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 - 1993-03-15
o 1. y+„ A 4' AGENDA rr CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,March 15, 1993 II 7:00 P.M. .i L CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL • • A• t APPROVAL OF MINUTES • September 23, 1992 October 5, 1992 • October 19, 1992 November 2, 1992 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 16-92, a request by Blockbuster Video to reopen the public hearing to take additional evidence on access and site circulation only. The site is located on the south side of Lower Boot s Ferry Road across from the intersection of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 4300 of Tax Map 2 1 E 8CB). Staff coordinator is Flrxbath•iacob, Associate Planner Contin ed from January 1.0. 1�.,1 SD 19-921VAR 18-92(a—b), a request by OTAK, Inc. (David Bantz) for approval of a major partition involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of 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 mini..ium 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, Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44,390 which limits a cul—de—sac or dead end street to no more than 1 000 �mt in length. The •;;1t t • modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to 1 ',. terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affectingChapin Wayand Wells Street, as required• :9 t , by LOC 49.120, [Note: The applicant has upgraded this application from minor to major partition because it involves the creation of a street through widening of an existing public easement.; The site is located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 lE !ODD), Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler;Assyciate Planner ontinued frnrn lane ry a993 VI. GENERAL PLANNING n 2 + ' 41) a • • `y y ' t VII, OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Older DR 20-92-993 [AP 92-10]—Clark & Sylvia Wood T p ., DR 13-9011(Remand)—OTAK J PD 5-92—Alpha Engineering �► s VIII. ADJOURNMENT • r ~ `t The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. 12B/Memberss Sdaff ` Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner '' TM Robert H.Foster Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner • Ginger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner °+ Martha F.Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner •F • Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney w Barbara Anderson,Administrative Seeretaiy • Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • i ti e` : f . • a , w �� WI<E .•/* .• .1. • Gr)EG0.N .' i' \ICE \IE.\ I"01. I'I..\\\I\( ; .\\E) DE\'EMI.( ai'• I; . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Re' :v Board • FROM: Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner SUBJECT: DR 16-92; Blockbuster Video Application J • TM: 2 1E 5BC TL; 4300 • • DATE: March 3, 1993 • The applicants for the above referenced application have requested that the continued hearing before the Development Review Board be continued until May 17, 1993, to allow time to resolve ; issues of two—way access to the rear road. • .• • • '.j M p. • • f a1 GdJ, • Or e• I Y 4 • / } • • • • • • • • • • • rt C` t1 1 �Y 1 t y N. ll, I chs� q i tt f, ' a 1 .' ., • • •' '1 J� I • ` D ' ''' '' 0 1'' ' MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board ,. FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner t, 4. SUBJECT: Addendum to January 8, 1993 Staff Report; , SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 DATE: March 3, 1993 ` ( -- ..„,..,:'•.: • On January 20,. 1993 the Development Review Board approved a motion to continue the public hearing opened on that date until March 15, 1993. That continuance was granted to enable the applicant to explore an alternative Future Streets Plan (FSP) proposal suggested by opponents, , . 0 and to work with staff to determine whether the alternative complied with relevant Plan policies, • regulations and development standards. The applicant met with staff members on February 9, 1993 to present the alternative. Staff evaluated this alternative and held a second meeting with the applicant and some of the , ,.' opponents to explain the results of the evaluation, which are summarized below. Qiiginal Proposal &FSP A ;. .;h The applicant's proposed two—parcel partition required: n W ` • Protection of a distinctive natural area located on the site; and • • A variance to the Access Development Standard because the site has no frontage on a C-" public street; and • A Future Streets Plan linking the site's Wells Street private access to Chapin Way (nearby to the south) in order to provide fire protection from a hydrant within 1,000 feet and to r . " � assure that the partition would not preclude the future development of other larger parcels + in the area. The applicant's FSP suggested continuing the use of Wells Street's existing intersection with Hwy, 43 (See Exhibit 53). Re;" nts of the neighborhood, while not objecting to the partitioning, raised concerns about the FS% particularly; k SD 19Y92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 1 of 9 • Pedestrian and child safety within their neighborhood. 0 I,,,I,.,,, i. : :e.. • The use of the proposed street connection as a cut-through route for people attempting to avoid traffic pressures experienced on Hwy.43. • Additional traffic generated through the existing neighborhood by new dwellings "• anticipated in the FSP area. o Impact of the proposed extension of Chapin Way upon existing improvements and • ' plantings on Tax Lot 600 (Lasley). The validity of a future street easement conveyed to ` the City across Tax Lot 600. Recommended Modification FSP •, Staff reviewed the original proposal in its report dated January 8, 1993 and,concluded that the applicant's proposal did not comply with all relevant Plan policies,particularly Transportation Policies intended to facilitate emergency vehicle access,reduce the impacts of vehicle speed, through traffic and the inconvenience of vehicles using the driveways to turn around. Indirectly, these policies also address traffic and pedestrian safety, neighborhood character and • the environment. On January 20, 1993, staff recommended that the FSP be modified to eliminate the Wells Street intersection with Hwy. 43, to allow the extension of Chapin Way to Wells Street, and to terminate Wells Street with cul-de-sac turnarounds at the cast and west ends ' • (See Exhibit 54). • Staff determined that such a modified FSP configuration would: • • • • 0 .1 6 • Allow Wells Street/Chapin Way to adequately function as a local street serving up to 38 dwellings, with fewer than the 1,200 vehicle trips per day (average), within the appropriate range for this street classification. ' . '' • Ultimately eliminate the potential for a through traffic loop from the intersection of . , Cherry Lane, Chapin Way and Wells Street, ending at the intersection of Wells Street at • ; Hwy. 43. +w.. • Enable efficient future development of the area currently served by Wells Street at a density and level of urban service anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. F+iture development would abut public streets as required by the Plan and the Access Standard. . • Provide fire protection to the area north of Chapin Way from a hydrant located at the *y intersection of Chapin Way and Morning Sky Court, ,; . r On January 20, 1993 opponents of both the applicant's original proposal and the recommended ,44� , modification reached a tentative agreement to submit another alternative. The details of this • alternative were not disclosed to the Development Review Board or staff on that date, but were presented to staff by the applicant on February 9, 1993 (See Exhibit 55). Opponents' Alternati e FSP The opponents' alternative proposes to provide access to the applicant and three parcels whose creation is anticipated by the owner of Tax Lot 700 (one dwelling currently exists; two new dwellings would be added) in a private access easement traveling north from the current I , northerly terminus of Chapin Way, The proposed easement would be designed to avoid existing 40 •• '. plantings and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600. This design would include a centerline . L ' , radius of approximately 65 feet, rather than the minimum 100 feet required by LOC 44,385(c). SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum `r Page 2 of 9 z' � . . • x The private easement would tray,1 across portions of Tax Lot 600,700 and utilize a portion of the existing access easement on Tax Lot 800 (known as Wells Street). •', • Only four parcels would ultimately be served by this proposal; the applicants' and three future a : parcels created from Tax Lot 700. All other underdeveloped parcels would continue to take E access from Wells Street(two dwellings other than applicant),O'Brien Street (one vacant *'.` parcel),Gans Road(one dwelling),and Lund Street (one dwelling). This alternative would not comply with Plan policies and regulations regarding public safety because the proposal lacks emergency vehicle turnarounds on either the private easement(west) ,`� or Wells Street(east). Also, the proposal would not assure the provision of public services, particularly public street access, to the site or to underdeveloped properties within 250 feet of the site, as required by LOC 49.120. On February 9, and again on February 18, 1993 staff suggested consideration of a fourth alternative (See Exhibit 56). The response to the suggestion was neutral to supportive. ` Eolith Alternative FSF The fourth alternative suggests that an offset cul-de-sac turnaround be designed directly north of the current terminus to Chapin Way. The offset(westerly) design is intended to preset ve the trees and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600 which, have been the object of that owner's f, concern, and yet provide an emergency vehicle turnaround as required by the Code. Also, Wells ` Street would be designed as a 40-50 ft.-wide right-of-way with a cul-de-sac at the west end to enable access to all parcels capable of future development. This alternative would: • ,0 0 • Formalize the northern terminus of Chapin Way, giving certainty to neighborhood that no additional traffic will be generated on Chapin Way by the area north of the current ' terminus of Chapin Way. • Assure the development potential of the Wells Street area, o Utilize an existing access road rather than create a new one. o Require the ultimate dedication of Wells Street and Chapin Way cul-de-sac to public for future street purposes. .4 a Require an access permit from ODOT for the increased use and improvement of Wells Street and its intersection with Hwy. 43. ' • Require a concurrent variance to LODS 14,025(8) for the applicant's partition because the •i new parcel (south) would be more than 1,000 ft. from a fire hydrant. • Require a concurrent variance to LOC 44,390 to enable Chapin Way to exceed 1,000 ft. in length. • Require improvement of Wells Street to a minimum width of 20 feet for use as a fire ' emergency access road. is Require relocation of surface drainage generally along the existing route of Wells Street, This relocation would include design of the new location, acquisition of required drainage • easements, and construction of the improvements. • Require installation of a rated residential fire suppression sprinkler system in the future . ` dwelling on Parcel 2. .1. ' SD 19-921VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 3 of 9 '' . '.. development standards prior to approval. An evaluation of the applicable variance criteria will be found later in this memorandum. + U•. Members of city staff have provided two additional exhibits: A memorandum by Xavier Falconi, Transportation Services Engineer regarding the recommended modification (Exhibit 51); and a memorandum by Russ Chevrette,Engineering Technician regarding the history of FSP consideration by tsarlier hearing bodies (Exhibit 52). Now,to amend the original staff report,dated January 8, 1993,add the following: I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Change "minor partition" to "major partition." Also, the applicant is seeking approval of an 15 approximately 800 ft. Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits the length of a cul-de—sac i to 1,000 ft. The propose3 modification to the FSP would extend Chapin Way/Wells Street to approximately 1,800 ft. in order to terminate access to Hwy.43 in the future. • II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Residential Site Design Policies General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3 • Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 r3 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards (CODS): Transit—All major development `6.020(1)(b) Park and Open Space—All major deveh ;Went 8.020(1) Landscaping. Screening, and Buffering—All major development ``- 9.020(4) Drainage Standard for Major Developments—All major development 11.020(1),(2),(3),(5) Site Circulation Standards—Driveways and Private Streets —All major development 19.020(1),(2) F 19.025(1)—(19) Site Circulation Standards —Bikeways an `a kways—All major development 20.020(1),(2),(3),(4) SD 19-92`VAR 18-92 Addendum Page5of9 L, t • 4.. Evaluation of Alternatives In the review of all of the FSP alternatives, staff identified the following objectives which should be M ' addressed: • Preservation of trees and groves. � Y" • Preservation of stream corridors. • Reduction of traffic impacts on adjacent areas. • Provision of adequate utility service and drainage. • Street design which provides for safety and speed control e Restriction of direct access to major streets if access to other public streets is available. ` r • Maintenance of existing quite residential streets. • • Provision of access to abutting land for development. • Provision of emergency services accessibility. • Right—of—way dedication as a condition of development and future; improvement of streets when M1. demand requires. • Diversion of through—traffic away from neighborhood streets, *. . .. :•• ' 0 The City has a responsibility to plan for all of the functions noted above, This application requires particular care in the design of a FSP to achieve the latter four objectives. The City has a responsibility to acknowledge proposals which plan for the most efficient and safe FSP alternative that also protects the natural environment and residential neighborhood. The recommended alternative and the four alternative FSP's achieve all of these objectives, provided additional conditions are met. The applicant's original proposal does not achieve all of these;objectives �;;: because it would encourage higher traffic volumes due to the loop resulting from connection of Wells Street/Chapin Way/Cherry Lane to two locations on Hwy 43, The opponents' alternative FSP proposal does not achieve all of these objectives because it would not adequately serve all future development in the area north of the current terminus of Chapin Way, and does not provide emergency vehicle ;:' turnarounds. 1 , Modification of Application The applicant has upgraded the proposal to that of a major partition because it involves the widening of an existing future street easement. Though this easement is not being created as a part of this application (since it already exists; Exhibit 19), it-,vas felt that it should be processed as a major partition to avoid any procedural errors, The applicant has provided an addendum (Exhibit 50) to the ' •On original narrative in which the development standards applicable to a major partition (major development) are discussed. These requirements will be evaluated later in this memorandum. , Also, the applicant has applied for an additional Class I variance to LOC 44,390 which limits the length of a dead end street or cul—de—sac to 1,000 ft. (Exhibit 50). This additional request is in response to IIIstaff's recommended modification to the FSP and LOC 49.120 which requires compliance with all SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum Page 4 of 9 • • L 1 • M. FINDINGS E. Compliance with Criteria for Approval,;, 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Development Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) The applicant has upgraded the application from minor partition to major partition. With the exception of a required public hearing for a major partition (major development), the Development Code requirements are generally the same for minor or major partitions. ° ►: ;' Six additional development standards are applicable to a major development. These standards will be reviewed later in this memorandum. The applicant has submitted an additional variance request VAR 18-92(b)1 to exceed the maximum 1,000 ft. length of a cul—de—sac [LOC 44.3901. As per LOC 510(1), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class I variance: X ' a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant notes that because on Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) access permit for Wells Street to intersect Hwy. 43 does not exist, properties adjacent t Wells Street are not further developable without extension of Chapin Way to the north, The applicant identifies the physical improvements needed for Wells Street to meet City •• and ODOT requirements, yet concludes that a hardship exists due to the present ownership of Wells Street(Tax Lot 800), its width, and the need for an additional drainage easement to be acquired. b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the .• • neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established • to be affected by the request; The applicant notes that an overall increase of 16 dwelling units, resulting in . approximately 380 vehicle trips per day(average), would not be injurious to the neighborhood. The applicant further notes that this total traffic volume is approximately 25 percent of the number allowed on local streets as identified in a recent transportation study. The volume is approximately 32 percent of the volume of 1,200 vehicle trips currently identified in the Transportation Policies of the Comprehensive Plan+ c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of • • the property. • The applicant identifies that the recommended alternative Future Streets Plan requires that cul—de—sacs be located at the east and west ends of Wells Street, once it is connected to Chapin Way, and that, because of the current condition of the road and its authority to • • access Hwy. 43, the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship, i' in order to make reasonable use of the applicant's property, and other underdeveloped e property in the vicinity. SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum Page 6 of 9 • • , .. {. x • lA I : ' •• d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. S The applicant notes that an evaluation of applicable Plan policies occurs in the original native (Exhibit 2). The recommended modification to the FSP, which prompts the" ' need for this variance, does comply with the Plan policies regarding Transportation, P Y ® • Quiet Environment,Distinctive Natural Area, Stream C''rridors and Residential Site a Design [See Discussion of the four alternative FSP's earlier in this memorandum]. c. The applicable Development Standards " Transit(6.005—6,040) This standard requires major development to provide transit facilities based upon an analysis of existing facilities and the site's proximity to bus routes. Tri—Met Route Number 35 travels on Hwy. 43, but there are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site which must be extended as a part of this application. The standard is therefore met by the proposal. .. Park and Open Space (8.005 —8.040) • This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space equal to "'• at least 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. The site's 42,512 sq. ft. �f • ` requires 8 502 sq. ft. in open space. The applicantproposes to comply with this standard b establishing a conservation easement to protect te istinctive natural ural area and stream corridor associated with the site, an area of approximately 20,0XX) sq. ft. or 44 percent of • the site. The standard is satisfied by this protection. ' ail Landscaping. Screening and Buffering t9.005—9,040) This standard requires all development abutting streets to provide street trees at the ` proper spacing for the species. The applicant indicates that street trees will be planted along Wells Street. The species or spacing was not specified at this time, This ' ' demonstration may be appropriately deferred until application for a building permit for Parcel 2 is sought. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. • ' Drainage Standard for Major Development (11,005— 11,0401 i This standard requires that drainage alterations not adversely affect other properties. The applicant identifies that construction of the proposed Chapin Way extension and .` driveway to the site will include drainage improvements to direct a portion of an existing '' ditch to the stream corridor to the north. Review of the design of this improvement will • be required as a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action, • if approved. Site Circulation Standards —Driveways and Private Streets (19.005— 19,040) This standard requires that the minimum width of a two—way street be 20 feet, with a . turnaround designed if the street is longer than 300 feet, The maximum driveway grade for a single—family home is 20 percent with a maximum cross—slope of 5 percent. • • The applicant notes that improvements to Chapin Way and Wells Street (west of its intersection with Chapin Way) will be 20 feet in width. A turnaround is proposed at the ,. ' .... . ip west and east ends of Wells Street, but will be constructed as development demands and „. . . ‘ . , SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 7 of 9 • • 3u . . . a >` , ' ( '+.: �. . c is abutting each proposed terminus. The grade of proposed Parcel 2 is approximately eight percent and will enable compliance with the standard. fi • . v Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways and Walkways (20.0Q5-20.040) This standard requires oikeways and walkways to tie to public streets. While the Comprehensive Plan and the Pathways Master Pan specify the location of future and existing pathways, neither Chapin Way (north of Chapin Road) nor Wells Street are among them. Highway 43 is the route of an existing pathway. F. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant(Exhibit?,2 and 50), staff concludes that provided the proposed Future Streets Plan is modified to comply with applicable '' Comprehensive Plan policies, the applicant's requested variance [VAR 18-92(b)] would satisfy all applicable criteria. The applicant's original variance [VAR 18-92(a)] was found to satisfy the criteria under the same conditions. ,'_ Staff also concludes that the proposal can comply with all applicable development standards through the imposition of certain conditions. III. RECOMMENDATION Provided the modifications noted in the conclusions in the original staff report (dated January 8, 1993) are made to the proposal, staff recommends approval of the proposed major partition [SD 19-92], Class I variance to the Access Standard [VAR 18-92(a)J and Class I variance to LOC 44.390 regarding cul-de-sac length. Staff also recommends approval of the modified :j Future Streets Plan discussed in the January 8, 1993 staff report and further reviewed in this memorandum. Those approved applications and the modified Future Streets Plan shall be subject to the following added or amended conditions [Note: added text is in italics]: '' 1. The applicant shall design to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, a storm drainage system along the east property line of the site from Wells Street north to the , stream corridor channel. This design shall comply with the provisions of the Drainage ' Standard for Minor Development (LODS 12.005 - 12,040) and Hillside (LODS 16.005- p:` 16.040), This design shall be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval, '` 3. [Delete entire condition due to the addition of VAR 18-92(b), Remaining conditions not �. renumbered.] 14. The applicant shall install three street trees along the frontage of parcel 2 on Wells , .. Strew, These trees shall be installed at 40 feet on center and comply with condition number 7 above. EXHIBITS [Note: The following exhibits have been received since the public hearing was opened on January 20, 1993.] 44, Letter to G. Hunt, ODOT from L. & E. Harriman requesting access permit; dated October 21, 1992 45. Letter to L, Harriman from G. Hunt, ODOT, regarding access permit 46. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 734,Division 50, regarding approach roads 40 . .. , . SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 8 of 9 47. Request for continuance by E. Sullivan,attorney,dated January 20, 1993 48. Letter from M. &R. McCrain,dated January 16, 1993 49. Letter from E.J. Sullivan,attorney dated January 22, 1993 • • ' 50. Addendum to applicant's narrative,dated February 22, 1993 51. Memorandum from X. Falcon,Transportation Services Engineer, dated February 25, 1993 52. Memorandum from R. Chevrette,Engineering Technician; dated February 25, 1993 53. Map: Original proposal (prepared by staff) 54. Map: Recommended modification (prepare('by staff) ' • • 55. Map: Opponents' alternative (prepared by staff) • 56. Map:Fourth alternative(prepared by staff) � . 57. Letter from A. &B. Banach,dated February 26, 1993 .u' • 58. Memorandum from J. Condit, City Attorney; dated March 1, 1993 59. Letter from R. &J.Hinzdel,dated March 2, 1993 • • c.. • • ei ' • SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 9 of 9 . , 0 P • v: • • • • . • • • i 0 • `. er • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 1• • • • • T. •' ' 0 . • • . • • 224 ... TEL M0:5©12976050 n g� 16:$O Ip:DISTR1CT 2A HW? DiV nf.. Leland Harriman • P .O . Box 562 • Lake Oswego, OR. 97034 Gary Hunt Oregon Dept. of Transportation P .O . Box 25412 Portland , 0R, 97225 October 20 , 1992 Dear Mr Hunt, legal owner of Wells Street ('Pax 1ot®800O)1which Y am thex o g 700 900 , and the south � `• accesses tax lots 20q ► � am requesting , . . Per your conversation with Dina tionctolthn State highway , . an access permit for a road conneo your speoi£ioations - `; which will subsequently be improved per by the McNallYs ` m October 31st far use in P1aGe remit the permlt�ortoa m�ner partition on Tax lot the McNallY' s application 410 1,000 . Your prompt reply on this issue would be most appreciated . ;j1. Sincerely, Oe 7b 2/1 I c Gz ` J < a' ` , P. Deland Harriman 0C4, 2.( 1 r5..e .:_)';`) rt.)49_,,, fie2.11-} r3 EXHIBIT • ty.12.0!,4. i' • .3 DISTRICT 2A [3 I • r1 loCi` 2w1992 C. f ,�M r J �, 4' b a • • ••'...• • •-f •-•,*- • '.•• • • ,;• • , ".•• '• ', . . ,• , . •... '•• • "• ' ., •., '• I • ; • • •• ',; , ' . ',.•. ' •• , ' • ••• , •.• . . . •• • . , a ' . • . . • • 4 •• „ •. 4 ' ' . • • . , ,• • .4 • !,' - •• . . • . . • • • . •. - .• • , - • • , • • . • , , • , I- •• . • • . , • . r • ;AN-06-'93 16:38 ID:DISTRICT 2A HWY DIU TEL NO:5032976058 ##974 P 1 /. Post-it"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 n , ...-; . , R. FROMr 0 7' • ti Ca .. •N"yvs.. Oreg.) . er Yfl _ 'ro • , fraxr DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION October 23, 1992 HIGHWAY DIVISION DIStrict 2A r '�. Maintenance Supetvieor . V • LELAND HARRIMAN FILE Coo& Po BOX 562 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 :, • • Attached is/are your application(s) for ADDroacJI Road Permit The • application(s) must be signed by the owner or contract purchaser and a local government official. Please obtain the appropriate signatures and return the application along with the items a 0checked below for further processing. I Administrative Fee Amount $ 50.00 n/a Inspection Fets Amount ..____ .� Certificate of Insurance (of the contractor who will be performing the work). .� nag Permit Performance Bond Amount $ rib Advance deposit of$ , striping costs. r'. •�. Please keep in mind that this does not constitute an approved permit, An approved permit will only be issued after receipt of the signed application(s) and completed forms. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss any provisions of the permit, please feel • • • • free to contact this office. Sincerely, EXHIBIT • 1 465-0e1)) .. . . . .. . ,.... . tHit---- I` � YI� � i . .. 41 .0 Permit Inspector �.1 .mot I'4' ILA 1541w I'arti,tnd,Olt 9.",:ln.0.1 i.: • JAN-06-'93 16:39 I D:DISTRICT 2A HWY D I U TEL NO:5O32976058 4974 P62 1 µ APPLICATION AND PERMIT TO ,; I CONSTRUCT APPROACH ROAD PERMI1'NUMBER ,I %.,./.00,4 DIVISION NIG14WAY NAME MILEPOINT ENGINEERS STATION OSWEGO 6.98 230+73 • HIGHWAY NUMBER COUNTY SIDI OF HIGHWAY APPROACH TO SERVE 3 Clackamas a SOUTH To WE , Residences/ WELLS SxR . DEMUR OR NEAR LANDMARKS HIGHWAY REFERENCE MAP AND ATTACHED DRAWING NUMBERS —� .' • ,. Laurel_ILt: AND Cherry Lane 4B-5-1 / Tags Lot ',`Maps a APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS BOND mama() AMOUNT OF POND ❑YES XS NO OAR r3160.O254 $ r INSURANCI:REQUIRED In AOMINISTRATTJE FEE OAFEf3140.02e('S) LELAND HARRIMAN YES 0 NO 0 TEMPORARY DEPOsIT AMOUNT C PO SOX 562 HWKNUMeIdf $ 50.00 ?: LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 DISTRICT MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR DATE COMPLETE 1 APPLICATION RECEIVED • .ill X REGION ENGINEER DATE L .J X UTILITY PERMITSUPERViSOR APPROVAL DATE X APftl(CANT MPf(CATION DATE APPROACH ROAD COMPLETION DATE: X REPERENCE.OAR 701S6050f41 May 1* 1993 The epplbent deems that h.11ho is the owner or Leese of the real property agolrung the abova dwelled highway inn himthe lawful authority to apply to,this pane 1.Whin this ao• Y Mi atan Is approved by the Oeoartment of Trinaporteeon.nie app kart H eugeet to the tome end provla!;.ne een%Mned herein and ittiahod holm,end the terms of Oregon Ad- miMOCauve Mull,Cflapla T34,Ohfiton 50,what I.by Eve rafteencs modes Dart of this permit Copies of the Rote they be obtained from the Dlebwt Mpintenance 6upavlenee ofltra, r liiuinp of peones unpin this.regulations is not.fmax+o of cemoKanoe wan the elalawids planning gone or at.Ichnowtedged oomonhvncive plan for Ina are.,Permne en weed i1,0 (tact to the ipprovel of dfy,county a oth t gowrnmen navMg eons pirtl woenllbn over ma eenlon of hlghwey or eutho'iiy to Iw uletr find use by mane of 3onIng oldie. building rvgwabon5.II snail I»the eppilanf a reeponup•zy b obtain any corn epproval Including,whore apposable,focal gowrrtmenr aatarrrwleeun of compllane.w,th the atit.vnde pronnmg goau,tOAR T34-S0.0$5) SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1—If the proposed application requires traffic control devices and/or special road construction,the applicant shall provide a copy of this application to the effected local goverment.The ongtnal application must be Signed by the local government ofticiol, •LOCALOOVERNMENT•OFFICIAL SIGNATURE I ME; DATE »"�� X ._ g' ' 2—The spplicsnt or his contractor shall notify the District Maintenance Supervisor's office at least AA hours in advance of commencing fro k and • ' after completing the work covered by this permit.(OAR 73440-040)Telephone Number: 3- This access shall serve tax lots 800, 200, 700, 900 and 1000, 4- Applicant shall submit a recorded cross-over easement for the adjacent property to the `F eolith, In the event the adjacent property re-develops, one common access will shared to serve both parcels. 5- Applicant shall complete a non-remonstrance agreement with the City of Lake Oswego for • future improvements on Wells Street. 6-Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 450' of eight distance in both directions. N '. 7- See attached General Provisions, TYPE 2 APPROACH ROAD -- PAVED NOTE:All malarial and worttmenshlp shod by in accordance with the Mir. rent Slate of Oregon Stoner('Specification for Nignwsy Construction, R/W LiNe� r"_'""'W� -_ • W', 20f Rti' 15' Fit- 15' A- 90° I Oro 20' De- 61 DRnv4.0' I O iw CUULVEf•T PIPE RECUIREDT �� Q`� Ditch Lino'- l� I i YES NO ......_�_..._ TY�] El ;, Od Cuty. Plped t I Concrete or CMP . , 4 DIAMETER(INCHES) LEIIGTHIFEET) `-Fees of Pyres, I • I.,,,`` Match Existing 2' (back-fill gap,! Dp STONE BASE 31ze AND TYPE I COMPACTED THICKNESS HNC y �"11 1 "-0 8" Ft W Si16 ANO TYPECOMPACTED THICHNE5S t'NCRE$i '-"�---� - STONE LEVELIND 'z'AN° 2" J COURSE PLAN ASPHALTIC CLASS I C'JMPACTEO THICKNESS I NCHESI M --,., tSCONM�NT $ ar C µit (two sifts) — . 1 T W.✓ d • P v.r GENEX3AT. P13QVX,SIQ ,FOR R QAD_Aa Q APPLICANT Leland Harriman HIGHWAY 3 M.P. 6.n , •. X 1) The work area during any construction or maintenance performed under the permit provisions shall be protected in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,US Department of Transportation,and the Oregon Department of Transportation Supplements thereto. Contractor shall maintain all existing Traffic Control Devices during construction, then re-install • permanently per MUTCD standards and District Office specifications. certificate indicating their completion of an approved work zone traffic controltr coggers rse.mu have a card or r ,. • P PP course, 2) Ali construction operations win be performed off limits of the highway travel way. • 3) The access control fence must be maintained during construction and restored to its original or better condition after construction is complete. X 4) No work will be permitted ed on the roadway during the hours of darkness, nor between 6:00 am to MO Am, or between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. •• 5) On site storm drainage shall be controlled within the applicant's property, No blind connections to existing state facilities. ' .• ' . ',' 0 X 6) Permittee to verify all utility locations for relocation prior to construction,should any be in conflict with the proposed construction, 1 4 v ;: X 7) The spreading of mud or debris upon any State highway is strictly prohibited and violation shall be cause for immediate cancellation of the permit. Clean-up shall be at applicant's expense. • 8) Applicant will install and maintain landscaped areas as shown o the attached drawings. Planting shall be limited to low growing shrubs,grass,or flowers that do not attain sufficient height to obstruct clear vision .. in any direction, The Commission or Engineer shall have the right to remove said landscaping at any time such removal may appear to the Commission or Engineer to be in the public interest, without liability for loss, injury, or damage of any nature whatsoever. ' X 9) The permittee shall not use the right-of•way to display advertising signs or merchandise of any kind, , • X 10) Grade and pave the highway shoulder and approaches with (....11 )of 1 1R" •0, 2"of 3/4" • 0,and 4" of AC placed in two lifts, 11) This Is a temporary permit and will automatically expire on (` Order to Reader Service). A . . 12) Permit inspection fees are estimates to be deposit of this amount with the District office at 2131 SW Scholls Ferry Rod, Portland, will be required prior to the start of construction, Charts will be made on an actual cost basis, 13) A copy of this permit and all attachments shall be available at the work area, / , . . Applicant's Initials -- : 0 U °: • • " lY F +l w V i • 'r• ri 1 • • • • • • c r ! • • s ° y - --- TAN-06-'9:3 1E:42 1; :D 13TR I~t T 2f4 HWY D I V TEL NO:5032976458 t4974 PO4 : la EXHIBIT ,' • ' 4„",.• /�.1r!-b�� ) + ' ` t))tl;t;i)�,�II�It�1�i'1?s'Yi"r1`'r:1 ; t • Lo- -----Ict,..41•2.