page 461, Deed Records of Clackamas. The Todds have applied for and received a property line adjustment approval of the above-described land from the City in case file No. SD 1-92. One of the conditions of approval was that the Todds grant City an easement for a future street and a non- access strip along portions of the property. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: • GRANT OF EASEMENT k The Todds, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grant and convey unto the City an easement ov under the following described real property situated in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon. See attached Exhibit "A" for Legal Descriptions. • .: ... 0 PURPOSE OF EASEMENT This easement is granted for the purpose of prohibiting vehicular access to Pacific • Highway, also known as Highway 43, and to establish areas in which a future street may be built, in part or in whole, if development of adjacent property(ies) requires the • construction of a public street as deemed necessary by an official action of the City. • i EASEMENT TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Todds covenant to and with City that they will not in any manner interfere with or restrict City's ultimate use of the easement. - Todds acknowledge and agree that the grant of this easement is an encumbrance on 1 Tract 1 of attached Exhibit "A" that imposes limitations on the use of the property which include, but are not limited to the fact that building setbacks are required to be measured from the limits of the easement as if the easement areas were dedicated public rights of way. Todds acknowledge and agree that any improvements currently or subsequently placed 0 In the easement area as driveways, irrigation, or other landscaping improvements, are !'so placed at Todds' own risk, and that Todds shall promptly remove or relocate any improvements placed in the easement if so required by the City to accommodate the construction of future street improvements, and that the cost of removal or relocation of such improvements shall be borne by Todds " • Todds acknoNledge and agree that, if the easement area is found to be in excess of what is required to pr^perly construct a future street, than Todds shall not oppose an •92 39146 • , „.. . . . ..t. . . 1 • • • official act of the City vacating or otherwise abandoning its interest in all or a portion of the easement areas. `. Todds acknowledge and agree that until such time as the easement areas are improved and accepted by City, property taxes shall be the responsibility of the owner of parcel 5 upon which the easement areas are located. This agreement is binding upon the parties and shall run with the land described herein and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective hairs, successors, ':. i and assigns. h •1 This agreement may be altered, amended, modified, or terminated only by a writing signed by both parties or their respective successors and/or assigns, In the event of any legal proceeding or arbitration is commenced for the purpose of • interpreting or enforcing any provision of this agreement, the prevailing party in such proceeding shall be entitled to recover a reasot,able attorney fee in such proceeding, or any appeal thereof, to be set by the court or arbitrator without the necessity of hearing ` testimony or receiving evidence, in addition to any costs and reimbursements permitted by law. • • • •• • p• clad-4e ,{. • • • 4;. f5 1 • • • • i. • • • • • $ • 40 , .• • • • yUg%..• • • ` STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. .: ,: COUNTY OF 3'�...4_ ; On soh ,19 2' , before me personally appeared the above '` ,� To�..�. and . . • acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be h ; voluntary act and deed. ,., `YommOle .� OFFICIAL SEAL .�+ KATHY AVERY `t 'rr- NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON c. `, COMMISSION No. 002618 ��' '� tr MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.31,1994 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires 1t,.31-`" M: STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF ) On 5V,.-�— 1 S ,19 `� �", before me personally appeared the above r . :, named 0 �b1o;e._ .TocA.c1-- and • •: acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be tie. " voluntary act and deed. 0!;L"'w OFFICIAL SEAL •�,ccf+�►i 14 KATHY AVERY �. COMM ISSION PUBLIC .OREGON '\ �—I 002618 Notary Public for Oregon 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.31,1994 My Commission Expires 10-•31-qk-' ; II • STATE OF OREG N ) • • )ss. COUNTY OF ) , On• , 19 , be me personally appeared the above named and r acknowledged the foregoing instrument to • voluntary act and deed, , • " . 1 ` r . • • , Notary Public Oregon • My Commission Expires ; It 992,21<theVtritc>reanctivc.coVena nt • • l ` J • EXHIBIT"A" v • Future street easement 1: A 28 foot wide strip of land adjacent to and parallel with the ' east and north lines of, and entirely within the tract of land described as Tract 1, below, andr 4 Future street easement 2: A 20 foot wide strip of land adjacent to and parallel with the ' west right of way of Pacific Highway No. 43, and entirely within the tract of land 0 . ` described as tract 1, below, and Future street easement 3: A 20 foot wide strip of land adjacent to and parallel with the .`v west right of way of Pacific Highway No. 43, and entirely within the tract of land described as Tract 2, below, and . Non—Access strip: A one foot wide strip of land along the west right of way of Pacific , g Highway, No. 43, within the tract of land described as Tract 1, below Tract 1 BEGINNING at the intersection of the north line of the plat of Hallinan Woods and the centerline of Chapin Road located in the F.A. Collard D.L.C. No. 46 in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 10 and the S.W. 1/4 of Section 11, T.26., R.1E., City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon:, Thence N 85'28'29" E 304.87 feet along said north line; Thence, continuing along said north line and the north line of Deed Fee No. 88-06040 • Clackamas County Deed Records, to the west right of way of Pacific Highway (State '', Highway No. 43) N 85'20'06" E 350.59 feet; Thence along said right of way, N00'32'38' 25.10 feet; Thence leaving said right of way, S85'20'06"W 365.96 feet: Thence N00'35'35"E 180.52 feet to the south line of Deed Book 504, Page 321, Clackamas County Deed Records; Thence, along said south line, S83'40'441W 294.18 feet to a 3/4" iron pipe at the N.E. coreast line eof said Book 54�agpagee 5145 CS00 38 p0"kamas Et196 Deed ' Records; Thence, along the • feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Tract containing 1.55 acres more or less. Tract 2 BEGINNING at the intersection of the north line of the plat of Hallinan Woods and the U` centerline of Chapin Road located in the F.A. Collard D.L.C. No. 46 in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 10 and the S.W. 1/4 of Section 11, T.2S., R.1 E_, City of Lake Oswego, ''H Clackamas County, Oregon;Thence N85'28'29"E 289.00 test, along said north line: Thence leaving said north line, N00 35 35 25.11 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N00'35'35" E 180.52 feet to the south line of Deed Book 504, , '' 321, Clackamas County Deed Records; Thence along said south line N83"40'44" E 363,28 feet to the west right of way of Pacific Highway (State Highway No. 43); Thence, along said right of way, S00'32'38"E 190,76 feet; Thence, leaving said right of way, S85 20 06 W 365,96 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. • x Said parcel containing 1,55 acres more or less. • O O V K .t „ .. r�C w .. (f1a 2,2)<chaWwlerlald.aObi. J ; `.1i ,�r yin y Y 4- ,l , U.....10 4.t•-•,"*.‘''P:1.1,s,..I;t:l-i-Z NA..,/„,'".'6)".4i,,,,‘,U...,.c',':: ,-...:3":.4„i- U It ' t r 4' „ ,u pro.'\`', O Y.,' ` t v r T.i . r = du1 'i S . . y ` Q -2 ?17 cn _C L •. , 0 0 1.1 to 0 . IU 3/411, 41n Hilt) ION 1t 0 W '11 II) 5/Dill I o ' 1'IIOI'OS1 a 1°1 ` ul • 10 I OM LA51 MIN 1 I Olt 111(1 11'i Nil NAM 557 46' i nog C) it 1 ILII11NL NIGH) W WAY •, I I 1 w 261.22' I d 63'IKI'llo' W 00510') ` 1' • ,\ I16 N1( Illlll) (IIIIIIK 5111 1'AGI •Jll) 3U3,2B *. Tom" I in Z 1I..N0U �'4C1 i:�' 03 }- I ' '< ,,r• N ?JA 111 �.l . ��)(� / l J� rr�S ' -� • \ lF l .' III 1/1`II' IiiIII r` ,i ( (ROOK 549 I'ACf: 461) c ` `� 1jj11` I m I ,1,r1 T I•/•tl, rnI )' n 1 i I N N• C.) N 0r14'.11. I a4 32' 1.111 )')_.V 'n r, , 1 m v ci ¢i I • '_ t.11 \'t L%ISTUIC I IN1 in �' l , :� ) {l' 305 6U1 %. ( 1' lti 440lid N U�'2U'O(1" 1 IU! ul t. ri 0') �' ,, • A50.00'l•ULCI)) t'IlOI,UbIO 7O 0`ui ,j •t p/ l ) l 122SK1' ' f 03'4O%sr L (N 03'l10'DO• 10 1001 I'NIVAII SANIIAIIY I in Ctl o' 1 C��l SLWLN CASfMLNI IT)R 11iACl I M nl 7U if ) 4 , ul 1.1 . 50O ..u. ♦ ,NI a- 1 II, ) (000K 6711 I'ACL 664) I, , l%lbw))) IINLr I) ` U s atlit U0' w .0. ,. 't 0O• , 145) 01 u I t'1 I llO OSLO hilt f0 2 IP 34 27 ! I J'n '() 1 ' 1.1 . 1)00 o ' INI1)At P0141 ♦ ♦\ R Nl I (1100K 6/U I,Atil 1,84) IIALIINAN WOODS 4l,01" ,. • La N 85'13'12' L 355,97 1 25,1U` vl P1401051O 10 2t' S fib 2 W 1 . , I tl U5'16'41' L 111 1001 G10NM OIMOLAUL •Q CO 5/0'llt 123 24' l ASCMLNT ft) 1/2'IP 350.59` 1610P0,LI) $ 65'2l)06 W I I UUT NWI ACLI!rS) ID 1/2'll Y III S/U'IN IICIO (Olt L011111 OIL 11J 711 CO ]/PII' / sIR11 fl 05'20'06' C U 3U' 11401.1 3o4.6T s e1 lo'.Ir [ , N O.w AS rL11 P 5 u165 • 1 $ Bb'20'29" W I 1.5T 1.1 . Ei.)OU • II) beirllt, (f I l p UU O6040) ).S ?.; N 043131 w 0We I O"l 4 I ()1 .' ` 1 O I 1 1O1 3 (rLt r 65 186191 --- I A (III M tit, 1113•,U) till 0 U! 1351) (ILL M 87 210!!) • t IAI I IN WOLTh IO II I I ce (10)0 ; v A EXHIBIT 2U(26) 1'9-44/0a,1SAL` . • NARRATIVE: lilt I'UhIUbl UI II lb 90NVIY IS ICl ISIAUlibit UU IIUIINI)ARY IINtS roll I'ARCL15 ULbL11til0 IN MO UU0k 5/U I'ALI LEGEND: I ' . GUI ARO 000lt 549 PAGI: 461 ION A PNUPINIY I AU,A0,11.11N1 REFERENCE DESCRIPTIONS: a Si 5/U'wall' INUN Roll W/ItIU PI ASIIC �, APPIRIA0 in Olt CITY W IAM_ 05W1CU I'IAIMING 01PARINI!HI (:Ai' ill'430 'Cf1tl1Rolllr cowl,Is IIIC ` 101 110 s11 192 1100K 67U PARC 68A 000K 649 PAOt 491 if 1011110 5/11" Ik(NN IIUU w/10.I1 PLASM OIL DAbib UI 1111Sr !MINI) 15 9)11I51I NU I'S 21U/I CAI' SCRI11111 "WI II III lilt COMA'r'1S INC' IIII0 N1111 lilt 01ACKAMAS Conti)) 'iI1NV11ON'S UfIICI I(111NN ) 0 I(111110 MUllliMiIll AS 110110 • MUNIIMUllb AS NU111) III SAID SINvLY P5 238/1 IICI11 9Al1' 11 1 0 01111 DI'(All01 k UTAl11N0S Mg11l1MIN1S Alto IOCA1lII I lilt AS Ilk API•IUlSAI ( ) SEX III ILIUIRA S • OASIS 01 IIIAIIIN65 I0I1M sllitVI f 111) I'S .,1l1/I, IP,111. III • IIIUII N0I1 II, WON PIN • • ' Nt1O MONIIMINIs rot 1111` Wt'SI 11f11 UI UUUk Uhl PAUI 5U� DEFERENCE $URV $; NUW a NIGI11 W' WAY 1 , Nltt10NI1 'AIM IS AND N)11111MI Nil Ds 110NJ II AIi,AMA'. I.... MI Jy JI1' CITY Of(AKE OSWEGO P.0.Oos 369 1,1 lake Oswego,Otepnn 91034 • to 3/1111 Fyn r/ ', KID loR ROw ✓ Fl ti/R'lt 3. a y � on6'i. ( wclV 6 e • �� Icy 1 M 1\yp1INEI�� I l 10U 125 1211 w 063101 657.n6 I; 201 22' • �, 65'An'nn" �-- 363.26' r I to I AN T'., ela N I (U0014 549 I'AUI' 461) •c '� °1 C. ,x 111 a I N 0 .'I ( I �, tlp I O I.