Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1993-04-05 a 9.c .1 't 1. • Aoki ' .. J AGENDA • ' ' • l CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,April 5, 1993 7:00 P.M. r... CALL TO ORDER ITTL ROLL CALL Agenda Book ' • 7, APPROVAL OF MINUTES • V. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING • { SD 19-921VAR 18-92(n-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, th,°:applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the • Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, which is a private street. 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 feet in length. The modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to '', terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required 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 i; located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 1E IODD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner. Continued from March 15, 1993. ' • ' • DR I5-89(Mod. 7-92), a request by FWL Architects for approval to develop the south parking lot of the Lake Baptist Church. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Carman Drive and Kruse Way intersection (Tax Lots 5500 and 5590 of Tax Map 2 1E 6DD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, • AP 93-01 D 5 I d 98/2 . 7-92)1, a request by Thomas H. Nelson for modification of an earlier approval which enabled the creation of two parcels from an 86,058 square foot lot The parcels are -. . 20,078 and 65,980 square feet in size, The applicant is seeking the elimination of two conditions of approval as they affect Tax Lot 3400(Parcel 1), The conditions require a nonremonstrance agreement • for future improvements to both Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Blvd. (Condition Number 3), and payment of a pathway deposit(Condition Number 11). The applicant has requested a hearing • I- • • r ., e, ,. • ',` . ` regarding the matter as provided by LOC 49.225 and LOC 49.630,and ORS located at 1210 Chandler Road(Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 3CC). Staff coordinator is 10). Michael . The site is II) . . PlD 9 1VA1R 2-23,a request by Kruse Way Plaza One (Roger Edwards)for approval of a 16 lot single family residential planned development, a Class I variance to LODS 18.020(1)to allow from a private street for Lots 10-12, and a future street plan to serve properties located no access �' • subject site. The site is located east of Pillcin on Road, pe north of the ` Street(Tax Lots 3300 3400 of Tax Ma 2 lE on the north and south sides of Rosewood P 18AB and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AC). Staff coordinator is�ntrwid .... iP iDavelontnent Res-i W�-�anne.. • 1,5 VL {" GENERAL PLANNING • A a' VIL OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Fe el free to ; come and go as you please. D.RB I cmins: Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Nrorman J.Sievert,Vice—Chair y i.. . INbrmm F.Homing Robert Galante,Senior Planner f William M.Magura Ron Bunch,Senior Planner ` Julie Morales Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner Julie a oF.r Stiven Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary Yvonne DeBartota,Senior Secretory a • • ilk, , . I. I 4 V' STAFF REPORT . . . . CITY OF LAKE • . . PLANNING DIVISION • APPLICANT: FILE NO.: FWL Architects 4 DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • • PRO— 'Ca: ,, sma: Lake Baptist Church s'. Michael R. Wheeler , FC� p.1nF � �r: RATE OF RPnrtT• Tax Lot 4900, 4990, 500,5100 of Tax Map 2 1E 6OD March 26, 1993 '1 LOCATION: DATE O— A rR rtvr,�: Northwest corner of the Carman Drive and • Apri15, 1993 Kruse Way intersection ASS_ 'OCIATinN• ; 4 C011�LP PLAN DE STr;�T A�'"'Nt e Westlake; Holly Orchard • R-5 and R-10 DCSi[�NA•rrnrr• °• R-5 and R-10 I. "S R nr 1F ;' ; . The applicant is Proposing to develop the south parking lot of the Lake Baptist Church, II, APPLICABLEszaamA • A. Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies ' General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 General Policy II,Specific Policies 1, 2, 3 °i General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • ' DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • Page 1 of 9 r, y , t. ,. , r • u Wildlife Habitat Policies + General PolicyIii , Specific Policy 1,2 Wetlands Policies :. General Policy I,Specific Policies 1,2 General Policy Er, Specific Policies 1, 3, 5 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy II General Policy III Bikeway Policies General Policy I,Specific Policy 2e Pedestrian Pathway Policies 1. . General Policy 1,Specific Policy 2 a General Policy II,Specific Policy 1 Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies lf, 2, 3 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1,2 B. Sna _rvtc• ' LOC 48.120—48.155 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot LOC 48.195—48.225 