\\t4•4C"5t78-ci ('i1 ti tnt %1 Ii1�'1Sa)V. cn. .titt:01N% ti , '111t t.ttt�: NO . . .. . • 1)1;S113,,1�Fu1 I:.trait:ei '.1, (2) '1'u f.tc'ilUltle alto review, applicant shall place m.n kcr> such a< lath or .takes m the right of w;iy line where tt intersects 1114JI1\WAY APPi OACt1 ROADS, ;tppltc:utt's property liner, and the center line of the proposed "• '' ,CROSSINGS,ACCESS CONTROL ANC approach road and furnish the District Engineer the approxi• WE1(Afljitc.SSTItiCTIOA5 mate distance in feet from each property line to the upproach •'" •,,,wmnr►tmw,u wt., Toad center tine. If this distance is in excess of 300 feet, 4 ' marking of the property line may be omitted, Approach Roads and t'rivutc,toad fz) No pet mit is v:did until a copy, approved by the Cro.anl;s tflwn Stale highways Ut,f,ineer, hat, been furnished the Ill;plieant, NM tvurk on Itighu••,y right of way is to be started until the applicant obtains 7 Scope a slid permit. '✓ 73•4.50-045 This rule shall apply to and govern the location, (4)Art administrative processing ice of S50 is required for construction, maintenance, and use of approach roads and ,each permit and must accompany the permit application.The private road crossings upon state highway nghts of way and administrative processing fee of $50 will not be refunded ': . properties under the jurisdiction of the Department of subsequent to the issuance of n permit. -4... Transportation. (5)The district engineer may waive the fee provided for in • ��,� Scat.Auth.:ORS Ch.374 section (4 at;this rule if the applicant is a state agency, city. \ Hist: 1 OTC 20-1950.f.dr ef.10-72-80 county orcttttr public body. (6) 1?l0: rmit fee shall be charged where the approach • Definitions road is'const ueted om; reconstructed by the Division or its 734-50.Ot0 As used herein, unless the context requires contractor as a part of a roast improvement or construction • t' ti otherwise: project: z (I) "Applicant" means the person, firm or corporation 'Star,Aiith ORS Ch.374 having the legal tight to apply fora permit. Such legal right is War rUCITC 43.f. 11.26-74.of, 12.1.74:I OTC 20.1980.f.&cf. vested only in the owner or lessee of the property,abutting the , ,-,qtm- 2-SO:2HD 13.1481,f,&ef. 10.2.81 >•A highway or the holder of an easement or similar right to ; ., construct and use a facitLiy upon the abutting property; Allocation or •oats providing the Division has not acquired the rights of access 734-5tr-42 (I) The entire expense of constructing the from propertY• facility shatt3'borne by the applicant. This shall Include the • (2) '"Approach road" means a roadw,:,,, or driveway cost Of �tnatetiats, labor, signing, signals, StrUCtUreS, w •conncctIonbc&WLenthcoulrdChYldedtio cents• :„" ` ! ,, provide Vehicular access to and from said highway and the (2) f any Items,or portion thereof,described under property. section. E, ' this rule may become this responsibility of the adjoining.3) C ( t33 commission" means the Oregon Transportation Division• ed they arc a prat of the terms and conditions " Commission. of a i y acquisition obligation or ether contractual (4) "repo rumens" means the Department of Transports lion of the Sta lc of Oregon. ' , atitrecr( )>rui� ens r+coortt►tttsetton or Widening of any htgltwsty (5) "Distria >rttginect" m: d the ertgirKu to tea oo of uIres move!.alteration or Itt)constsuetion of a eelltty each of the 16 Highway Districts thtY;.sghout the State,or his i or onatrvttcd prior to designated representative. eon er authority of a ganinit (6) "Division" meant the Highway Division of the Auk 2O 7,the cost of such removal or replacement to a Department of Transportation. like width condition will be borne by this Division. Any (7)"Engineer"means the State Highway Engineer or such widening' r improvement of the facility at the applicant's • person as he shall designate In writing, request shaq done only under authority of a new permit and „II) "Facility" means either an approach road or private at the expca•, of the applicant, road crossing. (4)Tee t of maintctwnce of the approach road from the (9) "Permit"means a fully executed form entitled"State _ outside cd the highway shouldet or curb liar to the right of of Oregon. Department of Transportation. Highway Division. way tineshai a the�responsibillty of the applicant.The colt of •. �.. application or permit to construct a roach road or vote maintenan«eel ,a private road crossing within the right of way road crossing". all special permit provisionsp Included Inthe shall beth" ponsibility of the applicant. , , permit as deemed necessary by the District Engineer and all sal ORS Ch.374 attached exhibits. kart:" C 43.f, I t-26.74,et.1244411 OTC 20,154,4,f,&et. . (10)"Priva.te road crossing"means the crossing of a state 4'" highway by a privately owned road which is designed for use by vehicles which are prohibited by law from using state Liahtllt antral highways,county roads.or other public highways. 7 . (I)The applicant shall be responsible and liable (I it "Right of way" means the entire width between this for ail di or injury to any person or properly resulting exterior right of way lines including the paved surface, from the ruction,maintenance,repair,operation or use of shoulders, ditches_ and other drainage facilities.in the border at faoility'f which the applttant etas bean granted A parmlt area between the ditches or curbs and the right of way line, and for•whi' the applicant may be legally liable, and the • . 5u►l.Auth.t ORS Ch.374 applicant lab l indemnify and hold harmless the State of Situ: I OTC 43,f. 114644.el. 12.1 741 1 OTC 20-1980,f.a.ef. Oregon. the; mmission. the Department, and all officers, t0-22-8o •employees ar agents of the Department against any and all .• damages,Claims.demands.actions,causes of action,costs and Permit Application Procedure expenses of isAtitsnevcr nature which they or any of them may 7"td•50.0lS Application shall be made on the form de- sustain;by;.re sons of the acts, conduct or operatiun�of the • scribed tinder rule 734-50-010(9), to the appropriate District appticant,4 tt iigcnts or employees In connection with the 1t � t-Div,in �") (Nnvcml.tr, 19:t2I YAM-0;-'q3 t 41 I A El I STR I CT :A HWY D I V TEL 15032976058 487 P95 • • t t It \1,1, u7.,,t tl;\•l•ari\ ;.0 •• Iil�.11t\',tit I• I•)'• i}` onstruction, i :liitten.loee, lCtt:llr, operation or Use of Stitt (iii th,.r,IIILC cif'", ray bit,iiless traitAiction or COItlilicrei,ll .'• f . .,eiidy, establishtuentV;u n state hiuhw,,y right Of way is strictly (2) The applicant shall be responsible for rehearing or prohibited. 1.:,":: .1 .• djusting any utilities located opt highway right of way as (10)The 5ppl .ant shall be solely responsible for providing equired to accommodate the facility applied for.Constructiun correct and cam etc information as may be required by the i f the facility by the applicant, his agent or Contractor, will be permit form or t District Engineer. If the District Engineer v •ermilted only after the applicant has furnished the District should determine hat any fact required of the applicant which ' '•"••r st ineer evidence that satisfactoryarrangements for ;;aid i F 6 malarial to'tlt assessment of tar, facility's impact upon •;, ;' elocution or>,djustmcnt have been made with the ott'ncrof the traffic safety„ cnicncc and/or the legal or property r iita ifcrtcd utility facility, of any roc peon(rn uding the Slate of Oregon)is fa{se,inCoitcct 7 (3)When requested in writing by tlic District Jrn;,ineer,the or ('nutted, the pis rice Engineer may deny or rrvokc the ppli=n( or his contractor shall during the period that an permtt and may r uire the applicant to remove the facility and pproach road is being constructed, in order to assure respon- restore the facilityi are1 to a condition acceptable to the District • ibaity under section (1) of this rule, file with the Division Engineer at the applicant's expense. In such cases the District vidrstce of insurance in the following minimum amounts: Engineer, in his lodgment, may also require the applicant to 50.000 for property damage resulting from. any single provide, at the applicant's expense. any additional safeguards ace;a.ld S100,000 for the death or injury of any person, and/or facilities required to protect the safety,convenience and . :i ubject to a limit of S300,000 for any single occurrence. Said rights of the traveling public and persons(including the State), oti.-y or policies shall include as named insureds the State of if such additional requirt:mcnts are adequate to achieve those ?rcgon. the Commission, the Department, its officers, agents purposes, as a, onditron of the continued'validity of the :}d employees. except as to claims against the applicant. for permit. e onal injury to any members of the Commission. Depart. ,(I I) If, et an time after a permit has been issued, there is lent,or its officers, agents, and employees or damage to any a significant line in the volume of traffic using the f its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a certificate approach.roa o; chan?e in the character of the traffic using `mowing evidence of insurance, shall be it7cd with the Director the approach oa and It is determined by the Engineer that •f Frst•nits. 2960 State Street, Salem, Oregon 1'r110, prior to additinnal trafgcli ontrois are nerr•r*iry for the safety of the ovtutrancement of any work, traveling putbtic e.g., acceleration or deceleration lanes, (4)On each private'road crossing during such time as it is widening of'thee3i ghways to provide left turn refuges, traffic ri .-s construction or in existence the applicant shall,in order warning light(a traffic signals, etc,). applicant shall either assure responsibility under section(1)of this rule, file with constr uctat itsex nsc or reimburse the DIvision for the entire 7ivision evidence of insurance in the following minimum cost of d'csitiii " constructing or installing, such additional ., i . .,tints: $50,000 for property damage resulting from any traffic contrell tt the option of the Division providing, injc occur n ce; and S100.000 for the death or injury of any however, that ifithe applicant is a lessee of real property esson,subject to a limit of S300,000 for any single occurrence. served by the approach road.the liability of the applicant shallN'>`:,:„„N ;aid policy or policies shall include as named insureds the he limited to the cost of constructing or Installing the additional ta.te of Oregon.the Commission,the partment,Its officers. traffic controls,Which are constructed and installed during the Scats and employees, except as to claatms against the appli• time the lease is in force and effect. Artt. for personal injury to any members of the Commission, in making a determination whether additional traffic apartment,or Its officers,agents,and employees.or damage controls are seasonably necessary, the Engineer or his t a a any of its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a designated rrprt; ltattve(s)shun: ertificatc showing evidence of Insurance, shall be filed with (a)Inspect „ site of the approach road 're Director of Permits, 2960 State Street. Salem, Oregon (b) tnvestigaf the extent and nature of the change of use ' 7310.prior to corrimenc rnent of any work. 4 of the approach road;and • ;w ,. (5) If the highway surface or highway facilities are (c) Dete mints. In light of current and projected traffic .amagnd by applicant, applicant shall replace or restore the conditions, traffic speeds, sight distances, and the road itway or highway facilities to a condition satisfactory to the conditions on both the state highway and the approach road • )istaim Er:mginoer. whether additional traffic controls are necessary, and which - ' (6)When requested In writing by the District Engineer,the controls or combinations thereof would be necessary. to pprxactt or his contractors than furnish for the period of time adequately insure the safety and convenience of users of the <+ceasary to Install a facility and to Insure that any damage to highway and approach road. . he highway..has been corrected to the satisfaction of the (2'ub1tationss The publications)'referred to'or Incorporated by )i rict Entgineer, a cash deposit or a bond in the amount reference In this cute am aystlabk from the office of the }Brassy pc Pied by the permit written, issued by a surety company Division,) , t ' > erased to do business in the State of Oregon. i'io work shall star,Mash,:ORS Ch.374 ' c performed until the'deposit or bond has been filed with the Hist; I orC 43,C. t t•zb-74,a f. Iz-i-74:f OTC2af960,C. &e(, hrecfor of Permits,2960 State Street,Salem,Oregon 97310. 10.22-80 (7) No unauthorized signs shall be permitted upon any onion of the right of way.Where standard warning signs such vocation . •: s'Tricks"are required by the permit or other regulations,or 734-S0-030(1).No facility shall be constructed at locations. m ordered by the Distndt Engineer to provide of the- where rictus of access to or from the abtJtling property have iciliiy, such signs shall be furnished, placed and maintained lxcn acquired by the Department. y the Division at the clrprnsc of the applicant. (2) The number of approach roods to a single property f8)The work arcs during any construction or maintenance • shall be limited to one except where in the judgment of the ' :pined under the permit provisions shall be protected in District Engineer additional approach roads lire necessary to 0 ., .t onlatice with the current ht>anual nit U►tlform Traffic aseommodate and.service such traffic as may be reasonably • • ontreit Devices for Streets and highways" as amended or anticipated commensurate with the safety of the traveling ipplemented by the Commission. public,' (9) The stopping nr parking.of vehicles upon the state (3) Facilities thrall be located where they do not create ._s. gl+way right of way or the servicing of such vcltklcs or the undue interference or Itntnrd to the free movement of nor,nal ' ' 4overnbcr, 193 ) 2.Div. 50 • JP.4-06—'q 16::3. Ip:01 STP I CT 2A HWY D I li TEL NO:503"9T605$ S2974 P05 i • .t t)Itr(;l)l'Al1111N1+'1 it.t 1 I 1 I I:01 1:• c,11n1'I,t;tt 7ta, 1)tvitilON SII_Illtal\v.1Y UI\'ItilOti' _ • highway or pedestrian traffic. Locutions on sharp curves,steep (9) '111,: maximum size. gross weight of vehicle and lead. grades, areas of restricted sight distance or at points which gross axle kaiEtItts and types of vehicles using the private interfere with the placement And proper functioning of traffic cro%sins, shall be shown on Exhibits attached to the permit control signs, satinets, lighting or other devices that affect application. The exhibit(s) attached to the permit application • shall include diagrams showing type of truck and trailer traffic operation will not be permitted, combinations. maximum width and overall length, distance Stat,truth,: ORS Ch,374 lust' 10TC 43,f. 11.26-74,cf, 13.1. 4;t 01'C 20.1980,r.&et. between axles,maximum axle weights,and size and number ol` 10.22.80 tires per axle. (10) Structural details of separation structures shall be attached to Inc permit application. De• sign • ' (I1) Upon request by the Engineer the applicant wilt at its (:., movement-50 to (I)f Facilities wall bet vehicles to allow sole expense supply an operated test vehicle of the type and nabl and from the highway of ppr achwithout which can dimension to be used at the proposed private road crossing. reasonably be expected to utilize the approach undue • conflict with other traffic. Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch.374 (2) in most instances, these requirements can be satisfied tits*: I0OTC0d3,f.11-26.74,cf. 12-l•74:I OTC20-1980.C.&et. by using approaches designed in accordance with Types 1f through 5 as shown In Exhibits I through 5 and/or combina- tions of the same into dual approaches as described in Exhibit Construction ' 5.Alternate designs are subject to approval by the Engineer. 734.50-0-10(1) Apl?I1'cant or his contractor Shall advise the ('3) Definitions of dimensions and desirable limits arc District Engineer's office at least 48 hours In advance of shown in the general notes for Types 1 through S as shown in eammencing construction of a facility approved by permit. Exhibits I through 3 and the method of establishing widths as (2) The facility shall be constructed in conformance with shown in Exhibit 6. the terms of.the permit includint the Special Provisions of the (4) Approach roads which serve a business or eotnmerclal permit and exhibits attached to the permit, • activity which can reasonably be expected to generate traffic (3) Applicant shall notify the District Engineer when • of the volume and character requiring additional traffic constn�ction of the facility hasbeen completed. The District controls necessaryfor the safety of the traveling public such as n, siEngineer shall inspect the completed facility and advise ch whichhelizattbe designed ind d on ton i div like, arc specialeproblemste applicant in writing whether or not the facility has been • of musts required the Divisionan individual construct When this typeconstructed in a satisfactory mariner and the applicant shall facility facility is o�rq anead is may specifications the at the Promptly t:orrect any dcficiencscs set forth by the District in accordance with its plans and spxi[ications at the P • applicant's expense. Facilities other than signalization may be Engineer. The planting or placing of adornments not prohibited constructed by applicant In accordance with plans and (4) the adornments ntssha limited d speificatlons approved by the District Engineer if in.the by law on the tight of way by applicant judgment of the District Engineer the facility can be properly low growing shrubs, grass. or Cleavers that'do not attain • and safely constructed by the applicant. sufficient height to obstruct clear vision In any direction. No (5) Applicant may be required to constnuct'curbing along cum, posts, signs or other structures shall be placed on the its frontage, base and pave the area between the existing highway right of way unless applicant has obtained approval of . • highway pavement and the curbing, and Instal necessary the District Engineer. drainage facilities as a part of the road approach said Stet.Auth:ORS eft.S74 approach is to a high traffic volume section of a highway In an itlsi: t OTC 43.f.11.7,5.74,el Il•I-yet I 07C20.1980.C.do cf. ! urban arra• In other areas. the applicant may be required te., 10.92.0 construct curbing, guardrail, ditches or plantings limiting ' access to the abutting property to the distances designated In Maintenance the (6) Permitsrh i permit. 73440.�045(1) Prior to palomino any maintenance work and/or for say I cl roads provisions larva ldtrai on the highway facility which will interfere with or Interrupt paved areas may ( a highway drainage for storm dram traffic upon or along t e highway,applicant shall obtain prior judgment facilitiesconnecting the tost the d ie hi sys ► sf eI the approval from the District Rosen. judgment of the District Engineer the highway system m is adequate to handle the accelerated run-off. It In the judgment (7)Applicant may perform minor maintenance work which of the District Engineer the highway system is not adequate to does not interfere with traffic upon the highway without handle the accelerated run-off, the applicant shalt make obtaining approval from the District Engineer. suitable provisions to prevent surface nrn•off from the paved (3) In AU cases where traffic signals have been required all t areas into the highway drainage system.MI costs for providing . maintenance will be performed by the Division at no cost to the drainage from the property shall be borne by the applicant. applicant unless the Special Provisions in the permit require (7) private,crossings.shall be made by grade separation the applicant to bear the cost of signal maintenance.On private unless separation is determined by the Engineer to be economic road crossings if the signal,is damaged or destroyed by the cally Impractksble. applicant or a third party,the applicant shall bear the cost of (8)if a grade separation Is not required the applicant shall repair or replacement over and above any amount which may install any such signing,stgnalizartion,or combinat oft of traffic be recovered from such third party by the Division. • safety devices as may bd determined necessary by the slat,AUth,s ORS Ch,374 ' Engineer, When these facilities arc required the Division may Mitt t 07'C 43.t.11.24.744 ef. 11.1.741 I OTC 20-t9e0,I.&cf. construct this entire facility in accordance with its plans and 104.240 specifications. If the facility Is other than slgrulization the District Engineer may authorize the applicant to Install the Etfec�lve Period facility in accordance with plans and rpeciticatlons approved r,0,050 (I) Unless otherwise provided In the Special •: by the District Engineer if in the judgment of the District 7b4. • Engineer the applicant can install the facility adequately and Provisions, the permit shall be in effect for an indefinite period • safely. of time from and utter the date Issued, unless sooner revoked • • 3••Div,30 (November, 1082) • • oRt:t•ON Ati,Mintst RA IIv1, itt:t,t•.;• t_ ' ..._._ __ - -- ---`"...-rt:rt 7.14, DIVISION Su—tttr.nrt‘Ati�lil�,tNLt�N _..._._•.........» _ .. 0 ' , . • • y ti, by mutual consent, or by the E'i : ar failure of the Aceesa Control Policy applicant to abide by the terms and, :.;• ut the r,ermit,or , by operation of law, Categories of Access Control (2) Failure of the applicant to iith any of the 7.34-$0-070 Access control is divided into three catcgcric ii _ • terms and conditions of the permit oh 'icient cause for (1) "Complete control" allows access only at specified cancellation of the permit and may .removal of•the% public road at grade connections or at interchanges, facility by the Division at the applic use as provided (2) "Limited control" allows public and private necesses in OR::374.320. at specified toc itior•>:identified by legal a,t;rccmcnta or deeds. (3) The permit, the privileges ;ercut and the (a) "Uncontrolled" access is where there is nu specified • obligations of the applicant thereby nding upon the i restriction of access. Future accesses could be allowed under successors and assigns of the applica the Road Approach Permit process subject to the appropriate (4) If the applicant fsils to col allation of the Oregon Krvt,ed Sttitutes. ' ' facility covered by the permit within specified in the `.• permit. the permit shall be deems i void and all Stat.Aunt.;ORS Ch.104 dt 374 l:ivilegcs thereunder forfeited, unit a extension of : 1Orl'C!9•t980.l.dtcf.10.2240 times is obtained from t the District En ' (S) The construction, maintenar ,on and use of General Policy the facility is subject to the paramo. . of the legisla- 734-50.075 It is the polity of the Oregon Department of lure over the state highway system ht or privilege Transportation to control access to the highway facilities of the • granted by the permit shall be dee instrued to be state to the degree ne,''Lessary to maintain functional use, e beyond the power or authority of thi to control the highway safety, and the preservation of public investment,The ctata highway system.,Applicant tg the permit • Department rocognims that access control management varies )4k:tooth:Ages that the rights,and p anted thereby for each of six existing access management conditions. . tray at any time be changed or abroga native action. Stat.Auth.:ORS th,184 do 374 Scat.Auth.:ORS tit.J74 Histt t OTC 19-1980.f.6t el.10.72�60 Hied: I OTC 43,C. I t.26.74,el 12.1 Xt-I9FA,C.do ef. 10.22-80 Access Management Conditions . 734-50-0S4 (1) Grant of access to private property where r Agencies we have previously established Limited Control access: 4„ . . . ° 734 0.0•SS Issuing of permits tit regulations is Access may be allowed if all the following conditions are met: tot a finding of campliaree with the planning goals (a) Current geometric design standards can be met which it the acknowledged comprehensive f .area.Permits consider such items as safety,capacity,alignment.grades,left Ire'issued subject to the approval o unty, or other turn lanes,signals,etc. • 0 • overrmcntal agencies having either j islon over the (b)The terrain is such that it is not practical to construct a ection of highway or authority to its use by means frontage road or some other means to provide alternate amass •f zoning and/or building regulations. he applicant's to the property. csponsibility to obtain any such ap tuding. where (e) Is not in conflict With local compreheruive plans for pplic able,local government determin rnpiianee with this class of highway. he statewide planninggtsal:. (d) Payment is made to the Oregon Trurtpottatian, rommis:1cm on the differences of value of the real property ..—.. • . .. _. t ... •, N,r ..._. *non, 'rs.i. r. /n i,, 44 "..11 gWp�`yy�a� '7.tio,which Is by this reference�4x>rstee into + J vt7r uo ncvc aw r guarantee US removal by the app .r contra 1 rom which access l was r_tat purestatcd and,dots not abut the highway r • . esmit expiration data IC no expert.. hared by the tight.of way:£tea property which is not a part of the property ~vision in the satisfactory remount of.the each road,the from which access control was purchased and does not •;but ;tire amount of the deposit will be rescind the applicant. the highwayy tigi'tt-of-way.vvill not be considered for any grunt ' expenses are incurred by the Division, t piiant Will be of access. These properties must depend upon the county or 'clod for,the amount In excess of the at deposited or city road system for access to the State Highway System. , • .funded the difference if said expense is than the said (3)Requested change lit use of access from a private party • - --•-' JAN-06-'93 1 S t 50 I I STR I CT cA HWY D I tJ TEL NO:50 2975058 #3976 P01 •_•_._. Y • • 1; q (11:Ital\ ,\il\ti1'I �tl: \!1( I I:111.I. i+ , (•11•\1'1l�.t(9,t•t, InVIS1(1,\Sul.—• I114;Ill%',\\' IiIVIstllti i• (S) Giant of :silos to a public entity such as a city or (tt) nn ultgitteuring evaluation hat been perfur,ncd and the *. aunty fat• a city street ur chanty road whore the Oregon safe lurid carrying capacity of the highway or section thereof ' r' I'rtn%ptnt.diun Cuntniisc,on tl;as previously ysi:sblishcd dallied has been determined, ' control act a t:: Art new eoitnection under the ui+t)ve condition (c) Mxa\inunu allowable wei61u5 consistent with the finding may be eausidercd :after all following provisions or requira• of the engineering evaluation has been established for vrlticics meats are met: .,,ai , fit" sr or combinations of vehicles traveling upon the highway or (a)Justification for the connection must be made based on section thereof, the following: (2) Upon fulfilling the, requirements a.ct forth in subset. (A) is not in conflict with local cumprcht:nsivc plan\ (Or (ions(I)t,,) (litough Cc)of ifii rule, the State Highway Engineer this class of hitihway• shall prepare a written order which: (B) The county or city has explored all possible atterne- (a)Describes the highway or section of highway which will ' parallel streets which might • be affected- • tives to the connection including , include the purchase of additional right-of•way, (b) Discloses the r ais(te of the required inspection and (C) Current geometric design standarr;a can be met with evaluation;and consider such items as safety,capacity.alignment,grades,left (c)Indicates the restriction to be imposed. attar lanes,signals,etc, (3) Upon the signing of the order by the State Highway (b) Plans and specifications which adhere to the geometric Ensinecr, posting of signs and enforcement of the restriction • t' • design standards presently or contemplated being used on the shill be as provided in ORS 487,905(3)and(s), • facility must be prepared by the applicant. Stat.Audi.:ORS Ch.487 (c) An agreement detailing responsibility is prepared and aN.t: t OTC 12•IAIB(Temp),t,&cf. 12•f9.78; I OTC 7.1979,f, executed before work begins. cf,4-t9 79 (6)Access control acquisition;A project for access control� P j (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the acquisition may be proposed to preserve integrity of the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained present system. from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State,) a It will be the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team No. I,as defined in the Oren Action Plan, to delineate areas Weight Restrictions fur Rocky Creek Bridge wherte limited access control should be a part of project 734-S0•095 (1) It has been determined by the staff of the development, Oregon Department of Transportation that severe cracking and (Pubs catianc: The publication(s) referred to or incorporated by spelling of the concrete due to corrosion of the reinforcing reference in this: rule are available from the offioc of the Highway steel has deteriorated the structure of the Rocky Creek Bridge Division,) beyond economic repair. Further,. the Department has " Sat.Au(h,:ORS Ch. I&d&374 determined that weight restriction of 6,000 pounds is necessary • 0 Haut I OTC 19.1980.f.&cf. 10-2240 to protect the bridge from being unduly damaged and to insure the safety of the traveling public, tr 1 Administration of Policy (2) Vehicles weighing in excess of 6,000 pounds shall not inistration f Costs incurred by the bepartment of use the Rocky Crock Bndge on the Oregon Coast Highway. , • • Transportation in processing a request for access modification, (3(frontage road)in Lincoln County shall l, r mc4i c1 • shall be paid by the party roquesti the modification.These estrThe Hin in ay nspi uo ma immediately post this costs will be based on actual documented costs Incurredplus a weight restriction in a conspicuous manner at bath ands of the •• � d ''' lO4G charge for general administration. Rocky Creek Bridge and at each other places as may be necessary to inform the users of the Oregon Coast Highway of F`(. (2) Written agreements outlining the details of construe- these restrictions. lion and cost responsibility mutt be approved by both panics prior to the processing of any documents. CiTC Slat.Auth,rORSta,ltti9 r (3)A grant of access constitutes the transfer of all property Its' t2 b�Ciemp). G &mf1 M31.77: 1 OTC 9], f, & ef. - .v right. tt does not excuse the recipient from the duty to obtain and comply with the conditions of.any road approach or road (F.D. NCn•E: The text of Temporary Rules Is not printed in the '; Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation, Copies may be obtained crossing permit that may be required under ORS 374.310 and flutes adopted bythe Departmentfrom the adopting agency or lit.Secretary of Sute4 P W pursuant thereto. • slat.Awh,:ORS Cut. 181 Se 374 lust: t OTC I9•1900,t,&et', 10-22-10 %Wight Restriction for Deschutes River Bridge Crossing,Sherars " Bridge Highway • i 734-,50.100 (I OTC 11.1978(Temp),f.&cf. 12.14.781 . %Yclght Restricnlo.t.(or Highways • Procedure for Designating Highway Weight Restriction* Land Use Permit., `` b 734.50490(I)The State Highway Engineer may designate Fee Schedule far Land Use Permits- any highway or section of highway(including bridges and other structures)which,in his judgment,should be subject to Weight 73t S4-tOS When, in the due t restrictions of the Division's ` " j g R(c�t`oC�Wny Manager that use exist which : • restrictions, The State Highway Engineer may impose such prevent charging economic rent for lands under the jurisdiction weight restrictions as he cnnslders proper subject to the conditions: of the Division, the Division may issue a land Lite permit and `• following An inspection has indicated that a condition exists shall charge the following administrative processing fee; (l)Gratis— The monetary benefits to the Division exceed which requires action to prevent or reduce damage to the the cost of permit preparation and review;highway or section thereof;or (2) S50 for a si ple permit preparation with little or no .. (E) An inspection has indicated That a condition exists field inspection and no plan review;of ' ch mtly jcnptirdize the safety of motorists on the highway (3) SISO for a Complex permit preparation rcgisir'ng a peen• -• ' cction Illeruuf, review and continuing inspection, 5tclf,Auth,! ORS Ch,345 • 3•Div,Stl (till: 21i1) I.itit,f,k et,S• Gtt7 (Naventhia, 19112) , • u _ 4 • y • • • V .. • • • • • • • ' 0 . • • } •• j }.,.. '• • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • it.. ,f4 0- ,, ... i ,4 / f7-, -'3 ( I / ) /(\.47-CID' I'Oc, . . . , COMAMIA'''''ao' 7 \ f 1 /14' 671)7.'1-/il 11. 4 --b.' k-4 , 1 /c '74"/"(''''''' 1: , . , .,.. . .•.. . •. .. . .• .. . . • .. ., •....... ,...__,. ,/ ...,7,,,,i -4/A-3,,t 2,4"..kce... ii-A-04-eiVIA.,\ 0-01//).to9y)e(i' r R • .,, 1A.-TkA ';6(_ /e2441 ")-- 1 . . .'"ei:P-1-7."?..- 7// / / / • ., . ,. ,. ' • (,,„,_____,_,....-..---'"'"'"-*--2,L%,...„.. / ,, ,„,( /,‘ .:, „ ., ii...._ . ,... . _. , .., .., .„. •., , • . . . . . , .. S . , ,,... • . . • , . . . • ,.. . .. .. • ("JAN 2 0 1993 , ..,.. , ...:. . +' EXHIBIT ; ' • • 17 i , .... 0 , . �r.. ,_+..�. January '1.6 , 1993 r -.,,,,- r �1 .: Mr . Michael R. Wheeler City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 JAN o 1 Dear Mr.Wheeler : This letter is in response to "Notice of Public Hearing" - case file number SD-19-92/VAR 18-92 . :. /. We have a few complaints about the whole process . of how this was handled . Why would you put the sign in the front of the Lasley ' s property and not at the entrance of u. ,,'1: Chapin Way? Most people who saw the sign thought that • perhaps the Lasley ' s wanted to install a fence or something else on their property. Also, installing the nign over the Christmas holidays made it hard for most residents who were • away over the break to respond to this change to be included in the staff report by January 7 . Also , it was ridiculous to only notify by mail the residents who land fell within 300 feet of the proposed change. This change affects all who live on Morning Sky Court as their children would have to cross Chapin which would no longer be a cul-de-sac, in order to go to Hallinan School . We would like to see Chapin Way remain as ,11:: is . There is no need to build a through street in order to accomodate one extra home . The city must have plans to lee developers `1 come in and build other homes in this area in order to ,M '`• generate more tax dollars . To take down as many trees as would have to come down and to inconvenience all the `� . neighbors with trucks coming through this neighborhood to accomodate one house is unnecessary. There should he a way to access this home either with a pipestem lane from the . main house on Gans or to make Wells a cul-de-sac . The ,R traffic that would be generated through this quiet neigh- borhood is also unnecessary . Cars would turn right off of Hwy . 43 to access the Hallinan areas . We will be present at the meeting on January 20 to1, ;' protest this proposal and will do all that we can to protect ' '�' :: our neighborhood from this intrusion . ' ' • Sincerely , • . + • � 1. J Michele M. McGrain Robert J . McGrain . 146E Morning Sky Court .. ... ` Lake Oswego , Oregon y EXHIBIT 63 3-5 07 a ,4. . . . <. a �' • PRES 'ON 3200 U,S.Bnncolp Tower • THORGRI MSON1 S.W. Avenue SH[OLER Portland, 972 OR 972Ud•3GAB • GATES & ELLIS Telephone:(503)228.3200 Facsimile:(503)248•9085 rr ATTORNEYS AT LAW , �`, EDWARD ], SULLIVAN ` v 1993 Voice Mails January 22, 1993 • . Barbara Anderson Planning Department City of Lake Oswego a 380 A Avenue r P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: A lication of O'I'AI{. Inc , for Approval of Minor Involving a Distinctive Natural Area and a Class I Variance (City of Lake Oswego File SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 (A-B)) • Dear Ms, Anderson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the persons I represent in the above matter, 4' Sincerely, ".+ Edward J. Sullivan ''''. EJS/lw SOK.L0\5YLANDI.3R.3133 Enclosure cc: Clients p • EXHIBIT f 4v) • • Anchorage „ Bellevue • Seattle + Spokane •Taeonia „ Wnrhinµton,C7 C. Anon,ship lru lut4Ju •t 10fl' t UI'l • • 3. • •.i • • • { Y ti j'. I •� . 1. j • • • • • • • • 11 h , dR%760 • ******************************************oK*********************************************I******** COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT 5032489085 PRESTON LAW FIRM 01-21-93 03: 17PM • **************4.**u**************************************************************************“•** ELL.E DATE & TIME FILE TYPE DELAYED DESTINATION/TO; FROM: 25 01-21 03:09PM MEMORY—S / PAGE REMARKS 2 JTO :6350269 02 0024 � NW.