(' ) I 1 �' c)a in I)J > ,n wu I G' • • ;'+fit, •�4) I t> U "' I. t+ ill + 1fi�fin' N 115 20'06' E 8 ini1 nJ'oU'lx)" 4611U0'1 UCl'U) 4AU,6U P1101'05E11 2005' iry a1 U I K I L 10 00T PRIVATE SANITARY 'Q UO' (�, 171 114 11J'4l1'Jn• t (N �. I. ��)�) 5LWt� EA,EMINT tOlt iRACt 1 tl go.rl (U04' '6/U PAC.0 ono) ,, 5 4o'2o'O6' W' , V • IS11NG IINI r) 1'110I'05LO 11NL 1 U IP ri 34 Y1' \ ;OI ,SOT • Li INIiIAI POINT IIAl11NAN WOODS .25 10' `�) In 11 U�13'i2• L 1 10 21' 1'ktx'ostN r s et'2o os '‘All./1 ,1011M OFOONALI o 1'11 5/8:IR J/ • ' IU 1/'1'll �50.59' PRoI'OSED 10 1/211, 3 lAS1MCN1 I ` 1067`I'(I06.70'1' 1 100T NON-ACCESS ACLU E01t SUlllll TINE -•- " �' 9 65'20'O6" W s1RlC, • lu 3 4`m _/ Nos 20'06• E n an' ETtc1M • , k 0• AS PIN I S 1/265 3n'1 IV S nl1nJ)' E f.l . 656h 1, I 1 5T 47 f n•Ik t j I (ILL / on 00040) • r,4'31'31' W 0 0n' I (/ `�. (10 I I f) 1 I (It) N U5 1004n1 at 0 n' 4391) (ILL / NI 1101/) I IAI I II1AI I WO(1I)`+ (2U)U) "• I u N L a:1 AUI ISII INC LEGEND: i•. DEED UUtx< 6/n 1'At.1 , 0 5E1 S/t3 .30' Ntt1F4 NOD W/I1LU I'IAS1t. • t 1Y 140E Al 1L41Nt REFERENCE DESCRIP71ONS. ANInNU UI PAR IMINI 11001( OM PAGE 0114 CAP 5C11IUC0 "CUM kt NE CONELPS I INC' 110UK ,49 PAN 491 1r I Ul111U S On tROtl kW W/CILU C l MAIL • N.( PS 210,1, LAP SCRIUEI) "CLN131(11NE CONCEPTS 01L' xr I ' WI Mimi • 1011110 M04100EN1 AS No1L0 San NCI U I' ( ) Ill00111) 111S1AN12.S k OLAIUNUS , • N.,.rA1 SITE NIITNENiES • H .. 410 •' f ` 411 ill) . r r . i r �v . ' " . • • ` N. December 29, 1992 ~;f eeY D l V City of Lake Owego ;/ Development Review Board , Michael R. Wheeler, Staff Coordinator DEC 3 0 ISc , ;., Re: Case File No: SD 19-92/VAR 13-92 Hearing scheduled January 20, 1992 Dear Mr. Wheeler: We will not be able to attend the hearing but wanted to let you know that we have no objection to the proposal of dividing the Skowron property. , They you . 4., Pat Instenes Jerry Instenes 324 Laurel Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ',. N.. ... _ fit• .. • • EXHIBIT Q l .' 4 r „ r r: • • ,i • d • S,u a • • • • - • • • • • • • • • 0 ® , • • • • • 1 . .. .., .. r.. � ..... -.�. . J. _... Off- b- S-. .r.•. lr •. I / /• •CVi1 r+� — I'/./ ._-. ( 110 I CIIINri . " " -. -1-.7.--,c....-:;....... -•"'•.----`" \ "-"..... ' 0 ,------------v , .............., s,.. yam. 'i ao ti r P.• �Cl rt'� , ., . a : .. . . ,..„ . , \R •,- .Z 40 a' � o -r0oj F ' �_ �� LAKE . I - i 1 f �' Q. 4 \ I '...: 1111. 'i �� di>SITE. t A , 't�, N111 "1 • ......... � � � O �� V/ /N/TY /`'.7 ._ •� Vt .N T G.• Yz.� `1r� Sor.pu II tiliglilr ‘ '' > In yra p , �..� . r, • Ohl. a!e�01 //' I W �� „a., oA I °1 \'t\1 nuNn. / \ 946 14,0,9 III. . t w / . //CAG STRL'�cI7- 5e.c T/O/Y ' \ � .V 7, G, I • w g:c G" .46 7, t OW 4.5R A/ /y/FALL�'Avd, /.5'690 6✓Nµ,..:1,1rG«.G:. ��..� .oCyyL6 &c 1•vG 7- L/NN, r •Pc'. 7"c d..4., vJ r<-,?.*0...,.,e ' ,p:a.vv_.3,-, VA-44g ASOG. %V os.5o 5w . .t:v ,: ,. 4 • .J�GIN4 ...1.Q 4 d_ 4 AV 7 ok1,GWE 97005 r4'''•741 < ESGT.9';.'cYA/ -1x' L 7 v.*•00,4,400, -'7d v- ?CV" / .d4 , r e �-Ac e-4,.a4S GG>L,:v7Y Crr�o0..v `?. .Jexe, ,F.•'/6r ZGW6/1./S'5 2© ,..50 A9e7 5 F..W/N. ../.v.7.!'r'E.,-,-.!.'7 •, 4 .0 v,f0.)6E.6 ...re, 6.wGt.E i.•LN/6.y 3r/.sGv✓/S/o.�/ .:4e0.,,"C'Ci .:.'.4.4r •, . P9� ,/yr4ci�Ie•v-t t:rr 7a =+7z2..=?N .�.i%d�4.4.4 6E /:.0 r r •;?..sE.c. ; EX Cl I B I I LV,C Yi.'ar 7Y3-":...crf To GrTY ro.,•.,,c..G i wJ G c' ..r..s.A./d..-�r7a z. . 1 22 C ) s,:v.*'f. c,7'Y el... e.+*K.e ,.�vt.,e a, )li•12..\ ia.:12,. _ .o • --';.----''''' /..,.. .......i. ..e •c-,„ NI "F D __ „. 9Ntf' �1j n.I C°�'.rt Qfi« b ICY' .- 91918 , •• . . -�-� .... = ;-1.� �� MAR • •`/ 'J� """ PLANNING DEFT. ' 1 ti' • 11.1fti II i R+ r:. 14 r`1 1II I ,, III 1 ii .. U 11, IA . 9 �' _ b U I o 10 1 I • 1 y� ,l w Apo _ �--s o i --- 8� 8 o I LI * • >o...� \ • .,.� y k \„. „..,) ,..,.,,,c3 q.5.• ',10. 00 SjA. , 'a ."' .1'^ :.C"1„\\ I bi \ 1 q ig ' ' 's . . ' ' \\ \ '.\\\ L ,, \, \ • II \ s . .„ ,. ,.,, .) 1/4 • , \ '1/4 \ \ ...... \icy., ,..\. ... g_ Am - , 7. 1 — \T . . u, , „ \ .. 4.1 . \ '‘. II .V \ i, 1 \ �, ,4 I J ' \ e �� r , 1 I1 1 , �, sa - j ( 1 u;l I • : 65? r 1\ 1r1 I, ' 0 . 0 .. . t , HAWTHORNS DRIO/Ecy R11H 1 ,,.,A1 y11.,Y,, .,`,.. `• , - L^ -_ u • N .+ ' ,J t' Ih Iln lA .,• OI `:.ni �.,,• ..,, VIIU1 . `" I(1 ./ 1. _ It i `X.. ♦II O K4 \ O'BRIEN I 1, • rl I w ; 1 01 l ,^r r. ...e•.MF. rtl«g Iai � ip 1.611E 1 11 . 0 ,� 1i• «1y.7 I �....u.�... > ...w,..,... ... »..s.N . ,4110.}.� ,,,.. ........C�. ..11 a. ... . , .,.,..,. .1.,..1, .-. ...•,. ror� 414 c> ! 1. .'� u �> i ',P i7 , 1 a 6 1' I 1 .7 , (1,,. •q y 1 1. • .I. '1 I :in .'1+ 1 Q .1 I. Ill o t 1 1[ <t . 11 • ... •.., i 'I, I 1w 1, IAr I•I i 1 1 I,, , • i 'Is. t r ' t• I I, t la 4 e ,; 1, I I I 'h • d1 II li t, , esI ; a;,GANS1 I,I.,A. I.i C \ 41 1• ,d I I 01 1�• .Y 1•, , D i 1. F • N. r 111 + ROAD \A_. , ,. • i \ 11 s PAN • .T r.a •- ,•+ t ' •• !11 1,1 it\ i ',.r. 1 i 117 J I f I ..,i , \ p ii,1 r I I,I I i.. + •I p,uu '11 ` I I yyy,,,���ILl. , (, I 1r 1 1/ ,� t IIt''l7 +i ;� i s 1 1 I. i• ,,� i ( ILI,,,I 1$1! 1 1;LUND , ; . ( I. .lio I 1 I r 4 ' 1 " I I •1 1 .;11 ,i w ' li 11 I • 1 II7 P' , + r y10 , 1. • • f� I an ........Si �,! 11 1111 i 17 • '1.1 1' 1 ,, '� 1i , h'' 10 :I' • �1 I 11 -•'; 1 �I . I i ,,,BULLOCK . . I' 1 Qp 1 r'. 1 V ,u( CU7 i; •1 1• 11t 1 ' �� • C N 1 1 ' I I iI 1 I.'� 1711 1. Ir . ' a ,• ��r,,,„ • I li v_ 1 ;\ I � �I _• . ,bill '... ": I . , + . .• ''1' _ • b, • '�r(�I 'I •' I'A C I I IC ST I IW Y. No�r k.t _,,.._.,. . .,.. - ......,,.FE1 AY I , 01 104 .` _. _... r. • _ i 1/ • ^ / ti. •1• • /Yet 1 p YID" . • 1 • • t ' 0.4 r 1' • 0 i f � r • IYr .1 • • • • • • r . /�• +. dl ' CITY OF LAKE OS►' "EGO Tuesday, May 21, 1991 X H I B I r ITY CC 77Vf`TT �A-�,�,.T,,,, `7 C LTG Mz rrEL5 L. 2__3___ J Mayor Shenker convened the City Council in executive session at 5:30 it to ORS 192.660(1)(e), employee evaluations. Councilors present were Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, Holstein, an The executive session was adjourned at 6:00 p.m, d Colvin. Mayor Schlenker convened the City Council in work session at 6:02 .m discussed their goals as related to the budget. Discussion centered P Council need for additional funding for an associate planner position in the advanced around the ne section. The meetingadjourned at 6:50ed g the planning r regular meeting. p.m., but was continued following the Mayor Schlenker called the regular City Council meeting to order following adjournment of the Redevelopment Agencymeetin • P s 8t Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, p.m., g resent were ' • ° ._� ' and Colvin. Mayor Schlenker, Holstein, • • a' & U. MINu a.ES Y a A. April 9, 1991, regular meeting.• �` '` MayorSchlenker moved for adoption of the April9, 1991 regular •meeting . minutes. The motion was seconded and passed,� with x : Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Mayor Schlenker, and Colvin voting in favor. Councilor Holstein abstained. Councilor Churchill was not present for the vote. IIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ICA.TIONS - None ,J .1 IV. PUBLIC HEARING • PA 6-90, a request for a Major Plan Amendment to the t LOC 56.140(2)and 56.150(2), to add a reference to Cie notice of requirement for developers to contact neighborhood ass cat' and remesurrounding "' ' application property owners prior to submitt,ll of an Ions 1 " r to the City (LOC 48.801);and, DA 1-91/ZC 1-91,a request for minor changes to the recently adopted Zoning and Development Code.requirements for developers p ± }• pe rs to .contact neighborhood associations and surrounding y. prior to submitting a development application to th property t esty owners The Council considered a recommendation from the Plannin Commission dd references to Comprehensive Plan major and minor amend the ' Zoning and Development Codes for Class II variances and certain types of ' • development applications that must contact nearby residents property ownersand . c City Council Minutes x' May 21, 1991 781 Page 1 of 7 , • •1 Jane Heisler, Associate Planner, presented the Council report, explainingthe • . • A , history of the applications. She said that these applications would add ass II variances and minor plan amendments to the list which required developers to notify adjacent residents and neighborhood associations. No one spoke either in favor or against the applications, and Mayor Schlenker closed the public hearing. Councilor Anderson moved that Council approve PA 640 and DA 1-91/ZC 1•-911,relying on the staff report and findings, conclusions and order of the Planning Commission. Councilor Marcotte seconded the motion and it passed, with Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Holstein, and Colvin voting in favor. Mayor Schlenker and Councilor Churchill were not present for the vote. . CONSENT AGENDA A. ORDINANCES 1. First reading by title only. a. Ordinance 2034, a general ordinance of the City Council of the 1 City of Lake Oswego amending Lake Oswego Code Chapter 14 relating to security patrol licenses. ACTION: Approve ordinance on first reading. 2. Second reading and enactment. a. Ordina nce 2026, a special ordinance of the City Council of the 411) City of Lake Oswego vacating Heather Lane west of Hawthorne Drive, Oswego Terrace. ACTION: Approve ordinance on second reading, b. Ordinance 2032, a general ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego . ;' amending the Lake Oswego Code to clarify that the city water, • sewer and surface water fees are charges for privilege of using the • city's water, sewer and surface water systems are not property taxes. ACTION: Approve ordinance oxx second reading. • $. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS • 1. Nancy P, Miller, 5115 SW West Sunset Drive, regarding widening of Boones Ferry Road "Gap", ACTION: Acknowledge letter. • 2. Mrs. Donald Hoffee, 5190 West Sunset Drive, regarding widening of u • Boones Ferry Road "Gap", • ACTION: Acknowledge letter. • • City Council Minutes May21, 1991 782• Page ..2 of r • • 1• 1 _. ... • y {r a. 3. Cards regarding Willamette Shore Trolley: a. C.E. Claycomb, 3326 SW 13th Avenue, Portland. b. Betty-Jo Morton, 4321 Woodside Circle, Lake Oswego. c. Lake Oswego resident. . INFORMATION: No action required. 4. Mary Burgess, Chair, Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, 1232 Andrews Road, regarding formal recognition by the city. r:. Action: Acknowledge letter that work is almost complete to refer to Council. Waiting for F.A.N. and Forest Highlands for okay on boundary ge char s. • C. REPORTS 1, Update on regional water study and conservation, ACTION: Information report. ' • 2. Addendum to Clackamas County E911 agreement. ACTION: Authorize Mayor to sign the addendum to the E911 ' • agreement. • : 3. Golf course publicity. ACTION: Information report. y. 4. Hazardous materials planning. ACTION: Information at this time. Staff will continue to work on this and report back to Council. Councilor Anderson moved for approval of the consent agenda. Councilor Marcotte seconded the motion and it passed, with Councilors •Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Mayor Schlenker, Holstein, and Colvin voting in favor. Councilor Churchill was not present for the vote. Mayor Schlenker read Ordinance 2034 by title only for first reading. She read • Ordinances 2026 and 2032 by title only for second reading and enactment, VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Edward and Marjorie "�+ ar�one Kirschbaum, regarding ntinued concerns with ' "' SD 45-89. This item was for information oi..;,,. For related information " see agenda item VII-B. A I3. Richard Townsend, Executive Director, regarding Measure 5 re lacemen revenues. p t Councilors indicated they wished to further review this request for financial support of administration of the League program consisting of a y City Council Minutes May 21, 1991 7 8 Page 3 of 7 , , � . V• . . . political action effort and a public information campaign on replacement of 0 , . . revenues lost through Measure 5. The request was for a 10% surcharge on the membership dues. . . Councilor Anderson moved to table the matter Councilor Holsteinseconded the motion and it passed with Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, y ... Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, Holstein, and Colvin voting in '�. favor. _ C. Herald Campbell, Chair, Historic Review Board, regarding remand of Carman Farm historic designation, Council discussion raised the following issues: Council discussed remanding the matter at their April 9 meeting and determined it was not necessary. — Mr. Condit's May 16 memorandum states that remand should only be used for material new evidence. . — There is no new evidence — The issues were taken into consideration at Council's April 9 meeting. — The City Attorney's analysis should be taken into consideration. \r — A benefit would be the direction for a more thorough ESEE analysis. — The Historic Review Board's (HRB)request should be given value. — The HRB should be given the opportunity to review the matter based upon the City Attorney's advice. — Remand should be used sparingly to preserve the credibility of the j process. — The HRB felt there was new information which was 1et considered, and that the new information could chnnge the vote. • • Councilor Holstein indicated he would abstain from voting on the matter since he had not been present at the meeting and had not reviewed the audiotaped record. Councilor Churchill said he would recommend that the underlying zone be :, ` removed for historic sites, and more flexibility be allowed for development x • of the property available as longas that develoment it was compatible with the historic deal ;•designation. He moved to direct the Historic Review.Board to proceed with a irnini trative amendments. There was no second for the motion. `'' Following discussion, Mayor Schlenker moved that Council remand • the decision. to the Historic Review Board for reconsideration in light of the City Attorney's opinion. Councilor Chrisman seconded 'the motion. Following further discussion roll call vote was taken and the motion failed, with Mayor Schlenker and Councilor Chrisman voting in • favor, and Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, Churchill, and Colvin voting in opposition. Councilor Holstein abstained . • 0 ' City Council Minutes May 21, 1991 7 4 Page 4 of 7 • _ • , , r - a �� r • r .> r •. VIL REPORTS ,. „ 0 A. Report on George Rogers Park erosion damage. Mr. Harvey reported_ that the parkin stormlot can handle the normal • water runoff. He noted that the problem was caused by an usual eve Jerry Baker,Acting City Engineer, said that the storm drains are nt. designed on a 10—year basis. He responded to a question the design of the storm drain was agood d saying about whether care was taken to design the drain and handle watery runoff. Councilor le Churchill was concerned about the the flow of water downhill, type of storm drain used, particularly Councilor • �Churchill suggested that the parking lot should be replaced with was designed to meet city standards, and that in order to use gravel, city standards must be changed. • B. Report on SD 45-89, response p nse to Kirschbaum letters. Mr. Condit reported he had researched the issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. Kirschbaum and the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association in their �, letters, He found there was no material misrepresentation by the applicant. Mr. Condit addressed the concerns raised (see pages 5-16 of the memorandum dated May 15, 1991). Those concerns were: 1. Contest of the planning staff determination that proposed parcel 3 was ° anar lot.- . 0 ) 2. Several trees over 5"in diameter were not included in the tree assessment. 3. Whether the two foot easement from the property protect the 46" specimen sequoia. line was adequate to • 4. Whether there was enough room between construct houses compatible with the neighborhood. s envelops to 5. Removal of the trees to construct three homes would destroy the essence of the Distinctive Natural Area. 6. The stream corridor was inappropriately 7. Whether the solar policy in Cater 57ould require Thee ec imen trees. q removal of a• B. The application was not placed on the Council's agenda by the neighborhood association, g as requested 9. A request by the neighborhood association to put ahold on further development of special designation lands. 10. Since this parcel was previously considered undevelopable, why was • that changed? , 11. Requested"that all development plans for special areas be publicly y reviewed by the appropriate board or commission, • 12. The review process may have been incomplete. . 13. The March 7 tree inventory was incomplete. • 14. The minor partition application was in error regardingthe slope. 15, A more explicit e. p tree inventory and better contour map should have t been prior rior to approval pproval of the application, 16. A complete tree survey shouldshowing trees over 5'' which be required 0 ' were destroyed. 'S' City Council Minutes •. May 21, 1991 Page 5 of 7 785 .. � : • 17. If the area is no longer qualified as a Distinctive Natural Area, steps 0 <, • should be taken for removal from the list. 18. Request that a hearing be held before the Development Review Board. 19. Request that all public notices involving Distinctive Natural Areas _ should include that fact. 20. Suggest that legislation should protect special areas. 21. The conditions of approval were not completed within cne year. 22. An easement was granted in the stream corridor without a variance request. • ; 23. The soils report is in error. 24. The contour and tree plans were not submitted until after the one year ' permit period expired. • 25. The flat area east of the stream is a wetland. Councilor Colvin moved that Council by administrative direction involving all major or mirnr development applications Distinctive Natural Areas to be referred to either the Plan. ing Commission or Development Review Board; and, require that whenever an application involves a Distinctive Natural Area, that fact be included in the notice. Mr. Harvey noted that those areas are included in pages 34 and 35 of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion and it passed, with Councilors Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, Holstein, and ' Colvin voting in favor. Mrs. Kirschbaum read a letter expressing concern about the stability of soils and erosion potential, , .id submitted it to Council. Council discussed .. ' the matter, noting that if permits have not been approved, • raised would be considered during the permit reviewpros the issues she VIII. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS A, Mr. Condit reported that the purchase agreement for the Iron Mountail_ property was signed. py \, • B. Mr. Harvey reported that on May 13, the Public Utility Commission requested a meeting. including the city, Southern Pacific Portland, Clackamas County, L.le State Highway Department, and Stampher Road residents and reviet.ed the crossing of Stampher Road. He said the 1 t. '� matter has been scheduled for PUC hearing before a hearings officer the week of June 24. C, Mr. Harvey reported that a derailment occurred in the Stampher Road ' area during the week. That derailment appeared to have been caused by • tampering. • D. Mr. Harvey reported that the community survey requests for proposal are• due May 24, and that a number of those interested had indicated they would not submit proposals using volunteers because they felt it changed the survey results, City Council Minutes 78 6 May 21, 1991 Page 6 of; 3 ' IX. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL A. CCI meeting requests. Mayor Schlenker said there were two requests, another meeting with CCI to discuss their work program, . with CCI and neighborhood association chairs tentatively andheduled for '':' . ''' '' 0 g , June 12. Consensus was that June 12 would be a i acceptable date. The - meeting regarding the work plan remained to be scheduled. B. Mt. Park Home Owners Association regarding meeting dates with Council and their Board. Council discussed dates, and consensus was to ask for meeting in September. a mee • • C. Councilor Anderson noted that MACC will be holding a workshop on PCN ti May 31 between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m. If anyone was interested, they were '" to contact MACC. • • D. Council thanked Yori Chizum, Chris Hubbard, Mark Dodge Elliott, camera crew. g and Lance • s n E. Councilor Marcotte said he received a phone call regarding Westlake park, ' and would like a response letter sent to the caller. Mr. Haey said staff would follow up. Several calls were received. P. Councilor Holstein thanked all those who helped with the Lake lI Cleanup May 18. • Oswego �-, t G. Counalor Holstein asked that trolley letter copies no loner be distributed to Council member., since they were included in.t,he agendas. H. Councilor Holstein announced the Council Awards Dinner would be June 26 at the Oswego Lake Country Club. held x. ADJOURN-LWENT w Mayor Schlenker adjourned the Council meeting at 10:30 p,m, Council continued with the work session from earlier in the evening, Consensus was to add the lannin f i.nd. g position by cutting an equal amount elsewhere from the general The Council also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a pathway coordinator position versus an parks project manager position. No decisions were made, Mayor Schlenker adjourned the work session , ` ' 11:30 p.m. at Respectfully "''f YSubmitted, ,, Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED BY COUNCIL: v y . it I78 • r Mayor Alice L. Schlenker , . City Council Minutes Y i . May 21, 1991 Page 7 of y • • .fi - ` � Y • � :,.. • 14"• It • p • • • r • • • • t 1 9,. 