- PHONE / TTI NO. ICOMM MODE RESULT NO. PHONE / TTI NO, COMM MODE RESULT OC1 6350289 GOOD J •4 t 1 q ` IPPIES'TONI 3200 U.B.Bancorp TOWER' 1 = T ORCi�IMSON 111 B.W. Flit)t Avenue ' SII�1LEFa Poor*cl,Oregon 9720 Tolophona: (503)225.3200 SATES & ELLV& Pacotrrdla: 003) e46 9685 { Ah'TORNEYS AT LAW : �' s FACSIMILE COVER PAGE January 21, 1993 Tee t3;9rttnrrs�Andar�oa From _ edward.J. Sulilvn,j 0 (1ndMduW) ., k0 t0nnlnp Co12111t l Na Of Pages; 2 1 p onalumnp Oow4e Peke) (Teboopy No.) trfltOnt/IVlattor NO.: 83 (Confirmation rm.) � Mont/per Name: $QKQL-Lake o�w o` 4 S. II you do noi reooh,e a of Ma Pagoa.DIen 4 contact our islaoopy opont of M OM)22&3200. EVCdpinal will not I�aM, t, r O. Oripinel ant by U.6.tnal. 0 011ginal ant by awanlgM mall , COMMENTS: • • • ' • 4 }• a The IntomtatWn conWeiR1 In this Itarnlie is confidential end may Woo be atturnoy otylIved, The Iniormeilon II Intended only toe the use ut the ,� !mu a,4„ar ae+MN«4 t++1 n+tt y r�ideoetyel. II%mil hH 661 tt+4 int*Ood taciplenl,AV the emDloywle at aslant reepeneibte iv d►ikiednd It to the Inierdtd A B/ Opponents represented by Edward J. Sullivan in Lake Oswego Planning file no SD 19-92/Var 18-92(a-b) • Michele McGrain Arthur and Garda Bode 1465 Morning Sky Ct. 16820 S. Chapin Way Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Jack and Virginia Wilborn F. Michael and Sharon Nugent 16521 S. Chapin Way 1385 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 r; rr f ':• • Rosemary and John Galmiche Edward and Sandra Levesque 1500 Morning Sky Court 16205 Matthew Court ' " ' • Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 • Scott Taylor ,i ;, y Daniel and Betsy Reis _, • Sophia Kondoleon 16850 SW Chapin Rd, 1425 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or, 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 r 1 ` Charles and Sandra Dunnweber • 16431 S, Chapin Way Lake Oswego. Or. 97034 • y a • ;• I • A« .t " = • 4.• J y. ,th �� r :9I '.)1` ' _ ', •fir y,. i`~ • F Addendum to Narrative for SD 19-92/VAR 18.92 • It has been determined that our application for a two-lot minor partition may be considered a.lna'or V partition. If this is so, the following are responses to the additional Development Standards which . would be applicable to a major development. 6.020 Transit - Standards for Approval 1. All major developments are being required to provide facilities to serve multiple-passenger transit. a. The extent of the facilities required for a particular site shall be determined based on the analysis of: ! r s ,+ i. Existing and projected adjacent transit facilities. ii. Proximity of bus routes. • EXHIBIT ` iii. Proposed development, J r.....� Ofts) iv. Expected patronage, 1142Na2 i1 iz, b. Hard surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: F : i. The nearest adjacent multiple-passenger exchange facilities, yr or • :11` 0 H. To adjacent paths which lead to nearest loading/unloading facilities, c. Transit facilities may be installed on site or in public right-of-way, at the discretion of the City Manager, .;. Findings: The nearest multiple-passenger exchange facility is located on Highway 43 near S.W. Cherry Street, Approval of this project will result in a 20-foot wide paved roadway connecting to S.W. Chapin Way, which is also a 20-foot wide pave roadway. No transit facility is proposed any .loser than Highway 43, 8.020 Park and Open Space - Standards for Approval • 1, All major residential development and office campus development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City In an aggregate amount equal to at least 20-percent of the gross land area of the development. Commercial and industrial development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 15-percent of the gross land area of the development, ya 4 2. Open space and park land in commercial, industrial and office campus areas may be provided as a combination of reserved land and landscaping. Where no Distinctive Natural Area, rt Findings: There has been approximately 12,t330 square feet + 20 acres/ shown on the proposed '• 43464,dd.nllr 0293,17 1 • T ' partition drawing (Exhibit 4) as being within the "Stream Corridor Buffer Zone", This area will remain as undisturbed open space. The open space equals approximately 29-percent of the gross land area, 9.020 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering - Standards for Approval 1. Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus Zone, shall provide 15-percent of net buildable area in landscaping and/or open space, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. ' Office campus developments shall provide 20-percent. r • 2. Multi-family and mobile home park development must provide 20-percent of net buildable area in landscaping in addition to the park and open space requirements. 3. Public and semi-public use must meet 1 or 2 above, depending on use. 4. All development abutting streets shall provide street trees at the proper o 4 spacing for the species. 5. Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot from the street at several points. 6. Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, lighting or other impacts from adjacent �' t' transportation routes or dissimilar uses. b. Screen public or private utility and stcrt.ge areas; and parking lots. c. As a separation between dissimilar uses. 7. The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments: a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in , an R-0, R-3, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed ; ' single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75-percent of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone. �x.,• b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a. shall be ' ' single-family, zero lot line or duplex dwellings, except three attached • dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being a corner lot. c. In a PD or cluster development located In an R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone • which abuts an R-7.5, R-(0 or It-15 zone and which does not contain t" • separate lots for the dwelling units, the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone In which the devclopnient Is located. . ., (Res. R-84-19, Sec. 2; 4.17.84.) p is 8. Group care homes which include paved outdoor recreational space shall provide screening roc adjacent properties. (lies. R-84.20, Sec. 4; 4.17•84,) tio i . , 0293.17 2 ly : . • Y l v. Findings: Street trees will be planted along the frontage of the property adjacent to Wells r . ::. ' •. '- 0 Street, No screening or buffering is rcquired♦ Ar %y 11.020 Drainage Standards for Major Development 1. All drainage management measures, whether located on private or public property, shall be accessible at all times for City inspection. When these 1 measures have been accepted by the City for maintenance, access E,' easements shall be provided at such a width to allow access by maintenance and inspection equipment. 2. Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, and other objectionable material in storm water runoff, 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and ', surface runoff) do not adversely affect other properties. 4. Storm Water Detention, Sufficient storm water detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipate intensities and durations of rainfall and provide necessary ' a' detention to accomplish this requirement, F b. Required Storm Water Management Measures. The applicant shall provide - ' sufficient storm water management measures to meet the above storm water runoff requirements. The applicant shall provide designs of these measures taking into account existing drainage patterns, soil properties (such as credibility and permeability) and site topography. Findings: As shown on the Partition Map (Exhibit 4), storm water will be channeled under the proposed extension of Wells Street to the drainageway which bisects the property, No detention is necessary, 19.020 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets - Standards of Approval 1. Private streets within a major development shall conform to the following requirements: a. The minimum width shall be 20-feet for two-way streets and 15-feet .°�. for one-way streets. b. In those locations where a fire truck may be expected to be positioned at the time of a fire, leaving no room for passing, minimum street width shall be 24-feet. c. Where conditions outlined in b,, above, do not apply and where conditions such as street alignment or traffic volume do not dictate otherwise, the width of streets may be reduced, This reduction of ,, width must be specifically approved by the City Manager, ill a • l 43451ndiihttr i3 `'H F O2tJ i,17 . . a Ii • a d. The width of streets serving as an aisle between garages or parking spaces shall be governed by Parking Standards. Accessways in 0 ;;,y parking lots are allowed in required yards. e. All private streets shall be declared fire accesses, either in a deed or • , ;. A; on a recorded map and shall be so signed. Vehicles parked within fire accesses shall be subject to towing away at the owner's expense. f. The layout of development shall be such that fire trucks will not have to back out. Deviations from this rule must be specifically ' •,' • approved by the City Manager prior to the final design of the development. • g. Except for cul-de-sacs where fire trucks are expected to turn or turn a• around, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: outside front wheel radius of forty-five (45) feet; Inside rear wheel • . . radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs with unpaved areas or islands are used, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: outside front wheel radius of fifty (50) feet; inside rear wheel radius of twenty-five .:1 (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs without unpaved areas or islands are used, the • outside front wheel turning radius of forty (40) feet shall be provided. (Res, R-87.15; 3-17-87.) h. Dead-end streets, other than where fire trucks are expected to turn, must provide for either passenger vehicle turnaround or a delivery vehicle turnaround. The type of the turnaround to be used must be approved by the City Manager. The layout of the turnaround must comply with the current standard details available from the City. i. A dead-end street of more than 300-feet in length shall be designed with a turnaround unless otherwise approved by the City Manager •. ,x; prior to the layout of the development. .I- Schools with over 25 students enrolled shall provide an on-site L ; driveway for the continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for • • the purpose of loading and unloading children. 2. a. Only one driveway per lot is permitted unless the lot frontage is greater than 75-feet, For those lots, a circular driveway may be • I approved by The City Manager upo; finding that the additional intersection will not cause a traffic hazard. b. Driveways en corner lots shall begin a minimum distance of thirty , (30) feet along the property line measured from the property corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City • Manager. 0 . ,' 4345\add tar 4 O'291.17 J' 19.025 Standards for Construction .,. 1. Pavement of private streets must consist of a minimum of two-inches of JM asphalt over a total of six-inches of crushed rock. Heavier traffic in a non-residential development, or an inferior subgrade, shall dictate a different payment section. 2. Edging of streets in those locations which are critical in terms of drainage or physical impact of a vehicle must be cast-in-place concrete curb. In >. non-critical locations extruded curb, affixed to the surface of asphalt, may be used. In locations where drainage or unrestricted movement of a vehicle are not a problem, the use of curbs may be omitted, by approval of the City Manager. • 3. Construction of extruded curbs, affixed to the surface of asphalt, is not ' • allowed within public right-of-way. • ,� 11 4. The use of inverted crown (i.e., where drainage is conducted on a surface other than along the curb) is allowed in parking lots and by special approval •' of the City Manager. 5. Cross-slope of any driveable area shall be a maximum 5-percent. 3. 6. Maximum grade of a private street shall be 15-percent. Any deviation from this criterion must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to the final design of the development, Street grade of that portion of the street adjacent to a public street shall be governed by the conditions outlined in s. item "7" below. 7. That portion of a private street or access adjacent to an Intersection with a r • public roadway shall have a maximum grade cf 5-percent, to facilities the exit of vehicles. The length of the area restricted to a ,-percent grade may vary depending on the size of the project and the traffic In the public street, ` but shall be a minimum of 25-feet. .t, 8, Drainage of private streets shall utilize pipes with a minimum 10-inch diameter and catch basins of an adequate capacity, as determined by the ' City Manager,• . 9. Where a slope is adjacent to a paved area, minimum of 2-feet distance must • be provided between the curb, or edge of pavement, and the toe or top of the slope, to protect the edge of pavement, If sidewalk or utilities are expected to be adjacent to the street, a wider separation must be provided between the curb or pavement and the top of toe of the slope, • 10, Within public right-of-way all driveways must be 6-inches thick, 3,000 PSI concrete. ' • 11, All driveways must be "sidewalk type" as per standard drawing, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. • • 12. Where specifically approved by the City Manager, driveways may be "no-sidewalk type", as per City standards. 41) . 4345\add•nar G I 0293.17 • . i • A . .n 13. If asphaltic concrete driveway within public right-of-way is approved by the ,'• , ' City Manager, it must be minimum 3-inches thick.on minimum 6-inches crushed rock base. 14. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager in writing, maximum gradient of driveway over private property at any point must be as follows: • For single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes - 20% • For multi-family projects larger than four-plexes - 15% ;'.; 15. Where break of grade is used with the algebraic difference between • w~ gradients exceeding 9-percent, vertical curve must be used as per Standard y • Detail titled: "Vertical Curves for Driveways." f.•1;, 16. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, maximum width of driveway measured at property line shall be as follows: for residential • •• driveway - maximum 1/2 of frontage, but ”et to exceed 24; for commercial driveway - as approved by the City Manager. a 17. Where turning must be done to enter the garage, driveway moat provide for ,, ' an outside front wheel radius of a minimum of 25-feet, 16. Where a driveway is adjacent to a bank sloping away from the driveway, a • minimum 2'-0" shoulder must be provided between pavement and top of ` slope. • • 19. Where steep slope or curvature may cause drainage problems, or cause vehicles to run off the driveway, curb or asphalt berm must, be used along the edge of the driveway, 41 . Findings: Both the extension of S.W. Chapin Way and S.W. Wells Street will be improved to a 20-foot width. Wells Street will be declared a fire access westerly from its terminus with Chapin Way. • The modified future street plan) proposed by the City of Lake Oaweho, will provide -• cul-de-sacs at the easterly and westerly terminus of S.W. Wells Street, Only one driveway is proposed for the newly created lot. Both the driveway and the • ' public and private streets proposed will be constructed to the applicable standards, - 20.00,5 Site Circulation Standards . Bikeways and Walkways . Standards for Approval , 1. Bikeways shall be public, • • 2, Walkways may be either private or public, depending on their location. 3, Bikeways and public walkways shall be located either in a public easement or over land dedicated to the public, The design of bikeways shall conform • to City standards, • 4. Walkways and bikeways shall tie to public streets at locations determined by r " the City Manager, y i 1 r . • 43461ndd,tme � � ' US�93.17 0 • 1 l • • Findings: Neither S.W. Chapin Way, S.W. Gans, nor S,W, Wells have been designated at bikeways or walkways. Highway 43, to the east, has been designated as a bikeway/walkway, • • • • fr r 4 • • • 1 • • • ` a e A •4.J ,,• • • 4345\ndd.itnr 7 0203.17 d • 1 • , ` 4 a • • JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE An additional variance is being requested from the maximum cul-de-sac length found in Section - 44,390 of the Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance, This section limits cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to 1000-feet in length, The criteria for obtaining a variance are found in Section 49,501 of the Lake Oswe o Development .,The criteria are listed below: g pment, a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and b. Development consistent with the request will not be inJurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of +: the property; and, d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • The requested dead-end street length variance meets the above criteria in the following manner: a, Without the variance the subject property and other properties adjacent to S.W. Wells i�.; .�,_ Street are not developable. Currently, S.W. Wells Street is a private street not , . constructed to City standards, In addition, no permit exists for Wells Street to access 5 Highway 43. In order to utilize S.W. Wells for access, a permit would need to be obtained and improvements would be required to Wells, These improvements include widening the roadway to 20-feet and installing a drainage ditch along at least one side �v. of the roadway, Both the application for the permit, and the necessary improvements require commitments from others since S.W. Wells Street is not owned by the ', applicant and S.W. Wells is located within a 20-foot wide easement which is not wide enough for all of the necessary improvements, This creates an unnecessary hardship on the applicant since conditions beyond their control are required, However, Chapin Way can be extended as 28-feet of access exists and additional access can be obtained for its extension. Additional property can also be obtained for the necessary drainage ditch adjacent to Wells westerly from where it will intersect with Chapin Way, b. By allowing S.W, Chapin Way to be extended beyond its current terminus, approximately 16 additional dwelling units would eventually utilize Chapin Way as their access, This would bring the total dwelling units utilizing Chopin Way to • approximately 38, w.l"ch would result in approximately 380 vehicle trips per day, The ', 380 possible trips r er day equals approximately 25-percent of the 1500 trips allowed on local/rei.ldential two lane streets by the Lake Oswego Transportation Study dated April 1992. The lot proposed by this application and those lots which may occur in the future along S.W. Wells Street will be of comparable size to those within Hallinin Woods which should result in houses of similar value being constructed, e. The proposed variance is the minimum accessary to make reasonable use of the subject property and other developable. properties abutting S,W, Wells Road, The • variance could be less if only the subject property was being considered, However, the ' future street plan provides for the cul-de-sacs at both the west and east ends of S.W. Wells which mo•.as the cul-de-sacs beyond that necessary for the subject property to be developed. • 4345\add,nar 0293,17 8 • . + s tr . d. The applicable Comprehensive Plan sections have been addressed elsewhere in this application. Approval of this variance will not result in any conflicts with applicable Comprehensive Plan sections. In evaluating a request for variance the granting authority shall consider the following factors when determining if a hardship exists: 1. Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved. 2. Whether a reasonable use similar to the like properties can be made of the property without the variance. 3. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 4. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied. The requested variance meets the above-factors in the following manner: 1. The subject property can only be accessed by either S.W. Wells Street or S.W. Chapin Way• The property is approximately 250-feet from the north end of Chapin Way and approximately 750-feet west of Highway 43, S.W. Wells Street is ti graveled private r, street with no approved access permit to access Highway 43 and S.W. Chapin Way is a public street built to Lake Oswego standards. 2, Reasonable use of the property is not possible without the variance. If S.W. Chapin Way is not extended as a public street, the City would require a cul-de-sac to he provided at the existing terminus of Chapin Way. This would require the cooperation -t of the owners of the two lots abutting the terminus of Chapin Way which is not expected. The variance would not be necessary if S.W. Wells Street and Chapin Way were both developed as public streets and access to Highway 43 were permitted, This however is not desirable by the property owners within Hallinin Woods, 3, The hardship, which is obtaining access to a public street, was not created by the "4 owner of the subject property. The same hardship exists for other property owners abutting S.W. Wells Street. The extension of S.W. Chapin Way as a public street will remove the hardship from the owner of the subject property as well as other property owners abutting S,W, Wells Street. 4. If this variance is not approved, it will he impossible to meet the required conditions . suggested by the City of Lake Oswego staff in order to utilize S.W. Wells Street as access, This would result in the inability to divide the subject property as proposed, Section 48.650(3) of the Lake Oswego Development Code States: —¢. 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, wy Y... 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. 1 IP 4346wdd.>iar 0 0293.17 r • • • • • • a:. 1 . • • • • y.. 4. • 1 � • . / :� , t .:,yam /;: .�' .,, .yam, is f r 'd EXHIBIT tip 5i v, ' 0 M E M O R A N D TJ M . / ' 7.'O: Michael Wheeler Associate Planner 1 r Planning Department i r FROM: r R. Fa 40-0/44riaw oni, P .E. s Transportation Services Engineer Public Works Department FEB 2 5 1993 •,. SUBJECT: Wells St , at State Highway 43 City of Lake Oswego Clackamas County 44 Upon your. request, I am writing this memo regarding the proposal osal t for the connection of Chapin St . to Wells St . , the impacts that this connection would have on the neighborhood traffic and the effect of the closure of access from Wells St . into State Highway 43 . The main reason to implement the proposed connection of Chapin St . to Wells St . , is that it would provide safer access to the properties now located on Wells St . , by allowing the use of the Li intersection of Cherry St . at Highway 43 which is recommended in + ..,„ the Lake Oswego Transportation Study for future improvements . The connection would not create any conflicts with the existing or • future use of the street system in the area. There would be a minimal impact on the amount of trips currently assigned to Chapin St . and Cherry St . Furthermore, with the proposed closure of Wells St . onto State Highway 43, there would not be any traffic cutting , ' '• through the neighborhood. In previous meetings with ODOT' s District 2-A Office, they indicated that there isn' t a record of an access permi t it for the • Wells St . access . Any time that there is change on the use of an . access, a new access permit application is required by ODOT. In reference to Wells St . , it is obvious that there have been changes in the nature of the use, consequently, a permit application would « .a: be required. At this time ODOT has the option of closing the access . The legal issues concerning access rights can be complex, but in • any given circunstance, it should not be assumed that a property owner has an unqualified right to access a highway, r In conclusion, i strongly recommend the connection of Chapin St , to \ Wells St . and the closure of the Wells St , access to the highway. Please let me know if you have additional questions on the subject , '1 • .;, . , • , • , •-•• ' • • .'• '• '0 • , , ••• •, • 1, • S:• 14. • • * • . '1...„\ • • *.• , . .• . : .., • .. • •• • . . •• . , • • • ...•• • . • • • .. „ . . •'• ' • • , . • , • • . • • • .. • '• • • • ' • • ' - ••• • • • • . • A • A I 'I \ 'J e ,� s4. �1<E I OF os� I, c,, 1,. 1, OREGON i Dl:l'.\1:1'\IV\, r 01• ['L.'EW (' Wof.a:s v 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner r< FROM: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician ��' ' SUBJECT: History of Chapin Road Extension,.Future Street Plans, etc,, ;Pertinent to r a : Skowron Partition DATE: March 1, 1993 i 4, . . ,', 0 The attached sheets areas synop sis s f events gleaned from an investigation of old planning and engineeringfiles regardingprevious proposals to th_a � •, known plat ,• nown as Hallinan Woods and Hallinan. Woods IL Trnscripts from Planning property now Commission meetings are available in these files. The surface improvements and the decision to use the original county road• alignment to its northerly terminus was made • '', ''• ',•.,7 " in the Hallinan Woods decision after several aborted attempts involving future street 'layouts for the properties north of Chapin Road, A � � ;'i There appears to be a g; p (inactivity?'� between Marchhi o 1979 when preliminary fats ,.. for Hallinan Woods and Hallinan Woods II were submitted and their final approval by the Planning Commission and City Council it February of 1981. In any �• ' �;. case, the record shows that all representations made by staff between 1978 and = �y' 1981 very clearly provided for the future extension capability of Chapin Road when properties to the north were ready for development. „+ RC/kaa Attachment I. (R0493,1 k mernouCha pinR4/2-=25 • o .i EXHIBIT .4 r I • J ., e I l ,,,,.,./ ..\\..,•, ;•, Iiy1 • 1 L • n - , •• ;:' ' * :'•'''. ....,••'' Iy i y �. i • M1.... kkk J . t. .• w i '♦'. N • 1 '8 Synopsis of Events ' Chapin Road Extension � ' 1. 0 4-1-'78 Staff Repoort for SD 6-78, Morning Sky Subdivision Recommended denial without prejudice pending draft of the Comprehensive Plan which could result in an open space designation on ` the land and subsequent movement toward City purchase of some of the property. 4-3-78 City Engineer's memo to Planning Commission, Recommendations are made regarding the width of the proposed streets a: and the extension and availability of utilities. Mention is made of a forthcoming site circulation plan that will be recommending the connection of Chapin to O'Brien. '' 4-10-78 Planning Commission public hearing_for SD 6-78, a 1614t libslivision and proposed cir Ala ion and street pattern which would allow ;i possible future connection to Lund and/or O'Brien Street A petition of 23 entitled "We the undersigned register our firm opposition to any extension through of south Chapin Way" is submitted by Larry Sokol. Proposal was denied because a portion of the subdivision was in an area designated as open space in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, '" ' , 5-3-78 ty ,gineer's memo to Planning Commission ,. Revised plat was turned in, Reference is made to a planning/engineering street plan that is not being represented on the new proposal. Decision to • be left to the Planning Commission as to whether or not to end Chapin Road in a cul-de-sac, 5-8-78 Planning Commissionon• ctested caproceeding for SD 6-78, a 16 lot subdivision on both sides of Chapin Road Chapin Road was rojected to connect to O'Brien (staff proposal). Subdivision dens due to local o osition of subdivision itself, due to 7 pp connection to O'Brien which would funnel traffic to Laurel at Hwy, 43, ' and due to pending possible acquisition by the City of part of the site for open space, At this hearing,Planning Director Pat Barnum stated: "The internal circulation pattern within the subdivision has been developed with reference to an overall circulation pattern for the • entire area which was revised by the Planning and Public Works staff '' following testimony at the April 10th Planning Commission meeting. + The new proposal, which I'll explain here in just a moment, would • . 411) , . .. , Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page lof3 , b • ,1 . allow for a possible future connection between Chapin Road and • • O'Brien Street,as the prior proposal did,but would slow traffic by inserting two right-angle corners and would also allow a connection to Highway 43. 'These two changes provide a response to '. • neighborhood desires without sacrificing the concept of overall transportation planning. We would not now recommend additional changes. The modified plat before you does not conform with the • , modified circulation plan. As the new plat proposal does not adequately relate to the proposed circulation plan,we recommend denial." Further testimony by Bob Amptman,City Engineer and Pat Barnum ' (pages 7 through 12 of the transcript) recap the thinking behind the future street plan. Regarding the extension of Chapin, Barnum concludes: If it ever takes place, it would be in response to requests for development by the adjacent property owners and the dedication and improvement would be requested at their expense at the time that • ;t they would try to develop. If it should never happen, of course, the road would never be cut through, but we are assuming that at some ,': time there will be further development there and making allowance for that." Meeting ended with motion to continue for two weeks to resolve questions on potential City acquisition of open space. 5-22-78 Subdivision proposal denied on the basis that a) City Council officially designated part of the proposal as open space, and b) that the circulation . plan was not responsive to staff suggestions (it intended to vacate the north end of Chapin Road which was not found to be in the public interest). 0, 5-30-78 Waker Associates prepares new utility plan and lot layout showing :'. development on east side of Chapin Road only, abandoning earlier "west fork" of Chapin to O'Brien. 6-9-78 City receives new application for Morning Sky Subdivision, Chapin Road • proposed to be improved to the end, • 6-22-78 Waker Associates submits letter appealing May 22, 1978 denial of the „• Planning Commission (withdrawn September 5, 1978), 7-78 City Engineer's Memo to Planning Commission ••• ' Improvement of Chapin Road in its current dedicated alignment is stated . to be in conformance with the proposed circulation plan designed by • Planning and Public Works, 3-9-79 City receives preliminary plats for Morning Sky Subdivision and Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision together with an application to modify the . Comprehensive Plan designation on the No. 2 plat from open space to - residential, Both preliminary plats show using the Chapin Road right—of— way to its northerly terminus, with no mention of extension in the tuture on the exhibits, S Synopsis of Events- Chapin Road . Page 2 of 3 i. (Break in records,probably due to lengthy process of modifying Comprehensive Plan) 1-26-81 Planning Commission hears and recommends approval of Hallinan Woods II(formerly submitted as Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision) to the City Council. This meeting also considered and recommended the change to the Comprehensive Plan. No testimony was taken regarding the Chapin Road issue. • 1-28-81 Memo from City Traffic Engineer to the Planning Director stating that "with access onto Highway 43 undesirable,it appears that the most feasible access to that property to the north would be the future extension of Chapin Road". This memo is Exhibit "G" in the staff report that went to the City Council • for final approval. 3-24-81 City Council public hearings (three related hearings) A. The Council approved Hallinan Woods with the street improvements of Chapin Road to its northerly terminus, denying the applicant's request to eliminate sidewalks. B. The Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the open space designation on the west side of Chapin Road, north and east of the Hallinan School, • C. The Council approved Hallinan Woods II unanimously, im osing a .��, • condition that a sidewalkp ..• be constructed on the west side of Chapin ;�" Road to its northerly terminus, • RC/kaa 1Ruaa93.11«wtea>Cha p InRoad • r . • .•w., • Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page 3 of 3 „y• • ;r . . ,• • ... • . ... • 1 . • . • . . . . . 4.,, , , . .• . • • • . . , .•.„,, . .. , ., •,..., ... . .. •,....• . . . . . . ... .... . .,.. . ,., . . i_ ., • . , .. .. .. •.,, , . . . . . . . .. • , ., . . .. . .,,, . • . . • . . ...„ ,. • . . .. ... .. ...,. .. „.• 1 . ... . . 1, • ,. • .. . ..., ...•. • • . . . , ,, . . . • J. ..• ,• • • 4.. . „ .j. f� .. . . . . .. .,.., 4 . . . 4 . 4 t.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 .• . Y 1 1. ' - ' ,/, fib;• ` i ;,' ,F . , " � p:I9 4t., c 93 w ( oti I g t s.I I WI (aIIN 98 976 I.-4 � d 41 •4I NI I1 I a ., ''av , . LAUREL STREET ,:1P 1' Q1' -"—..ri.._.w7... W I co I W N N d.T_.i . — 1007 Al tv coo I io g , 2 I N a� I m a i- � 1009 i-Inr u„ ' s 1010 .1..111_.. —_1.....,-. _,...�,, I __ — P _.- �. \--•--»- 9023 1022r oP _ ..�-.� 4 1033 1024 'q 1023 II 1024 c, 1023 i 102€ �„ 1023 1036 ® .. _1�14351 e O� 10331.1032 N. W -:.I �, ._- ,-..� O !!Oa 0. 10 1042 "4 -r 1042 23 1033 -- a _,_.1 1046 2s '4,1 •.. _ g rn _ hi _,.-. 1038 v9 1043 �G� 106=! 1052 1063 F 1044 1. .• ,...'. — - • t 4! •{ • 1 CO< t070 -10T3 1 I ,., T-,y , i' c:t I i 8 * \�/1 r 1196— toI s �O� 190 o I 1 r —.�.� ( i r 1 ' r A ,..,I 1246 ... I N I , » 1240 2: • r01 1280 a 1286 ._.-' --'-, ._..��I^p e ear �� T+. 1--.- - -. 1 .�-- , _- . 'limo • �' I ., a • I 'y I 1280 1285 , I I IL: 130E 0300 CHAPIN ---®"' .- —19— �.' o• � I 1 4II' . _. _ 8401 1 5-1 18826 ,I� yr Icn" I 18400 I a I y • 31390 rn - 0e N IIor I 0 ( I ` cn HALLMAN I 184i� at a M •CK -~ •S ORNiHG SKY C , ._�' 1425 ' GRADE 7, "1 1466 , SCHOOL I 18461 0 c _ 1459 �1460 — I� �-- _ 3 1489I1490 _1485 I (4-1 18755 r— (1 I cl 16820 • ; 3 1539 11530 1 06_I - i— .—• z rr T. '-560 0 1646 ... _ ( 16621 S —� - O — T 16T6 • "r.1 r 16820 9 ,. �..-. "I 1816 i 1 ' f j- li . 188301839 183 168261 yI Or t Z 1659 1880 _ �_ — f ---L d'e �� N ., a, 1876 A (----' `+ 0 V 1690 z . 0 I '� I �+ co 1896 I —I Z I N A B' a a 1880 --i j' 'r',a co (�, LAtdE A� ><IVE 1 726 J Maar N sr v $ Y . ' .1 ,, a , , , • s vP A o 3 � 9 • ° EXHIBIT t, • '` /` `r rt. /0 �,, of : TE' �l • • s ,'" r 4\ 1 ,✓ 4b1.✓�„rb '� '� ,,,,' A I �1Z r:±.i 1 43? 2 1930, I I. � i FE) I 4i3 tr I0 ti. # I I N N I ' 080 97a 99 - r • .LAUREL. STREET •—.. w) 1 G3 1 W N N r r ' w oo 4 Na I allo I a w 1 1 n o 1 co c : r Qp1 001 I I solo III-. _1.._.,_. _•J•� i .4_, I '--- c ,— :21. 102�3-� 1022 ® 1023 102E _ t,-•,r yj\iar 10331.1032 A 1033 g024 W_•_:J 1024 1023I_•_� 023� 10�8 -- --�183b5 \mod°Co‘'. 10421 104 1042', 1033 j 1038 co 1043 1048 _ •-- ,, ti3 I.,_,_ ,b. ._ • ii�� �� 1070 10 10a2 10a3 9044d, 1 !; 1073 �-- T II ';t�l 43 ,O /1190 1198 , o I ! I ' .. ' iie '-4 1240 Z 124a I N i F z co. ...a ,.____.N4 70 1280 1286 ....i . ,....... -^-~ • , •I y 1260 1286 vi® al 1306 ; I 6300 CHAPIWJ ., 1 y I (7. 1366 I __.__ • • ------, ._✓ . --T.•_._..1.,— t..5_T 0 _a • ar �.i. _- . .__.• I 18401 "'fi" i I 18626 I el i N 11390 11. _ 16400 a I a ( 03 I 1—.-1My HALLINAN �~ 1e431 ;_� `,. 1-" — —' :MLOCK I C , ORNfN(3 SK;Y ago •l 4' 1425 GRADE — ca + r -_ .__ ._.. • •`1-- 18481 o i o I - 7 1 a00 1469 1460 1466 SCHOOL • 0 j_._.� (41) ' • ', .-.L —• �..-,.._•-j �_.__.• •� -1 e• , ; ' 1489 I 1490 148t1 I I~ ~' .-• • 1 ' 1606 � i 19756 � 1a39 1530 1682o . _ - 3r I -' J I Z 15891 1590 m -,..1 - 1 16628 1 i ;..a,- 16161 '‘ i- - t S'14 ,. 183�91 183 1_. .....,i _ - - - _, j w 3� 7 , l 0 •_ r 1846 I .I § 1882SI q 18830 - -- \ . — [ I 9) e ' cap L_. ,....7 _. s 16751 __ _ 4 fl , 1895 I•_, I ,_I z I ro I A \� I w U 1880 �a n C0 o R NE -- co! 1•• • y -1 1725 , o ' m CFI LANE: \ ,, :. e 1 N 1 T Sr. ! 1 N \6905 R2Ctetfrlag , o" .Y d j r � j��Of • �� 1 CO Iv is r M ' `. 6, \ a., ` ✓ 5 F r,lik,i ' .. V .."''' \69- 00 1 3 1\ sir , . • / �1° > cos- : .y EXHIBIT --'2 ' cry .-� \ l T, I 0 901 9` 907 7 I 91 3 c 930• I�- 1 a _ _! 916 r' I I I i w I w I 1 ,.w 98C 975 T 9 m� . g , T. a, 4. 1 Ii N .a .+ W I ✓. .� ,� f4. I '�! i I a I I I _.—._. ,LAUREL STREET 4+k _... "o'JT'�'"Q"�""° a t d* (w� au p w I o�. --r r-r-� 1001 i i N V 1001 I I 0 C, I O OD A' 1 N O co 0 I_ 0 w C - i F rx : •' •. 1010 ,L. _. _.J ,� - 4-__ f -.-,t� ;scr�'�r i,i• ',Ai j....,.-,- 102.3. 1022 1033 1024 9,1023 1024 a'1023 I 102E r 1023� 1036 p _ +'"c 4, • �.0 9033��1032 4 roe 1 elm. IN .-.:�_ a .._,�"_ Z '-• n -�118351 •I�t ` O• 10431 1042 m T 104.2 f� ,_,-1 1038 ri 1043 1048 t • "',s' 1063J 1052 1063 • S 044 ' �:;' 1 r; `�� 1070 : . • �� �r 80 11t9B I N •I 140-• ......�- -- , s 1'� 122 1225• i ` �I ." i ;o, rt f o.. °L _ 3. �1 • -. 12401246 .I g m �A nl. �/�O 1280 1286 af� ... -�: • 18496 $ ' T _ _ _ �- 1 i K 1280 1286 / ' • L_._ I 1306 1 //1//1 /�/`� 18300 CHAPIN . _ • iT I I ° 1366 I. _...