9 • . • Ri. •F A x � S 1. t •; i ♦ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO' VI A .,! c O ITN 8/06/91 �`�'' cIL REPORT e MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council ;, ' i From: Jeffrey G. Condit, City Attorney Tom Coffee, Planning Director Date: June 27, 1991 Subjevt: Minor Developments Involving Distinctive Natural Areas .s 1. INTRODUCTION At your meeting of June 18, 1991 , Planning Director Tom Coffee and I recommended that the City Council amend its administrative direction that the City Manager refer all minor development applications involving Distinctive Natural Area to the Development Review Board (DRB) for a public :.,: . hearing. We suggested that the scope of that direction ) should be narrowed to avoid irrelevant hearings . We had t drafted our recommendation in terms of items that should be referred to the DRB; you directed us items that would not be referred to the DRB . with a list of 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the following minor developments on property containing a Distinctive Natural Area continue to be staff decisions : :::::::::: 1 . Permits for structures pursuant to LOC 49 . 140 ( 1 ) (A) , (B ) , (C ) , ( D) , ( E ) , ( F) except those requiring ,3 siting decision not made as part of a prior application. 2. Condominium conversions pursuant to LOC 49 . 140 ( 1 ( t3 ) . ) x 3 . Lot line adjustmentspursuant to LOC 49 . 140( 1 ) ( I ) which . . do not create additional or expanded building opportunities on the property. 4 . Sign permits pursuant to LOC 49 .140( 1) (J) . ::: :'-,::',; ) 1 24 (.. 789 va4M..-., , . . • Memo: Mayor and Council June 27, 1991 Page 2 { 5 . Tree cutting permits pursuant to LOC 49 .140( 1 ) ( K) excepts a) A tree cutting permit which proposes removal of a • tree designated as a Distinctive Natural Area identified on pages 34-35 of the Comprehensive Plan , unless the decision to allow removal of tree was made as part of an earlier approval.; or • b) A tree cutting permih which 'proposes removal of trees on property ' containii a tree grove designated as a Distinctive Natural Area on pages 34-35 of the Comprehensive Plan, unless the decision to allow removal of trees was made as part of an earlier approval, or unless the tree grove w43 delineated and protected as part of an earlier approval and the tree proposed for cutting is not located in the area ' delineated. 6. Change of occupancy classification pursuant to LOC 49 .140( 1) ( L) . I Y 7 . Change in use pursuant to LOC 49 . 140 ( 1 ) (M) . 8. Grading permits pursuant to LOC 49 .140 ( 1) ( N) if granted as part of a prior approval or processed as part of an application for which a public hearing is held ., • 9 . Minor utility facilities pursuant to LOC 49 . 140 ( 1 ) ( 0 ) if located as part of a prior approval . ;J ' 10 . Class 1 variances pursuant to LOC 49 . 140( 1 ) ( P) , unless the variance would create additional or expanded building opportunities on the property. 11 . Minor changes to development permits approved pursuant t ORS 49 . 125 . (Minor changes need not be referred be, a'. se LOC 49 . 125 ( 3 ) provides that a requested change does not qualify as a "minor change" if it will cause deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space . Any change that could harm a DNA would . therefore have to be processed as a new application, which would be subject to referral) . , ♦q M • • • • I a_ w • I ,• i h l.+ err.. r R ��yJ R` • . `� '. Memo: Mayor and Council June 27, 1991 Page 3 • All other minor developments involving distinctive natural areas contained on pages 34-35 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan would be referred to the DRB for a public hearing. These include minorsiting partitions, of new structures, tree cutting permits involving DNA trees and tree groves, and variances which create new building opportunities. Based on Council discussions at the June 18 meeting, staff has also made grading permits and minor utility permits referable unless granted as part of a prior application. This is the major substantive change between this proposal and the previous proposal . JGC:by '` cc: Peter C. Harvey Edward and Marjorie Kirschbaum D. Roy Norris CA02.Memo.Counci 1 1• •'1 • • • 4r 4 �1 1 791 • tl ,' .fin a a , r:{ i u r.. r 14 .• . . ,,•. • • • • • • c. • • f� a : . . „ • J. • • .4 • ' I r ! I ,, CITY OF LAKE OS WEGxO Tuesday, August 6, 1991 CITY COUNCli MEE1'lNG i m tyr s EXHIBIT Work Session iw-i2.\Im.18 1L 4,;. " Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the Council work session to order at 5:30 't • Present were Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Mayor Schlenker, and Holstein. Councilors Colvin and Churchill arrived:later in the session. Special guest present r was Richard Devlin, Metro Councilor. • Mr. Devlin discussed the calendar of hearings and open houses for the Metro • Council adoption of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOS). • He said the anal hearing and adoption of the RUGGOS should take place in October. He said the recommendations of the Regional Policy Advisory Committee were forwarded to the Metro Council. Mite. Devlin explained that the most important aspect of the RUGGOS is that they will provide the framework for what will happen to the Urban growth Boundary, and will lead into He noted that the urban a plarmang process. Lake Oswego. growth boundary issue could have significant impacts upon Mr. Devlin distributed maps showing tentative exception areas and aces. • Both were in draft form. He also distribni;ed the Metal) Council reapportionment e plan l map. gave Council his phone numbers to contact him: (0) 221-1646, ° 92-5240. SD •y Following Mr. Devlin's presentation, council reviewed agenda items for the evening. Mayor Schlenker adjourned the work session at 6:50 p.m. Regular-Meeting Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the regular Council meeting to order at 8:09 p.m., following adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Present were Councilors Colvin Anderson, Marcotte, Ch isman, Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, and j Holstein, ,r IL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mike Evans, 520'B"Avenue, First Addition Neighbors (FAN), 4. submitted peitions with over 300 signatures from residents of FAN, The petitions requested: ' • 1° Closure of D and E Avenues between Highway 43 and First Street. 2° Either installation of a traffic diverter on B Avenue at Fifth Street to , redirect westbound traffic south to A Avenue; or, a blockade on B Avenue. at Fi th Street. 3. Restructuring of the "six corners" intersection of Country Club Road and C Avenue to reduce or eliminate traffic turning into the Forest Hills Neighborhood, City Council Minutes i "" • August 6,", 1991 7 9'3 Page 1 of 6 1 �: ter. • No action was taken on the request at this time. It was taken under , 10 advisement. - ,. ..._ .,,,,, ,,, , ,..,,.. IIL PUBLIC HEARING A. PA 8-89, recommendation of the Lake i ann Oswego Planning Commission. R,eferences to the Citizen Involvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan and Related Pro Recommendations for Amending the Citizen InvolvemProgram Document. U° Mr. Harvey gave the background of these amendments, noting that Jane ,,•: Heisler, Associate Planner, had been working on these amendments for " . ' two years with the Committee for Citizen Involvement, Planning Commission, and Neighborhood Associations. Councilor Anderson asked about Council's request to have minori .' reports included. Ms. Heisler stated that the minutes of the neighborhood views will be reports are d to be included with any testimony, so that minority incPublic Testimony Sid Bass, Chair, Committee for Citizen Involvement, 301.1 Westview Circle, testified that•there was public testimony on each part of the development of the guidelines. He said that neighborhoods indicated t i y could provide written materials to include minority fi ' - viewpoints. He urged Council to accept the Planning Commission recommendations. No one else spoke, and Mayor Schlenker closed the public hearing. Councilor Holstein moved for adoption of PA 8-89. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion and it passed, with Colvin, Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schlener, and Holsein voting in • favor. IV. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Holstein moved for adoption of the consent agenda as listed, plus Written Communications and Reports; except items VI-C, VI-H, VI-J, and V .B. The motion was seconded . ' ,and passeu, with Councilors Colvin, Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schienker, and . • Holstein voting in favor. Mr. Harvey noted that the motion assumed that action would be taken on all written communications which needed action. The consent agenda was as follows: A. Written u bn ommunicati ;i d • ' 1. David &Mary Jean Katz, commending Andy Barris for work on `'4 wetland areas. • ACTION: Commend Mr, Harris and place copy of letter in personnel file. ® • - City Council Minutes 9 Page 2 of 6. August 6, 1991 fi . • • v F_ . 1. 2. David E. Charles, Consul—General, Australian Consulate— ' • Genera?, expressing appreciation for hospitality. 3. Evelyn M. Snyder,Mr. &Mrs. Chas. H ,Mr. &Mrs. Conrad W.Miller, regarding petition from F�nAN to close D and E Avenues at State Street. ACTION: Acknowledge letter and refer to transportation task force Y and Traffic Control Board. c 4. Michael R. Ward, Facilities Manager, Motor Vehicles Division, regarding movement of the DMV from Boones Ferry Road to Oswego Towne Square. ,F; ACTION: Information only; no action necessary. 5. Kelly &James McCarthy, regarding increased traffic and dust, etc., on Canal Road. a_ ACTION: Acknowledge receipt of letter. 6. Ron & Carol Leonard, regarding trolley. • A ACTION: Information only; no action necessary. B. B • y 1. Information on Skateboard Park. ACTION: Information only; no action required.2. Receipt of SBA p grant from State of Oregon Department of Forestry. ' ACTION: Information onlr; no action required. V. WRITTEN C OM1VIUNICATIONS " W • A. William Hardwick, Administrator, Willamette Shore Trolley, f regarding financial report for FY 1990. ,' C. Margie Dickerson, requesting appointment of elected official to - :` Willamette River Corridor Committee. D. Afton Bender, Chair, Library Board of Trustees, regarding Clackamas County Library Plan. VL REPORTS A. Minor Developments Involving Distinctive Natural Areas. B. Local Waste Reduction Program for 1991-92. 0 79,; City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 August 6, 1991 D. League of Oregon Cities Voluntary Contribution for Local Government Revenue Program. • E. Recognition of Safeco Insurance Companies for Donation of Equipment ` ,p' ' to the Police Department. " " F. Sister Cities International Dues Increase. G. Addendum to Clackamas County E9-1-1 Agreement, L Job Description for Director of Parks, Pathways, and Open Space Acquisition and Development. LEND OF CONSENT AGENDA) V. WRITYRN COM111UNICATIO1\S B. Ted W. Keasey, PE, Project Team Manager, Oregon State Department of t - Transportation, regarding draft public hearing study report for the I-5/ 217/Kruse Way Interchange. This item was continued to the next Council meeting, August 20; 1991. VL REPORTS C. Old Town Neighborhood Association Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Waiver of Related Fees. 0 Mr. Harvey reported that the neighborhood association wished to request amendments to the Comprehesnvie Plan, and they asked for a waiver of °ees. He said that Council could either grant the waiver, waive a portion of the fees, or deny the waiver. Mr. Coffee, Planning Director, was asked what the impact on iniome a waiver of such fees would have. He responded that if the amendments were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update, it would have less • of an impact. If done with the update, the process would take two to three years. He noted there is a new senior planner on staff, and that a detailed work plan will be prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update. Jamie Elgin, Chair, Old Town Neighborhood Association, gave the neighborhoods reason for the request: 1. Proposed develoment of Furnace Street a year ago demolished one • single family residence. They would like to keep single family residences part of the neighborhood. • 2. The high cost of the fee ($1,250) would prohibit them from requesting any changes. She said that they could pay 10% of such a fee, Mayor Schlenker moved that Council approve the waive of the fee of ` $1,250,and that it be reduced to $125.00(10/0)for any neighborhood .' association. Councilor Marcotte seconded the motion. 79F City Council , utes •' August 6, 1991 Page 4 of 6 r i. ' , • Councilors voiced strong objections to there being any required fee. Councilor Churchill moved to amend the motion to approve the original proposal, and waive all fees. Councilor Colvin seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken on the amendment and it failed, with Councilors ` 1 Colvin, Churchill, and Holstein voting in favor. Councilors Anderson, • ' Marcotte, Chrisman, and Mayor Schlenker voted in opposition. �i Roll call vote was taken on the original motion and it failed, with Mayor Schlenkervoting ` in favor. Councallors Colvin,Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, , 'w i Churchill, and Holstein voted in opposition. Councilor Anderson moved to waive the fees for neighborhood associations. The motion was seconded and passed, with Colvin, Anderson, .slarcotte, Chrism, Churchill, and Holstein voting in favor. Mayor Schlenker voted in opposition. }. . • H. Bid Award for Bryant and Kerr Pathways . Mr. Harvey drew Council's attention to the written report distributed at the meeting. He noted that all bids were over the engineer's estimates. Staff recommended that both bids be rejected, and staff evaluate the • r project to determine reasons for the high bids and readver tine at an appropriate time. Councilor Churchill moved to accept the staff recommendations to refuse the bids. Councilor Colvin seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Councilors Colvin Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, and Holstein voting in favor. Mr. Harvey said that staff could be authorized to negotiate, and a • , : ' 4,• '• contract approved if there was a 5% tolerance. `, Councilor Holstein moved to direct staff to negotiate, and authorize • Ah, acceptance of the bid if there was a 5% tolerance. The motion was seconded by Mayor Schlenker. Mr. Condit noted this would expedite the y:>,,,, process, because construction could be prevented this year if staff had to go through the formal bidding process, and therefore Council found it was in the best interest to authorize negotiations. Roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, with Colvin, Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor Schlenker, and Holstein voting in favor. J. Pathways Program. This item was continued to the nest Council meeting, August 20, 1991. ', 4. VIII. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL ,` . .. , A. Appointments to the Library Board of Trustees (two), Committee for 1 .q Citizen Involvement (one), and Budget-Financial Task Force (three), Councilor Anderson moved for appointment of Marjorie Johnson and Richard Baskin to the Library Board of Trustees; Michael Larson to the Committee for Citizen Involvement; and, Paul City Council Minutes 7 9 7Page 5 of August 6, 1991 ' 177 ' • Hensler, Peter Glazer,Mark Rothwell to the Financial Task Force. The motion wassecorad. Roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, " with Councilors Colvin, ,Anderson, Marcotte, Chrisman, Churchill, Mayor • Schlenker, and Holstein voting in favor. • • IL EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(e),Under the rovisions of ORS 192.660(1)(),'evaluate chief executive ns officer Mayor Schlenker recessed the Council meeting to executive session at 9:00 p.m. Council reconvened at 11:59 p.m., following executive session, and continued the meeting until Noon on Au gust 7, 1991. Respectfully Submitted, X/72`,,A. Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder • APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Mayor Alice L. Schlenker • • • • • • 41) • . } 1 I • City Council Minutes n Page 6 of 5 August 6, 1991 Paul McGuire 106% SW Lund St. 1r.,_... Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 i • January 3, 1993 v JAN 5 1993 City of Lake Oswego ; 380 "A"Avenue ,. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Attn: Michael R, Wheeler Re: Case File: LSD 1 9-92/Var 18-92 Dear Michael, • • I am writing to express my concern and objection to the proposal outlined In the public notice regarding the division of tax lot It 1000 at 1052 Gans Rd., Lake Oswego, and the proposal of a future street to connect Chapin Way and State Highway 43, I object to Wells Street becoming a public through street connecting Chapin Way and State Highway 43 for the following reasons; 1. Traffic entering and exiting Highway 43 at three points (Laurel St,, Wells St., , Cherry Lane) creates too much through traffic in the neighborhood. 2. Safety of children walking to Hallinan Elementary School 3 Safety of cars entering and exiting Highway 43 at Wells .St • `• 4, Traffic congestion on Highway 43 due to Ingress and egress at Wells Street..• r • It Is acceptable to add one additional household to use Wells Street as a "Private Drive".However, it is not acceptable to allow more than one additional residence to utilize Wells St as • v. access to Highway 43, It is also not acceptable to connect Chapin to Wells Street or to develop Walls St. as a future public street, r a , Thank you for your cooperation In this matter. + • ti 5'ncerely, NiXE�ii ® iT ; t2(a 'aul K. McGuire .t� tlwarzr6rh�, , �i Emily McGuire . 1 Oregon State Transportation Department I R a 01, t/ .a f q • / n' •* 'a t+4 ' ' , C f Ffann C z , sr ' I ' CD � J 0�% CJanuary 5, 1993 ,. City of Lake Oswego " w m.. . . DRB u Case File No: SD 19-92/VAR 18- 2 9 Staff Coordinator: Sichael Wheeler , M We purchased our home at 16830 Chapin Way in September, 1992, ` primarily due to the heavily wooded, country, and what we thought was quiet, neighborhood. We find, after living in the house for three r. months that the traffic noise on Cherry Lane is disturbing and the • traffic noise on highway 43 is intollerable. Therefore, we oppose any changes that will result in through traffic " on Chapin Way. I repeat, the traffic noise on Cherry Lane and #43 is y ,` already disturbing to the point we cannot open windows or enjoy our f beautiful backyard. ii) . . . ... We believe a turnaround at the end of th e proposed new street in preferable to opening Chapin to th Igh traffic. Any change in traffic flow would disturb the ehp• .ter of the natural wooded neighborhood. Thank you. David and l ,� ' �� , / ; t �- '' / t ,: , , , , , . .�_...._ _. and Barbara Schramm n. EXHIBIT r #1 11,4\wb4+g•1 4 0 • - A ,'ICWAEL R. 4,414ec4.6"ae err.? F ,c LAKE ose.e‘GO 380 'A' A✓E,,0t l6r LAKE oscc) Ot o 47c3q ri":''_'" .'_ t 0 , ' 0. »..... J .. , f2E . CASE (IL( sb /9-92\v412 l9-9Z 1s EXHIBIT FJAN '5 1993 RR. W etl eEL.E�Q1 'ze 1992�w4.a45--. Pl.CASt C045/13eie 714lS LE'�i E AS 046.2 DPPfaS rT?OAJ 7V 6- oPosEb AdT/oAl , EK/-0 , APPRoVAL DC A ('.iii ooAl PA2 TI Tioal F 6, / J✓©L,V/,06 77-fkr telgoVE- 2t �' 12€.t)CE.J CASE ct4 E', 714E APPL1040TS beSii2C 7c DEVELOP 2 PARCELS f.s 4)684 As L0404 As i T MEETS 6*Xlsi/Aki cAeab 4•{S6 RE-cplf/QE-/-f ierst aboES • T /10hR/A' E GlP®AI OR /,u /949 GvA 9 bI R PT 0,2 0/f14.,JC'6 L 11)/06< C 3b t%/©,t).S S I)E.0T3 /A-) 71E• AREA /I4 V(:.' &E ACCc.ls j oME D TO. , • M -iqfg EXTEZSIDA/ Or C'/ A�/�t 1 �vA ! f 1 E � i�j}l� 1 S® iT R Q , C'o414.)E07- rt 7)-1 WELLS sr-RE-ET is AioT CA Stlit.RE'8 Ae/,vp,e sc., as . / -1 E PRoposAL. C,4usES /Or12/4(4j Jr ©rt- A /0EIQM a3oRS P2oPE2 Q. 774E Dl F'i'EREOC' S 3ETwEEN ,CESl bl,)C, 0.0 A DEAD ESL. s r R€E T VA'S A 7 {Rou6 t-1 .sT,PEEr s ocrL46 3E • OSV/DgS %v A)'r)o.6E". WE ,e10 4o/ WA,ot w Llv� J.c.) ,1 • r ST/?EEi miu-sf 406" Fa2oNAseo are )40.61 06 044/0/.c) 460q,,r1 uyE tWLL Pu2St l E WHAT-EAR AcTlhv IS,'E0 asAe P 71;) A(Al, q j, I- Q t 6,4T-. R E pRoTE'ST This P�Z��°O�,qL EQci �T �E .t .vt ED a�' 7 + EvEL00-1E4 T 26-1/1 r0 2�f3. j4, C o ,rtv . 1w,/3 1 .S. c 4APr v w A (T) , , ti! Clay i.CY,r.. :7y 4..4-141., .lc:t:t t,• • R,n J - JAN 7 1993 , , d EXHIBIT . 112c 1 ........ . . , maw ^12.�d,42.18-1 . , : , . .. . .. ..... . ,.... .. . , . .,.. . , Mi%1 JANUARY 5, 199E MI-Jack Products 16850 S.W.Chapin Way Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034E k503) 638-4378 . STAFF COORDINATOR Where service CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO is golden. 380 "A" AVENUE • LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 RE: CASE FILE ND. SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 THE APPLICANT (OTAK, INC. ) , WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE NOTED FILE NO., IS REQUESTING FOR CITY APPROVAL TO DEVELOP TWO PARCELS (FROM ONE) AND CREATE A FUTURE • STREET PLAN THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE VOLUME OF STREET TRAFFIC ON CHAPIN WAY. IN EFFECT, CHAPIN WAY WOULD BECOME THE ALTERNATE HWY 43 ROUTE ! ! ! OUR HOME (16850 SW CHAPIN WY) IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF CHAPIN/CHERRY LANE - ia-'Y LANE IS ALREADY A VERY • � , 1 BUSY ROAD, NOT TO MENTION A BOTTLENECK AS IT INTERSECTS HWY 43. WE'RE VERY OPPOSED (AS HOMEOWNERS IN THIS NEIGHS- �, ORHOOD) TO ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ON CHAPIN WAY, FOR THE SAKE OF LOT DIVIDING, TOO MANY CHILDREN, HALINAN SCHOOL; ETC. 1111 .. , : , . • �` . 