- .t. ( I 18825 p• • 16401 I -I A I 1 nano' ^1 ' ' Val.-4 I HALLINAN —I )•--- 0, ' v' 18431 • SKY C •.� •CK' I ORNIN 1426 GRADE c N i i. i 1600 O fi� . ..-1 _ �.. i 18481 1 1r._ .... 1469 1480 \ 455 SCHOOL I-— _l ~' ry L.^ f I...- re 1485 . I I 18756 . 0 1489 1 1490 j 1 18 4 . ( , II 82U • 1 a 1639 i '630 i6os� 1_.. ,_...,. — 4 " � .�680 w 1646 1cThI .1566 1 li 118828 1• i9t �" 1 14 • j.,._, 1816 - - - r QD If 1 .4p0 18530 -- 183gI 183 r _ I 188251 yO f 1646 L._ , : z 1658 1880 ; 1 E1r� , ...-- -'i " -- We �41n cn I—• a I s ,,� . .. a a 01 i-� CO j 1890 —1e9� I `1 z I N 1 14. NE .1gg0 `c _ �' 70 n " LANE '. . ~ •' .4:i. "4 1726 , -" ; 0 C am. ` i -' ..1 .+ �. �. �. I. O N I j�iS m ,g r ' , >>if 1 N O ✓ g0 ` r , • t.; • t \ .., -•ti . p . - ./YrIt",;;.>, , ,.. ,.. • ....•-..\c' —--,6 7,--... izi . .1, -- .d e' .• • .. , .., 0 -,\ s;. , to ., . ___.,-- . 0, . . I ..---' \ .......c. • - `• rp � � O� • S J "/ \� io,� / . � .. C.' 1 „ " 0, Y r r `►,` 3� ' A ' a \ , ,,h , �� N , A. ` is • , . '. • • , ' ' i 4 1'. . , VI, ‘ ' : ' - . • • : ' ', i . ... . • T ` . rooitmaammoollmmal I)'• ' ; ' I n 1 4318 a 193U• I. a j o0 9e Ii �..J a �T HTH CO oh a *I . ! . I w I w I I w ! 98C 976 88 •"I I �I •.1 k •.1 J .! I V j -+ i 1 .w I I a i LAUREL STREET oWfa i001� 'rn , 100NI $ Ni WNicor O A I o Oo J► I tv o m • ° 1010 J_23 1L __.__..1__,_• _,J i _.— — — — —j-- r,o .._ .� 10._ oC 1033 1024 '01023j 1024 A 1023 I 102E r 1023�`F1038 - ——1118361 .w'+a� ,. 10331.1032 — — �' _. "" C -•I n �� ,pd 10431,1042 Rj `' 1042 m 1033 j 1030 Z 1043 . 1048 Z — _ �`i .• . �,0- 1070 1063�11062 1063 •1044 Z 1' I r .: i i 0 j•\ �10731 , --••—•— -T a' I a i 4 A ,--1 1240 Z 1246 32. II1a I0. .01% swo 4p 1280 : :4- 4-, "—sj. liftob-- to W� a • "56 le i • to t 1280 1286 �' p'" Ca rig" I 1 I 'J 1 * b p 1._ _ . r.-_ .._-� _.- _'�1 _.—. 01 1 1306 �16300 CHAPIN_ A it5-1 .. _ i ro 1365 .-- — • -- •`T-- I 1eA L1H I ( aai I "' HALLINAN � • — .MLOCK 16431 C ^ � IORNING SKY _ _ w 1 0 1426 GRADE I—.— N •co • T. 1600 o —'_i I 18481 a 1 c' 0, 1 1469 1460 1456 SCHOOL Q 1--• 1489 11400 1485_ I I 18766 11530 1506 : I 0 16820 '' - Z ,—••-•._. 0 1646 22i4 .4 1659I 1660 ..1 ._..I O T•— 1575 I � _ tm - _Z 16891 t _. — — 18828 _1 11,1J to � ` ...1.1 I9 w• 183 � 183 16 825I Q. 8830 y1 O _I • r 1645 L, . _ o Z 159 1660Z - * W'6 '! .- C�.. a 1876 r -- y _1 1690 Z I • i I ,6 O ...j... . • • •m 1895 I I n W 1880 ^ ci ;WE a 7 ) _ __ ...1I LANE E 172s I Zt o I I 1 N \e,s �„ d .� 1 jo 0 J .. � �pr �, \ / e5 :1 r .� • ` Al03 i ''' A1015' a EXHIBIT , /7 0 41 .." .%• ••--- sl / ,e-.2.)---6,' — • . \,, !1\ \ / 4�r'� n` ° ,12 I ,{r '.'«' • "',�0a U r. • J�0 4 P inn 1 u __ February 26 , 1993 a Development Review Board C_'.y of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue •D • Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Attn. Michael R. Wheeler Dear Mr. Wheeler, , , We have owned parcel 1100 at the end of O'Brien Street since 1972 . We were then residents of Tigard and � :, .. planned to build two homes on the property. During that time the City Planning Commis3ion told un that • we must submit building plans first. Architects whom we consulted said plans cannot be drawn up until access is specifically established. It became as in the question, "What came first, the chicken or the egg. " < Through the years all of our attempts for definite ' access were futile. In the meantime the property taxes increased slowly. After the school was built taxes skyrocketed from $163 in 1972 to over $1 , 100 �. ` in 1992 . Access from O' Brien Street makes building two homes impossible without a connection from Chapin Street as orginally planned, or the private road from Hwy. ' 43, if extended through the 20 . 23 ' x 175 ' school. •, board easement parallel to the 140 . 23 ' southern end , , ;;, of our 1. 23 acres . Either plan will solve our land- locked situation. • Sincerely, 6 Arthur Banach & ' ;. Blanche Banach • = EXHIBIT +. 7 A G . ._. Al r" r . '- .. ' I. •0 .• . ' I. , r • - + a « 4 SE 1/4 SE I/4 SEC I O T 2 S. R. I I �A\ 1 . CLACKAMAS CUNT 1"- 100' 1 ... ,-w' SEE MAP E 1 2 1 0DA Z L...,...,..a Q s I�. • � - tc: V y i I1 /oc.� � 12 6• df l'. L/.7J IL ® /AA, 774 Ir 40efir' N8'- Q'►'a 90O 2 � 3 >- 13 `'�3 ' ./.9r . .a77Z / . 1000 1D;C. 100 IQ1Ac,1200 rd9S8 ��-�' bc.4s 49 O „��«` !tea; 1,23 AC. 2.51C.- .t 1300 . A 208Ac ro _ . I V . .0 a ' ^ci ;a' U N , h V ? ' , . ro p 0 m r �3 f o y 0 h d • 1 � �P o Q 'y 1; ti h L y bb*h .SQ3•S`*'Jn•W 304. 67' b IL/ 71 + t 0'394"r�/ e. 4/,00.44' BOO rM/� r • -- , N L 1 • i tk s 'a kl b7 WIND 0 2 ., ' a...- `eD , 1 s) ,. yP ' « .7J.T.JD' O ed ...B9°ia--,'8"b `� /?4 So _J' 1!' q 6. • yp L 1N 354.t't' 676L' • IA7.04' • s.' ,�, o�,4,I s4.•4 37e 7 2 5500 6300 • gt �7/• ` 1 3 70.z410 J'd ti 70.L4 I,� , 1 12200 « •0315300 5200 5100 • P ` QQ A 4 • roo d ` 9 6 ' �71 N N Cr.., ' S. 5 500 ;,• '7'0,7 Q o �:. d 11 rrB6 u ze 14'.g .. , ' E'r A 4700 4800 49 i0 5000 . .,.� r:,5 b - O r r ' To: Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner r: • From: Jeffrey G. Condit, City Attorn `' � ` MAR 1 1993Re: SD 19 - 92/VAR 18 - 92 • Date: March 1, 1993 A neighbor has objected to the staff recommendation regarding access on the above application. The objecting neighbor resides at 16300 Chapin Road (TL 600 of Tax Map 2 1 E 10DD) , previously owned by John and Debbie Todd. Last year, the Todds received approval , for a lot line adjustment which reconfigured four tax lots (two legal parcels) (SD 1 -r 92) . As a condition of approval of this lot line adjustment, the City required dedication of an public road • easement along the westerly boundary of TL 600 to provide for future extension of Chapin Road. The attorney for th'i new owner is apparently arguing that this easement requirement was an ' unconstitutional "taking" and is invalid. He therefore argues that the staff recommendation regarding the above noted application should not rely on this easement . You ask for my opinion. • • As a threshold matter, SD 1 - 92 was approved on Match 13 , 1992 . This decision was not appealed within fifteen days as required by 2 . Y the Lake Oswego Code and is therefore final . ( nditions of approval imposed as part of a prior final land use der ion may not be collaterally attacked as part of a subsequent proceeding . The V ' City prevailed at LUBA in the case of Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association v. City of Lake Oswego based upon this rule of law, . Secondarily, even if the imposition of the easement were a "taking, " only the Todds, and not the current owner, would have a r, y potential action against the City. The easement was recorded . against the property at the time of the lot line adjustment, and thus the current owner either knew or should have known of the existence of the easement at the time he or she purchased the property. Finally, the City may impose an easement requirement as a condition of a lot line adjustment where t;1e adjustment will result in additional development which has of will have some impact on the public facility for which the easement is required (referred to as ' ,, . the required "nexus" in legalese) . For this reason, the City recently prevailed in a taking lawsuit invo... ing a drainage . ` easement imposed as a condition of a lot line adjustment which allowed the construction of a dwelling . nelson v, City_ cf hake • Of,weao•. In the Todd' s case, the lot line adjustments reconfigured �! the two lots in such a way to allow the present dwelling to by constructed in the preferred location and to enable the two legal lots to be partitioned in the future without the need for variances . These developments add to the need for the future -.• ..• . •, street . Under such circumstances, I believe a defensible nexus ': ' exists between the adjustment and the need for the easement . \� EXHIBIT �r,:C)'.1-i.:/w84.kl'1- a •,i D ..r • • pR • • • • . .n .j .. 1 . , . •. • . . . . • p • i • • n• • • • :j • .. • 1` I „ 03/02/1993 11100 FROM Jim Hinzdel & Assoc. TO 15036350269 r,02 ' '` - , • March 2, 1993 v, VIA FACSIMILE TRANSNIlSSION AND REGULAR MAIL c� Mr. Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner a,„Nu rA 1,t , ,,rDepar,nent of Planning and Development City of Lake Oswego °'„ +E`l�a1 I `1�T � r ' 380 A Avenue *01r CS v`' Take Oswego, Oregon a'"r'l" ; z� 97034 , � ..°fit 'RE: Case File No. SD 19-92\'VAR 18-92 (a-b), 1052 Gans Street, Lake Oswego Dear Mr. Wheeler: As previously indicated in our letter to the Development Review Board of January 2nd, we do not object to the creation of two parcels from one existing 42,512 square foot parcel, r' We also do not object to the requested approvals 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 26 feet and a Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits a cul-de-sac or dead end street to no more than 1,000 feet in length. • In general, we conditionally support the 'Future Streets Plan" which provides for an extension of Chapin Way to Wells Street as a public roadway. Our reasons for supporting a0 this extension are as follows: o Improves public access to the Chapin Way area and thereby provides direct, paved +, public pedestrian and vehicular access to IIailinan Grade School, i which our children will soon be attending, Improved access to the adjacent playground, field sports and park arca from Wells Street will also occur, v. '_: o Provides for the ultimate development of a cohesive neighborhood linking the two (Chapin Way and Wells Street) residential areas together, u Provides for an alternative means of access for emergency fire, police and • r paramedic cervices. In some instances provision of emergency services would be able to occur in less respcnse time than presently exists, .;. o Improves conditions on Highway 43. With P g traffic volumes of approlizzintPly 24,500 vehicles per day in 1991, Highway 43 is either at or has already exceeded it's traffic carrying capacity. Ultimate elimination of the Wells Street access to this roadway • • . and possibly another access point to the south would achieve the follov,ing; .' • • - improve the traffic capacity of this important roadway se jment; / • - reduce the potential for traffic accidents along this stretch of Highway 43; y' - enhance the City's plans for installation of a future traffic signal at Cherry , , - go Lane and Highway 43 by improving the ability of this intersection to meat traffic warrants. • • (1 ) • , • Vw. Vr. irdV 11 •V1 r e.Vlr'a1n nIn..Qtrl .. Na4VV. :U lou4000u460 P.03 i1• ,, - improve the general welfare and the public's need to safely access Highway0 . ,, .. . 43. o Prevents parcels along Wells Street from becoming landlocked should the Oregon Department of Transportation make physical improvements to Highway 43 which would terminate the present access, All of this can be achieved without compromising the residential character of Chapin Way. As indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, General Policy IV: Plan a Residential Neighborhood 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. a. traffic volumes less than 1,200 vehicles per weekday in residential areas are desirable." (see page 156) Ent. r.Qv, ,atimeiit of al F the possible _,ew lots as depicted on the Future Streets PI n and including twist,, •Ikg 1 gm. '' residouces along Chapin Way. only a fraction of the Cornprehanr Alan's "des eal)le" weekday traffic volume would occur along either Chapin Wpv or WrlilaStreet; Tkerefi re the residential character along these roadways as indicated in the ce/re hensive Plan v,ill •, not be compromised. As previously indicated, we have serious concerns regarding use Of Wells Street as a "Future Street" with unlimited and unrestricted public access to and from Highway 43 and ` Chapin Way until a dead end or cul-de-sac is constructed at the easterly end of Wells Street, In order to mitigate this problem we suggested in our January 2nd letter that a locked gate or barricade (openable for emergency access) be installed at this location by the le project applicant. As an option, we suggested that a card key operated gate should be 0 , u` installed at the intersection of Chapin and Wells. Access through this gate would be U available to those property owners who have legal access to the Wells Street easement, " , This restricted entry point would be maintained in perpetuity by those who retain this legal access,, These interim suggestions were included as Attachment A. As a third option, which would also prevent use of Wells Street as a through roadway until access between Highway 43 and Wells Street is terminated, we would suggest the provision of a locked gate or barricade (openable for emergency access and Wells Street property owners only) be installed at the northerly extension of where Chapin Way would extend and connect with Wells Street (See revised Attachment A). This would also prevent the use of Wells Street/Chapin Way as a parallel and cut-through alternative to Highway 43, We will have representation at the March 15 Public Hearing to discuss these suggestions in greater detail. • Very truly yours, -ieel tia-A1, /,./.4,..e. • . i . Rosalyn and ea Hinzdel ' 1250 Wells treet, Y Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 • 3 ) s Revised Attachment A ( 2 ) r_ 1 " 4 • 464,.44. 4, 44;...14r4•,•11,.•..,7. • , , . . • r n ` ., I1 fig. ,� ,��� ;.�8 , oaf,, .CENcy CE3S ONLY • t . :. E'iN.' ,E, R ELIMIN Y,� �.a.w. ' " . \ • .':......: , . s \ .- . . .,,,.. • \ ' ., , • • 0 %it • • • 1 ..............k........)..144 a? '. • r .o • .. . .. ^� ��, !• � .. . ., .N.,.• c\ \ • .. D • ' \• ; • ' . IrLIMI ► &�w�i. .1,' 1 .4 • 1 G to t 1 T 0 . .• SI , . . *_..,... ...• , ...',.. • ., .. • • .o. C, 114 ';'1 ' .. . " ,, , . .. ... .. . . . . : • WOW,,, , ,.., ,,,, �' Y. • . .•. •. . . '.AC NI.Y, ...,,t, 0 ......4\ ,,,,,:i . -\ . \ . . e '•aMi. : . .A6 'I:4%1'14 . ...a:I'''.i ' l'.1. "t:::H. ' i - r� • • "``� 1 ,I'.11 :.I.•L.• ( \L ' / r '; .. \ . 4 1 77"' . . . ,„, .,, ,,.;„ .....,/ s•nc.,4sks) .( ( .. 0 IC \.1 ••� 1 ,r,r. 1 I • •d.. •. j . • ♦ , • I . `‘1.4. \ • 1 , 1 . TOTAL P.u4 ' . • ti • I:1. •.... •.. m •• ...• „„ 1 ' • • •• • • n\P� 0 • 1 Y Q/t 2 •. • • • 7• •f y tr �;, ORFGON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM i TO: New Development Review Board and Historic Review Board Members ' FROM: Barbara Anderson, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: Orientation and Training on Quasi—Judicial Hearings DATE: March 9, 1993 1 ;,) • _ ,._ This is to confirm our conversation regarding orientation. We have scheduled orientation and training on quasi—judicial hearings for new Board members on Monday, March 15, 1993, at 4:00 - ' 41) p,m,,in the Council Chambers (first floor) at City Hall. "). Orientation will last approximately 1.5 hours. At 5:45 p.m., following the orientation, we will be hosting a farewell reception for departing Development Review Board Members At 7:00 p.m. . the regularly scheduled Development Review Board meeting will be held. We invite you to join us for these events. ' If you have any questions please fill free to call me at 635-0296, ; r c: Skip Stanaway Tom Coffee ` Julie Morales Robert Galante Lawrence Magura Jeff Condit p. William Horning Cindy Phillips Robert Burnett • . Howard Shapiro N •1 M . • 380"A"Mollie • Pos(Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034• , Planning Division:(503)635•02290• Building Division:(503)635.0390 • I:AX(503)635.0269 4 4 •11i9,;_ • ♦ \l • , .. : .„ ,....., . „ •l ` .. l) . ,.. . .. e..8 u „ , , 6 _....,....„ 0 , :•... .... . ... . • •, cs, ) , , , .... . . . . .. ,0„ • • . . „:, „. ... 0 . . . .,,., • ;.. • . , .• • 0, / I r ., ,, . • • . . • . . . ... . ... . .... .. a}Y -... -.• ..•. I� . • . . . • . . . , I /�' • p,d0 ,, y \ '*'.."'1. ::'.:.. ) .." .. r rl • 'i ` - ;• s ,.. - 1, ', .. . . . . . . . .. . , .. , . . . . . .• 4 . .. 1 „1 . ,. .. • . • .. .. AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL. CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,March 1,1993 7:00 P.M. • Agenda Book I. CALL TO ORDER Y R• II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS • • is V. PUBLIC HEARING • • `• • DR 13-9011(,Remand, a request by OTAK, Inc. for approval to construct a 33,000 sq. ft. retail/office center in four buildings. The proposal is a redesign of a project that has been remanded from Council• a` 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 lE 6). Staff coordinator is Robert Galante.Senior Planner. Continued from January 20, 1993. . PD 5-92, a request by Alpha Engineering for approval of a 15—lot single family residential planned development. The site is located south of Provincial Hill Way and east of Fosberg Road(Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AB), Staff coordinator is Humid Pishvaie,. evefopment Review Planner, 'r Continued from February 17, 1993. VI. GENERAL PLANNING • VII. OTHER BUSINESS —Findings, Conclusions and Order DR 20-92-993 LAP 92-10] -Clark & Sylvia Wood VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items, Feel free to come and go as you please. fir' r !•,; .,... / + 11r i .},fit 6 M / rl a � �, r i r a a l;. l�. r_ r DRB Member: ' • . Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice—Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Ron Bunch Senior Planner v Robert H.Foster Hamid Pislivaie,Dev,Review Planner • Ginger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Martha F.Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner • Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney r • Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • • • • • w.' C u , . kr. r •Y • • • 1 •, � .. ., v I -�.' - a _ + .' j s is n.. ' ' O„ \,\ICE 0, • A• J 0, - l' I I'\I\I ,II I i ,I' I'I..\`,NI\.0� Am') Dli\ I )I'*,II , I 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board 4 FROM: Robert Galante, Senior Planner ' SUBJECT: Staff Report Addendum DR 13-901I DATE: February 19, 1993 ' '4 At the Development Review Board's meeting of January 20, 1993 the Board directed the % ', applicant to modify Plan "B" (Exhibit 244) for the Westlake Neighborhood Commercial site and •• `'' to resubmit it for review. The owner of the property has provided a narrative addendum (Exhibit 243)dated February 2, 1993 to support the plan that has been modified. The narrative addresses • : . each of the Council guidelines and also discusses site lighting, the Tree Cutting Ordinance (LOC 55.080), the neighborhood commercial uses allowed within the center, the issues raised in the , . staff report of November 25, 1992 and the issues the Board raised in the meeting of January 20, "'' 1993. 0 /fr:, Staff continues to recommend denial of the proposal because it does not appear to comply with Council Guideline 1 (Council Order,Exhibit 190): "' "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 density of the Westlake PUD at build out versus the projected density at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981." :r r ' ° Mi'. Bunick argues that no reduction in square footage is required but that a 2,000 sq. ft. reduction was volunteered(See Exhibits 192 and 196). The Council Order is clear: "Tine total square footage of the project shall be reduced." ..1, By how much? The Council Order is somewhat more flexible on this issue: "As a guide for , ' 4 determining the appropriate reduction, the DRB should consider .,,," The document that Council reviewed to determine a ratio of current projected density of the Westlake PUD at build out verses the projected density at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981 was the Westlake Density Chart(Exhibit 197). This chart illustrates tha projected density ' at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981 as 1527 residential units. Mr. Bunick has provided , , ' substantial evidence and argument to illustrate that the number should be 1222 units. His argument is not supported by the facts or by common methods of legal construction. { :.:, 41) Ordinance 1783 (Exhibits 230 and 240) was adopted in 1981 and it incorporates the Final Development Plan and Program for Westlake as a regulatory document. Attached and s ti, 4 :" ' I , A. ,. Yr.. . r incorporated are a number of Exhibits including Number 7 which reads"Amended Exhibit K,BA— Westlake Land Use Density and Distribution". Additionally,page 5 of the Final Development Plan • states under Section 4. Density: "The residential densities for each area within the development will e. -� those specified on amended Exhibit K." In determining the projected density for Westlake this a ' `'" • uY. document (Amended Exhibit K), which is specifically intended to communicate information on land use e ri density and distribution,is the controlling document. The evidence Mr. Bunick cites is specific to tax ` F>; • revenue,household size, school age population and market factors—none are specifically intended to • regulate density. 4 O )t The density chart reproduced from Amended Exhibit K was submitted as a '- portion of Exhibit 236. It illustrates a density range of 1234 units to 1527 units. It provides no basis to state that the projected density for Westlake should be 1222 units, 12 units below the low range. r If Council had requirtd tint the ratio of potential build out(1307 units) to projected density (1527 units) be applied to a square footage reduction, the 35,000 square foot original proposal would have to be `e e. reduced by z`eut 14.5 percent or 5,075 square feet. Council didnot require such a specific reduction; "* however, the, asked the Board to consider the formula as a guide in determining the amount of r. reduction. Staff recommends that the current evidence illustrates that the numbers Council intended were not used '' as a guide and that a 2,000 square foot reduction is not substantially similar enough to what Council • requested to warrant approval. • ' Y If the Development Review Board finds differently than the staff and concludes that approval can be ` given the following conditions of the approval are recommended: A. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits: 1. The final exterior color selection shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. The roofing material on all buildings shall consist of cedar shingles. 3. The final location and design of trash enclosures shall be submitted for the review and i' approval of staff. 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to altering the nonessential wetlands on the site. 4 "r, ° 5. The final design of street furniture, bike racks and paving materials for the pedestrian .. plaza shall be reviewed and approved by staff. y a 6. The applicant shall submit a treepreservation pro gram p gram and a post construction , A. . " maintenance program for review and approval of staff, after consultation with an arborist chosen by the applicant from a list of qualified arborist developed by staff, The tree • preservation plan shall include: — A tree felling plan. •. — Protective measures to be taken during construction, such as temporary fencing ; • ' around the dripline of trees. — Supervision of construction activities and any root cutting or pruning, The arborist shall be on site for construction and shall provide a log of inspections upon the .firrequest of staff. h'` February 19, 1993 Memorandum Page 2 of 4/DR 13-9011 (Remand) , x: y. 1 , • • }r . — Tree protection fencing stlong the north property line in order to protect the existing open space Tract "Be. • 7. Submit a final landscape plan for review and approval of staff. This plan shall show: — Those Sessile Trillium which are located in the areas to be landscaped as being preserved within the landscaped areas. And those Sessile Trillium that are not located in the areas to be landscaped as being tansplanied to an appropriate location on the site specified by a qualified expert. u — A solid 6' high fence along the north and east property lines abutting residential lots. ., — Of the trees proposed to be planted, 20% shall be 4" caliper or larger, 20% shall be 2" caliper or larger and the remainder shall be as specified on the landscape plan. — Planting islands within the parking lot shall be a minimum of 5' in width. 8. Submit irrigation plans and specifications for review and approval of staff, per City • k r„ standards. « 9. Submit a final drainage plans for review and approval of the City Engineer, per City Standards. 10. Submit a final erosion control plan for review and approval of the City Engineer, per Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook. 11. Submit a detailed geotechnical report for review and approval of the City Engineer, per 't h . City Standards. • 12. Final construction plans for any public improvements shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 13. The driveways shall be constructed to be two lanes in width as supported by Exhibit 87, The median in Westlake Drive shall remain, restricting turns at the north driveway to 1.•. right—in/right--out only. 14. As recommended by Exhibit 22 a left turn lane should be provided at Westlake Drive for '" • turning movements onto Parkview Drive, , , • 15. Submit a final development schedule for the review and approval of staff. s B. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 1. Designate the proposed driveways as fire lanes in the deed or on a recorded map, and , post the roadway as such, per DS 19.020(1)(e). 2. Provide easements for public utilities that exist for the review and approval of the City • Engineer, . These are the conditions of approval originally adopted by the Board (See DRB Order, Exhibit 191) • � modified to address the current proposal, Except as discussed below, the findings originally adopted by the Board support the imposition of the conditions, ;• • .; February 19, 1993Memorandum Page 3 of 4/DR 13-9011 (Remand) . Y• p . 1. Condition 5 was modified because additional bike racks have been provided. 2. Staff recommends that the trash enclosure at the main site entry be relocated (Condition 3 remain •« 4! •. 3. Condition 7 was modified to require the 3.5 foot landscape island to be increased to 5 feet, as originally proposed. It will be difficult to plant and maintain oak trees in the narrower planters. 4, Original Condition 12 was eliminated since Exhibit 247 illustrates lighting which complies with the condition. 5. Original Conditions 14 and 15 (now Conditions 13 and 14)have been modified to comply with the current proposal and to avoid confusion. Both driveways are now shown to be two lanes wide. . v`• .( This feature is supported by Exhibit 87 prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer(not Exhibit 22 ... or 109). The Council Order(Exhibit 190)prohibits the reduction of the median in Westlake Drive. •'' Y ' This will restrict the north access to right—in/right—out and will minimize vehicular conflicts on ' Westlake Drive. Exhibit 22 recommends a left—turn lane at the intersection of Parkview and ' Westlake Drive. The turn lane should still be required. •, EXHIBITS r.1 t 243. Narrative dated February 2, 1993, 10 pp. . 1 244. Site Plan "B" ; r ;, 245. Grading&Tree Cutting Plan "B" w : 246. Site Utility Plan "B" 247. Site Lighting Plan "B" 248. Landscape Plan "B" " 249. Elevations Building A 250. Elevations Building B . • • r : °, 251. Elevations Building C-1 r.; 252. Elevations Building C-2 253. Elevations Building D . 1t " D892.61dio}tms>0103-9MMomo2/19N7 • 1. a " , `" "w - .,,. r h 4„,1 apt. 40 ' ' 4, ; February 19, 1993 Memorandum `• ' Page 4 of 4/DR 13-90I1 (Remand) • ' ," rr • 5 *p. ,r, • ,';' 1 {..'1 f/ r„ .4 ,. ,•, , i . . NICK BUNICK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5285 SW Meadows Rd. 1 y Suite 377 '" Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503) 639.1676 • FAX 639.7161 ': ."" ''' ''' . 0 /. ,' NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 '"i H E�bb IL X 1f7 I B li i♦ i , " NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE ... PROPERTY OWNER/NICK BUNICK �34 4 ,,a '� ' Your staff representative, Robert Galante, who is processing this application, suggested that we provide you with a narrative to support the material that we have submitted to you regarding our , .`. project . It is important to note that although Mr . previously recommended to g Galantew had him what he thought of our yonew dplan, oheorespondplaned, "Itn eissthe • � lt, he best Neighborhood Commercial plan I have ever seen in the Greater . Portland area. " This statement from him is being :supplied to in this narrative with his knowledge andyou e, 4 g permission , Y, " ded Mr. Galante informed us, that ins bj` denial , for he felt that if one stwere rltos use l�a1 , 527reccmasnthe projected number of units to be built in Westlake, it would have resulted in a larger reduction. As you are aware, 1 , 527 was not .,. the original projections of Westlake. To our understanding , the exception of that with r �,. b ,,, sti point of disagreement with Mr . Galante regarding what was the original number projected by the City Council in 1981 , we believe we are in accord on all other points . In this narrative we wish to address each of the nine guidelines !, that the City Council established for your evaluation in the approval process of our project relating to the new plan before you: GUIDELINE 1 . , • • The City Council asked that the total square footage of the project be reduced. They suggested as a guideline for determining the appropriate reduction, that the DRB should �a � ' �. consider the difference between the Current Projected Density of a= the Westlake PUD at build out versus the Projected Density at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981 , , J• RESPONSE: At the CityCouncil appeal meeting, it was represented to them that the Projected Density at the time of approval in y.` 1981 was 1, 527 units, We have presented 0.. rrefutable documents showing that the Projected Densityowasu inot th �1 , 527 , but instead 1 , 222 units , The information we provided you was in the '' form of exhibits that were actually used at the hearings regarding the original application as well as in Ordinance number 1783 . Ordinance 1783 , which created the Westlake PUD stated, It "The approximate 1 ,300 residences within Westlake create the need , 1 r » NARRATIV ` TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 i' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 Page -2- for a neighborhood commercial area with 35 ,000 square feet of floor area. " As you can see, in using the guideline recommended ;, by the City Council , there is either going to be a slight increase in the number of total units at build out as opposed to those projected if one were to use the 1, 222 units or a slight decrease in the event one were to use the 1,300 units cited in • Ordinance number 1783 . In either case, our plan provides a 2 ,000 square foot reduction from the original 35 ,000 square feet that was approved, which represents a 5 . 7% reduction. It is a greater reduction than that which would be used in either case (1 , 222 or �` .Y , 1,300) if one were to apply the specific formula that was provided to you in guideline number one. GUIDELINE 2 Guideline two indicates the number of parking places provided shall be reduced to the minimum number required by Lake Oswego Code and Development Standards . RESPONSE: We have used the absolute minimum required. In a letter from Robert Galante, dated August 3 , 1992 , to us , it states the criteria we should use for parking in this project is one space for every 300 gross square feet , one space for every 200 square feet of grocery, one space for every 250 square feet plus one space for each work station for hair stylists and one ,,. - space for each 75 square feet of restaurant . We have taken a * . very conservative approach to this criteria and your ordinance in ` ;�: that we have used only one space for every 300 gross square feet :L even though the code provided us by staff and your ordinance t•.1', allowed us more spaces than that . If you divide 33 ,000 square feet by 300 square feet , this provides 110 parking places , which is the number that we have submitted in our plan, which is the minimum number required by Lake Oswego Code and Development Standards . r, '' As you directed, we have eliminated any parking places that are , located further north than the edge of building Cl, that arefurther east than the edge of building Cl and C2, and are further • south than the edge of building C2 , These adjustments were made ' " in conjunction with your directions based on the DRB hearing that r was held on January 20 , 1993 , GUIDELINE 3 „ The City Council provided you the guideline of increasing the 0setback between the commercial buildings and the boundaries with the single family residential parcels , or to have two story buildings relocated so that only one story buildings are directly • adjacent to the single family residential parcels , `, : \ y . , V✓ • ' , , 1, Y T ' r i .F ;:'"G'" •arc: r. „, �' I A NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE l' 0 February 2 , 1993 Page -3- RESPONSE: Even though we had the choice of either of the two `' criteria, of reducing the building to one story or making a larger setback, we have actually done both. Building C2, in the °l ;.; southeastern portion of the property has been reduced from a two story to a one story building and in addition to that , we have increased the setback. ,;`.: Building Cl is also now a one story building and has 25 foot setbacks on the rear of its property, even though the original • PUD provided that no setbacks were required. Building D, which is a two story building, no longer is designed so that the eastern portion of the building extends beyond the property line of the open space area behind it , Instead, the eastern boundary of this building is located within the boundary of the property north of it , which is a 2 . 6 acre open space. GUIDELINE 4 j. : The City Council instructed that the building utilities not be '" visible. RESPONSE: The building utilities are no longer visible in that they have been placed in the rafter systems of the structures . • GUIDELINE 5 City Council wanted the design to be oriented more toward pedestrian/bicycle use and for us to provide additional bike storage. 1 RESPONSE: As opposed to the plan that was originally approved by you, the DRB, in 1992 , we have now provided a pedestrian/bicycle path around the entire project . The pedestrian/bicycle path can . « ,,'` be ingressed and egressed in any one of four locations . The locations are Westlake Drive in the northwestern portion of the property, off of Parkview Drive on the southeastern portion of the property, or along the sidewalks of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive in the southwestern portion of the property , We ^. . have also placed two gazebos on the property that were not previously included, one located immediately east of building D, along the pedestrian/bicycle path and the other, located ' 1,1„ immediately south of building A, along the pedestrian/bicycle path described above. We are providing bicycle storage racks • . : F;a.`' adjacent to each of the two gazebos , A. There are two locations in which parking spaces are located on • the outside perimeter of the pedestrian/bicycle path. These are w ' . III to be found in the 1 "�,,.., parking areas immediately west of building Cl yr Y4, ,y 1r 1 . i . \4 'It , .4 1.Y ♦1 w.yJ, .`4'I. ' \ FI. , \ M , ♦ • 1 it ' ?'