1 a•, • r. s "% ':.IA, /, , 1 ,. '. i. • January 6, 1993 Development Review board Council Chambers, City Hall 380 A Avenue JAN 6 993 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 _. '. To whom it may concern, We are writing to you, to express our concern over the -u coming decision on the approvalp of a minor partition, #37 and the request for a variance to the public street minimum code of • . , • • 25 feet, which will directly affect Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required by LOC 49.120. Our concern is that there are many children, younger aged • ' especially, who use Chapin Way as an acess to the Hallinan Elem- entary School, on an everyday occurance. We are lo- , personally cated just off of Chapin Way, on Morning Sky Court, and the , affect of the new street will add much more traffic to Chapin Way. We choose this neighborhood for many reasons, but oneof • the main reasons, is that it is not affected by a busy cross street. This would ail change if the applicant's proposal is a Pp- ' roved, This approved proposal will benefit only one person, or family, and it will negatively affect our entire neighborhood. We hope that you will sincerely consider this action and the affects it has as a whole before you make your decision. Please feel • free to contact us if you would care to. Thank you for your con- sideration in this matter, ,. r Sincerely, Pi EXHIBIT Filmy M. Cohn i 3O .e,h 1'1.. Jane C. Cohn n ... . , to 9c1,24., . P • V n. . ;.o . pg JAN 6 1993 City of Lake Oswego 330 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 January 6, __ Subject : Case File 4 1992\VAR 18-92 fear Mr . MI c: ae. Wheeler . My wife and I of L fe are concerned about the propc:.:X1 before t; ' ak Oswego re erenced above o_ ... Rd . Our home is at i64r+1 2;:., _.f Like all of the families in our neighborhood that have .:mall children, we do not want street . It wo' to see Chapin Rd . become � t�,;;•3;,.�;;; a13 neighborhood ha .�.? a major impact on the :Cif GC�y, Many !fall ina:l elementary school phi l.(re n ty�mlaho,se, to enter the school gro walk °" i`" r ,: and �, ; ,. L sidewalks on Chapin, increased traffic t. �;� .heir safety as , as the ase �.� �w .;u+a ' ; Cf.. . �° children who live !i��tie From what I can cell C a '. ;bl - Hearing", ! t " t' Include*: I- i" • .. . Parcel being developed . . . SANS apN;ar that t!i'-' :: ..t 2 :o ` ... , 3ADlS Rn. . shauW •.t �r.� 3 to provide access . That should . 3 favelop:nent of any of t u apply in ; ir,+9 t . the adjacent; p u M ,. . like . . .L'iND, DULL:CK O„ 3 IENand YATES ,ro er L :;: x;.w W / t.y f In addition wouldn ' t the more ove im r L , of Chapin Rd . be costly, improvement�t o. welly and .�:t=t.W . a -Y/ not to mentifdn mete 4 ..5 • 4- _ �v�+ y " EXHIBIT ° / g :Iii z\ve.tgoi , s • •x � • y'` y Y d. F ; Mr. Michael R. Wheeler , .' ' , e City of Lake Oswego 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 JAN 6 1993 Janurary 5, 1993 Mr. Wheeler ` This letter is written to comment on CASE FILE NO SD 19-92/VAR 18-92, and in particular a previously unknown Futures Streets Plan for Chapin Way and Wells Street, LOC 49.120, ' On April of 1984 my beautiful bride (of ten years) and I bought the home located v at 1460 Morning Sky Court. At this time the developer of Hallinan Woods, our builder and the SAFECO title company assured us that this development would ,, � remain a secluded and isolated neighborhood. They each noted the City Plat Map for our neighborhood (see attachment) would only allow an entrance from Cherry Lane west onto Chapin Road north. Chapin Road north would end at lot 600 and 700. Lots 600 and 700 would have driveway access to Chapin Road.No, through street would be allowedl EVERII We have refinanced our house on two separate occasions, the mos• ° t recent being June of 1992. Each time we have received a new City Plat Map of the Hallinan , Woods area. These City Plat Maps indicate that the continued piece and tranquillity of the Hallinan Woods Development would be protected. 2,,.' .-; - .., 40 . n On another occasion, February 1988 the City Council of Lake Oswego, informed ' , our neighborhood that a proposed road for lots 30 and 31 of Glenmorrie Park, an* " adjacent neighborhood, would be vacated for a new proposed road on lot 30.Two reasons were given for this proposed and subsequent change. First, the . . State of Oregon would not allow any new roads to be attached to State Highway 43, Second, the new proposed road would provide a private and secluded`i neighborhood, in keeping with the value and quality of the area (Hallinan Woods Now, the Development Review Board is considering, just a few hundred feet •away from Glenmorrie Park, a public road access for Wells Street onto State Highway 43, connecting the proposed Wells Street to Chapin Road in the` . Hallinan Woods Development. This consideration would surely destroy the value and quality the City Council was so adamant in protecting. It would also seem to cross paths with the State of Oregon, If the continued goal is to improve the value and quality of our Lake Oswego neighborhoods then an alternative solution should be considered, An entrance from Lund Street or Gans Street Into a Cul-Da-Sac on Wells (a mirror image of . �: Hallinan Woods) would provide the value and quality that the progressive looking r a • ., Lake Oswego City Council was looking for in 1988. " EXHIBIT � ' 1 0 ,� 3 2 C5cp�) 1:0i1-12\Yin.18.+I L • . 0 TA 4 4 • 9 • • Because of this seclusion, isolation, piece and tranquillity our neighborhood is one of Lake Oswego's most desirable areas to live. If this proposal is allowed, the new development, Hallainan Woods, Glenmome Park and the City of Lake 0 ' .. Oswego would lose to the overall impact of an open and unsecured environment. The loss in tax revenues, property values and the increase in services would pose a heavy burden on all. I urge the members of the Lake Oswego Development Board to oppose the specifics of CASE FILE NO SD 19-92NAR 18-92 and to deny the proposed action. I wish it noted that we did not recieve the notice of public hearing on this proposal. I am quite surprised and troubled by this inconvenience. it Is very clear our property value and the cities'taxes would be negatively affected by this r ; proposal! It would seem a civil courtesy was violated when the Hallinan Woods , neighborhood was left out of the exhibit A vicinity map! I hope this oversite does not happen in the future. Thank you for your attention to this letter and for allowing us the opportunity to justify our objective. • Sincerely, Donald E. Carter and Carla L Carter 1460 Morning Sky Ct. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 636-9771 • }, • 4y 1 . • • • • V. . , . y � • , , •• . y e�1 '• , • : Jed • I / r I Iv. V t �00 1 "'this plat l9 tar your aid in locating your land with reference • a to street!and other parcels, t b Od Jo4 While this plot Is believed to e s °N. ( bo rnrrOct, the company assume! ` no 1100111ty for an , . •.....• i;tu-� rtdA t ', a. r re lance therrso -• ` `sdis" $AFQCO TITLE INaUPANCE COMPANY gyp,i is' r' , •y ri® 16201 S.E.41RLOUGHLIN EILVD. 0 ,14 a a Mit.1WUlti@ OREOON 9/222 0.9". so�'�' 300 ..ats� ©AT MI' • .®' g00 ,,,. ,. gar4.64' •p,53AC. >r "t+ t� jam 90© • cAN A• 0.72m. \434.2 ihte .:.) /. et,go tow . r • meto 0. M.. !wo� A s •�uaoed H+'� g407 \ �,\�\ w w e r\I N. C:3 \ 4, 44414".. I I ;.., 6402 •OA6 , •, g404 r r b 6401 ,4 , y. KsV+2�ti' ro4il F 1 lZ 9 16600 s 505 !r 14- 6700 ' ° t c�._1�``t�. I 1 Z t• \ i► • ` r 13 w a + \ FsPo • ` >at1i.i' i tiu h 31 306 • ' Q •, d!R • /M,r.) , .40 4 e .... MOS.fie ,j A4.: A. e p.D 4 c (/'....'":',.; ,., .„ . .. \ 4/iiiii.I.i.p;./# . . . .' ', . ...,.': 0 c, • -•,., • CITY (.)1: LAKE ()SWL'CA ) NOTICM or STRE*T VACATT,ON a 7 ° Notice is hereby given, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, at a regular meeting thereof held on February 16, 1988, did initiate proceedings to vacate an unnamed public road ` u in the plat of Glenmorrie Park adjacent to the east sides of Lots ., ' 30 and 31 of Glenmorrie Park . . . 0 '-,: .,.' Y Remo,tstrances to the vacation of the above described street will be heard by the City Council on the 5th day of April, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 380 'A' Avenue. Written remonstrances to said vacation must be filed with the City Recorder by 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 1988. 1. --•., . _ -- -. .- Inquiries regarding this public hearing may be directed to Paul Haines , City ;''lgineer (635-0270) or to the City Recorder ( 635-0236 ) , City Hall. Kristi Hitchcock ei t.y Rocnrlirr ' roll i ca::) Cvelcat• icn>01onmorei u Illy '•V \\'I NI II II NI t III It I III 1\ 'WI 17\tiI I Iti\\I t i(I I )I:I t 01 Pk:n II o s u 1 . II" , µ A , a , , ' ti•tr,thy•ok‘..`. "f 6 • 500 $ • 0 t 2Ac N 03, a m 1 ,....:: w (Ji ll r - 34 r'sry o s ildb .. ' ms +, ' p�A/ /. ovum? � ii I w . d.:. .. . 64PS 07.. .. rp s 6406 4/j, Teal `._\ I 34 i� 11R1 '.10 \ �� �, 1 , 10 ' , `�\ / :I h f • n' • 6405 0 , • 4G ,SKY-, . T• , _. _ _. o 119 6403 4/ {.J:...0 .. 6 U, • • 4110 9‘ %I ' ','.......%'4'4,:::. '' 0 k. Zi „ 6600 ` r ,, . •, TO SE VACATED ' ''' �:;;,,'•.;:;{ 14° i (rodt• ►� el�� . sunrJ 30 r: e� J dj'*s L4 v' t {r,jt ,,y. Q d „.., r I 10 II t7� + , �6�� . g00 bile , 3. • . •v a3130 �Jd�� to os•4,, tto o \ . • ' CC fr•-- 1, iir 29A �'� , D EVE,LopMENT 2 IE IODD . PLAN LAKE OSWEGO a ' • . . , 1 • • 0lr.' • 1 nn • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • p � J � • • • • • • • 0 . • - j .3Og3N B. MCCROSICEY, DENS 14125 SW FARMINGTON BEAVERTON, OR 97006 503-646-9157 u'. Jan. 6, 1993 • Development Review Board -::-.:/... .:.. City of Lake Oswego 380 'A' Ave. Lake Oswego, OR. 97034 �oI4 - Re: Case file No. SD 19-92/VAR 19-92 Lot No. 1000 � ' ti'- To Thom it Concerns: le want to go on record as being stron�xl✓ opposed to the proposed development of a street connecting Highway 43 to Chapin via Wells Street. We live at 1380 Morning Sky Ct. (the corner of Chapin and Morning Sky at.). This new street would significantly increase traffic on Chapin, a neighborhood heavily populated with children, two of which are myown. our family moved to this area was because of lack A primaryic reasonh3re �_., ° the of traffic and, thrare:"o��, safety for our kids. With the grade school 1 block away, numerous parent will . be bypassing Highway 43 anddriving the new "backway" (through 'lens C tr. )to transport their children. Likewise, Highway 43 is the last street in Lake Oswego needing 'pare trw�;'�'c ente-ng it. ' Respectfully, 9e7 '7 Joh:`, a, McCroskey Anne ili McCroskey• I % j . • El EXHIBIT ' 19 At.