• J_ NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 Page -4- and south of building Cl . These two parking areas , as you directed, will be for employee parking for tenants within the Neighborhood Commercial Center, so that there is not continuous vehicle traffic crossing the pedestrian/bicycle path. Instead, .': employees using that space would be arriving at work prior to the morning shopping hours or leaving at the end of that work day . GUIDELINE 6 ' The City Council requested that the design materials be made b compatible with the surrounding single family homes . They also did not want any of the roofs to be flat , but instead to be ' similar to surrounding homes as well as to be no taller than the :r• 4'' ' adjacent two story homes . RESPONSE: We know of no Neighborhood Commercial Center project in which the cosmetics have been made more compatible with single y family residences as we have done in this project , as directed by "' the City Council . None of the rooflines will be flat , but instead a combination of gables and hips similar to the homes in . , ;:, the neighborhood. The two-story rooflines are many feet lower than the two-story homes in the vicinity and we are using cedar roofs , which are to be found in the more expensive homes in - Westlake. . . . Regarding the siding, we are using similar siding as the majority of the homes in Westlake, in that it is "ship- lap" siding that is found on the more expensive homes . . . . We are ', , using wood windows that will have grills in the windows , which again, are found in the more expensive homes in Westlake. . . . We r. are using a substantial amount of brick on the exteriors as well as in many places columns of brick on the corners of the buildings . Again, this is only found on the more expensive homes • in Westlake. . . . We have selected a very subtle color scheme for both the siding as well as the trim, in order to blend in with • the rest o1 the community . This will provide a softness and a visual quietness to the buildings . We know of no project in the ,r7•: ` ,� • Greater Portland area that has gone to the extremes that we have in our effort to meet the guidelines provided by the City Council , • GUIDELINE 7 The City Council d' d not want the median island adjacent to the , site to reduced or removed. RESPONSE: We have not changed the median that is presently ,. existing . { S 4 T J \ .'• NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 • NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 Page -5- GUIDELINE 8 I , The CityCouncil wanted the . •. ,, garbage collection receptacles to be relocated away from the boundaries of the single family properties . ., RESPONSE' We have placed two receptacles on the project , which can be moved to different location, should you decide to. It is very subjective as to where they should be located, for there are many alternate places that can accommodate them. We have placed one east of building B. Regarding the other receptacle , it is located east of building D. Receptacles are movable items and can be located where they not only meet the criteria of the City Council 's guideline, but also where they allow easy accessibility to the tenants in the buildings . GUIDELINE 9 The City Council requested that the plan increase the amount of native trees used as replacement trees where native trees would R i be viable. 1 , RESPONSE: Our new plan shows that we are saving a total of 50 • trees , as opposed to the plan that you originally approved in 1992 , which staff indicated would save 49 trees . In other words , we have increased the number of trees to be saved in conjunction • , with this new plan, by one. At the same time, our landscape plan shows that we are planting two new trees for every tree that has �►. to be removed and we are increasing the amount of native trees " ` used as replacement trees as directed by the City Council , IN SUMMARY Some of the approval points that we originally received in 1981 in Ordinance 1783 have been changed. It did not require any setbacks and allowed for greater height than the plan before you, ; 1 as well as 35,000 square feet . There have been some changes made , t ' in the Westlake PUD in that the apartments that were originally . .. ,'. scheduled to be located immediately east of our property as well • as immediately north have been relocated east of our site as ,y shown in an application that is now being processed before the "'., ' city by GSL Corporation, ` The PUD approval required us to provide to the City of Lake Oswego, at no cost to the city, a 12 acre park site that was to �. be located where the GSL apartments are going to be built , because the Baptist Church property immediately east of the t apartment site, was supposed to be the site for a future \� elementary school . When instead, the Lake Oswego School District j • • `r • NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 ;k NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 • Page -6- decided to build their new elementary school on Melrose Street , • we were requested to change our location of the 12 acre park site • to the northeast section of our PUD to accommodate the new elementary school site and in so doing, there was a transfer of ; • ,,i, other properties such as the apartment location as discussed above. However, it is important to note that in your Ordinance 1783 , the .i ordinance specifically states , "THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR THIS USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA IN WESTLAKE) WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THIS FINAL PLAN AND PROGRAM IN 1981 . " This language was " ° '` specifically placed in the ordinance to protect us from being penalized in the future in the event there were changes that were made, because of the many items that I was providing to the City of Lake Oswego in return for the approved PUD which included the 35,000 square feet Neighborhood Commercial Center. These items I provided were 46 acres of heavily wooded open space, 12 acres of park which is now known as Westlake Park, bike and pedestrian • h paths located throughout Westlake, participation in the cost of the traffic lighting system on Kruse Way and the annexation of the entire Westlake and Centerpointe project into the City of Lake Oswego in conjunction with the approvals found in Ordinance 1783 . There was a great sensitivity, as shown in Ordinance 1783 , by the ' . City Council and Planning Commission to protect the rights and the zonings that were established in Ordinance 1783 so that they would not be tampered with in the future. However, in a spirit of cooperation, even though some of those rights and approvals } are being affected, we have addressed all the nine guidelines requested by the City Council in our new plan before you . We • • know of no other project that has ever gone to the expense and ',Ii consideration that we have in trying to make this project , as Bob Galante said, "the best Neighborhood Commercial Center project in the Greater Portland area" . The separation of the 35 ,000 square feet into five separate buildings , with a reduction to 32 ,000 square feet , in which these buildings shall have the same materials and similar designs as ita surrounding neighborhood, represents a major expense to us . But we have done so, in order • to accommodate you, the Development Review Board and the City Council , Other items that we wish to adaress are: 1 . Our lighting plan shall be consistent with the standards of the original lighting plan that was approved by roved you and will meet �. the same criteria , This was not one of the guidelines , since it . , met the approval of both the DRB and the City Council previously, 't, 4 w L M X A • NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 Page -7- ' but we want to go on record in stating that we are using the same criteria. We suggest, if you have any concern in this area, that . you make it a condition of approval and allow us to work with staff in this matter. . d 2 . We are addressing the criteria in your tree cutting Ordinance 55 .080 dealing with tree cutting: a, Any trees that are removed that fall into the category ' 1 dead, dying or dangerous as consistent with your ordinance ' . X, , 55 .080 will have the participation of a professional arborist to determine that the tree does meet that criteria before a permit is issued for the cutting of that tree, b. Consistent with Ordinance 55 . 080 , tree permits will be ;`.; requested for those trees in order to construct the improvements in the commercial center . Trees that are A ` . removed shall have their loss mitigated bythe planting of two new trees of a native species . We do not anticipate that there will be a requirement for topping of any trees within that property, should such a condition exist , we acknowledge that we will comply with Ordinance 55 .080 in working with the city staff and with the use of either an °a' arborist or forester used for consulting. 3 . There is another important point that we wish to bring to your attention. While we recognize that this project is being designed to accommodate the Westlake neighborhood, it is important to note that in our approval Ordinance 1783 , it specifically states that uses within our Neighborhood Commercial site can include the otfices of doctors , lawyers , architects , engineers, real estate companies , insurance companies ; also retail establishments including hairdressers , grocery stores , ! ;t: service stations , restaurants, appliance repair shops ; and recreational uses such as bowling alleys . It is obvious that the PUD approval of Ordinance 1783 was not intended that the people using the Neighborhood Commercial Center was to be confined exclusively to residents in Westlake. Also, your comprehensive plan "literally" defines a Neighborhood Commercial Center to be one in which , (1) is accommodating 5 ,000 to 7 ,000 people, (2) in which the users of the center live within '-- a one mile radius of the neighborhood commercial center or (3) within a three to five minute travel time. This represents a ;f much larger geographic area than the Westlake neighborhood. It is important that this information be provided to you so there is not a misconception on the part of the Development Review Board or the City Council that thr, center was approved to be ' « 1 ' ( y r 4 ! .. NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE 0 . ' February 2 , 1993 jPage -8- a confined exclusively for the use of the residents of Westlake and therefore we not be allowed enough parking spaces to accommodate those people that live in Westlake or close by, who would be using their vehicle to drive to our Neighborhood Commercial Center. While we encourage pedestrian use for those people that • live within walking distance of the site, by the same token, we recognize that we have many days in our area where the weather conditions do not accommodate or lend itself for people to travel - ' ` even short distances on foot as opposed to in a vehicle. We recognize that not all the parking places are generally used at one time, but to reduce our parking any further than the 110 �' ' . ;' . spaces that are shown and is consistent with the minimum number allowed by code would have a substantially negative impact on the economics of the project , could affect our being able to receive • financing for the improvements as well as our being able to • attract tenants . We do not want to have the same problem as Mercantile Village has in that it is impossible during certain times of the day to find a parking place. As it is , our plan will substantially exceed what a commercial center would cost in a normal design as a result of our separating the square footage , into five separate buildings as opposed to the typical center 0 ' ..' .. ...' �' being either an "L" shaped building or one long building as can be found in almost every other Neighborhood Commercial Center in the Greater Portland area. x ADDITIONAL POINTS . .. In the staff report submitted by Mr . Galante for the December 7 , 1992 hearing, he refers to a different plan that we previously submitted to you in which he listed seven areas in which the new plan is an improvement over the one that was approved in 1992 and six areas in which he felt the plan was not an improvement over the original plan that was approved in 1992 . We are maintaining the same seven points in the plan that is now before you that he indicates was an improvement over the original plan in 1992 . `q Regarding the six points in which his report criticizes the m .` alternate plan "A" that was provided to you in December, we provide you the following information to show how the plan that ' is now before you (alternate plan "B") addresses those criticisms : " 1 . Very little landscaping exists in the front (parking lot side) of the buildings , RESPONSE: In every shopping center that we visited in the City of Lake Oswego, including those located on State Street , "A" 410 Avenue and Boones Ferry Road, we could not find one shopping 4- . . 4 NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE ' ` : . . '.' 9 February 2 , 1993 y. Page -9- center that had landscaping located between the sidewalks and the buildings . There are a number of reasons for this , which include lack of sunlight , irrigation problems and many other factors . We know of no commercial center that does have landscaping located pf between the sidewalks and the buildings, including Lake Oswego City Hall . It is almost always addressed instead, by having ' large flower pots located in front of the building. This was ' �' ` . never an issue before the DRB or the '"ity Council , but one that " staff raised tor the first time. Our new plan now saves a substantial number of trees within the parking areas in which the • • plan submitted to you on December 7th did not . 2 . The report stated that the scale and proportions of the '` •. ' buildings are not sufficiently broken up by trees as opposed to '"•i landscaping and that building C is particularly long . F►.. RESPONSE: We have now made the buildings substantially smaller .. ... ' ' . ' by creating five buildings in alternate plan "B" that is before you, as opposed to the four in plan "A" , which those remarks were • directed towards . We have also saved a substantial number of i. ;.. trees located immediately east of building "D" as well as in the interior of the parking lot of the project . We have also substantially changed the character and looks of building "C" as opposed to being a "particularly long" looking building, even :•`, . • . though the building that was being criticized was a fraction of the size of buildings located throughout the Greater Lake Oswego *-: > A'. area area in other Neighborhood Commercial Centers . ••. • •. 3 . The report stated that 20 more trees are proposed to be cut , , RESPONSE: We have now changed this that instead of cutting any additional trees , we are actually saving one additional tree. ` 4. It showed that only one trash enclosure was shown. ` '`� RESPONSE: We now show two trash enclosures as described in '"; "'•�� detail above . �`' 5 . The report stated that parking spaces are shown closer to °='�s' the driveway throats and would cause circulation conflicts , RESPONSE: The plan before you has changed that issue and as you • have directed us , we do not have any parking spaces located south \ of the southern edge of building C2 , which is the access off of : Parkview Drive as well as west of building D, which is the access ; off of Westlake Drive. 111 • • , 1 • . A y NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF DR 13-9011 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR WESTLAKE February 2 , 1993 Page -10- 6 . The report stated that the new plan does not illustrate wetland mitigation or storm water quality sewage that is shown on the original plans . RESPONSE: Our new plan has exactly the same wetland mitigation • or storm water quality sewage as was in the original plans that you approved in 1992 . Both the DRB and the City Council were satisfied with that wetland mitigation plan as well as storm )p 9 V r water quality sewage plan. Therefore we are not making any changes to that plan, nor were we directed by the City Council to make any changes . The City Council wanted us to maintain those same plans and therefore we have done so. In conclusion, we are in agreement with Mr . Galante' s comments to us , that the plan that is before you is the finest plan to be seen in the Greater Portland area. It has been two and a half years since our original submittal of this plan. We have agreed to make many changes and compromises, including a reduction in square footage, even though it is not consistent with the guarantees that we had in Ordiance 1783 . We are requesting that you approve this plan at the March 1, 1993 hearing. If there are a p,` any points that are not clear, we request that you make those paints conditions of approval , so that we may proceed. We sincerely thank you for the substantial amount of time that you also have taken in reviewing our project and for the courtesies that you have extended to us during these hearings . Sincerely, Nick Bunick Property Owner • 'r, rf,•• ra . • . . . . , 1 Y1 /t'•' • e. • se 0 , I I _ • 1 Srl L NA 1, • (S 57V5'30•E 359.35) __ • a'; • t:' ♦ ;M •• / �tT{�tTTT 1 ! 1%two nary, t a •> ,\`,, ++. " A I �� i ♦ / ' to ,�,.aa•r 1 el ... / «.�.. fI 1 t ` \ ''• 1 1 Nt- I- •• fl I 1 1 ril::Eli- N . , 0. I .._.i I 01 a..=:a- "� a"' t, C « C �....+.. _��. 1w:a1 III 1. _- 1 • c c N a g � 1• L 1' a✓v�`✓�.,�.`aw .,g--. a_-,.. m _- t t t e r. e. a 11 cf !1 ,, ........_a e'_"` I I 1. II I 1 i • 1 Y k . C�C ^'tiCtA 'VVV / I 1 stMINl ( y/`S SITE PLAN♦ I Y ; M`\, ✓ .4.� t 212121212121 Ip ACKA-14 CI u J ppa • • ♦\ _� - • .� , .�... A.. ` p' I��rY 61I.P FI�.n,1,.1.1t V/ 1' 1 ! /III•• 1 ww.. ....�. AA•HSl. 0Mh IMt:era ii it /o♦ pi S 'Las, •a It11 Wtl 11'• • a ..1, /AA /f .mil II II � _ \` 10•.W<M1A rl/A,t,�t•i.11•MI tllNWh I'll' ✓` L�l.=..�- I r` 11t WO 1 • MNw,.<MI 1N•WI ,. • • r , 1 'L :1 ri14Np 111: • ,, ttlllt +' wh r•Mw __ wlli Wrl 1•il 1 ' .r I �:.. + • ihil ♦, d/ I�C'!LaI%y, rr •, fIJILD►YI Rld).Y510I ^ t 'J t // , + .•s'- �� wriowi wig III -1• 1 W ,OY ♦ ( ( ✓ ...—,, y�M• 1 r L iADt4 is MO K.i / • , IM•Kw1 /S+ - - ioie•uisiiwi ( ' t r IINBAO•lerecai,N I. ..11.401 r i �♦b t I \ ` t „.... �111�y.ivAn rum 1 :4L (N H/'i5'3U IV . .rna r.nr.. —*—.. y....''-- ____ _= (20D ) r 5b (id am ipe4,4,,t,ILIIaI It 1.1,I.14 • .. (N 11]YS'3H'W 319 35) • i is SW.PAIXvI�W DRIVE /n„.,✓1• L, Iw 0 y /. I �...,..,�.........,a., I'iri%iiilr✓NIII . . 1 / 50{I a r 1' r. 1 i j t. ''i ti ✓+•'.i a I I • 1 i nEtA HM V.17 1 y/1 1 11 YYi[17[ IY 1•ti�F 1 • 1I I I1 ,I( 114 M. 11V „•I I .i ..,' ",".; I •// . 4..• , 1.1 1 ., . . _ '`�1 III I 1 ii � � ) 'y °+�" \ \ • ; • +' •. j U II . \ ' 1 i . , . . 111 11+ 0 1 I 1 1 1 li Ili d _ ril 1N Il 1 �' 111 1 ♦t P.,.,`� I I 1 I I I t1 ,,,..,,,,... r �_ GRADING / I'l I.1 • • 1C� .1/ TREE Cl1TTINCa PLAN \1 �; ncasr r.too' ) 1 ice'` . ,,... iii, 1 8 ehi.e.:llwl.larlwnw.o p1j 1/1 060141141/la••N1h 11' t r ,fit u • so 64,1401644 - asee.curliti4AtinLIDI$ , x •NI ' • • . 4 M.11fuU,1p �� '� 14. ,'ref• 1 . . , p�y�� 11 I ( M.Ni11rd IYi11PNMM IrniY 11 ,�{{ 11.11 qtl, ai1�i Ism n 1YJ Ufflll' e HN6A0.1 • N.J. r . I1p•A.�11iCi • 1 I ‘. ,,.,, ....._....._ 1 IR 1' i° , NY - _„ ^I\ r IV p8), ,,i/ 1 i / 1� 1 J w e • • " 1' °ta Y r �• 111;T:4 ,It...t Y 11 .. (•I Ir.1.Yt1.1 q .��Y•YYr .... Itili/M Y 1 �, }, Y a. .„.. ••• / « k - - Pint I .. I ( '111 'At n1 f11 Ai SDJ 4 I r • 4 u1,2 1 114 / G 1 4 0 0 ...• .. . . Zvi A t •• 1 'N I 5E4 v* R . ,M KY1�R f I I I ow !f1 I I _I I // °, % • I I »(` «( 1 2 MI I I I \ ff ,• �. ��;;, `,/ • I 1 [ar3_ _1 1 .-.._ I tlt Tr4-1I •11I I `` I r ` , 1 I I ,e eTOFr, --¢ 1 T 1 I / r- . . . -. I .. . 1' . . __. • . W 1 01 .,, .„0-- iiiiill a c T lll. ......._ , l_. , m I--_ i 1 »'V` i. y� s ' r /0 SITE UTILITY PLAN -r .17 •c. eTORM '--...^4.-- ,,,_,,, ®�► xae,rlTmm ) ui v [8111L.Ptia-az in • - A 111 C.a:l » ri -� I II 1.11 i • z y� a ,• o� Q d� 4. o - » ee - '� c ri ..-..YL I .. ,IAllll ya. i r.c `-�1 k 1rt6tI e.wltaar ituem—'� .+a 1 181w w8 4 'y,t ! I 1.1 1 I.so1.11 I I Ma/x+O1.8 illlwfi 1. aNY I I „ Iv.uro C r'. • a. • ' I I ) 641 I/61 y N' I / 1 ",` ;�"•rYir'•«-1,\ ,• • pin!'A'lRIbtLY1tlTRIC DIP4lt,Mt I I . / . s • • ',o � tl`,691.t.-: raI , • _._. ---. ." • 1 1 �1� '-W I 1 • • ' lj.a,.• I .s.t . s Ti Ill 1 I nra�l+r as ►, -� 61 ' • ` tCl FYI II1111 M10N11 `I! I I 1 Rai v/ I lure,z'ndo eUc e1AaR4t I LI ' .W_-►'--z.' Ar• ........�..nn ICEralw ..�:. mid►'e17FP11 ._, _ i aa_ • r.. .,......_.er \ SI -'♦ as a , II • • ed _- �9 13,13l`Y 111� 1 1.3, 61 I!) • JJ1 '•.„,,, W t w q i liItr�m•��1V1! I I 1 11 • i N dCLB � FrFro\ j II 3 I,nw'nmla✓W I v ' • NM 1;•*" ' 1111411:i,• 1] I I fj 'li'il'I'llkrirti, 3 {"'ere, R •"..,: • ::to -. `'-' is 1 PI[444wi III• • .� TYPE G P ILtUII/t3QbIk1R4M .. f %11 LIGHTING PLAN r".. SITE LI Q Itk6AD.IWM"1i M l•. 1 •I t V \.. •. / \ I �.. IYFY w,`_ t' 1 _ \ t ll I 1 lrn'- -G2 111111 wWlMMwi/M 1IW YNY1., 'Ili 1 q t-y l " ♦,, �f�q l 1 •I` L 1 KY•N.YI:11tr KSI.WR11 ill W l \`\]a` I r- U31-W-Ja4:1I) IIIM MO•••••tNMI IVtI .u•�, • CI-\\\ r.rr. ,1.• .m... . hM.NIhM,,t a„ WV ...« .-.....•I l/l CII IIYII MY•/r r- 1 I 1 'q MM11n4MtgNVY1Yr1L/1�16a[ la1 Y1N RIl/.1•.1.1 P111'M10t M W INYl'Yl nw[NI1 1I N/IWI 11 1�,1Y 1 l " .. `.Q J W �• //// I • Y.+ k I i •.. • ( _. 1 • r/ 1 1 .104666, ►w lw.11rw YM ItY11N MtlIhN n1 JJ AI • • M Ly-.._ Y1w KIlM•..1y P110 K4X.�W MI• r"Y -.. 611//11111.1I011 M11 Ota k q •• iulliwtl. "I"At? - • I.,.1 rr00.0.0rr IIIII "ti. - - I t w1r.11• tail rw .. 1•I 1 • 1 1 1 . .„.I �r d 1 L .4 y. 1 R• ..,.. .r •�U ._ r.' • .... • 0 0 ,• 11�Lf.YYw 1.• -. itie I 1 1. e�1�� r r y%tt .. i:i .tlull ••• Mgr MY I�R L I I I �w�'ll•.'Ya1111 11,•'IW µ'r.11. • I I i r :...I�rn1111.1 ,• Vy 1'r 1 to I I .1 M•1/'IJ. • ••r4Ywj ` M 1 I I 1.1Y.1'1L 1 J.1•4'1 J. r rf 111'.1 - "- YI(wwli.+.n 1.N111 •'. .VNJIIJ .w \.r 1 VMe11/. • ' I LILeYIL ie!•'rl.r•^7 IIrLI r'I41 a••-1J/Lr\IL iV 4•�ww�1`II,••1 Ip1 /// 1 N1 /J.• JrM.+'I/• I I VIIL I'f.L r J .M f 11111 r,}, ��.' y1'�_•VJ Y/• �J.��l�r N.. �''e^�/ ^".`.,�, 'f T.7/� ,.41»1 �Illl 1Y1 ' 1 I r , .01 ` y►`k 'sg' ILI I.�w N1 Y1 y _' WIrIp! 1.. • + ' to t3 L., ' ,. v ,n a Vetii.34 r Nj! TL . I1/�� 1r,1 G �/�,(S / 7.M 11•\1 \ \ / J'�'.`4 9� 4 91.1�1 L\\♦ ♦ .♦ • �' J /�I `♦�♦ % 1 yH11 ' �«., ,� II WIIf.Lc `♦♦ ` I 1• r ui•w'�'.�L• / 111 t I \ t..p ,i,Li /NI•1 /.__. 11tI ♦\ `♦ J 11 , r 111 4 •i �'�/�1"rJ Ir %I \♦ I/ 1 11 II IwJ1 1•I.4�' `;, 1 ,.' ,i/t. r.'.'r.i rri 1 1.1 J \ I \ .1 37r.YJ mom ♦., • nT: I f t \ 1 •i1 ♦ / 4,`- 0 w-+ -*;,I L 11.11 :.... 1..}1.1•� I 1 ~ G �,� KIIflh '. « _ )w r iM a 111 .�....,:�:......._ •.IZ/• 3 , 1 ;V1ry I YK.1 W.. `\ t wI1N 11 I Y 1M.• I..fI 1 S is =' , _ 1 Y•1r I . 1 I " p 6 tF r iV rl•• .14 f1 ,1. ro••• •• 11 1••1.�1 111 ti.d..». YYt+fr"+(f..•• _r f um- �� r II `` �l ~-r...'4L1i,wIN1..1 Ws I• '"nor `^. • I 1 •t11 , + __�. I1NJ1.4* .• '`♦ ` 111 1wMlw Ni•1 1'.r ff' • / I•� I L II))11 ''. T! »n 4»' ` 1. p I{•'M1LIr'L••Nr•1••111 y11n 1111� '•iw,.•.•. • • .1:.11 T! I ` r..11111M'll{1•le+wllul u I •• Nw.MJ 1JHJIfL 1 r, 111'lll'rr..«'1.111.+1.1`, r♦4,"+' i• rwJM•11 - "'WI"' 1 .1'•..� .l 0I11/ •{y,1 /InN11•\•wl'1 MII Iwl".1••'1'••1+•+' r1. III L f.: i wL1.1. `.? 1 0 I. i i 11/Y.v1 r11•••r•1 ,,,I • 1 .....� + r , 1 I ,� � II .NJJ .I * ii I I .Ak1ds„ �.1T. .,111It1, nrN+•�I'� I �1 I • I I ,I �r ItI"-1-' • '"- / ,Y„ku 4 e m' r 1,0 �`1I�1+1 ti.. /', , I r .�"."}_I.s1 r p'.'1j •Neue°I1 1 • I pt 14 I I sl II w::i/ 11N.1fy -.�.... ,.. ,'.. 4,014116 Milli 1-414110404 ..sa. nI I r . ''♦ ' I ',, `•/� LANDSCAPE PLAN i ;� ,`L r' _ i^, M s'a••T•A%1 sr ®R ECKO 1'f 70 11 (11 t 1 I v ' ♦♦ NW.VN_...... II / t ; t {{:.... _y1 \ 1 N ' 1,11YJ{�'M11• 1 - •J ' �1- o -1,a•wN_.. LLL�"4,,/1L 1 �. i.�n M.ti.4 „• \• : `j• • ''. .��� , . I {j l '''-a.,,,''..:::: _.+\LL I1J l Q v. i ` I.1�1JI.w1 � ,. lik W3 1 11r, '.1 w 1 1 ' ' {� 1 u -1n..u1 i iy{{ �/, I / ,`♦1 »+ I 1 's'�' {( iI �IVN.I/L 1l4 + ..•11 .r, i '` rr•.,...«�1: . � --1JL1WIw ` I� :) Itd6Wlnw\bM l 1•1'1 t1♦ .+ , ♦.. 4.-- -.. 1 u1M1 •' `. +I ILIJ I c. , . .0641444 I .y\\ m J.1'.4I p '1 t r uNL•wJL ',..1 Q N1YdIBUN• ] 01. J]rtl ♦ •w IN• , �•MM%11hL.-•---. II IYAMW '{ M1 .,+JJJLJI/i. ! ,f. . 1 , pa ♦ w• 11 1 M•14/ 1• 11NI/144 .. _ • i �� 1 t. 11 1 r p J F41S 4�' 1 { ._____ ... .� , u _I U 611'rr `(� zi il �JWII� 1 M.1cw Hu /10rh 011/1r1 M f1.1W1 1WI111 M11 ' CZ) 11/iJiie ,„ 1r111W144, 441 Itv ..,._, - ._ ...,. rill hJ _ ._.�.- I I _ I4IbiI4tI 1N1;1l111 •L 4UL.r•'J I / .. ..y..,. .«.�...r,..-:.. �.».ra,.F.. ..,, _ I. • iI"4' •l.:Ply 1 1,., I +i.,• III ri.,,\1Ih, h 1u1b , . ,+ ',i I • ' l`'1 ;SS t } Nr 41.P,�" 'ryV � , +\Ih 11 .� ,lY: 1, , 1. ,a1• .t/• •' J,. ' JJ b{ IY.,,•,I.Jid,,, �. MI „ I11.Y , rla (" �1 . %• ! •f,!' 1 t',1, ,i Mr,'r '� ' » AC ,l "WJI f11,, 1�' •1, J S11 • 1�• c I1 1 ' 1 1?t5i I1� �`w,1., .• �, ,' �I/1+, I♦1 ht' '\` r 1,1 5 ,e?"•t 51+6 r 1., Sri C'.tif� .`• . r h .�' 1 ,t•1\1)I .4 I 4• r 'AU • '`� 1, h 1.c 4 /4 t`7' 1 4)'1 i/f (1'6 1 1.4 • 11")1'0% • ( ',1",/ J., '/.1' a:' ,1"•7. A '11 q $S 1 r ,,t ,lrl ` a. o dh,. I r IV + 1 ep' /llS' 1' a. N, ! . ,•&'t l �" iY�, +1, L••�••r r,. w nh 1, n• I I 1 Y V,1 � '1 „, • ', I '1 , ', /; !' ' +`f P r, fit�\ r,rr , }YI\f .� . P Na 11•k" A;'1 1%'' r 1 1 li .,A� [" \ , , ,.,1 n i r 0Ir,,..„ l 1 „.v ,Ir' ,.1 1 I',. , r , t J 1 I,i'� i 'ti,. 1 c lA Y 1 h' '1 IIV �, 1 1/r I1. . •t�' 1, �`V`'\ t/{ 1104 ` I/\' I t r 1 1 \Ti(„' wZ'N„ 1 Iw ,J� � \+(M•d �, l 't 1r'. e',N•,1 I,V'1, /I x / ��-i1 '� �� 1. 1, 1,�, 1r,+ ��, I�, �1 �, r�. '1' /l�1': I(.,1 r •l,, •T � y ,` `,, .,y 1� I I /! .•A 1 r .u,"' t 1 ! '1' 't I ,�I , l+f`. .1,1 A ':%'1' C. t n ,,� • 1 1 1 .'�l.1//4 .. q,o,aC o )e ' +{ lllN "b/,1 1.,3 \�" 1 .1i'a.1 ''' n 'I 1 1. ", .� 'Pt. , ,44. )1'TS1 1 • I ,a a 1'+ a ✓'t' \ ; t, . v 1 I 1 . ,1 1f °" �l ,I .y� I/1 �y � .� '\IA.I "1 �W r j" 1 "�'�' .l'1d1� f 1''n•�•\`� f 4 �, ( ' i;/l, �"" 'rF1'{�',Y�ti 1 l �>'! I II r t I'll%)1.,;• ` ,� :A ,. , r 1d 'I 1 dV Ild ll• ti0 d1 1�0 .1 ii r v.6 lr y'M / �k 4 V'f H A. •e ^,i Y�fr�� / . _ .. tt� '1� '� }.,1)1 /, P � BSI rati�,1,. 1Y'tA,�w4 /1� J ,'T �'�+ I; t1. ` r, �'j a 1J` 'n,, 'i J ;11)1 p ',y•"!ri Y r R•,I�S"�r4 14Nr.i'4..A tR'jt,i ),.rd „•1/4 (. 111pv !'i +fir ' •Ts'.�Z }'.l� 1 , V'„f +• ir '' ' �1rI' %' lY" '�`,rt.^��y , r l,1,f �i. 1 t li , , '1) 1 1 / �'+ 1� l��`I �� AO l� «....•.' i ' /... (�_, •4 4 I41clit t�•••,t1 t+1 ,1YI��I1 I$ ,i11 51+,6„ d „•J.,,I 4.114 J !,I I'1,� 1 c1 1 i, `,1 I r G I j . \ ,7-' a 1�, '�1T£ RA,.-. Q FH7 , _.. . a •',.. 1/J ' t Y 11‘ 1 IiL" •. __.lidos�__..�r-emk+As IMINIM 1 lid .� E teat i+1t117' rasaurrc ,■ a '1 r i;� ° • ! WEST NOfiTfl kr1',.,It .z 4'••.�r, ',t 1 \!1; -f O10An.NINu,1. .J f ���f I rAINrIn wau6 Ma J.41 I ♦• , u�,,M�1y, •\ 'a ` u l�„^u'� R -YI1*1 Cap d 1/'.5 1',1 r+'11. 1 ti•�Al'4 at, a JJ`1 4:1 t I ..,e0 a, „CANVA/AWNING I I II 1, 1 . 01 , rf 'a, 1.� +!' ;y y1�.rl I� ',+Ir (/ o,l 1+ +1'. d1�\f}'' �11 I, —IAIMYID woos FASCIA �t F / 1 a3 f 9 1 "PAINTS.)w000 gnlNa ,: 1. •'.f' 'r 1 C\'-•'u•.a Adtr4 fl;NI ~ 1'IJ��� 1,,fr ,jJ '14�,A,y' �. 5,Cy'` -'rA1NtAo louVem a11tlN.) e 1. ' i .v' • J 1A1; N ..ylr� ,0 j1A., •.4, t,Jr. , ��' 11� 1, . .Se. w �f Y •' I + . ; ,. 1 ,t. 1' .'vµt ,) f y\Y' .✓' 1 ),, aa, 1 A" 6 4 (41 i ►t i, I' 1- 1 4!il VISO ylNn,n./10011q „I. ', 01.3'elei''y l.r► •�vr,!l/4 1' rs ' �+ 4 i4 I 1 i r,: • JW 14h1,1• � !�` n I ,N' .,, 1 7 . 11," 1. h1 , p, tll /, 1 Nl J I''i h,I 1•,I�I' .. Y 0, '.6 IL, rJ 11 I^+,d„ , '+J , + J \.� ,1 �.•.1 IiS�,h.1( n �111J1 WI . J `. 1 , r ''1 ., , I ,. "' ,) 111,/II \li i ,, 1, .,• • •, rJ'j P`I 't Via,' ''l ,Y,6. 4 '.4 J/ 1+., 1� „y�tl ,.! ,11�\a+Jh `1, Il !!r 1 \ r �'f n �1, Id111� I 1 ' e.1 V • r a Nr r a �' '"'I Y J'1 14 ,, rA,,A '• 1 1 11�`i 1i+ 6' 1 `1 ,d / . ,�, f, ..4y' i...th rirt* i'``1.'••40 OS s .i.-1 1W4 of ff.�;,r rA 1,.. 410, .t ,ll it T •l t'0 1,�� ,J,ha.., . •'I " 1 1 A, .:1.�I I' _ /� ,ti Y, Y1Jr + t•1 ,�! r. �,yli ,, Y�/ ` :� +Ill; , 1 •% i rf)tt•,l 'r1,,, ,JI yl :I I ql,f Ij 11 /1 11\ . 1P N ,y+M �'' - , ', ,11•'r 1 • ,Ih,W J�< , Yr'4 , ).h :,wT ,/, 7 +1 ♦,.s' ., V� � 1/ Il - 1 , a ;nil', ! I.. , , .h. • f'1.4o \' . l� r 1, 7 1. . , , f 1 d j A 1. 1,1.1' .al, ','1 ,‘ ff((b 'I' 1 u r1' `'.! /` . 1 I 4 , Lao 11'1 J t 1 '� .,1'I I �1 1". ,. ' 1 `I �1 1. . : . t �,/ "+„INIe ft1 �.i(rIYI 11, tl{r ) rA 4„ r' 1 / I / I 11 1.1 /1 I,! ' V r�•A +rj'ISf^ l J I �'if (,1 / f ' I .?1 r it , i • ♦-.... tp.' ';,L• "'a 1 I 1,ti fq:W_ ,AA •. I MB A,,. ..�. _ .. • : i r ,: 1,., :. 11 . ' .' . ''IN tort I 1!•1 U ,..,-_ ,S- h. / an>iar—• }. 1 . d m �� II° IN�� � _. 1'�I ��l ,�lJ i� ' ' :r• (T,r,• � . ir �r ,r ,‘, 1, 110u.I1:,!i1,1!J 21 of r. ,.I 'lidioitN� , � � �.�� 11�1�� ,1.,1,�I ; \ SOUTH ' EAST • • r u 44.11111.19ILDING A A 1 1 I `=•lv " 1 ^t_, • 0 H • , . ] Y_ - _ . t • r • .. - + , . . - - • ♦ , ., . , . .. , V • far 4, . . • .. .. n .. . . • ,. eti r r1 hi t•..^11,,. "O t , r .., ,lS ,,:�rl wP�:dd ,Ye �,4Wa� Itu,jrb1 J•�;.vrl. 1, _ • .R,aa t Q e, +,. +!?rry ;Vfi °►t ': �t�',( ;tt., ti At !,..„.�'tr, a , ,. ✓, •`ro,J' ,, 1 • '. t nhl aH 1 )J'-4. ,` N 4Ct khr��' j i,lt•!1 rt IV p"; t IL s+ , �.e1t! f �' 1. r•'N"-e '1? '1 ! •k ' \. .iy -i LI+ ,�' (.Y lA N� r I,,,,p 44 NA•,r uk J t 't v., 4n 2 1:li q.1 e {,.y" 'q 'rl, ti *9 �t� t" jill' :1 Ake l Si + y�;�V.J.v.t w }1 •., v„k '�,a.A.. J>'� :` L'II �) '�•y �� '••;'♦J T"' +'.r(((J'♦�' " �� t �., r�u 1 ''.;`al,'I �1/t � ��li,'(" .1.t1�1 !„I', 7:t�1, -,- i+ rt Y.��`C'� t''•�;nY'.u��: t'`M�' yd .�. pa ..A IJ1,1 IWr Imo:yt { IIf Stir .ry��ts'�Ir 1,' Ctii • ,•"1'` A ;vP444' - I I r atp, it'l M•'/ `ti• /�ll,.✓ •i '�14. ♦•'ti j'f..i ifeh ,A' , • A , F 'E t �1 r ,11/11fr, .�,1 flt • • ` IY LI —ring II .• I 1.I It 1 I ,, ' I ' 1 t VV • .19 j f, f 1 ;,- vier *h,,,..4, ,q sill i 1. i l w;I�, itJ� 7lI'��ffa�r�I_ 1�l .f, ,!wE r-tert Ilia lima ''' r1t~ '1 1L yuSr• fII1. ''. 'WEST (EAST SIMILAR) 't' • NORTH 9 CICAS ININ'nlu 1 1 - rJ j i 0 YII...iv /A11411n•r1111a IIIIY ��]'r A ��1 Jd- ►A1„„.wCCo IAICIA h �k Y.� , t1 �n1 �� ,,�1,1 I YID,A 1. 4 ::: AIY M1FPAIN IIN laur1l w11C4N yMIMAI CAP .@Alec CAA' ,Er�.A :`ti'• n?N f '9j1(Y''.t'r i�~.:, •1' 1'I�Ifl l't'./ti, •la1 wNFt� INII ,Ir,Nu.I —4' 'ri" kr ` 11IPil! e'4. .e ..f,�; II,r' ,1 'M • 4•"'/1 •, ,1, . ,�� „k� if S ti�:� 'r�a � r p tit�Ig,VY h(1"lit I`' 1 r)1 P.4 Ar'iJ"�� t•ltl,41 A • H ) Atilt r/h/ c r,, �/`�mk ', rat, y rr 4 i•4 , l I 1 .1A. •t,' +uf, :' 1. /trt 1 l 1 . l:T:(','�d,,14�,w ,�5 ',,v1, 1't e/•51 4,F,I' J• ' , l�.,r�, 'I ', '• , .. i ��1 41 / '? It r 4.1. t'�K, ,J1A �' '1 '�• ' 1 us L,e, „.' 't4 ' l ,t)` • f I I A 1 . ►! 'lt A)tjt..Nl y� 1,t,�•A, ,gip AeF I r • ' , iI I ItNCIp•dMgltti (( 'a r •• +,�11 ,3 !�Ir '�`'t /N _ AI rn { m (r '11 ---- I, " I „.. , .4 III.IIII ill wp ,�,1\"1\� _', 'I-l. ♦ -.....'..a«if —SX.+f� l�...rl.■JJ�i ._+. • W r_i b' I ..i..,�_ W 1SOUTH !BUILDING BA . 4 • . - - . . n,. r4 rV,. -•.pua Np N0" ... • • . • • r?u, •'' W • to a,•,I11. • ,II • i�a,l .y `� 1• ,N •' +, 1 " , 11 ; ,' 1 11.4 r11 1.. 4)4 ,Ty.`�11 1 / , JI ,:�\W !.7• ...'1�� 40 a+l, , ',. 1,1"Ir�1 ( ' 1`1'•,1d IN•`:tt•1� t* W t,•�l ail I ! Y .1 r ,,, 'I »� 'I.�: a` " � l �7y t�. <----2 °'`,„„ 1 /t.1 '' / ,�1)I,1 Ali ' •q , ft, tF'1�`, .a, u t'Iis A d' 1 • :•l1 r 1 1e'd1._�L ..-.. f' r 1 , • VA',.I. .'It,' f t'It l Mti� (` -kl v �ig',�4Lwr, u i• `••. ` ,.„,. r`1 1,� c-' ,•--•-r• ' t • 1 _ 1 i► `{'i /Q ? 1 �:3 �. 9,'w t!bt- ? 1 • _ ��w.tf�i5 r M rll, 1,�j�� - s c >.'F9 � � 1"Ir1•N � .'�:"�1 "w,, �a•y,l I.��., �P' uS[.`V. �.t. 6t \ rri, ,, T Ir...jErft=-1, - •• Imo :451 ;Ili ini= lff-u-ri - ail igt , ,. \ I ..r.`,..111-15 [I PTA nim.... 1 , • NORTH `EAST' I allafw louw■ caw,W1MOl■1 •1111114a1_W00a 111140 Nlaaaa woos al4ol* WWta_wVVL rlalorl - J14,v J11Ytaa swop Val■-- .. i t+� 01J :�y4.1 Wok aua • �'°`,,w • y.,, .,1 • \�•. +l•+.Cf ih jt t• '-urV►a lrnlaal ..i „i' v ' ,,, .'11r A A. 'r 1 yw ,er '" 4 J1I< 1' 1 ( y�k i l .., ! 1 04,,/li r''1' p,. • 1. ,{1c *�ti 44 1 i.r.,t‘'' 1 _ I,I' ,t' t 11 IIrl. 1_: ,i ` �, ti1 11' it li` , II . , 1 ' +,1, +,�; ;44. L•a"f;11:," 111%.1 4 t:t'i' !j .I ill •,i.•• ','1 .'r t hpli t. Cit.,' 1• 1 4..V.,I �' ._j ;t-. it,'t 1, F p 1't l � �ir','r,ta. �(, !,. t'.%, ' 1 _ .J,...,.••( 1,.s.,.: ..._,, '.'ti .. '1 r rti fit. i !I `I ) 1 1 II I r It. .4 , = a 1•t,1 - -� (� J�1 b i I '^e�'� ,y1 — �� P ,. • , ( N sax , / ,4 s^ • 1- y .. Y 1 ti" •r•- . 4.—tV—�ti t'1'u"..11iV' t -- _ l---J 1 ,„ /,�.�i� _ j�-.-., 1 It ''' 11 21.1 I .JI'I, pl.. ,- - 1111R 1 , �, I-,- 4.1•I1•16P 00 ri. .,....._. 0..00'' t 1� I Y _.I ' 11i �t .• 1111 ' 1^ ►1MGLO•I4yamy N.1. • h b m 'WEST' SOUTH • p • w _a �b w 'BLHLDING C11 • .• l �otak • t . . r r a 1 t! 0 0 * , ; • +. • i 1 ,� 11 <:' 'r. fN 1 nr, \r' t 1'1".. ,J�'J' �;� 1} 1" •"r1 Olt •' Ni ' V i Y o,•:n.1 plS''/ 1".Y. 941'P, ' Io-1r 1 J -11L'i' • i, i '..r.', j '� .17 ,,I, , )irir, yI'1$ 1 Iru,rtu ir, �n f �,1�".�^ ,,M l:y;u`r ``,;�.rl+ '!1}11r 1 , .!l. II ,'A, 1 .I 1 . (+ 1 1 j 1 ra r ti.4 tin.+.11,1 Nl('I�1�u 1-r \ . 1 r.. r • .�4 A�q 0 .rt• ,, l.y;�• b > L4.1 r 51 ► Irl IMF ,1\ r i {(I'Y,:t,+ r rt. r(. 't:. nk i 1.r F2itil l,. 4t, A%'/ni` U )�1'kyM 1.7a r\t 'f^":' re:1:,._.,_. _-_:.♦r. .J!t'p '� v. 11•i/, li 11 •. (l�1 SN k; rt.'3 i/ .„+ •pyrii,‘ IA r`Y 1,+tn 1I 1341-�1 ,tr .. ..»... _ i u' 1 YTt k�l°` - Nisi flHwe 11'U ,hlr',+Irl�'; 1 / I r 1 1 • j a 1 .0...,.1� " •Ptha. \ ti y \�',k yt rl + .�. �ti y e••-ire''-� I, •t 1 +� 1 • rrllrll rrr i q l �f '.'1'1ki Y_ _ 1 _`�. „ x l 1 • „, i me] i _ . . .., _r._. • , . . .. . . . ,. , . ___ ___. EAST , ,• • NORTH •;f • C1MrA1 AMMllln I J �•'' • ,C/,Al1 i *tis 1 bolls room WIMnn1// 000100100110 .►Aill WOO►AStIA r.►►1m1M on tebotltl 1 IIM0 1Y0 . .r r i r tl Yi i/ • ' • 'Pk.* Jl1t AJAl 1 4iiY sl`:J�} /: + • '- 1 • �Y►au i11' ^i " �'� '1 4l� �e' ►tit - ty.' W u �. !� r, b � - sYW ,ly iw' s.•f ll/ t 1,- - . ,.♦ _. ,0-� ylr `�, II r 1 l0, \:4 t 1, l- i /�iy, : .4,' �i�af u} '` {y ICr ry't/1 1 :=. ps! \ ' Ir 'I' 1 id 1• 1 C Y 1(. 1 01 . ►altul•Strome, ..� . .. M. s.r ' , a 0 k 1 WEST I nil SOUTH .s { lw S K). r as BUILDING C2 ) to y� a - - r - - . ' .1 V H+ • • • 1 t r lit a '„'•1 s , P� 1° 11 ,1, I 1 '' , , 1 r�l•( t ' ' 11 1/`tcol,t „„ A.,,.•111,,iv , .0.,, I A 1.-.t l 1. '1°,,,, `j .1'„ I, 11 I ,r! r , I 1�I t Y f.. .p ;,. • ,�'4' •'t\�1" •}r 1A'�.1` l+ �I.tl rt, 4 1 N,I,,. ,11 (1o1r;1.-0 1. r, ' 1 ' ' .y ` tql 11A1 ,�i,r .,,'1944"+ .�/�/ etki ••. I�1',i�l. ''1'.+'t 1�,r1• �l yJ•+11„� L 1 -� II / , I'•. i of t 1 II .' 111 t �r7i');' xP1 Il 4 )4,'l,1 },' Lll 1 Il, 1 'i i''' A I lot ' III' I 1 ''rt' ' ,{ •'�� ,9• a "•{ Yt rti� •i ,•'t, R I) rn•^I, 'All �'°�1 ,�y }YYYYI ••• 1,' I ' II / .,11 ,�iA y, / �r�� .4 •-"' IC 1,I I 1lr\'� (, �1 tls„,t I +� '/y '!t', •I 19 4I , ) ~�A�+{(� :. ,[�,1 I krb` ' ',}lC\1 li V ,!.;1 t 1111 rl A .,, ' 4 +,r.,\\ t,', •ki. 1,+. _ I �•f •' ��1� �,,[i to ' if. x •F ., 1 •rtls'F .1�r'0 01,'.h 1 N i14��i.,:�.y.� r ar 1. n.�. �, '1 1 1 ,,,,„,...„... ,',:-..7..1.4...4f,:r30 ,..,.‘'‘,,.1.. ,..../:'''° '''',..s.s.L.:N-• nel vl _ _, , _ I ! 1 err 1 i11 , .: . ...' . i .p NORTH FIINteb wbon 610We V r p(, : Y',.,`4. •i11•tl'1.,,,, •, 1•`lr+. ,• orl eNlNbl I !WIMP V N L t - A• 1 , i F'I II• Y PV navel t L•.°,11 •`r , �� 41�/lr. L,r1e' :,�' „S , 'rl^Lant.f a r,l •j 1.t 1 1 ! _�G;,N, /1 i ( P)r y M 1 .t. .K + l 0' 1114 1�',r v)• i',.1 1,1 AI, ll y, ;�1 G, ,u+, 1�V ,,,.4I F' r I'I i1 ( ,I 1•.ai .1. F 1�' h�, Ave Nn 1I r r 4 /,I.n wouo iAd bi '�It Iti yy 1 A Vk ,( \.. 1 i! f •�W'�' '�f _ )1 71 .t.�.r.�I I •I ,, d � J 'I°.,,a 4l ! J '11 AO ' r o l% I', 1' i i ,Nun nn n u ' 1 , �1 1 x1 ,01 , \t `l I, 1 •f 1 t 1 i ;^ . li I,. ' +11 ' fl 1 }INfln lnuven p '�� yy 1} f•la� ' f 1" '1 '� .Y.�^ ,I ,/•�•� '„ 4r )) �• (• ;,IQ) I' 1 , , tr1 „,r ,. I��, • .11 1� lY1\\1( d. ? t i/ .1 . it, "e,yr_.`, 1 t j;.•rlly�SI�1 1 1; enlcN��le I ,�/. + .]14 1Y ti �1,� �f 1 !/e' Va 1�1�t.114I t, 41`It.r r.I .`� • I wl"l',\1 Jx I� ,� �,� :, '� ry r .,i.r+ ,e .7fv't t. 1.l A;'a,Y°'1 t t `.1 =,..; �, I A• ..� 11♦ 'a 1♦�t ,'i•''I 1�� ,n „ 1 1 1 .14, I , 1, 1 , I, 2h .,f IX. .II 1 1, , t t !V11' I r 11 1 r I I >Y 1 ? . 11,A,,Aj I .,, l r. 'i II 1 I,� t' n / 1. 1 1 4 i '�177'11 (((`,i,i t J�� al,At� rfti k e, 'i t j n1.1. .1y( 1:' rf 1 x 1 t`l�tr^�\I Jw � f�1't 1(\ •�fP'I�r.t ,`I/' fI y ,r�rN•;.e,��,,� j,�11,!/�� ''/' vl 1 11�/;' DI„1• �11� 1' ,,II'I;h1 t (I { 11 I '.1'''' fl t, 1 .7 .1 ,1. 1,,'\I I R "J^,1� I' y f' (• ,ir^ lii I! ` II I 1 �1 1,. , , 1 rrt� I� � ` a'.�< �.NI �,tlti � .! K ,` rtdl /31.'"•?'1.1 }y, Iti•'� IP, 1'1.,,,i. ( I�I 'II Lf 1 "I' y 'lj._ �j� 1 , t • �' , 1 -'• -'r. r� t a 74' ,W�..T r.. -.Yr 1. . `... ,.%ice, + i� 1 1 1 I ,I • ���y i • y I W `•1f!' �" Elm ,, ••.14 = I 1 �, _ ) 1 l { r y r.1_ 'r,1 m-- !. rl.fin! i�, _ ^ r , {( ,� t,:. IINGAD•1Me'r/r NIII. J[J ry I N 1 To a a._s� , N X 'WEST (EAST SIMILAR) 'SOUTH) IN O W Ou • I BUILDING'D N*.minkagr 4104( , '•..::..'•1:=1 • • o 1. y+„ A 4' AGENDA rr CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,March 15, 1993 II 7:00 P.M. .i L CALL TO ORDER IL ROLL CALL • • A• t APPROVAL OF MINUTES • September 23, 1992 October 5, 1992 • October 19, 1992 November 2, 1992 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 16-92, a request by Blockbuster Video to reopen the public hearing to take additional evidence on access and site circulation only. The site is located on the south side of Lower Boot s Ferry Road across from the intersection of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 4300 of Tax Map 2 1 E 8CB). Staff coordinator is Flrxbath•iacob, Associate Planner Contin ed from January 1.0. 1�.,1 SD 19-921VAR 18-92(a—b), a request by OTAK, Inc. (David Bantz) for approval of a major partition involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of 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 mini..ium 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, Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44,390 which limits a cul—de—sac or dead end street to no more than 1 000 �mt in length. The •;;1t t • modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to 1 ',. terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affectingChapin Wayand Wells Street, as required• :9 t , by LOC 49.120, [Note: The applicant has upgraded this application from minor to major partition because it involves the creation of a street through widening of an existing public easement.; The site is located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 lE !ODD), Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler;Assyciate Planner ontinued frnrn lane ry a993 VI. GENERAL PLANNING n 2 + ' 41) a • • `y y ' t VII, OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Older DR 20-92-993 [AP 92-10]—Clark & Sylvia Wood T p ., DR 13-9011(Remand)—OTAK J PD 5-92—Alpha Engineering �► s VIII. ADJOURNMENT • r ~ `t The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. 12B/Memberss Sdaff ` Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner '' TM Robert H.Foster Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner • Ginger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner °+ Martha F.Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner •F • Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney w Barbara Anderson,Administrative Seeretaiy • Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • i ti e` : f . • a , w �� WI<E .•/* .• .1. • Gr)EG0.N .' i' \ICE \IE.\ I"01. I'I..\\\I\( ; .\\E) DE\'EMI.( ai'• I; . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Re' :v Board • FROM: Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner SUBJECT: DR 16-92; Blockbuster Video Application J • TM: 2 1E 5BC TL; 4300 • • DATE: March 3, 1993 • The applicants for the above referenced application have requested that the continued hearing before the Development Review Board be continued until May 17, 1993, to allow time to resolve ; issues of two—way access to the rear road. • .• • • '.j M p. • • f a1 GdJ, • Or e• I Y 4 • / } • • • • • • • • • • • rt C` t1 1 �Y 1 t y N. ll, I chs� q i tt f, ' a 1 .' ., • • •' '1 J� I • ` D ' ''' '' 0 1'' ' MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Board ,. FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner t, 4. SUBJECT: Addendum to January 8, 1993 Staff Report; , SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 DATE: March 3, 1993 ` ( -- ..„,..,:'•.: • On January 20,. 1993 the Development Review Board approved a motion to continue the public hearing opened on that date until March 15, 1993. That continuance was granted to enable the applicant to explore an alternative Future Streets Plan (FSP) proposal suggested by opponents, , . 0 and to work with staff to determine whether the alternative complied with relevant Plan policies, • regulations and development standards. The applicant met with staff members on February 9, 1993 to present the alternative. Staff evaluated this alternative and held a second meeting with the applicant and some of the , ,.' opponents to explain the results of the evaluation, which are summarized below. Qiiginal Proposal &FSP A ;. .;h The applicant's proposed two—parcel partition required: n W ` • Protection of a distinctive natural area located on the site; and • • A variance to the Access Development Standard because the site has no frontage on a C-" public street; and • A Future Streets Plan linking the site's Wells Street private access to Chapin Way (nearby to the south) in order to provide fire protection from a hydrant within 1,000 feet and to r . " � assure that the partition would not preclude the future development of other larger parcels + in the area. The applicant's FSP suggested continuing the use of Wells Street's existing intersection with Hwy, 43 (See Exhibit 53). Re;" nts of the neighborhood, while not objecting to the partitioning, raised concerns about the FS% particularly; k SD 19Y92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 1 of 9 • Pedestrian and child safety within their neighborhood. 0 I,,,I,.,,, i. : :e.. • The use of the proposed street connection as a cut-through route for people attempting to avoid traffic pressures experienced on Hwy.43. • Additional traffic generated through the existing neighborhood by new dwellings "• anticipated in the FSP area. o Impact of the proposed extension of Chapin Way upon existing improvements and • ' plantings on Tax Lot 600 (Lasley). The validity of a future street easement conveyed to ` the City across Tax Lot 600. Recommended Modification FSP •, Staff reviewed the original proposal in its report dated January 8, 1993 and,concluded that the applicant's proposal did not comply with all relevant Plan policies,particularly Transportation Policies intended to facilitate emergency vehicle access,reduce the impacts of vehicle speed, through traffic and the inconvenience of vehicles using the driveways to turn around. Indirectly, these policies also address traffic and pedestrian safety, neighborhood character and • the environment. On January 20, 1993, staff recommended that the FSP be modified to eliminate the Wells Street intersection with Hwy. 43, to allow the extension of Chapin Way to Wells Street, and to terminate Wells Street with cul-de-sac turnarounds at the cast and west ends ' • (See Exhibit 54). • Staff determined that such a modified FSP configuration would: • • • • 0 .1 6 • Allow Wells Street/Chapin Way to adequately function as a local street serving up to 38 dwellings, with fewer than the 1,200 vehicle trips per day (average), within the appropriate range for this street classification. ' . '' • Ultimately eliminate the potential for a through traffic loop from the intersection of . , Cherry Lane, Chapin Way and Wells Street, ending at the intersection of Wells Street at • ; Hwy. 43. +w.. • Enable efficient future development of the area currently served by Wells Street at a density and level of urban service anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. F+iture development would abut public streets as required by the Plan and the Access Standard. . • Provide fire protection to the area north of Chapin Way from a hydrant located at the *y intersection of Chapin Way and Morning Sky Court, ,; . r On January 20, 1993 opponents of both the applicant's original proposal and the recommended ,44� , modification reached a tentative agreement to submit another alternative. The details of this • alternative were not disclosed to the Development Review Board or staff on that date, but were presented to staff by the applicant on February 9, 1993 (See Exhibit 55). Opponents' Alternati e FSP The opponents' alternative proposes to provide access to the applicant and three parcels whose creation is anticipated by the owner of Tax Lot 700 (one dwelling currently exists; two new dwellings would be added) in a private access easement traveling north from the current I , northerly terminus of Chapin Way, The proposed easement would be designed to avoid existing 40 •• '. plantings and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600. This design would include a centerline . L ' , radius of approximately 65 feet, rather than the minimum 100 feet required by LOC 44,385(c). SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum `r Page 2 of 9 z' � . . • x The private easement would tray,1 across portions of Tax Lot 600,700 and utilize a portion of the existing access easement on Tax Lot 800 (known as Wells Street). •', • Only four parcels would ultimately be served by this proposal; the applicants' and three future a : parcels created from Tax Lot 700. All other underdeveloped parcels would continue to take E access from Wells Street(two dwellings other than applicant),O'Brien Street (one vacant *'.` parcel),Gans Road(one dwelling),and Lund Street (one dwelling). This alternative would not comply with Plan policies and regulations regarding public safety because the proposal lacks emergency vehicle turnarounds on either the private easement(west) ,`� or Wells Street(east). Also, the proposal would not assure the provision of public services, particularly public street access, to the site or to underdeveloped properties within 250 feet of the site, as required by LOC 49.120. On February 9, and again on February 18, 1993 staff suggested consideration of a fourth alternative (See Exhibit 56). The response to the suggestion was neutral to supportive. ` Eolith Alternative FSF The fourth alternative suggests that an offset cul-de-sac turnaround be designed directly north of the current terminus to Chapin Way. The offset(westerly) design is intended to preset ve the trees and driveway improvements on Tax Lot 600 which, have been the object of that owner's f, concern, and yet provide an emergency vehicle turnaround as required by the Code. Also, Wells ` Street would be designed as a 40-50 ft.-wide right-of-way with a cul-de-sac at the west end to enable access to all parcels capable of future development. This alternative would: • ,0 0 • Formalize the northern terminus of Chapin Way, giving certainty to neighborhood that no additional traffic will be generated on Chapin Way by the area north of the current ' terminus of Chapin Way. • Assure the development potential of the Wells Street area, o Utilize an existing access road rather than create a new one. o Require the ultimate dedication of Wells Street and Chapin Way cul-de-sac to public for future street purposes. .4 a Require an access permit from ODOT for the increased use and improvement of Wells Street and its intersection with Hwy. 43. ' • Require a concurrent variance to LODS 14,025(8) for the applicant's partition because the •i new parcel (south) would be more than 1,000 ft. from a fire hydrant. • Require a concurrent variance to LOC 44,390 to enable Chapin Way to exceed 1,000 ft. in length. • Require improvement of Wells Street to a minimum width of 20 feet for use as a fire ' emergency access road. is Require relocation of surface drainage generally along the existing route of Wells Street, This relocation would include design of the new location, acquisition of required drainage • easements, and construction of the improvements. • Require installation of a rated residential fire suppression sprinkler system in the future . ` dwelling on Parcel 2. .1. ' SD 19-921VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 3 of 9 '' . '.. development standards prior to approval. An evaluation of the applicable variance criteria will be found later in this memorandum. + U•. Members of city staff have provided two additional exhibits: A memorandum by Xavier Falconi, Transportation Services Engineer regarding the recommended modification (Exhibit 51); and a memorandum by Russ Chevrette,Engineering Technician regarding the history of FSP consideration by tsarlier hearing bodies (Exhibit 52). Now,to amend the original staff report,dated January 8, 1993,add the following: I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Change "minor partition" to "major partition." Also, the applicant is seeking approval of an 15 approximately 800 ft. Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits the length of a cul-de—sac i to 1,000 ft. The propose3 modification to the FSP would extend Chapin Way/Wells Street to approximately 1,800 ft. in order to terminate access to Hwy.43 in the future. • II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Residential Site Design Policies General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3 • Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 r3 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards (CODS): Transit—All major development `6.020(1)(b) Park and Open Space—All major deveh ;Went 8.020(1) Landscaping. Screening, and Buffering—All major development ``- 9.020(4) Drainage Standard for Major Developments—All major development 11.020(1),(2),(3),(5) Site Circulation Standards—Driveways and Private Streets —All major development 19.020(1),(2) F 19.025(1)—(19) Site Circulation Standards —Bikeways an `a kways—All major development 20.020(1),(2),(3),(4) SD 19-92`VAR 18-92 Addendum Page5of9 L, t • 4.. Evaluation of Alternatives In the review of all of the FSP alternatives, staff identified the following objectives which should be M ' addressed: • Preservation of trees and groves. � Y" • Preservation of stream corridors. • Reduction of traffic impacts on adjacent areas. • Provision of adequate utility service and drainage. • Street design which provides for safety and speed control e Restriction of direct access to major streets if access to other public streets is available. ` r • Maintenance of existing quite residential streets. • • Provision of access to abutting land for development. • Provision of emergency services accessibility. • Right—of—way dedication as a condition of development and future; improvement of streets when M1. demand requires. • Diversion of through—traffic away from neighborhood streets, *. . .. :•• ' 0 The City has a responsibility to plan for all of the functions noted above, This application requires particular care in the design of a FSP to achieve the latter four objectives. The City has a responsibility to acknowledge proposals which plan for the most efficient and safe FSP alternative that also protects the natural environment and residential neighborhood. The recommended alternative and the four alternative FSP's achieve all of these objectives, provided additional conditions are met. The applicant's original proposal does not achieve all of these;objectives �;;: because it would encourage higher traffic volumes due to the loop resulting from connection of Wells Street/Chapin Way/Cherry Lane to two locations on Hwy 43, The opponents' alternative FSP proposal does not achieve all of these objectives because it would not adequately serve all future development in the area north of the current terminus of Chapin Way, and does not provide emergency vehicle ;:' turnarounds. 1 , Modification of Application The applicant has upgraded the proposal to that of a major partition because it involves the widening of an existing future street easement. Though this easement is not being created as a part of this application (since it already exists; Exhibit 19), it-,vas felt that it should be processed as a major partition to avoid any procedural errors, The applicant has provided an addendum (Exhibit 50) to the ' •On original narrative in which the development standards applicable to a major partition (major development) are discussed. These requirements will be evaluated later in this memorandum. , Also, the applicant has applied for an additional Class I variance to LOC 44,390 which limits the length of a dead end street or cul—de—sac to 1,000 ft. (Exhibit 50). This additional request is in response to IIIstaff's recommended modification to the FSP and LOC 49.120 which requires compliance with all SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum Page 4 of 9 • • L 1 • M. FINDINGS E. Compliance with Criteria for Approval,;, 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Development Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) The applicant has upgraded the application from minor partition to major partition. With the exception of a required public hearing for a major partition (major development), the Development Code requirements are generally the same for minor or major partitions. ° ►: ;' Six additional development standards are applicable to a major development. These standards will be reviewed later in this memorandum. The applicant has submitted an additional variance request VAR 18-92(b)1 to exceed the maximum 1,000 ft. length of a cul—de—sac [LOC 44.3901. As per LOC 510(1), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class I variance: X ' a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant notes that because on Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) access permit for Wells Street to intersect Hwy. 43 does not exist, properties adjacent t Wells Street are not further developable without extension of Chapin Way to the north, The applicant identifies the physical improvements needed for Wells Street to meet City •• and ODOT requirements, yet concludes that a hardship exists due to the present ownership of Wells Street(Tax Lot 800), its width, and the need for an additional drainage easement to be acquired. b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the .• • neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established • to be affected by the request; The applicant notes that an overall increase of 16 dwelling units, resulting in . approximately 380 vehicle trips per day(average), would not be injurious to the neighborhood. The applicant further notes that this total traffic volume is approximately 25 percent of the number allowed on local streets as identified in a recent transportation study. The volume is approximately 32 percent of the volume of 1,200 vehicle trips currently identified in the Transportation Policies of the Comprehensive Plan+ c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of • • the property. • The applicant identifies that the recommended alternative Future Streets Plan requires that cul—de—sacs be located at the east and west ends of Wells Street, once it is connected to Chapin Way, and that, because of the current condition of the road and its authority to • • access Hwy. 43, the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship, i' in order to make reasonable use of the applicant's property, and other underdeveloped e property in the vicinity. SD 19-92WAR 18-92 Addendum Page 6 of 9 • • , .. {. x • lA I : ' •• d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. S The applicant notes that an evaluation of applicable Plan policies occurs in the original native (Exhibit 2). The recommended modification to the FSP, which prompts the" ' need for this variance, does comply with the Plan policies regarding Transportation, P Y ® • Quiet Environment,Distinctive Natural Area, Stream C''rridors and Residential Site a Design [See Discussion of the four alternative FSP's earlier in this memorandum]. c. The applicable Development Standards " Transit(6.005—6,040) This standard requires major development to provide transit facilities based upon an analysis of existing facilities and the site's proximity to bus routes. Tri—Met Route Number 35 travels on Hwy. 43, but there are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site which must be extended as a part of this application. The standard is therefore met by the proposal. .. Park and Open Space (8.005 —8.040) • This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space equal to "'• at least 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. The site's 42,512 sq. ft. �f • ` requires 8 502 sq. ft. in open space. The applicantproposes to comply with this standard b establishing a conservation easement to protect te istinctive natural ural area and stream corridor associated with the site, an area of approximately 20,0XX) sq. ft. or 44 percent of • the site. The standard is satisfied by this protection. ' ail Landscaping. Screening and Buffering t9.005—9,040) This standard requires all development abutting streets to provide street trees at the ` proper spacing for the species. The applicant indicates that street trees will be planted along Wells Street. The species or spacing was not specified at this time, This ' ' demonstration may be appropriately deferred until application for a building permit for Parcel 2 is sought. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. • ' Drainage Standard for Major Development (11,005— 11,0401 i This standard requires that drainage alterations not adversely affect other properties. The applicant identifies that construction of the proposed Chapin Way extension and .` driveway to the site will include drainage improvements to direct a portion of an existing '' ditch to the stream corridor to the north. Review of the design of this improvement will • be required as a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action, • if approved. Site Circulation Standards —Driveways and Private Streets (19.005— 19,040) This standard requires that the minimum width of a two—way street be 20 feet, with a . turnaround designed if the street is longer than 300 feet, The maximum driveway grade for a single—family home is 20 percent with a maximum cross—slope of 5 percent. • • The applicant notes that improvements to Chapin Way and Wells Street (west of its intersection with Chapin Way) will be 20 feet in width. A turnaround is proposed at the ,. ' .... . ip west and east ends of Wells Street, but will be constructed as development demands and „. . . ‘ . , SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 7 of 9 • • 3u . . . a >` , ' ( '+.: �. . c is abutting each proposed terminus. The grade of proposed Parcel 2 is approximately eight percent and will enable compliance with the standard. fi • . v Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways and Walkways (20.0Q5-20.040) This standard requires oikeways and walkways to tie to public streets. While the Comprehensive Plan and the Pathways Master Pan specify the location of future and existing pathways, neither Chapin Way (north of Chapin Road) nor Wells Street are among them. Highway 43 is the route of an existing pathway. F. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant(Exhibit?,2 and 50), staff concludes that provided the proposed Future Streets Plan is modified to comply with applicable '' Comprehensive Plan policies, the applicant's requested variance [VAR 18-92(b)] would satisfy all applicable criteria. The applicant's original variance [VAR 18-92(a)] was found to satisfy the criteria under the same conditions. ,'_ Staff also concludes that the proposal can comply with all applicable development standards through the imposition of certain conditions. III. RECOMMENDATION Provided the modifications noted in the conclusions in the original staff report (dated January 8, 1993) are made to the proposal, staff recommends approval of the proposed major partition [SD 19-92], Class I variance to the Access Standard [VAR 18-92(a)J and Class I variance to LOC 44.390 regarding cul-de-sac length. Staff also recommends approval of the modified :j Future Streets Plan discussed in the January 8, 1993 staff report and further reviewed in this memorandum. Those approved applications and the modified Future Streets Plan shall be subject to the following added or amended conditions [Note: added text is in italics]: '' 1. The applicant shall design to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, a storm drainage system along the east property line of the site from Wells Street north to the , stream corridor channel. This design shall comply with the provisions of the Drainage ' Standard for Minor Development (LODS 12.005 - 12,040) and Hillside (LODS 16.005- p:` 16.040), This design shall be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval, '` 3. [Delete entire condition due to the addition of VAR 18-92(b), Remaining conditions not �. renumbered.] 14. The applicant shall install three street trees along the frontage of parcel 2 on Wells , .. Strew, These trees shall be installed at 40 feet on center and comply with condition number 7 above. EXHIBITS [Note: The following exhibits have been received since the public hearing was opened on January 20, 1993.] 44, Letter to G. Hunt, ODOT from L. & E. Harriman requesting access permit; dated October 21, 1992 45. Letter to L, Harriman from G. Hunt, ODOT, regarding access permit 46. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 734,Division 50, regarding approach roads 40 . .. , . SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 8 of 9 47. Request for continuance by E. Sullivan,attorney,dated January 20, 1993 48. Letter from M. &R. McCrain,dated January 16, 1993 49. Letter from E.J. Sullivan,attorney dated January 22, 1993 • • ' 50. Addendum to applicant's narrative,dated February 22, 1993 51. Memorandum from X. Falcon,Transportation Services Engineer, dated February 25, 1993 52. Memorandum from R. Chevrette,Engineering Technician; dated February 25, 1993 53. Map: Original proposal (prepared by staff) 54. Map: Recommended modification (prepare('by staff) ' • • 55. Map: Opponents' alternative (prepared by staff) • 56. Map:Fourth alternative(prepared by staff) � . 57. Letter from A. &B. Banach,dated February 26, 1993 .u' • 58. Memorandum from J. Condit, City Attorney; dated March 1, 1993 59. Letter from R. &J.Hinzdel,dated March 2, 1993 • • c.. • • ei ' • SD 19-92\VAR 18-92 Addendum Page 9 of 9 . , 0 P • v: • • • • . • • • i 0 • `. er • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 1• • • • • T. •' ' 0 . • • . • • 224 ... TEL M0:5©12976050 n g� 16:$O Ip:DISTR1CT 2A HW? DiV nf.. Leland Harriman • P .O . Box 562 • Lake Oswego, OR. 97034 Gary Hunt Oregon Dept. of Transportation P .O . Box 25412 Portland , 0R, 97225 October 20 , 1992 Dear Mr Hunt, legal owner of Wells Street ('Pax 1ot®800O)1which Y am thex o g 700 900 , and the south � `• accesses tax lots 20q ► � am requesting , . . Per your conversation with Dina tionctolthn State highway , . an access permit for a road conneo your speoi£ioations - `; which will subsequently be improved per by the McNallYs ` m October 31st far use in P1aGe remit the permlt�ortoa m�ner partition on Tax lot the McNallY' s application 410 1,000 . Your prompt reply on this issue would be most appreciated . ;j1. Sincerely, Oe 7b 2/1 I c Gz ` J < a' ` , P. Deland Harriman 0C4, 2.( 1 r5..e .:_)';`) rt.)49_,,, fie2.11-} r3 EXHIBIT • ty.12.0!,4. i' • .3 DISTRICT 2A [3 I • r1 loCi` 2w1992 C. f ,�M r J �, 4' b a • • ••'...• • •-f •-•,*- • '.•• • • ,;• • , ".•• '• ', . . ,• , . •... '•• • "• ' ., •., '• I • ; • • •• ',; , ' . ',.•. ' •• , ' • ••• , •.• . . . •• • . , a ' . • . . • • 4 •• „ •. 4 ' ' . • • . , ,• • .4 • !,' - •• . . • . . • • • . •. - .• • , - • • , • • . • , , • , I- •• . • • . , • . r • ;AN-06-'93 16:38 ID:DISTRICT 2A HWY DIU TEL NO:5032976058 ##974 P 1 /. Post-it"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 n , ...-; . , R. FROMr 0 7' • ti Ca .. •N"yvs.. Oreg.) . er Yfl _ 'ro • , fraxr DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION October 23, 1992 HIGHWAY DIVISION DIStrict 2A r '�. Maintenance Supetvieor . V • LELAND HARRIMAN FILE Coo& Po BOX 562 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 :, • • Attached is/are your application(s) for ADDroacJI Road Permit The • application(s) must be signed by the owner or contract purchaser and a local government official. Please obtain the appropriate signatures and return the application along with the items a 0checked below for further processing. I Administrative Fee Amount $ 50.00 n/a Inspection Fets Amount ..____ .� Certificate of Insurance (of the contractor who will be performing the work). .� nag Permit Performance Bond Amount $ rib Advance deposit of$ , striping costs. r'. •�. Please keep in mind that this does not constitute an approved permit, An approved permit will only be issued after receipt of the signed application(s) and completed forms. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss any provisions of the permit, please feel • • • • free to contact this office. Sincerely, EXHIBIT • 1 465-0e1)) .. . . . .. . ,.... . tHit---- I` � YI� � i . .. 41 .0 Permit Inspector �.1 .mot I'4' ILA 1541w I'arti,tnd,Olt 9.",:ln.0.1 i.: • JAN-06-'93 16:39 I D:DISTRICT 2A HWY D I U TEL NO:5O32976058 4974 P62 1 µ APPLICATION AND PERMIT TO ,; I CONSTRUCT APPROACH ROAD PERMI1'NUMBER ,I %.,./.00,4 DIVISION NIG14WAY NAME MILEPOINT ENGINEERS STATION OSWEGO 6.98 230+73 • HIGHWAY NUMBER COUNTY SIDI OF HIGHWAY APPROACH TO SERVE 3 Clackamas a SOUTH To WE , Residences/ WELLS SxR . DEMUR OR NEAR LANDMARKS HIGHWAY REFERENCE MAP AND ATTACHED DRAWING NUMBERS —� .' • ,. Laurel_ILt: AND Cherry Lane 4B-5-1 / Tags Lot ',`Maps a APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS BOND mama() AMOUNT OF POND ❑YES XS NO OAR r3160.O254 $ r INSURANCI:REQUIRED In AOMINISTRATTJE FEE OAFEf3140.02e('S) LELAND HARRIMAN YES 0 NO 0 TEMPORARY DEPOsIT AMOUNT C PO SOX 562 HWKNUMeIdf $ 50.00 ?: LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 DISTRICT MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR DATE COMPLETE 1 APPLICATION RECEIVED • .ill X REGION ENGINEER DATE L .J X UTILITY PERMITSUPERViSOR APPROVAL DATE X APftl(CANT MPf(CATION DATE APPROACH ROAD COMPLETION DATE: X REPERENCE.OAR 701S6050f41 May 1* 1993 The epplbent deems that h.11ho is the owner or Leese of the real property agolrung the abova dwelled highway inn himthe lawful authority to apply to,this pane 1.Whin this ao• Y Mi atan Is approved by the Oeoartment of Trinaporteeon.nie app kart H eugeet to the tome end provla!;.ne een%Mned herein and ittiahod holm,end the terms of Oregon Ad- miMOCauve Mull,Cflapla T34,Ohfiton 50,what I.by Eve rafteencs modes Dart of this permit Copies of the Rote they be obtained from the Dlebwt Mpintenance 6upavlenee ofltra, r liiuinp of peones unpin this.regulations is not.fmax+o of cemoKanoe wan the elalawids planning gone or at.Ichnowtedged oomonhvncive plan for Ina are.,Permne en weed i1,0 (tact to the ipprovel of dfy,county a oth t gowrnmen navMg eons pirtl woenllbn over ma eenlon of hlghwey or eutho'iiy to Iw uletr find use by mane of 3onIng oldie. building rvgwabon5.II snail I»the eppilanf a reeponup•zy b obtain any corn epproval Including,whore apposable,focal gowrrtmenr aatarrrwleeun of compllane.w,th the atit.vnde pronnmg goau,tOAR T34-S0.0$5) SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1—If the proposed application requires traffic control devices and/or special road construction,the applicant shall provide a copy of this application to the effected local goverment.The ongtnal application must be Signed by the local government ofticiol, •LOCALOOVERNMENT•OFFICIAL SIGNATURE I ME; DATE »"�� X ._ g' ' 2—The spplicsnt or his contractor shall notify the District Maintenance Supervisor's office at least AA hours in advance of commencing fro k and • ' after completing the work covered by this permit.(OAR 73440-040)Telephone Number: 3- This access shall serve tax lots 800, 200, 700, 900 and 1000, 4- Applicant shall submit a recorded cross-over easement for the adjacent property to the `F eolith, In the event the adjacent property re-develops, one common access will shared to serve both parcels. 5- Applicant shall complete a non-remonstrance agreement with the City of Lake Oswego for • future improvements on Wells Street. 6-Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 450' of eight distance in both directions. N '. 7- See attached General Provisions, TYPE 2 APPROACH ROAD -- PAVED NOTE:All malarial and worttmenshlp shod by in accordance with the Mir. rent Slate of Oregon Stoner('Specification for Nignwsy Construction, R/W LiNe� r"_'""'W� -_ • W', 20f Rti' 15' Fit- 15' A- 90° I Oro 20' De- 61 DRnv4.0' I O iw CUULVEf•T PIPE RECUIREDT �� Q`� Ditch Lino'- l� I i YES NO ......_�_..._ TY�] El ;, Od Cuty. Plped t I Concrete or CMP . , 4 DIAMETER(INCHES) LEIIGTHIFEET) `-Fees of Pyres, I • I.,,,`` Match Existing 2' (back-fill gap,! Dp STONE BASE 31ze AND TYPE I COMPACTED THICKNESS HNC y �"11 1 "-0 8" Ft W Si16 ANO TYPECOMPACTED THICHNE5S t'NCRE$i '-"�---� - STONE LEVELIND 'z'AN° 2" J COURSE PLAN ASPHALTIC CLASS I C'JMPACTEO THICKNESS I NCHESI M --,., tSCONM�NT $ ar C µit (two sifts) — . 1 T W.✓ d • P v.r GENEX3AT. P13QVX,SIQ ,FOR R QAD_Aa Q APPLICANT Leland Harriman HIGHWAY 3 M.P. 6.n , •. X 1) The work area during any construction or maintenance performed under the permit provisions shall be protected in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,US Department of Transportation,and the Oregon Department of Transportation Supplements thereto. Contractor shall maintain all existing Traffic Control Devices during construction, then re-install • permanently per MUTCD standards and District Office specifications. certificate indicating their completion of an approved work zone traffic controltr coggers rse.mu have a card or r ,. • P PP course, 2) Ali construction operations win be performed off limits of the highway travel way. • 3) The access control fence must be maintained during construction and restored to its original or better condition after construction is complete. X 4) No work will be permitted ed on the roadway during the hours of darkness, nor between 6:00 am to MO Am, or between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. •• 5) On site storm drainage shall be controlled within the applicant's property, No blind connections to existing state facilities. ' .• ' . ',' 0 X 6) Permittee to verify all utility locations for relocation prior to construction,should any be in conflict with the proposed construction, 1 4 v ;: X 7) The spreading of mud or debris upon any State highway is strictly prohibited and violation shall be cause for immediate cancellation of the permit. Clean-up shall be at applicant's expense. • 8) Applicant will install and maintain landscaped areas as shown o the attached drawings. Planting shall be limited to low growing shrubs,grass,or flowers that do not attain sufficient height to obstruct clear vision .. in any direction, The Commission or Engineer shall have the right to remove said landscaping at any time such removal may appear to the Commission or Engineer to be in the public interest, without liability for loss, injury, or damage of any nature whatsoever. ' X 9) The permittee shall not use the right-of•way to display advertising signs or merchandise of any kind, , • X 10) Grade and pave the highway shoulder and approaches with (....11 )of 1 1R" •0, 2"of 3/4" • 0,and 4" of AC placed in two lifts, 11) This Is a temporary permit and will automatically expire on (` Order to Reader Service). A . . 12) Permit inspection fees are estimates to be deposit of this amount with the District office at 2131 SW Scholls Ferry Rod, Portland, will be required prior to the start of construction, Charts will be made on an actual cost basis, 13) A copy of this permit and all attachments shall be available at the work area, / , . . Applicant's Initials -- : 0 U °: • • " lY F +l w V i • 'r• ri 1 • • • • • • c r ! • • s ° y - --- TAN-06-'9:3 1E:42 1; :D 13TR I~t T 2f4 HWY D I V TEL NO:5032976458 t4974 PO4 : la EXHIBIT ,' • ' 4„",.• /�.1r!-b�� ) + ' ` t))tl;t;i)�,�II�It�1�i'1?s'Yi"r1`'r:1 ; t • Lo- -----Ict,..41•2.\\t4•4C"5t78-ci ('i1 ti tnt %1 Ii1�'1Sa)V. cn. .titt:01N% ti , '111t t.ttt�: NO . . .. . • 1)1;S113,,1�Fu1 I:.trait:ei '.1, (2) '1'u f.tc'ilUltle alto review, applicant shall place m.n kcr> such a< lath or .takes m the right of w;iy line where tt intersects 1114JI1\WAY APPi OACt1 ROADS, ;tppltc:utt's property liner, and the center line of the proposed "• '' ,CROSSINGS,ACCESS CONTROL ANC approach road and furnish the District Engineer the approxi• WE1(Afljitc.SSTItiCTIOA5 mate distance in feet from each property line to the upproach •'" •,,,wmnr►tmw,u wt., Toad center tine. If this distance is in excess of 300 feet, 4 ' marking of the property line may be omitted, Approach Roads and t'rivutc,toad fz) No pet mit is v:did until a copy, approved by the Cro.anl;s tflwn Stale highways Ut,f,ineer, hat, been furnished the Ill;plieant, NM tvurk on Itighu••,y right of way is to be started until the applicant obtains 7 Scope a slid permit. '✓ 73•4.50-045 This rule shall apply to and govern the location, (4)Art administrative processing ice of S50 is required for construction, maintenance, and use of approach roads and ,each permit and must accompany the permit application.The private road crossings upon state highway nghts of way and administrative processing fee of $50 will not be refunded ': . properties under the jurisdiction of the Department of subsequent to the issuance of n permit. -4... Transportation. (5)The district engineer may waive the fee provided for in • ��,� Scat.Auth.:ORS Ch.374 section (4 at;this rule if the applicant is a state agency, city. \ Hist: 1 OTC 20-1950.f.dr ef.10-72-80 county orcttttr public body. (6) 1?l0: rmit fee shall be charged where the approach • Definitions road is'const ueted om; reconstructed by the Division or its 734-50.Ot0 As used herein, unless the context requires contractor as a part of a roast improvement or construction • t' ti otherwise: project: z (I) "Applicant" means the person, firm or corporation 'Star,Aiith ORS Ch.374 having the legal tight to apply fora permit. Such legal right is War rUCITC 43.f. 11.26-74.of, 12.1.74:I OTC 20.1980.f.