\Van.IS.1 - JA N 7 1993 .' J . ` r . M1 le January 6, 1993 411 . ... . `,• City of Lake Oswego Development Review Board ' 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, , 97034 `,, O�F RE: CASE FILE NO: SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 Lot Number 1000 ,' Dear Sir or Madam: 4. . r ,. I am opposed to the proposed action described in the Notice Public Hearing for this case. of I object to the fact that the Public Notice was not sent to all affected , residents of Chapin Way and Morning Sky Ct. The proposed road development would completely alter the character of Hallinan Woods ' neighborhood. Wo g Additional time must be allowed for the entire affected neighborhood to learn about this proposal and make comments. The value of my home will decrease due to the increased hazard . children walking to the Hallinan School should Chapin Wayb to through street. come a g A traffic study must be done to disclose to affected residents the impact of this development. +i1 When lot 600 was developed I specifically asked a city planner whether • Chapin Way could ever be connected to Highway 43. The fanner ` specifically that could never be done. I relied on that representationtold me ° did not oppose the development of lot 600. I expect the Citytolive and its word. Highway 43 is already dramatically over utilized_ to ess ve up to Highway 43 from Marylhurst to McVey is already highly dangerous.to ' g It appears to me that Wells Street can be improved to provide . without connecting to Chapin Way. If a turnaround is requiredaccess let the ' developer provide it. It is inconsistent to argue that Wells cannot be developed to 43 but that Chapin Way can. y ` :a Signed, _. L' * ' - - . ......: ( , - --,., . - „,,,, ,,k.,,„ Q___,k.„V...L.t....,,A L1_1, , Willnun . Spencer - , p Beverly A.B. Spencer 1640O Chapin Way 41# '. '. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 - EXHIBIT. . 3 - 1.JAN 7 1993 s; . '`� r .'Y Tc 1 William C. Cox attorney at law Land Use and Development Consultation • {i Project Management January 06, 1993 • Development Review Board • t ` City of Lake Oswego 380 'A' Avenue EXHIBIT Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 . 3 Re: Case File No. SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 .R 19=�t. i8 Chapin Road extension Dear Development Review Board, This office has been retained byTom and Marcy Lesley, owners of the r. property known as 16300 Chapin Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97034. Mr. and Mrs. Lesley have been the owners of the former Todd residence for only about a month. We have been in contact with the City Engineers' office and the applicants' planner seeking information about alternative street location And design options that might be implemented to reduce the potentially financially devastating impact the proposed street has tr the Lesley property. The placement of street improvements, where initially indicated, could require the destruction of approximately $50,000 worth of driveway, drainage and landscaping improvements. The Lesley's are not yet well enough informed a • regarding the potential alternative street designs to take a formal position as to " • their support or opposition to the application. It is our understanding that the e extension of Chapin Street might be designed and located in a manner that • would greatly reduce or eliminate its impact on the Lesley property. Those alternatives need to be addressed before an informed position can be taken by the Lesley's or for that matter, the DRB. To waste existing improvements at the Lesley residence without adequate consideration of alternatives would not only • • be inequitable, it would be in conflict with the standards set forth in LOC 49.510 • ,;,‘ and LOC 49.120. • This letter is being submitted to meet the January 7, 1993 deadline for I• publishing with the staff report. We will continue to seek information about • available options and are optimistic that a rational and reasonable solution to • the Lesley's concerns can be found. Sincerely yours, ; ee'k'ef PrZ . Wil am Cox -1- JA N 7993 ` 0244 S.W.California Street • Portland. Oregon 97219 (503) 246..5499 • PAX (503) 246-0261 H . i , 1 - - . . ro' • * .. . , ' '' • January 5, 1993 r-• 1 • Mr. Mike Wheeler i City of Lake Oswego L 380 A Ave, . Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Regardng Case File No. SD 19-92VAR 18-92 JAN ? 19 Dear Mr, Wheeler, For the record, we are strongly opposed to the OTAK Inc. proposal and the • 9y pP Future Street Plan, which calls for the improving and cannectin of W 1• Road and Chapin Way, The applicant is seeking approval of a minor ells �� , • create two parcels of land in a Natur,Jl Area and a variance from public to street miniums and the Access Development Standard, • While we are aware of the applicants interest in gaining access to their ;d land, we believe many other alternatives exist other than the costly improvement of Wells Road and the connection to Chapin Wa d we believe the City has not explored other alternative with lesser Impaction the neighborhood, The affect of this proposal is to completely destroy the safetyand beauty our neighborhood for one parcel of land, °f : sense as well as land use requirements to This seems to escape all common . impact. explore alternatives with lesser , • We are prepared to fight this proposal with all our energy and resources you can be assured we will attend the January 20 hearing in City Council and m • • Chambers. • '';,icerely, 1/ � •� - • Ed and Donne Zajonr, 16461 Chapin Way, .. EXHIBIT Lake O.5w eg on 97 ;, o Ores 03�i ..•_ 63�-0123 t • - : ✓ • / 01i07.1aa3 15:04 FROM Jim 41n:del .. ... , . Assoc. TO lsoss.1sucl;q A' A I. t I. January 6, 1992 • YtA FACSL i TANS= IS ION G1 L R • Honorable !YIembers of the Development Review Board ' • City of Lake Oswego H X hlI a I T 380 A Avenue • I, /� C'7�.0 Lake Oswego. Oregon i 97034 1`t i L\vAn vis-1 • RE: Case File No. SD 19.92\VAR 18-92, 1052 Gans Street, Lake Oswego Dear Honorable Members of the Development Review Board; My wife and I are owners of property located at 1250 Wells Street ha Lake Oswego ` (northwest corner of Wells Street and Highway 43), On this approximately 2,28 acre site are located the following uses: forest land to the west; an approximately 2, 800 hou„a with an outbuilding used for storage purposes.landscaped gardens, lawn square foot a vineyard in the central portion: and horse stables, areas and with berrypasture area, an additional vineyard ' patch and apple orchard to the east. Our home is set back approximately 345 feet from Highway 43 and approximately 25 feet from the current Wells Street easement. 'The outbuilding used for storage purposes is approximately 4 feet from the existing Wells Street easement. Our property has legal access onto Wells Street a one lane dirt driveway, which provides access to two other homes on the street. We have approximately 625 feet of frontage on Wells and 160 feet of frontage on Highway 43. Architects are currently preparing remodeling plans for our house, which will not only update and remodel the interior, but will also provide for a new three car garage within the current setback area • between own home and Wells Street. We have reviewed Case File No. SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 (located two parcels to the west of our property) in the field and have discussed the project several tunes with City Staff, We ; do not object to the creation of two parcels from one existing 43.200 square foot parcel. • We also do riot object to the requested approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the Access r • Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum • • of 25 feet. For this project we understand that Parcel 2 as proposed would have no public • street frontage, but would take access from Wells Street, which is a private street and is the same roadway serving our property, We have also reviewed the Future Streets Plan of November 6, 1992 prepared by Otak, The "Streets Plan" depicts an extension from Chapin Way to Wells and a widening of Weib Street along both the north and south sides of the existing private easement, Within 'the ... vicinity of our property, we understand from City staff' that adequate easement width for:::1:►r',' a future street right of way already exists and there is no need for additional right of way ' along the north side of Wells Street for a future improved and widened roadway, 0 , Because no additional ri,ht•of way will be ultimately be required from property owners along the - . ; . north side of the Wells Street easement, the "Future Streets Plan" should be corrected to • 1 111 "07.1993 15:05 1 FROM Jim Hin=dal 3 Assoc. ro. 15036350269 r 1/ ,,P7 • ♦ refieet these potential future City requirements. Within the vicinity of this project. we 0 , _•. understand that the City would like to discontinue access from private driveways onto Highway 43. In the future, the City also would like to see a traffic tht Cherry Lane to allow motorists from adjacent residential areas to access the Higiiwa (a particular problem during peak hours) and to improve access to Hallinan Gras School. We understand that the removal of private driveways and the addition of :he traffic light would also improve safety, decrease accident rates, and increase the was capacity this area From our phone conversations with the Oregon Do P in we understand that the State has no plans to widen Highway 43, They indicate.Transportation,that elimination of unnecessaryg y They however,driveways and intersections would increase the capacity of that roadway. In general we conditionally support the extension of Chapin Way to Wells Street. We believe that it is needed to provide improved public access to the Chapin Way area to the south of us: to provide direct, paved public pedestrian and vehicular access to Hallinan Grade School, which our children will be attending school and to the accompanying playground. field sports and park area. Extension of Chapin to Wells will provide for development of a cohesive neighborhood linking the two residential areas together. The connection would also provide for an alternative means (and in some instances within less 1 response time) for emergency fire, police and paramedic services. This represent a definite plus for both the Wells and Chapin residential areas. You will note that the Future Streets Plan and the Notice of Public He Wells Street as a 'Future Street" with unlimited andssindicates Highway 43, Indeed, the Future Streets Plan indicates improved unrestrictedlls aStreettinteer section radii, ostensibly to promote the public's access into and out of Wells Street, As proposed • . by the Future Streets Plan. Wells Street would become used as a public thoroughfare even though for the foreseeable future..the easement will remain as a dirt one lane roadw under private ownership maintained by individual Wells Street home owners, Wells when combined