&cf. vested only in the owner or lessee of the property,abutting the , ,-,qtm- 2-SO:2HD 13.1481,f,&ef. 10.2.81 >•A highway or the holder of an easement or similar right to ; ., construct and use a facitLiy upon the abutting property; Allocation or •oats providing the Division has not acquired the rights of access 734-5tr-42 (I) The entire expense of constructing the from propertY• facility shatt3'borne by the applicant. This shall Include the • (2) '"Approach road" means a roadw,:,,, or driveway cost Of �tnatetiats, labor, signing, signals, StrUCtUreS, w •conncctIonbc&WLenthcoulrdChYldedtio cents• :„" ` ! ,, provide Vehicular access to and from said highway and the (2) f any Items,or portion thereof,described under property. section. E, ' this rule may become this responsibility of the adjoining.3) C ( t33 commission" means the Oregon Transportation Division• ed they arc a prat of the terms and conditions " Commission. of a i y acquisition obligation or ether contractual (4) "repo rumens" means the Department of Transports lion of the Sta lc of Oregon. ' , atitrecr( )>rui� ens r+coortt►tttsetton or Widening of any htgltwsty (5) "Distria >rttginect" m: d the ertgirKu to tea oo of uIres move!.alteration or Itt)constsuetion of a eelltty each of the 16 Highway Districts thtY;.sghout the State,or his i or onatrvttcd prior to designated representative. eon er authority of a ganinit (6) "Division" meant the Highway Division of the Auk 2O 7,the cost of such removal or replacement to a Department of Transportation. like width condition will be borne by this Division. Any (7)"Engineer"means the State Highway Engineer or such widening' r improvement of the facility at the applicant's • person as he shall designate In writing, request shaq done only under authority of a new permit and „II) "Facility" means either an approach road or private at the expca•, of the applicant, road crossing. (4)Tee t of maintctwnce of the approach road from the (9) "Permit"means a fully executed form entitled"State _ outside cd the highway shouldet or curb liar to the right of of Oregon. Department of Transportation. Highway Division. way tineshai a the�responsibillty of the applicant.The colt of •. �.. application or permit to construct a roach road or vote maintenan«eel ,a private road crossing within the right of way road crossing". all special permit provisionsp Included Inthe shall beth" ponsibility of the applicant. , , permit as deemed necessary by the District Engineer and all sal ORS Ch.374 attached exhibits. kart:" C 43.f, I t-26.74,et.1244411 OTC 20,154,4,f,&et. . (10)"Priva.te road crossing"means the crossing of a state 4'" highway by a privately owned road which is designed for use by vehicles which are prohibited by law from using state Liahtllt antral highways,county roads.or other public highways. 7 . (I)The applicant shall be responsible and liable (I it "Right of way" means the entire width between this for ail di or injury to any person or properly resulting exterior right of way lines including the paved surface, from the ruction,maintenance,repair,operation or use of shoulders, ditches_ and other drainage facilities.in the border at faoility'f which the applttant etas bean granted A parmlt area between the ditches or curbs and the right of way line, and for•whi' the applicant may be legally liable, and the • . 5u►l.Auth.t ORS Ch.374 applicant lab l indemnify and hold harmless the State of Situ: I OTC 43,f. 114644.el. 12.1 741 1 OTC 20-1980,f.a.ef. Oregon. the; mmission. the Department, and all officers, t0-22-8o •employees ar agents of the Department against any and all .• damages,Claims.demands.actions,causes of action,costs and Permit Application Procedure expenses of isAtitsnevcr nature which they or any of them may 7"td•50.0lS Application shall be made on the form de- sustain;by;.re sons of the acts, conduct or operatiun�of the • scribed tinder rule 734-50-010(9), to the appropriate District appticant,4 tt iigcnts or employees In connection with the 1t � t-Div,in �") (Nnvcml.tr, 19:t2I YAM-0;-'q3 t 41 I A El I STR I CT :A HWY D I V TEL 15032976058 487 P95 • • t t It \1,1, u7.,,t tl;\•l•ari\ ;.0 •• Iil�.11t\',tit I• I•)'• i}` onstruction, i :liitten.loee, lCtt:llr, operation or Use of Stitt (iii th,.r,IIILC cif'", ray bit,iiless traitAiction or COItlilicrei,ll .'• f . .,eiidy, establishtuentV;u n state hiuhw,,y right Of way is strictly (2) The applicant shall be responsible for rehearing or prohibited. 1.:,":: .1 .• djusting any utilities located opt highway right of way as (10)The 5ppl .ant shall be solely responsible for providing equired to accommodate the facility applied for.Constructiun correct and cam etc information as may be required by the i f the facility by the applicant, his agent or Contractor, will be permit form or t District Engineer. If the District Engineer v •ermilted only after the applicant has furnished the District should determine hat any fact required of the applicant which ' '•"••r st ineer evidence that satisfactoryarrangements for ;;aid i F 6 malarial to'tlt assessment of tar, facility's impact upon •;, ;' elocution or>,djustmcnt have been made with the ott'ncrof the traffic safety„ cnicncc and/or the legal or property r iita ifcrtcd utility facility, of any roc peon(rn uding the Slate of Oregon)is fa{se,inCoitcct 7 (3)When requested in writing by tlic District Jrn;,ineer,the or ('nutted, the pis rice Engineer may deny or rrvokc the ppli=n( or his contractor shall during the period that an permtt and may r uire the applicant to remove the facility and pproach road is being constructed, in order to assure respon- restore the facilityi are1 to a condition acceptable to the District • ibaity under section (1) of this rule, file with the Division Engineer at the applicant's expense. In such cases the District vidrstce of insurance in the following minimum amounts: Engineer, in his lodgment, may also require the applicant to 50.000 for property damage resulting from. any single provide, at the applicant's expense. any additional safeguards ace;a.ld S100,000 for the death or injury of any person, and/or facilities required to protect the safety,convenience and . :i ubject to a limit of S300,000 for any single occurrence. Said rights of the traveling public and persons(including the State), oti.-y or policies shall include as named insureds the State of if such additional requirt:mcnts are adequate to achieve those ?rcgon. the Commission, the Department, its officers, agents purposes, as a, onditron of the continued'validity of the :}d employees. except as to claims against the applicant. for permit. e onal injury to any members of the Commission. Depart. ,(I I) If, et an time after a permit has been issued, there is lent,or its officers, agents, and employees or damage to any a significant line in the volume of traffic using the f its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a certificate approach.roa o; chan?e in the character of the traffic using `mowing evidence of insurance, shall be it7cd with the Director the approach oa and It is determined by the Engineer that •f Frst•nits. 2960 State Street, Salem, Oregon 1'r110, prior to additinnal trafgcli ontrois are nerr•r*iry for the safety of the ovtutrancement of any work, traveling putbtic e.g., acceleration or deceleration lanes, (4)On each private'road crossing during such time as it is widening of'thee3i ghways to provide left turn refuges, traffic ri .-s construction or in existence the applicant shall,in order warning light(a traffic signals, etc,). applicant shall either assure responsibility under section(1)of this rule, file with constr uctat itsex nsc or reimburse the DIvision for the entire 7ivision evidence of insurance in the following minimum cost of d'csitiii " constructing or installing, such additional ., i . .,tints: $50,000 for property damage resulting from any traffic contrell tt the option of the Division providing, injc occur n ce; and S100.000 for the death or injury of any however, that ifithe applicant is a lessee of real property esson,subject to a limit of S300,000 for any single occurrence. served by the approach road.the liability of the applicant shallN'>`:,:„„N ;aid policy or policies shall include as named insureds the he limited to the cost of constructing or Installing the additional ta.te of Oregon.the Commission,the partment,Its officers. traffic controls,Which are constructed and installed during the Scats and employees, except as to claatms against the appli• time the lease is in force and effect. Artt. for personal injury to any members of the Commission, in making a determination whether additional traffic apartment,or Its officers,agents,and employees.or damage controls are seasonably necessary, the Engineer or his t a a any of its or their property. A copy of the policy, or a designated rrprt; ltattve(s)shun: ertificatc showing evidence of Insurance, shall be filed with (a)Inspect „ site of the approach road 're Director of Permits, 2960 State Street. Salem, Oregon (b) tnvestigaf the extent and nature of the change of use ' 7310.prior to corrimenc rnent of any work. 4 of the approach road;and • ;w ,. (5) If the highway surface or highway facilities are (c) Dete mints. In light of current and projected traffic .amagnd by applicant, applicant shall replace or restore the conditions, traffic speeds, sight distances, and the road itway or highway facilities to a condition satisfactory to the conditions on both the state highway and the approach road • )istaim Er:mginoer. whether additional traffic controls are necessary, and which - ' (6)When requested In writing by the District Engineer,the controls or combinations thereof would be necessary. to pprxactt or his contractors than furnish for the period of time adequately insure the safety and convenience of users of the <+ceasary to Install a facility and to Insure that any damage to highway and approach road. . he highway..has been corrected to the satisfaction of the (2'ub1tationss The publications)'referred to'or Incorporated by )i rict Entgineer, a cash deposit or a bond in the amount reference In this cute am aystlabk from the office of the }Brassy pc Pied by the permit written, issued by a surety company Division,) , t ' > erased to do business in the State of Oregon. i'io work shall star,Mash,:ORS Ch.374 ' c performed until the'deposit or bond has been filed with the Hist; I orC 43,C. t t•zb-74,a f. Iz-i-74:f OTC2af960,C. &e(, hrecfor of Permits,2960 State Street,Salem,Oregon 97310. 10.22-80 (7) No unauthorized signs shall be permitted upon any onion of the right of way.Where standard warning signs such vocation . •: s'Tricks"are required by the permit or other regulations,or 734-S0-030(1).No facility shall be constructed at locations. m ordered by the Distndt Engineer to provide of the- where rictus of access to or from the abtJtling property have iciliiy, such signs shall be furnished, placed and maintained lxcn acquired by the Department. y the Division at the clrprnsc of the applicant. (2) The number of approach roods to a single property f8)The work arcs during any construction or maintenance • shall be limited to one except where in the judgment of the ' :pined under the permit provisions shall be protected in District Engineer additional approach roads lire necessary to 0 ., .t onlatice with the current ht>anual nit U►tlform Traffic aseommodate and.service such traffic as may be reasonably • • ontreit Devices for Streets and highways" as amended or anticipated commensurate with the safety of the traveling ipplemented by the Commission. public,' (9) The stopping nr parking.of vehicles upon the state (3) Facilities thrall be located where they do not create ._s. gl+way right of way or the servicing of such vcltklcs or the undue interference or Itntnrd to the free movement of nor,nal ' ' 4overnbcr, 193 ) 2.Div. 50 • JP.4-06—'q 16::3. Ip:01 STP I CT 2A HWY D I li TEL NO:503"9T605$ S2974 P05 i • .t t)Itr(;l)l'Al1111N1+'1 it.t 1 I 1 I I:01 1:• c,11n1'I,t;tt 7ta, 1)tvitilON SII_Illtal\v.1Y UI\'ItilOti' _ • highway or pedestrian traffic. Locutions on sharp curves,steep (9) '111,: maximum size. gross weight of vehicle and lead. grades, areas of restricted sight distance or at points which gross axle kaiEtItts and types of vehicles using the private interfere with the placement And proper functioning of traffic cro%sins, shall be shown on Exhibits attached to the permit control signs, satinets, lighting or other devices that affect application. The exhibit(s) attached to the permit application • shall include diagrams showing type of truck and trailer traffic operation will not be permitted, combinations. maximum width and overall length, distance Stat,truth,: ORS Ch,374 lust' 10TC 43,f. 11.26-74,cf, 13.1. 4;t 01'C 20.1980,r.&et. between axles,maximum axle weights,and size and number ol` 10.22.80 tires per axle. (10) Structural details of separation structures shall be attached to Inc permit application. De• sign • ' (I1) Upon request by the Engineer the applicant wilt at its (:., movement-50 to (I)f Facilities wall bet vehicles to allow sole expense supply an operated test vehicle of the type and nabl and from the highway of ppr achwithout which can dimension to be used at the proposed private road crossing. reasonably be expected to utilize the approach undue • conflict with other traffic. Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch.374 (2) in most instances, these requirements can be satisfied tits*: I0OTC0d3,f.11-26.74,cf. 12-l•74:I OTC20-1980.C.&et. by using approaches designed in accordance with Types 1f through 5 as shown In Exhibits I through 5 and/or combina- tions of the same into dual approaches as described in Exhibit Construction ' 5.Alternate designs are subject to approval by the Engineer. 734.50-0-10(1) Apl?I1'cant or his contractor Shall advise the ('3) Definitions of dimensions and desirable limits arc District Engineer's office at least 48 hours In advance of shown in the general notes for Types 1 through S as shown in eammencing construction of a facility approved by permit. Exhibits I through 3 and the method of establishing widths as (2) The facility shall be constructed in conformance with shown in Exhibit 6. the terms of.the permit includint the Special Provisions of the (4) Approach roads which serve a business or eotnmerclal permit and exhibits attached to the permit, • activity which can reasonably be expected to generate traffic (3) Applicant shall notify the District Engineer when • of the volume and character requiring additional traffic constn�ction of the facility hasbeen completed. The District controls necessaryfor the safety of the traveling public such as n, siEngineer shall inspect the completed facility and advise ch whichhelizattbe designed ind d on ton i div like, arc specialeproblemste applicant in writing whether or not the facility has been • of musts required the Divisionan individual construct When this typeconstructed in a satisfactory mariner and the applicant shall facility facility is o�rq anead is may specifications the at the Promptly t:orrect any dcficiencscs set forth by the District in accordance with its plans and spxi[ications at the P • applicant's expense. Facilities other than signalization may be Engineer. The planting or placing of adornments not prohibited constructed by applicant In accordance with plans and (4) the adornments ntssha limited d speificatlons approved by the District Engineer if in.the by law on the tight of way by applicant judgment of the District Engineer the facility can be properly low growing shrubs, grass. or Cleavers that'do not attain • and safely constructed by the applicant. sufficient height to obstruct clear vision In any direction. No (5) Applicant may be required to constnuct'curbing along cum, posts, signs or other structures shall be placed on the its frontage, base and pave the area between the existing highway right of way unless applicant has obtained approval of . • highway pavement and the curbing, and Instal necessary the District Engineer. drainage facilities as a part of the road approach said Stet.Auth:ORS eft.S74 approach is to a high traffic volume section of a highway In an itlsi: t OTC 43.f.11.7,5.74,el Il•I-yet I 07C20.1980.C.do cf. ! urban arra• In other areas. the applicant may be required te., 10.92.0 construct curbing, guardrail, ditches or plantings limiting ' access to the abutting property to the distances designated In Maintenance the (6) Permitsrh i permit. 73440.�045(1) Prior to palomino any maintenance work and/or for say I cl roads provisions larva ldtrai on the highway facility which will interfere with or Interrupt paved areas may ( a highway drainage for storm dram traffic upon or along t e highway,applicant shall obtain prior judgment facilitiesconnecting the tost the d ie hi sys ► sf eI the approval from the District Rosen. judgment of the District Engineer the highway system m is adequate to handle the accelerated run-off. It In the judgment (7)Applicant may perform minor maintenance work which of the District Engineer the highway system is not adequate to does not interfere with traffic upon the highway without handle the accelerated run-off, the applicant shalt make obtaining approval from the District Engineer. suitable provisions to prevent surface nrn•off from the paved (3) In AU cases where traffic signals have been required all t areas into the highway drainage system.MI costs for providing . maintenance will be performed by the Division at no cost to the drainage from the property shall be borne by the applicant. applicant unless the Special Provisions in the permit require (7) private,crossings.shall be made by grade separation the applicant to bear the cost of signal maintenance.On private unless separation is determined by the Engineer to be economic road crossings if the signal,is damaged or destroyed by the cally Impractksble. applicant or a third party,the applicant shall bear the cost of (8)if a grade separation Is not required the applicant shall repair or replacement over and above any amount which may install any such signing,stgnalizartion,or combinat oft of traffic be recovered from such third party by the Division. • safety devices as may bd determined necessary by the slat,AUth,s ORS Ch,374 ' Engineer, When these facilities arc required the Division may Mitt t 07'C 43.t.11.24.744 ef. 11.1.741 I OTC 20-t9e0,I.&cf. construct this entire facility in accordance with its plans and 104.240 specifications. If the facility Is other than slgrulization the District Engineer may authorize the applicant to Install the Etfec�lve Period facility in accordance with plans and rpeciticatlons approved r,0,050 (I) Unless otherwise provided In the Special •: by the District Engineer if in the judgment of the District 7b4. • Engineer the applicant can install the facility adequately and Provisions, the permit shall be in effect for an indefinite period • safely. of time from and utter the date Issued, unless sooner revoked • • 3••Div,30 (November, 1082) • • oRt:t•ON Ati,Mintst RA IIv1, itt:t,t•.;• t_ ' ..._._ __ - -- ---`"...-rt:rt 7.14, DIVISION Su—tttr.nrt‘Ati�lil�,tNLt�N _..._._•.........» _ .. 0 ' , . • • y ti, by mutual consent, or by the E'i : ar failure of the Aceesa Control Policy applicant to abide by the terms and, :.;• ut the r,ermit,or , by operation of law, Categories of Access Control (2) Failure of the applicant to iith any of the 7.34-$0-070 Access control is divided into three catcgcric ii _ • terms and conditions of the permit oh 'icient cause for (1) "Complete control" allows access only at specified cancellation of the permit and may .removal of•the% public road at grade connections or at interchanges, facility by the Division at the applic use as provided (2) "Limited control" allows public and private necesses in OR::374.320. at specified toc itior•>:identified by legal a,t;rccmcnta or deeds. (3) The permit, the privileges ;ercut and the (a) "Uncontrolled" access is where there is nu specified • obligations of the applicant thereby nding upon the i restriction of access. Future accesses could be allowed under successors and assigns of the applica the Road Approach Permit process subject to the appropriate (4) If the applicant fsils to col allation of the Oregon Krvt,ed Sttitutes. ' ' facility covered by the permit within specified in the `.• permit. the permit shall be deems i void and all Stat.Aunt.;ORS Ch.104 dt 374 l:ivilegcs thereunder forfeited, unit a extension of : 1Orl'C!9•t980.l.dtcf.10.2240 times is obtained from t the District En ' (S) The construction, maintenar ,on and use of General Policy the facility is subject to the paramo. . of the legisla- 734-50.075 It is the polity of the Oregon Department of lure over the state highway system ht or privilege Transportation to control access to the highway facilities of the • granted by the permit shall be dee instrued to be state to the degree ne,''Lessary to maintain functional use, e beyond the power or authority of thi to control the highway safety, and the preservation of public investment,The ctata highway system.,Applicant tg the permit • Department rocognims that access control management varies )4k:tooth:Ages that the rights,and p anted thereby for each of six existing access management conditions. . tray at any time be changed or abroga native action. Stat.Auth.:ORS th,184 do 374 Scat.Auth.:ORS tit.J74 Histt t OTC 19-1980.f.6t el.10.72�60 Hied: I OTC 43,C. I t.26.74,el 12.1 Xt-I9FA,C.do ef. 10.22-80 Access Management Conditions . 734-50-0S4 (1) Grant of access to private property where r Agencies we have previously established Limited Control access: 4„ . . . ° 734 0.0•SS Issuing of permits tit regulations is Access may be allowed if all the following conditions are met: tot a finding of campliaree with the planning goals (a) Current geometric design standards can be met which it the acknowledged comprehensive f .area.Permits consider such items as safety,capacity,alignment.grades,left Ire'issued subject to the approval o unty, or other turn lanes,signals,etc. • 0 • overrmcntal agencies having either j islon over the (b)The terrain is such that it is not practical to construct a ection of highway or authority to its use by means frontage road or some other means to provide alternate amass •f zoning and/or building regulations. he applicant's to the property. csponsibility to obtain any such ap tuding. where (e) Is not in conflict With local compreheruive plans for pplic able,local government determin rnpiianee with this class of highway. he statewide planninggtsal:. (d) Payment is made to the Oregon Trurtpottatian, rommis:1cm on the differences of value of the real property ..—.. • . .. _. t ... •, N,r ..._. *non, 'rs.i. r. /n i,, 44 "..11 gWp�`yy�a� '7.tio,which Is by this reference�4x>rstee into + J vt7r uo ncvc aw r guarantee US removal by the app .r contra 1 rom which access l was r_tat purestatcd and,dots not abut the highway r • . esmit expiration data IC no expert.. hared by the tight.of way:£tea property which is not a part of the property ~vision in the satisfactory remount of.the each road,the from which access control was purchased and does not •;but ;tire amount of the deposit will be rescind the applicant. the highwayy tigi'tt-of-way.vvill not be considered for any grunt ' expenses are incurred by the Division, t piiant Will be of access. These properties must depend upon the county or 'clod for,the amount In excess of the at deposited or city road system for access to the State Highway System. , • .funded the difference if said expense is than the said (3)Requested change lit use of access from a private party • - --•-' JAN-06-'93 1 S t 50 I I STR I CT cA HWY D I tJ TEL NO:50 2975058 #3976 P01 •_•_._. Y • • 1; q (11:Ital\ ,\il\ti1'I �tl: \!1( I I:111.I. i+ , (•11•\1'1l�.t(9,t•t, InVIS1(1,\Sul.—• I114;Ill%',\\' IiIVIstllti i• (S) Giant of :silos to a public entity such as a city or (tt) nn ultgitteuring evaluation hat been perfur,ncd and the *. aunty fat• a city street ur chanty road whore the Oregon safe lurid carrying capacity of the highway or section thereof ' r' I'rtn%ptnt.diun Cuntniisc,on tl;as previously ysi:sblishcd dallied has been determined, ' control act a t:: Art new eoitnection under the ui+t)ve condition (c) Mxa\inunu allowable wei61u5 consistent with the finding may be eausidercd :after all following provisions or requira• of the engineering evaluation has been established for vrlticics meats are met: .,,ai , fit" sr or combinations of vehicles traveling upon the highway or (a)Justification for the connection must be made based on section thereof, the following: (2) Upon fulfilling the, requirements a.ct forth in subset. (A) is not in conflict with local cumprcht:nsivc plan\ (Or (ions(I)t,,) (litough Cc)of ifii rule, the State Highway Engineer this class of hitihway• shall prepare a written order which: (B) The county or city has explored all possible atterne- (a)Describes the highway or section of highway which will ' parallel streets which might • be affected- • tives to the connection including , include the purchase of additional right-of•way, (b) Discloses the r ais(te of the required inspection and (C) Current geometric design standarr;a can be met with evaluation;and consider such items as safety,capacity.alignment,grades,left (c)Indicates the restriction to be imposed. attar lanes,signals,etc, (3) Upon the signing of the order by the State Highway (b) Plans and specifications which adhere to the geometric Ensinecr, posting of signs and enforcement of the restriction • t' • design standards presently or contemplated being used on the shill be as provided in ORS 487,905(3)and(s), • facility must be prepared by the applicant. Stat.Audi.:ORS Ch.487 (c) An agreement detailing responsibility is prepared and aN.t: t OTC 12•IAIB(Temp),t,&cf. 12•f9.78; I OTC 7.1979,f, executed before work begins. cf,4-t9 79 (6)Access control acquisition;A project for access control� P j (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the acquisition may be proposed to preserve integrity of the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained present system. from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State,) a It will be the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team No. I,as defined in the Oren Action Plan, to delineate areas Weight Restrictions fur Rocky Creek Bridge wherte limited access control should be a part of project 734-S0•095 (1) It has been determined by the staff of the development, Oregon Department of Transportation that severe cracking and (Pubs catianc: The publication(s) referred to or incorporated by spelling of the concrete due to corrosion of the reinforcing reference in this: rule are available from the offioc of the Highway steel has deteriorated the structure of the Rocky Creek Bridge Division,) beyond economic repair. Further,. the Department has " Sat.Au(h,:ORS Ch. I&d&374 determined that weight restriction of 6,000 pounds is necessary • 0 Haut I OTC 19.1980.f.&cf. 10-2240 to protect the bridge from being unduly damaged and to insure the safety of the traveling public, tr 1 Administration of Policy (2) Vehicles weighing in excess of 6,000 pounds shall not inistration f Costs incurred by the bepartment of use the Rocky Crock Bndge on the Oregon Coast Highway. , • • Transportation in processing a request for access modification, (3(frontage road)in Lincoln County shall l, r mc4i c1 • shall be paid by the party roquesti the modification.These estrThe Hin in ay nspi uo ma immediately post this costs will be based on actual documented costs Incurredplus a weight restriction in a conspicuous manner at bath ands of the •• � d ''' lO4G charge for general administration. Rocky Creek Bridge and at each other places as may be necessary to inform the users of the Oregon Coast Highway of F`(. (2) Written agreements outlining the details of construe- these restrictions. lion and cost responsibility mutt be approved by both panics prior to the processing of any documents. CiTC Slat.Auth,rORSta,ltti9 r (3)A grant of access constitutes the transfer of all property Its' t2 b�Ciemp). G &mf1 M31.77: 1 OTC 9], f, & ef. - .v right. tt does not excuse the recipient from the duty to obtain and comply with the conditions of.any road approach or road (F.D. NCn•E: The text of Temporary Rules Is not printed in the '; Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation, Copies may be obtained crossing permit that may be required under ORS 374.310 and flutes adopted bythe Departmentfrom the adopting agency or lit.Secretary of Sute4 P W pursuant thereto. • slat.Awh,:ORS Cut. 181 Se 374 lust: t OTC I9•1900,t,&et', 10-22-10 %Wight Restriction for Deschutes River Bridge Crossing,Sherars " Bridge Highway • i 734-,50.100 (I OTC 11.1978(Temp),f.&cf. 12.14.781 . %Yclght Restricnlo.t.(or Highways • Procedure for Designating Highway Weight Restriction* Land Use Permit., `` b 734.50490(I)The State Highway Engineer may designate Fee Schedule far Land Use Permits- any highway or section of highway(including bridges and other structures)which,in his judgment,should be subject to Weight 73t S4-tOS When, in the due t restrictions of the Division's ` " j g R(c�t`oC�Wny Manager that use exist which : • restrictions, The State Highway Engineer may impose such prevent charging economic rent for lands under the jurisdiction weight restrictions as he cnnslders proper subject to the conditions: of the Division, the Division may issue a land Lite permit and `• following An inspection has indicated that a condition exists shall charge the following administrative processing fee; (l)Gratis— The monetary benefits to the Division exceed which requires action to prevent or reduce damage to the the cost of permit preparation and review;highway or section thereof;or (2) S50 for a si ple permit preparation with little or no .. (E) An inspection has indicated That a condition exists field inspection and no plan review;of ' ch mtly jcnptirdize the safety of motorists on the highway (3) SISO for a Complex permit preparation rcgisir'ng a peen• -• ' cction Illeruuf, review and continuing inspection, 5tclf,Auth,! ORS Ch,345 • 3•Div,Stl (till: 21i1) I.itit,f,k et,S• Gtt7 (Naventhia, 19112) , • u _ 4 • y • • • V .. • • • • • • • ' 0 . • • } •• j }.,.. '• • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • it.. ,f4 0- ,, ... i ,4 / f7-, -'3 ( I / ) /(\.47-CID' I'Oc, . . . , COMAMIA'''''ao' 7 \ f 1 /14' 671)7.'1-/il 11. 4 --b.' k-4 , 1 /c '74"/"(''''''' 1: , . , .,.. . .•.. . •. .. . .• .. . . • .. ., •....... ,...__,. ,/ ...,7,,,,i -4/A-3,,t 2,4"..kce... ii-A-04-eiVIA.,\ 0-01//).to9y)e(i' r R • .,, 1A.-TkA ';6(_ /e2441 ")-- 1 . . .'"ei:P-1-7."?..- 7// / / / • ., . ,. ,. ' • (,,„,_____,_,....-..---'"'"'"-*--2,L%,...„.. / ,, ,„,( /,‘ .:, „ ., ii...._ . ,... . _. , .., .., .„. •., , • . . . . . , .. S . , ,,... • . . • , . . . • ,.. . .. .. • ("JAN 2 0 1993 , ..,.. , ...:. . +' EXHIBIT ; ' • • 17 i , .... 0 , . �r.. ,_+..�. January '1.6 , 1993 r -.,,,,- r �1 .: Mr . Michael R. Wheeler City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 JAN o 1 Dear Mr.Wheeler : This letter is in response to "Notice of Public Hearing" - case file number SD-19-92/VAR 18-92 . :. /. We have a few complaints about the whole process . of how this was handled . Why would you put the sign in the front of the Lasley ' s property and not at the entrance of u. ,,'1: Chapin Way? Most people who saw the sign thought that • perhaps the Lasley ' s wanted to install a fence or something else on their property. Also, installing the nign over the Christmas holidays made it hard for most residents who were • away over the break to respond to this change to be included in the staff report by January 7 . Also , it was ridiculous to only notify by mail the residents who land fell within 300 feet of the proposed change. This change affects all who live on Morning Sky Court as their children would have to cross Chapin which would no longer be a cul-de-sac, in order to go to Hallinan School . We would like to see Chapin Way remain as ,11:: is . There is no need to build a through street in order to accomodate one extra home . The city must have plans to lee developers `1 come in and build other homes in this area in order to ,M '`• generate more tax dollars . To take down as many trees as would have to come down and to inconvenience all the `� . neighbors with trucks coming through this neighborhood to accomodate one house is unnecessary. There should he a way to access this home either with a pipestem lane from the . main house on Gans or to make Wells a cul-de-sac . The ,R traffic that would be generated through this quiet neigh- borhood is also unnecessary . Cars would turn right off of Hwy . 43 to access the Hallinan areas . We will be present at the meeting on January 20 to1, ;' protest this proposal and will do all that we can to protect ' '�' :: our neighborhood from this intrusion . ' ' • Sincerely , • . + • � 1. J Michele M. McGrain Robert J . McGrain . 146E Morning Sky Court .. ... ` Lake Oswego , Oregon y EXHIBIT 63 3-5 07 a ,4. . . . <. a �' • PRES 'ON 3200 U,S.Bnncolp Tower • THORGRI MSON1 S.W. Avenue SH[OLER Portland, 972 OR 972Ud•3GAB • GATES & ELLIS Telephone:(503)228.3200 Facsimile:(503)248•9085 rr ATTORNEYS AT LAW , �`, EDWARD ], SULLIVAN ` v 1993 Voice Mails January 22, 1993 • . Barbara Anderson Planning Department City of Lake Oswego a 380 A Avenue r P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: A lication of O'I'AI{. Inc , for Approval of Minor Involving a Distinctive Natural Area and a Class I Variance (City of Lake Oswego File SD 19-92/VAR 18-92 (A-B)) • Dear Ms, Anderson: Enclosed, please find a copy of the persons I represent in the above matter, 4' Sincerely, ".+ Edward J. Sullivan ''''. EJS/lw SOK.L0\5YLANDI.3R.3133 Enclosure cc: Clients p • EXHIBIT f 4v) • • Anchorage „ Bellevue • Seattle + Spokane •Taeonia „ Wnrhinµton,C7 C. Anon,ship lru lut4Ju •t 10fl' t UI'l • • 3. • •.i • • • { Y ti j'. I •� . 1. j • • • • • • • • 11 h , dR%760 • ******************************************oK*********************************************I******** COMMUNICATION RESULT REPORT 5032489085 PRESTON LAW FIRM 01-21-93 03: 17PM • **************4.**u**************************************************************************“•** ELL.E DATE & TIME FILE TYPE DELAYED DESTINATION/TO; FROM: 25 01-21 03:09PM MEMORY—S / PAGE REMARKS 2 JTO :6350269 02 0024 � NW.- PHONE / TTI NO. ICOMM MODE RESULT NO. PHONE / TTI NO, COMM MODE RESULT OC1 6350289 GOOD J •4 t 1 q ` IPPIES'TONI 3200 U.B.Bancorp TOWER' 1 = T ORCi�IMSON 111 B.W. Flit)t Avenue ' SII�1LEFa Poor*cl,Oregon 9720 Tolophona: (503)225.3200 SATES & ELLV& Pacotrrdla: 003) e46 9685 { Ah'TORNEYS AT LAW : �' s FACSIMILE COVER PAGE January 21, 1993 Tee t3;9rttnrrs�Andar�oa From _ edward.J. Sulilvn,j 0 (1ndMduW) ., k0 t0nnlnp Co12111t l Na Of Pages; 2 1 p onalumnp Oow4e Peke) (Teboopy No.) trfltOnt/IVlattor NO.: 83 (Confirmation rm.) � Mont/per Name: $QKQL-Lake o�w o` 4 S. II you do noi reooh,e a of Ma Pagoa.DIen 4 contact our islaoopy opont of M OM)22&3200. EVCdpinal will not I�aM, t, r O. Oripinel ant by U.6.tnal. 0 011ginal ant by awanlgM mall , COMMENTS: • • • ' • 4 }• a The IntomtatWn conWeiR1 In this Itarnlie is confidential end may Woo be atturnoy otylIved, The Iniormeilon II Intended only toe the use ut the ,� !mu a,4„ar ae+MN«4 t++1 n+tt y r�ideoetyel. II%mil hH 661 tt+4 int*Ood taciplenl,AV the emDloywle at aslant reepeneibte iv d►ikiednd It to the Inierdtd A B/ Opponents represented by Edward J. Sullivan in Lake Oswego Planning file no SD 19-92/Var 18-92(a-b) • Michele McGrain Arthur and Garda Bode 1465 Morning Sky Ct. 16820 S. Chapin Way Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Jack and Virginia Wilborn F. Michael and Sharon Nugent 16521 S. Chapin Way 1385 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 r; rr f ':• • Rosemary and John Galmiche Edward and Sandra Levesque 1500 Morning Sky Court 16205 Matthew Court ' " ' • Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 • Scott Taylor ,i ;, y Daniel and Betsy Reis _, • Sophia Kondoleon 16850 SW Chapin Rd, 1425 Morning Sky Court Lake Oswego, Or, 97034 Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 r 1 ` Charles and Sandra Dunnweber • 16431 S, Chapin Way Lake Oswego. Or. 97034 • y a • ;• I • A« .t " = • 4.