with Chapin Way would become a parallel route to not only the Hallinan Grade School area, but to the Skylands Area to the south. As Highway 43 approaches and . • exceeds capacity, use of Wells Street, which does not provide for passing car traffic except for pulling onto adjacent non-easement private property, when combined with Chapin a will acquire a new importance as a cut throughroute. AP Way built and neither roadway can accommodate. purpose for which neither was According to the Traffic Volume Tables prepared by the Oregon Department, of , Trensportation, the average daily traffic (ADT) of Fa;Jhway 43 at the Oswego Creek Bridge (immediately to the north of Wells Street), was 24.500 vehicles per day in 1991. This compares to 13.500 vehicles per day recorded in 1981 at this same location. In other words, for this 10 yearperiod,eriod, daily tragic along this particular stretch of highway wags increasing at an average annual amount of 1.100 per day for an average annual increase of 4.5% Given the existing large traffic volumes and substantial increases parallel route to Highway 43 (including the Future Streets Plan proposed per ils/year. hapin connection) will depending on time of day, on _ `.. gin/destination, etc. •use and acceptance as the fastest route to and from downtown Lake Oswego and Portland for the frontage pinWay, , Hallinan School and Skylands areas, g the property owner with the greatest Wells, we can not support this and strenuously object to the use easement for these purposes. Our objections to the applicants Future Streets Plan are re detailed below; • ®� �' w. 2 •, . tii 1 : i V 01= O7.'09: 15:06 FROM Jim H1nzJa1 I Assoc. TO 15036350269 '" RiOA . 1 s ` • (1) The character of Wells Street area will dramatically change from an existing quiet. peaceful semi-rural character. Traffic can be expected to occur during any tame of the day or night without limitations. (2) Existing residents along Wells Street will be subjected to noise, dirt and dust from substantially increased use of this unpaved driveway not only during the short . term construction period required to build the proposed house, but into the longterm foreseeable future. (3) Increased traffic accidents along Wells (which does not provide for opposing traffic flow) and from traffic accessing and exiting Wells onto Highway 43 can be expected to increase. (4) Increased volumes of traffic along Chapin Way from the Hallinan Grade School and the Sylands areas will occur. • (5) The City's plans for a future traffic signal at Cherry Lane and Highway 43 will , be dealt a setback because existing traffic flowing through that intersection will be siphoned off on to the new Wells/Chaplin thoroughfare, S The ability of Cherry/Highway43 to meet traffic warrants will be pushed farther into the future. Thus the general welfare and public's need to safely access Highway 43 will be derailed. • (6) Because of the relative increase in use of Wells Street to access Highway 43 vis a vis the Cherry Lane intersection, the capacity of Highway 43 to carry through traffic will also likely be reduced. (7) The City's Development Code (48.120 Future Streets Plan), states that "The future streets plan shall comply with the development standards and the • Comprehensive Plan, and.shall take parcelization, topography and natural features into consideration." Under the Plan's 'location of Proposed New Public Facilities" Chapin Way north of Cherry Lane is indicated as a local" roadway, The applicants Future Streets Plan, converts the use of Wells-Chapin into a "collector'. As defined by the Comprehensive Plan, "Collector streets conduct traffic between arterial streets, activity centers and neighborhoods. Collectors are principal traffic carriers within neighborhoods, carry some through traffic from other neighborhoods and provide some access to abutting land." If the Future Streets Plan is approved by the . Development Review Board, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan should be amended to indicate both Wells Street/Chapin Way as collectors roads. (Note: Hallin.an Street/Cherry Lane are already identified as collector streets on the Comprehensive Plan), All of these minuses, which are serious objections to the Future Streets Plan can be . eliminated if the Future Streets Plan were modified as indicated in Attachment A to . include the following: (1) eliminate the Wells Street/Highway 43 connection as a public roadway, 4, • R 0 M a • - - - . 1 • � • 31 .07•1993 15106 FROM Jim Ninzdel ;Isaac. TO 13035330269 hi ,]5 a • (2) in order to meet the City's Fire Department requirements. the Future Streets Plan should indicate that access to Wells Street from Highway 43 is for emergency • (police/fare/paramedic) purposes only. In order to prevent any property owners • ;' along Wells Street from being land locked", the Future Stets Plan should also include a note which states: "the public's access to Wells Street at Highway 43 will be terminated at the same time as access is extended from Chapin Way to Wells Street". In order to enforce this provision, a locked gate or barricade will be installed by the project applicant. As an option. a card key operated gate should be installed at the intersection of Chapin and Wells. This gate should be installed by the applicant for use by those property owners who have legal access to the Wells • .' Street easement . This restricted entry point should be maintained in perpetuity by those who retain this legal access. (3) the intersection of Wells Street and Chapin Way should be signed as follows: • "private street-no exit", All of the above requested conditions are consistent with the General Policies of the Comprehensive Plan which state: • • "II The City will evaluate zoning and develo• ..ent proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring .0 developer to provide appropriate r• solutions before approval is granted." and "III. The City will require new development to pay an equitable share of the costs of public facilities, particularly sewer, water. drainage, parks, open space and streets or traffic improvements." The request is consistent with General Policy IV: Plan a Residential Neighborhood Streets System which states. "The City will: L Plan a Residential Neighborhood Streets System, which assures: a. minimum disruption of neighborhood living• " b. adequate safe circulation from properties to Major Streets System...,. 3, Route through traffic away from residential neighborhoods wherever possible 4. Develop local residential streets which provide access to abutting land. These streets will serve local traffic movements and will not be intended to accommodate • through traffic," Finally the request is also consistent with General Policy VIII: Develop Street Design • Standards of the Plan which states: • "1. Develop flexible street standards which encourage innovative design of right-of way. These standards should encourage careful consideration of topography, existing • d' significant trees, open space, and neighborhood privacy," 411) • 4 a + • ssoc, ro 15036350269 • d • P1ab • • We are also requesting that the City or the applicant prepare a traffic analysis for this project. Even though if approved, the project would only result in two lots, the project is unique within the City because: (1) the applicant already has access to Wells Street but has decided to bring in access from another street (Chapin Way) through private property and(2)because of the potentially, substantial neighborhood and community-wide circulation and environmental impacts caused by this project. With the requested traffic analysis and the above suggested conditions of approval to be implemented by the developer, we would have no further objections to the proposed project. If these measures can not be provided as conditions of approval, then we would strenuously object to the approval of this project. We will have representation at the January 20th Public Hearing, who will be able to respond to your questions regarding our • comments and concerns, • • Ve truly yours, am,. • Rosalyn'' id es Hinzdei • •• • 1250 Wells Street, ,, • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 • • ' Attachment • cc: Michael Wheeler • Russell Chevrette Leland Harriman Sunny Wan Paul McGuire N' e • • • • 410 • f , b4 • .. 6 ' A • • ti e ATTACHMENT A -,,,,A--= --warimets U • ti�5;rr� '.J,�n) . } , rest, r• •��� 44 • ) 0 .� • •• • iy 1' •�• �., is • s,• 1,�•� �' • 1 4 , ' MER ENCY 'CCESS ONLY . \\ ELIMIN TE R.O.W.' . , }n•• I I . ; 1 t '^ . . E:i \6. . ..„.. . , ., ,.:____.....,...]... ,,,..,,,,, • • \..„........_......... • ;$ \ \ ELIMINATE R.O.W. • r1 0 Ci :1I : . '...';%'s..,.\\:s.....,s\ .......'" 4 . t ..,.... .....1 I _ „ o PR A ER• D 1 ICI ,i ' ...r • 1.4 . • , '' ''••••••••• * • t:-.4.: , . ., AA • , J .''' .,'.'..`:v:ji.'n-e _ HA .., rrr • . . . � ,� A" EY AC •NLY ., , , - ..:.;.;„ a . • 1 ....2.. h...yi,..(......,,,,. ....;,i .: . . , ...... .,. . , i , , ..\1 , gill ti-ti 1. t: . ........... . ,,, --r\ .. . . :. .. ,,: ,IF,A,. . ',". • q ..., ,.70 , .../•—• ......,.. .. ... • , . 7........". .••••... k• • I I ) • 1 ' ' r1ti. ;' t ( \!_ 4' • c.,..1 r r , • csk,$) a••••••••••• • • a ........... 4 \/ cl i I ` s . 4 ):: :, ,. t • . : . rf. :g.,,,41.1;,,... :,,,........., , e AkN • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1992 • Aprb tion Due Dates ( ` s��� t icall matu1neDate� y ' y) F1rst and �r.,.,a,,,a Tbirri � .� (typically) November 22, 1991 Jt.civary 6 December 6, 1991 January 20 December 20, 1991 February 3 a', ' January 3 February 19 (Wednesday) January 17 March 2 January 31 March 16 • February 21 April L. March 6 _.. April 20 ,' March 20 May 4 April 3 d May 18 April 17 June 1 ,. May 1 June 15 SEE OTHER SIDE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE +' 0 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 n 97034 Planning Division;(503)635-0290 • Building Division:(503)635-0390 r•PAX(503)635-0269 • O�` `E Qs, f`7 OREGON ' • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1992 Application Due Dates Meeting Dates, (Fridays, typically) Elan&Zone Amendments Other Applications Sgramth&Fourth Monday. (Typically) `j. November 15, 1991 December 2, 1991 January 13 December 2, 1991 December 13, 1991 January 27 December 13, 1991 December 27, 1991 February 10 41), ' • December 27, 1991 January 10 February 24 January 10 January 24 March 9 • January 24 February 7 March 23 February14 February28 April 13 February 23 March 13 April 27 March 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .March 27 May 11 March 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .April 10 May 27 (Wednesday) April 10 April 24 June 8 April 24 May 8 June 22 SEE OTHER SIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SCHEDULE • 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635-0290• Building Division:(503)635-0390 • FAX(503)635-0269 •