• J y. ,th �� r :9I '.)1` ' _ ', •fir y,. i`~ • F Addendum to Narrative for SD 19-92/VAR 18.92 • It has been determined that our application for a two-lot minor partition may be considered a.lna'or V partition. If this is so, the following are responses to the additional Development Standards which . would be applicable to a major development. 6.020 Transit - Standards for Approval 1. All major developments are being required to provide facilities to serve multiple-passenger transit. a. The extent of the facilities required for a particular site shall be determined based on the analysis of: ! r s ,+ i. Existing and projected adjacent transit facilities. ii. Proximity of bus routes. • EXHIBIT ` iii. Proposed development, J r.....� Ofts) iv. Expected patronage, 1142Na2 i1 iz, b. Hard surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: F : i. The nearest adjacent multiple-passenger exchange facilities, yr or • :11` 0 H. To adjacent paths which lead to nearest loading/unloading facilities, c. Transit facilities may be installed on site or in public right-of-way, at the discretion of the City Manager, .;. Findings: The nearest multiple-passenger exchange facility is located on Highway 43 near S.W. Cherry Street, Approval of this project will result in a 20-foot wide paved roadway connecting to S.W. Chapin Way, which is also a 20-foot wide pave roadway. No transit facility is proposed any .loser than Highway 43, 8.020 Park and Open Space - Standards for Approval • 1, All major residential development and office campus development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City In an aggregate amount equal to at least 20-percent of the gross land area of the development. Commercial and industrial development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 15-percent of the gross land area of the development, ya 4 2. Open space and park land in commercial, industrial and office campus areas may be provided as a combination of reserved land and landscaping. Where no Distinctive Natural Area, rt Findings: There has been approximately 12,t330 square feet + 20 acres/ shown on the proposed '• 43464,dd.nllr 0293,17 1 • T ' partition drawing (Exhibit 4) as being within the "Stream Corridor Buffer Zone", This area will remain as undisturbed open space. The open space equals approximately 29-percent of the gross land area, 9.020 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering - Standards for Approval 1. Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus Zone, shall provide 15-percent of net buildable area in landscaping and/or open space, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. ' Office campus developments shall provide 20-percent. r • 2. Multi-family and mobile home park development must provide 20-percent of net buildable area in landscaping in addition to the park and open space requirements. 3. Public and semi-public use must meet 1 or 2 above, depending on use. 4. All development abutting streets shall provide street trees at the proper o 4 spacing for the species. 5. Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot from the street at several points. 6. Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, lighting or other impacts from adjacent �' t' transportation routes or dissimilar uses. b. Screen public or private utility and stcrt.ge areas; and parking lots. c. As a separation between dissimilar uses. 7. The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments: a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in , an R-0, R-3, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed ; ' single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75-percent of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone. �x.,• b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a. shall be ' ' single-family, zero lot line or duplex dwellings, except three attached • dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being a corner lot. c. In a PD or cluster development located In an R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone • which abuts an R-7.5, R-(0 or It-15 zone and which does not contain t" • separate lots for the dwelling units, the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone In which the devclopnient Is located. . ., (Res. R-84-19, Sec. 2; 4.17.84.) p is 8. Group care homes which include paved outdoor recreational space shall provide screening roc adjacent properties. (lies. R-84.20, Sec. 4; 4.17•84,) tio i . , 0293.17 2 ly : . • Y l v. Findings: Street trees will be planted along the frontage of the property adjacent to Wells r . ::. ' •. '- 0 Street, No screening or buffering is rcquired♦ Ar %y 11.020 Drainage Standards for Major Development 1. All drainage management measures, whether located on private or public property, shall be accessible at all times for City inspection. When these 1 measures have been accepted by the City for maintenance, access E,' easements shall be provided at such a width to allow access by maintenance and inspection equipment. 2. Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, and other objectionable material in storm water runoff, 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and ', surface runoff) do not adversely affect other properties. 4. Storm Water Detention, Sufficient storm water detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipate intensities and durations of rainfall and provide necessary ' a' detention to accomplish this requirement, F b. Required Storm Water Management Measures. The applicant shall provide - ' sufficient storm water management measures to meet the above storm water runoff requirements. The applicant shall provide designs of these measures taking into account existing drainage patterns, soil properties (such as credibility and permeability) and site topography. Findings: As shown on the Partition Map (Exhibit 4), storm water will be channeled under the proposed extension of Wells Street to the drainageway which bisects the property, No detention is necessary, 19.020 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets - Standards of Approval 1. Private streets within a major development shall conform to the following requirements: a. The minimum width shall be 20-feet for two-way streets and 15-feet .°�. for one-way streets. b. In those locations where a fire truck may be expected to be positioned at the time of a fire, leaving no room for passing, minimum street width shall be 24-feet. c. Where conditions outlined in b,, above, do not apply and where conditions such as street alignment or traffic volume do not dictate otherwise, the width of streets may be reduced, This reduction of ,, width must be specifically approved by the City Manager, ill a • l 43451ndiihttr i3 `'H F O2tJ i,17 . . a Ii • a d. The width of streets serving as an aisle between garages or parking spaces shall be governed by Parking Standards. Accessways in 0 ;;,y parking lots are allowed in required yards. e. All private streets shall be declared fire accesses, either in a deed or • , ;. A; on a recorded map and shall be so signed. Vehicles parked within fire accesses shall be subject to towing away at the owner's expense. f. The layout of development shall be such that fire trucks will not have to back out. Deviations from this rule must be specifically ' •,' • approved by the City Manager prior to the final design of the development. • g. Except for cul-de-sacs where fire trucks are expected to turn or turn a• around, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: outside front wheel radius of forty-five (45) feet; Inside rear wheel • . . radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs with unpaved areas or islands are used, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided: outside front wheel radius of fifty (50) feet; inside rear wheel radius of twenty-five .:1 (25) feet. Where cul-de-sacs without unpaved areas or islands are used, the • outside front wheel turning radius of forty (40) feet shall be provided. (Res, R-87.15; 3-17-87.) h. Dead-end streets, other than where fire trucks are expected to turn, must provide for either passenger vehicle turnaround or a delivery vehicle turnaround. The type of the turnaround to be used must be approved by the City Manager. The layout of the turnaround must comply with the current standard details available from the City. i. A dead-end street of more than 300-feet in length shall be designed with a turnaround unless otherwise approved by the City Manager •. ,x; prior to the layout of the development. .I- Schools with over 25 students enrolled shall provide an on-site L ; driveway for the continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for • • the purpose of loading and unloading children. 2. a. Only one driveway per lot is permitted unless the lot frontage is greater than 75-feet, For those lots, a circular driveway may be • I approved by The City Manager upo; finding that the additional intersection will not cause a traffic hazard. b. Driveways en corner lots shall begin a minimum distance of thirty , (30) feet along the property line measured from the property corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City • Manager. 0 . ,' 4345\add tar 4 O'291.17 J' 19.025 Standards for Construction .,. 1. Pavement of private streets must consist of a minimum of two-inches of JM asphalt over a total of six-inches of crushed rock. Heavier traffic in a non-residential development, or an inferior subgrade, shall dictate a different payment section. 2. Edging of streets in those locations which are critical in terms of drainage or physical impact of a vehicle must be cast-in-place concrete curb. In >. non-critical locations extruded curb, affixed to the surface of asphalt, may be used. In locations where drainage or unrestricted movement of a vehicle are not a problem, the use of curbs may be omitted, by approval of the City Manager. • 3. Construction of extruded curbs, affixed to the surface of asphalt, is not ' • allowed within public right-of-way. • ,� 11 4. The use of inverted crown (i.e., where drainage is conducted on a surface other than along the curb) is allowed in parking lots and by special approval •' of the City Manager. 5. Cross-slope of any driveable area shall be a maximum 5-percent. 3. 6. Maximum grade of a private street shall be 15-percent. Any deviation from this criterion must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to the final design of the development, Street grade of that portion of the street adjacent to a public street shall be governed by the conditions outlined in s. item "7" below. 7. That portion of a private street or access adjacent to an Intersection with a r • public roadway shall have a maximum grade cf 5-percent, to facilities the exit of vehicles. The length of the area restricted to a ,-percent grade may vary depending on the size of the project and the traffic In the public street, ` but shall be a minimum of 25-feet. .t, 8, Drainage of private streets shall utilize pipes with a minimum 10-inch diameter and catch basins of an adequate capacity, as determined by the ' City Manager,• . 9. Where a slope is adjacent to a paved area, minimum of 2-feet distance must • be provided between the curb, or edge of pavement, and the toe or top of the slope, to protect the edge of pavement, If sidewalk or utilities are expected to be adjacent to the street, a wider separation must be provided between the curb or pavement and the top of toe of the slope, • 10, Within public right-of-way all driveways must be 6-inches thick, 3,000 PSI concrete. ' • 11, All driveways must be "sidewalk type" as per standard drawing, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. • • 12. Where specifically approved by the City Manager, driveways may be "no-sidewalk type", as per City standards. 41) . 4345\add•nar G I 0293.17 • . i • A . .n 13. If asphaltic concrete driveway within public right-of-way is approved by the ,'• , ' City Manager, it must be minimum 3-inches thick.on minimum 6-inches crushed rock base. 14. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager in writing, maximum gradient of driveway over private property at any point must be as follows: • For single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes - 20% • For multi-family projects larger than four-plexes - 15% ;'.; 15. Where break of grade is used with the algebraic difference between • w~ gradients exceeding 9-percent, vertical curve must be used as per Standard y • Detail titled: "Vertical Curves for Driveways." f.•1;, 16. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, maximum width of driveway measured at property line shall be as follows: for residential • •• driveway - maximum 1/2 of frontage, but ”et to exceed 24; for commercial driveway - as approved by the City Manager. a 17. Where turning must be done to enter the garage, driveway moat provide for ,, ' an outside front wheel radius of a minimum of 25-feet, 16. Where a driveway is adjacent to a bank sloping away from the driveway, a • minimum 2'-0" shoulder must be provided between pavement and top of ` slope. • • 19. Where steep slope or curvature may cause drainage problems, or cause vehicles to run off the driveway, curb or asphalt berm must, be used along the edge of the driveway, 41 . Findings: Both the extension of S.W. Chapin Way and S.W. Wells Street will be improved to a 20-foot width. Wells Street will be declared a fire access westerly from its terminus with Chapin Way. • The modified future street plan) proposed by the City of Lake Oaweho, will provide -• cul-de-sacs at the easterly and westerly terminus of S.W. Wells Street, Only one driveway is proposed for the newly created lot. Both the driveway and the • ' public and private streets proposed will be constructed to the applicable standards, - 20.00,5 Site Circulation Standards . Bikeways and Walkways . Standards for Approval , 1. Bikeways shall be public, • • 2, Walkways may be either private or public, depending on their location. 3, Bikeways and public walkways shall be located either in a public easement or over land dedicated to the public, The design of bikeways shall conform • to City standards, • 4. Walkways and bikeways shall tie to public streets at locations determined by r " the City Manager, y i 1 r . • 43461ndd,tme � � ' US�93.17 0 • 1 l • • Findings: Neither S.W. Chapin Way, S.W. Gans, nor S,W, Wells have been designated at bikeways or walkways. Highway 43, to the east, has been designated as a bikeway/walkway, • • • • fr r 4 • • • 1 • • • ` a e A •4.J ,,• • • 4345\ndd.itnr 7 0203.17 d • 1 • , ` 4 a • • JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE An additional variance is being requested from the maximum cul-de-sac length found in Section - 44,390 of the Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance, This section limits cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to 1000-feet in length, The criteria for obtaining a variance are found in Section 49,501 of the Lake Oswe o Development .,The criteria are listed below: g pment, a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and b. Development consistent with the request will not be inJurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of +: the property; and, d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • The requested dead-end street length variance meets the above criteria in the following manner: a, Without the variance the subject property and other properties adjacent to S.W. Wells i�.; .�,_ Street are not developable. Currently, S.W. Wells Street is a private street not , . constructed to City standards, In addition, no permit exists for Wells Street to access 5 Highway 43. In order to utilize S.W. Wells for access, a permit would need to be obtained and improvements would be required to Wells, These improvements include widening the roadway to 20-feet and installing a drainage ditch along at least one side �v. of the roadway, Both the application for the permit, and the necessary improvements require commitments from others since S.W. Wells Street is not owned by the ', applicant and S.W. Wells is located within a 20-foot wide easement which is not wide enough for all of the necessary improvements, This creates an unnecessary hardship on the applicant since conditions beyond their control are required, However, Chapin Way can be extended as 28-feet of access exists and additional access can be obtained for its extension. Additional property can also be obtained for the necessary drainage ditch adjacent to Wells westerly from where it will intersect with Chapin Way, b. By allowing S.W, Chapin Way to be extended beyond its current terminus, approximately 16 additional dwelling units would eventually utilize Chapin Way as their access, This would bring the total dwelling units utilizing Chopin Way to • approximately 38, w.l"ch would result in approximately 380 vehicle trips per day, The ', 380 possible trips r er day equals approximately 25-percent of the 1500 trips allowed on local/rei.ldential two lane streets by the Lake Oswego Transportation Study dated April 1992. The lot proposed by this application and those lots which may occur in the future along S.W. Wells Street will be of comparable size to those within Hallinin Woods which should result in houses of similar value being constructed, e. The proposed variance is the minimum accessary to make reasonable use of the subject property and other developable. properties abutting S,W, Wells Road, The • variance could be less if only the subject property was being considered, However, the ' future street plan provides for the cul-de-sacs at both the west and east ends of S.W. Wells which mo•.as the cul-de-sacs beyond that necessary for the subject property to be developed. • 4345\add,nar 0293,17 8 • . + s tr . d. The applicable Comprehensive Plan sections have been addressed elsewhere in this application. Approval of this variance will not result in any conflicts with applicable Comprehensive Plan sections. In evaluating a request for variance the granting authority shall consider the following factors when determining if a hardship exists: 1. Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved. 2. Whether a reasonable use similar to the like properties can be made of the property without the variance. 3. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 4. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied. The requested variance meets the above-factors in the following manner: 1. The subject property can only be accessed by either S.W. Wells Street or S.W. Chapin Way• The property is approximately 250-feet from the north end of Chapin Way and approximately 750-feet west of Highway 43, S.W. Wells Street is ti graveled private r, street with no approved access permit to access Highway 43 and S.W. Chapin Way is a public street built to Lake Oswego standards. 2, Reasonable use of the property is not possible without the variance. If S.W. Chapin Way is not extended as a public street, the City would require a cul-de-sac to he provided at the existing terminus of Chapin Way. This would require the cooperation -t of the owners of the two lots abutting the terminus of Chapin Way which is not expected. The variance would not be necessary if S.W. Wells Street and Chapin Way were both developed as public streets and access to Highway 43 were permitted, This however is not desirable by the property owners within Hallinin Woods, 3, The hardship, which is obtaining access to a public street, was not created by the "4 owner of the subject property. The same hardship exists for other property owners abutting S.W. Wells Street. The extension of S.W. Chapin Way as a public street will remove the hardship from the owner of the subject property as well as other property owners abutting S,W, Wells Street. 4. If this variance is not approved, it will he impossible to meet the required conditions . suggested by the City of Lake Oswego staff in order to utilize S.W. Wells Street as access, This would result in the inability to divide the subject property as proposed, Section 48.650(3) of the Lake Oswego Development Code States: —¢. 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, wy Y... 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. 1 IP 4346wdd.>iar 0 0293.17 r • • • • • • a:. 1 . • • • • y.. 4. • 1 � • . / :� , t .:,yam /;: .�' .,, .yam, is f r 'd EXHIBIT tip 5i v, ' 0 M E M O R A N D TJ M . / ' 7.'O: Michael Wheeler Associate Planner 1 r Planning Department i r FROM: r R. Fa 40-0/44riaw oni, P .E. s Transportation Services Engineer Public Works Department FEB 2 5 1993 •,. SUBJECT: Wells St , at State Highway 43 City of Lake Oswego Clackamas County 44 Upon your. request, I am writing this memo regarding the proposal osal t for the connection of Chapin St . to Wells St . , the impacts that this connection would have on the neighborhood traffic and the effect of the closure of access from Wells St . into State Highway 43 . The main reason to implement the proposed connection of Chapin St . to Wells St . , is that it would provide safer access to the properties now located on Wells St . , by allowing the use of the Li intersection of Cherry St . at Highway 43 which is recommended in + ..,„ the Lake Oswego Transportation Study for future improvements . The connection would not create any conflicts with the existing or • future use of the street system in the area. There would be a minimal impact on the amount of trips currently assigned to Chapin St . and Cherry St . Furthermore, with the proposed closure of Wells St . onto State Highway 43, there would not be any traffic cutting , ' '• through the neighborhood. In previous meetings with ODOT' s District 2-A Office, they indicated that there isn' t a record of an access permi t it for the • Wells St . access . Any time that there is change on the use of an . access, a new access permit application is required by ODOT. In reference to Wells St . , it is obvious that there have been changes in the nature of the use, consequently, a permit application would « .a: be required. At this time ODOT has the option of closing the access . The legal issues concerning access rights can be complex, but in • any given circunstance, it should not be assumed that a property owner has an unqualified right to access a highway, r In conclusion, i strongly recommend the connection of Chapin St , to \ Wells St . and the closure of the Wells St , access to the highway. Please let me know if you have additional questions on the subject , '1 • .;, . , • , • , •-•• ' • • .'• '• '0 • , , ••• •, • 1, • S:• 14. • • * • . '1...„\ • • *.• , . .• . : .., • .. • •• • . . •• . , • • • ...•• • . • • • .. „ . . •'• ' • • , . • , • • . • • • .. • '• • • • ' • • ' - ••• • • • • . • A • A I 'I \ 'J e ,� s4. �1<E I OF os� I, c,, 1,. 1, OREGON i Dl:l'.\1:1'\IV\, r 01• ['L.'EW (' Wof.a:s v 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner r< FROM: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician ��' ' SUBJECT: History of Chapin Road Extension,.Future Street Plans, etc,, ;Pertinent to r a : Skowron Partition DATE: March 1, 1993 i 4, . . ,', 0 The attached sheets areas synop sis s f events gleaned from an investigation of old planning and engineeringfiles regardingprevious proposals to th_a � •, known plat ,• nown as Hallinan Woods and Hallinan. Woods IL Trnscripts from Planning property now Commission meetings are available in these files. The surface improvements and the decision to use the original county road• alignment to its northerly terminus was made • '', ''• ',•.,7 " in the Hallinan Woods decision after several aborted attempts involving future street 'layouts for the properties north of Chapin Road, A � � ;'i There appears to be a g; p (inactivity?'� between Marchhi o 1979 when preliminary fats ,.. for Hallinan Woods and Hallinan Woods II were submitted and their final approval by the Planning Commission and City Council it February of 1981. In any �• ' �;. case, the record shows that all representations made by staff between 1978 and = �y' 1981 very clearly provided for the future extension capability of Chapin Road when properties to the north were ready for development. „+ RC/kaa Attachment I. (R0493,1 k mernouCha pinR4/2-=25 • o .i EXHIBIT .4 r I • J ., e I l ,,,,.,./ ..\\..,•, ;•, Iiy1 • 1 L • n - , •• ;:' ' * :'•'''. ....,••'' Iy i y �. i • M1.... kkk J . t. .• w i '♦'. N • 1 '8 Synopsis of Events ' Chapin Road Extension � ' 1. 0 4-1-'78 Staff Repoort for SD 6-78, Morning Sky Subdivision Recommended denial without prejudice pending draft of the Comprehensive Plan which could result in an open space designation on ` the land and subsequent movement toward City purchase of some of the property. 4-3-78 City Engineer's memo to Planning Commission, Recommendations are made regarding the width of the proposed streets a: and the extension and availability of utilities. Mention is made of a forthcoming site circulation plan that will be recommending the connection of Chapin to O'Brien. '' 4-10-78 Planning Commission public hearing_for SD 6-78, a 1614t libslivision and proposed cir Ala ion and street pattern which would allow ;i possible future connection to Lund and/or O'Brien Street A petition of 23 entitled "We the undersigned register our firm opposition to any extension through of south Chapin Way" is submitted by Larry Sokol. Proposal was denied because a portion of the subdivision was in an area designated as open space in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, '" ' , 5-3-78 ty ,gineer's memo to Planning Commission ,. Revised plat was turned in, Reference is made to a planning/engineering street plan that is not being represented on the new proposal. Decision to • be left to the Planning Commission as to whether or not to end Chapin Road in a cul-de-sac, 5-8-78 Planning Commissionon• ctested caproceeding for SD 6-78, a 16 lot subdivision on both sides of Chapin Road Chapin Road was rojected to connect to O'Brien (staff proposal). Subdivision dens due to local o osition of subdivision itself, due to 7 pp connection to O'Brien which would funnel traffic to Laurel at Hwy, 43, ' and due to pending possible acquisition by the City of part of the site for open space, At this hearing,Planning Director Pat Barnum stated: "The internal circulation pattern within the subdivision has been developed with reference to an overall circulation pattern for the • entire area which was revised by the Planning and Public Works staff '' following testimony at the April 10th Planning Commission meeting. + The new proposal, which I'll explain here in just a moment, would • . 411) , . .. , Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page lof3 , b • ,1 . allow for a possible future connection between Chapin Road and • • O'Brien Street,as the prior proposal did,but would slow traffic by inserting two right-angle corners and would also allow a connection to Highway 43. 'These two changes provide a response to '. • neighborhood desires without sacrificing the concept of overall transportation planning. We would not now recommend additional changes. The modified plat before you does not conform with the • , modified circulation plan. As the new plat proposal does not adequately relate to the proposed circulation plan,we recommend denial." Further testimony by Bob Amptman,City Engineer and Pat Barnum ' (pages 7 through 12 of the transcript) recap the thinking behind the future street plan. Regarding the extension of Chapin, Barnum concludes: If it ever takes place, it would be in response to requests for development by the adjacent property owners and the dedication and improvement would be requested at their expense at the time that • ;t they would try to develop. If it should never happen, of course, the road would never be cut through, but we are assuming that at some ,': time there will be further development there and making allowance for that." Meeting ended with motion to continue for two weeks to resolve questions on potential City acquisition of open space. 5-22-78 Subdivision proposal denied on the basis that a) City Council officially designated part of the proposal as open space, and b) that the circulation . plan was not responsive to staff suggestions (it intended to vacate the north end of Chapin Road which was not found to be in the public interest). 0, 5-30-78 Waker Associates prepares new utility plan and lot layout showing :'. development on east side of Chapin Road only, abandoning earlier "west fork" of Chapin to O'Brien. 6-9-78 City receives new application for Morning Sky Subdivision, Chapin Road • proposed to be improved to the end, • 6-22-78 Waker Associates submits letter appealing May 22, 1978 denial of the „• Planning Commission (withdrawn September 5, 1978), 7-78 City Engineer's Memo to Planning Commission ••• ' Improvement of Chapin Road in its current dedicated alignment is stated . to be in conformance with the proposed circulation plan designed by • Planning and Public Works, 3-9-79 City receives preliminary plats for Morning Sky Subdivision and Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision together with an application to modify the . Comprehensive Plan designation on the No. 2 plat from open space to - residential, Both preliminary plats show using the Chapin Road right—of— way to its northerly terminus, with no mention of extension in the tuture on the exhibits, S Synopsis of Events- Chapin Road . Page 2 of 3 i. (Break in records,probably due to lengthy process of modifying Comprehensive Plan) 1-26-81 Planning Commission hears and recommends approval of Hallinan Woods II(formerly submitted as Morning Sky No. 2 Subdivision) to the City Council. This meeting also considered and recommended the change to the Comprehensive Plan. No testimony was taken regarding the Chapin Road issue. • 1-28-81 Memo from City Traffic Engineer to the Planning Director stating that "with access onto Highway 43 undesirable,it appears that the most feasible access to that property to the north would be the future extension of Chapin Road". This memo is Exhibit "G" in the staff report that went to the City Council • for final approval. 3-24-81 City Council public hearings (three related hearings) A. The Council approved Hallinan Woods with the street improvements of Chapin Road to its northerly terminus, denying the applicant's request to eliminate sidewalks. B. The Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the open space designation on the west side of Chapin Road, north and east of the Hallinan School, • C. The Council approved Hallinan Woods II unanimously, im osing a .��, • condition that a sidewalkp ..• be constructed on the west side of Chapin ;�" Road to its northerly terminus, • RC/kaa 1Ruaa93.11«wtea>Cha p InRoad • r . • .•w., • Synopsis of Events - Chapin Road Page 3 of 3 „y• • ;r . . ,• • ... • . ... • 1 . • . • . . . . . 4.,, , , . .• . • • • . . , .•.„,, . .. , ., •,..., ... . .. •,....• . . . . . . ... .... . .,.. . ,., . . i_ ., • . , .. .. .. •.,, , . . . . . . . .. • , ., . . .. . .,,, . • . . • . . ...„ ,. • . . .. ... .. ...,. .. „.• 1 . ... . . 1, • ,. • .. . ..., ...•. • • . . . , ,, . . . • J. ..• ,• • • 4.. . „ .j. f� .. . . . . .. .,.., 4 . . . 4 . 4 t.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 .• . Y 1 1. ' - ' ,/, fib;• ` i ;,' ,F . , " � p:I9 4t., c 93 w ( oti I g t s.I I WI (aIIN 98 976 I.-4 � d 41 •4I NI I1 I a ., ''av , . LAUREL STREET ,:1P 1' Q1' -"—..ri.._.w7... W I co I W N N d.T_.i . — 1007 Al tv coo I io g , 2 I N a� I m a i- � 1009 i-Inr u„ ' s 1010 .1..111_.. —_1.....,-. _,...�,, I __ — P _.- �. \--•--»- 9023 1022r oP _ ..�-.� 4 1033 1024 'q 1023 II 1024 c, 1023 i 102€ �„ 1023 1036 ® .. _1�14351 e O� 10331.1032 N. W -:.I �, ._- ,-..� O !!Oa 0. 10 1042 "4 -r 1042 23 1033 -- a _,_.1 1046 2s '4,1 •.. _ g rn _ hi _,.-. 1038 v9 1043 �G� 106=! 1052 1063 F 1044 1. .• ,...'. — - • t 4! •{ • 1 CO< t070 -10T3 1 I ,., T-,y , i' c:t I i 8 * \�/1 r 1196— toI s �O� 190 o I 1 r —.�.� ( i r 1 ' r A ,..,I 1246 ... I N I , » 1240 2: • r01 1280 a 1286 ._.-' --'-, ._..��I^p e ear �� T+. 1--.- - -. 1 .�-- , _- . 'limo • �' I ., a • I 'y I 1280 1285 , I I IL: 130E 0300 CHAPIN ---®"' .- —19— �.' o• � I 1 4II' . _. _ 8401 1 5-1 18826 ,I� yr Icn" I 18400 I a I y • 31390 rn - 0e N IIor I 0 ( I ` cn HALLMAN I 184i� at a M •CK -~ •S ORNiHG SKY C , ._�' 1425 ' GRADE 7, "1 1466 , SCHOOL I 18461 0 c _ 1459 �1460 — I� �-- _ 3 1489I1490 _1485 I (4-1 18755 r— (1 I cl 16820 • ; 3 1539 11530 1 06_I - i— .—• z rr T. '-560 0 1646 ... _ ( 16621 S —� - O — T 16T6 • "r.1 r 16820 9 ,. �..-. "I 1816 i 1 ' f j- li . 188301839 183 168261 yI Or t Z 1659 1880 _ �_ — f ---L d'e �� N ., a, 1876 A (----' `+ 0 V 1690 z . 0 I '� I �+ co 1896 I —I Z I N A B' a a 1880 --i j' 'r',a co (�, LAtdE A� ><IVE 1 726 J Maar N sr v $ Y . ' .1 ,, a , , , • s vP A o 3 � 9 • ° EXHIBIT t, • '` /` `r rt. /0 �,, of : TE' �l • • s ,'" r 4\ 1 ,✓ 4b1.✓�„rb '� '� ,,,,' A I �1Z r:±.i 1 43? 2 1930, I I. � i FE) I 4i3 tr I0 ti. # I I N N I ' 080 97a 99 - r • .LAUREL. STREET •—.. w) 1 G3 1 W N N r r ' w oo 4 Na I allo I a w 1 1 n o 1 co c : r Qp1 001 I I solo III-. _1.._.,_. _•J•� i .4_, I '--- c ,— :21. 102�3-� 1022 ® 1023 102E _ t,-•,r yj\iar 10331.1032 A 1033 g024 W_•_:J 1024 1023I_•_� 023� 10�8 -- --�183b5 \mod°Co‘'. 10421 104 1042', 1033 j 1038 co 1043 1048 _ •-- ,, ti3 I.,_,_ ,b. ._ • ii�� �� 1070 10 10a2 10a3 9044d, 1 !; 1073 �-- T II ';t�l 43 ,O /1190 1198 , o I ! I ' .. ' iie '-4 1240 Z 124a I N i F z co. ...a ,.____.N4 70 1280 1286 ....i . ,....... -^-~ • , •I y 1260 1286 vi® al 1306 ; I 6300 CHAPIWJ ., 1 y I (7. 1366 I __.__ • • ------, ._✓ . --T.•_._..1.,— t..5_T 0 _a • ar �.i. _- . .__.• I 18401 "'fi" i I 18626 I el i N 11390 11. _ 16400 a I a ( 03 I 1—.-1My HALLINAN �~ 1e431 ;_� `,. 1-" — —' :MLOCK I C , ORNfN(3 SK;Y ago •l 4' 1425 GRADE — ca + r -_ .__ ._.. • •`1-- 18481 o i o I - 7 1 a00 1469 1460 1466 SCHOOL • 0 j_._.� (41) ' • ', .-.L —• �..-,.._•-j �_.__.• •� -1 e• , ; ' 1489 I 1490 148t1 I I~ ~' .-• • 1 ' 1606 � i 19756 � 1a39 1530 1682o . _ - 3r I -' J I Z 15891 1590 m -,..1 - 1 16628 1 i ;..a,- 16161 '‘ i- - t S'14 ,. 183�91 183 1_. .....,i _ - - - _, j w 3� 7 , l 0 •_ r 1846 I .I § 1882SI q 18830 - -- \ . — [ I 9) e ' cap L_. ,....7 _. s 16751 __ _ 4 fl , 1895 I•_, I ,_I z I ro I A \� I w U 1880 �a n C0 o R NE -- co! 1•• • y -1 1725 , o ' m CFI LANE: \ ,, :. e 1 N 1 T Sr. ! 1 N \6905 R2Ctetfrlag , o" .Y d j r � j��Of • �� 1 CO Iv is r M ' `. 6, \ a., ` ✓ 5 F r,lik,i ' .. V .."''' \69- 00 1 3 1\ sir , . • / �1° > cos- : .y EXHIBIT --'2 ' cry .-� \ l T, I 0 901 9` 907 7 I 91 3 c 930• I�- 1 a _ _! 916 r' I I I i w I w I 1 ,.w 98C 975 T 9 m� . g , T. a, 4. 1 Ii N .a .+ W I ✓. .� ,� f4. I '�! i I a I I I _.—._. ,LAUREL STREET 4+k _... "o'JT'�'"Q"�""° a t d* (w� au p w I o�. --r r-r-� 1001 i i N V 1001 I I 0 C, I O OD A' 1 N O co 0 I_ 0 w C - i F rx : •' •. 1010 ,L. _. _.J ,� - 4-__ f -.-,t� ;scr�'�r i,i• ',Ai j....,.-,- 102.3. 1022 1033 1024 9,1023 1024 a'1023 I 102E r 1023� 1036 p _ +'"c 4, • �.0 9033��1032 4 roe 1 elm. IN .-.:�_ a .._,�"_ Z '-• n -�118351 •I�t ` O• 10431 1042 m T 104.2 f� ,_,-1 1038 ri 1043 1048 t • "',s' 1063J 1052 1063 • S 044 ' �:;' 1 r; `�� 1070 : . • �� �r 80 11t9B I N •I 140-• ......�- -- , s 1'� 122 1225• i ` �I ." i ;o, rt f o.. °L _ 3. �1 • -. 12401246 .I g m �A nl. �/�O 1280 1286 af� ... -�: • 18496 $ ' T _ _ _ �- 1 i K 1280 1286 / ' • L_._ I 1306 1 //1//1 /�/`� 18300 CHAPIN . _ • iT I I ° 1366 I. _...- .t. ( I 18825 p• • 16401 I -I A I 1 nano' ^1 ' ' Val.-4 I HALLINAN —I )•--- 0, ' v' 18431 • SKY C •.� •CK' I ORNIN 1426 GRADE c N i i. i 1600 O fi� . ..-1 _ �.. i 18481 1 1r._ .... 1469 1480 \ 455 SCHOOL I-— _l ~' ry L.^ f I...- re 1485 . I I 18756 . 0 1489 1 1490 j 1 18 4 . ( , II 82U • 1 a 1639 i '630 i6os� 1_.. ,_...,. — 4 " � .�680 w 1646 1cThI .1566 1 li 118828 1• i9t �" 1 14 • j.,._, 1816 - - - r QD If 1 .4p0 18530 -- 183gI 183 r _ I 188251 yO f 1646 L._ , : z 1658 1880 ; 1 E1r� , ...-- -'i " -- We �41n cn I—• a I s ,,� . .. a a 01 i-� CO j 1890 —1e9� I `1 z I N 1 14. NE .1gg0 `c _ �' 70 n " LANE '. . ~ •' .4:i. "4 1726 , -" ; 0 C am. ` i -' ..1 .+ �. �. �. I. O N I j�iS m ,g r ' , >>if 1 N O ✓ g0 ` r , • t.; • t \ .., -•ti . p . - ./YrIt",;;.>, , ,.. ,.. • ....•-..\c' —--,6 7,--... izi . .1, -- .d e' .• • .. , .., 0 -,\ s;. , to ., . ___.,-- . 0, . . I ..---' \ .......c. • - `• rp � � O� • S J "/ \� io,� / . � .. C.' 1 „ " 0, Y r r `►,` 3� ' A ' a \ , ,,h , �� N , A. ` is • , . '. • • , ' ' i 4 1'. . , VI, ‘ ' : ' - . • • : ' ', i . ... . •