coverage) R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, r'I LOC48.575 lot coverage) "` Schools C. I.10.i!elapment Cody . LOC LOC 48.0 00 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.145 Criteria for Approval Major Development LOC 49.300—49,315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.610 Quasi—judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals s • LOC 49.125 Authorit y';)approve changes in Development Permits D. Development Standards - ,, • < d 4.005—4.040 Wetlands , 6.005—6.040 .005—7.040 Transit System ' ~ 7 05—8.040 Parking and Loading Standard 9a005—9.040 Park and Open Space 11.005— Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ` 18 — 11.040 040 Drainage Standard for Major Development n 19 • .005— 1a040 Access Standard � 005 19040 Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways Site Circulation —Bikeways and Walkways 0 . • • DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) , , , • Page 2 of 9 4 a ' , • • E. Pathways Ordinance LOC 42.900-42.920,LOC 44.374 • • F. Sim Billbnards. Ma w s anoniee t�tc iris�5 and Stet Ci ^ s LOC 47.005-47.200 'iu• G. City Cbartcr Section 46 A Height of Structures in Residential Areas • III• FINDINGS • The site was granted approval for church use in 1985 [CU 2-85]. That use was granted approval to be built in two phases hi 1987 [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87]. That decision subsequently modified in 1989 to allow the construction to occur in three phases,with conditions [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89)]. The design of the church, parking, wetland protection,and associated public improvements was approved in 1989 [DR 15- 89]. A building permit(BP 91--0905)was issued in 1991 for construction of the church. A construction permit for public improvements to Canttgn Drive and Parkview Drive was approved in September, 1991 [DR 15-89,Exhibit 22]. s`, The conditional use was modified and expanded in 1992 to allow the use of the church and high school use. The Overall Development Plan and Schedule was modified at the same time to enable the construction of additional parking(proosed south parking lot) as a part of the current Phase I construction [CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)/ODPS 4-87(Mod.4- 92);Exhibit 20]. This application is for approval of a proposed south parking lot+ B. E istiig,C uditions: 1. The site is c°;•,.,"sed of 9.23 acres located at the northwest corner of the • intersections of Kruse Way and Carman Drive. 2. Phase I improvements which have been completed include a church, associated a parking and public improvements. Phase I improvements which are underway, but not completed, are landscaping and wetland mitigation. C, Proposal; • • ,.• The applicant is seeking approval to construct the south parking lot whose inclusion in Phase I was approved in 1992 [CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)/ODPS 4-87(Mod 4-92)], • D. Compliance with Criteria;for Approval • q As per LOC 49,615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating major development: • • • DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) •• Page 3 of 9 ` � r r M ,. ♦ q i I. ‘ " / f 0 ` 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be the proposal conforms to: established that a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: These policies require protection of natural resources from development, • comprehensive review of development proposals,and a :r. • of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented ntedent othrouggh sevef an lral sharee Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that • distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that density be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. i11 Thesepolicies _ require protection of upland habitat in the form of .� space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are • reviewed in this report fallowing an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Wetlands Policies • r '': 1�� , These policies require identification and protection of essential wetlands. A wetland • mitigation plan was approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)in 1990. •: ;f:h+, Those wetland improvements required by the permit(Exhibit 17) have been installed and inspected. The applicant's current proposal intends to maintain and protect the earlier improvements. Compliance with the Wetland Development Standard will be reviewed later in this report. • These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable ,r :t Development Standards. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. ' Bikeway Polices/Pedestran Pathways Policies r j . Thesepolicies •' • ,'. '" require development of pathway segments identified in the,Conceptual Pathway Master Plan, These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation— Bikeways and Walkways Development Standard and the Pathways Ordinance and Master Plan: These will be reviewed later in this report. • • • DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) ; Page 4 of 9 .,, ' + •; • These policies require that streets be improved • These policies also as planned when demand requires. require that a developer be 't way as necessary to provide for widening. 1'Irese required to dedicate additional right of throughLOC 48.535(3),Special8 policies are implemented in part ( , Streets Setbacks and the Utility Development Standard. Compliance with these policies was reviewed in 1989 when the church's initial Construction was ° bythatpo The public dedication and improvements required approval have been made. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulation& The following regulations were in effect on the date of the application: I. A portion of the site is zoned R-5 Residential (Exhibit 21), The minimum lot area in the R-5 zone is 5,000 sq. ft. [LOC 48.135(1)]. Maximum lot coverage for buildings ' ' and required parking in the R-5 zone is 50% for attached buildings, 35% for detached buildings [LOC 48.140]. A unified siteplan is { setback from any property line is 10 feet or 4t 1LO The required this proposal and site [LOC 48.150(1)]. The maximum height may average 40 feet on this site, which is larger than 1/2 acre; not individual structure may exceed 50 feet[LOC 48,155(2)], The special conditions listed in LOC 48.565 modify the setback and height requirements of the zone. Because the building height is 30 feet, all yards must be at least 20 feet,or two-thirds of the height of the structure [LOC 48.565(4)]. A portion of the site is zoned R-10 Residential (Exhibit 21). The minimum lot area in the R-10 zone is 10,000 sq. ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]. Setbacks applicable to this request (alteration that does not qualify as new construction) are as follows: Yard Feet (minimum) A• Front 25 Side adjacent to street 20 (arterial or collector)or `" 10(local street) Other side 10 Rear 25 The maximum lot coverage in the R-10 zone for an alteration that does not qualify as R new construction is 30% [LOC 48.225(1)]. S • The approved church facility was demonstrated to comply with these requirements during review of all earlier applications [see background, earlier in this report], i The applicant's proposal to construct the south parking lot complies with the R-5 zone' setbacks, which are at the westerly ' property line of the site, and the R-10 zone ,, ; setbacks, which are at the easterly and southerly property lines of the site, The 20 foot height of the proposed light poles complies with the maximum height allowed in both the R-5 and R-10 zones. , • • DP. 15-89(Mod, 7-92) Page 5 of 9 • r t! { ent Cade ReolireT nts and AgaIc. .� R Development of the church,existing parking,landscaping,lighting and wetland 1989 (DR 1 was o side approved by the Development Review Board in proposed south parking lot is appropriately being proces I as major development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, them are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Pathways C�nclimm�c� . his c°ntliiiance requires construction of pathways alongmutes approved Pathways Master Plan. As a part of the a rmit(E in the sidewalk along Carman Drive was completed,�construction permit(Exhibit 22),a sidewalk on the north side of Kruse Way. •which connects to a formerly existing ,, 471 The Sign Code enables an institutional use such as a church or high school to erect an identification sign up to 24 square feet in area along each adjacent street frontage [LOC 47.115(1)). The applicant's proposed sign is 24 square feet, not includingthe base (Exhibit 9). The sign is proposed to be located at the entrance to the site on Parkview Drive (Exhibit 4). • itv Charter H i • • t O��tt'nrhTtt_� The City Charter limits any structure in a residential zone to a height of 50 feet exce for a single symbolic apputenance, which can extend up to 75 feet. pt . . The 20 foot height of the proposed light poles complies with the Charter limits40 • • . ' c. The ap plicable Development Standards Wtlauds (4 005 4 j, k ' These andands a require protection of essential wetlands. The applicant received approvalwetland mitigation plan from the Division of State Lands in 1990 (Exhibit 17) and a construction permit from the City for same in 1991 (Exhibit 22), The applicant's proposal complies with the requirements of those approvals. Continued compliance will be required as a condition of this action, if approved TranSi Svacein (6 005 •6(k1()1 • This standard requires that transit facilities or hard—surfaced pathways be provided to enable use of the existing transit system (Tri—Met). A sidewalk was installed along Carman Drive as part of the approval of DR 15-89. This standard was satisfied as a result. 1 Pdtcl. din_ (7 7 0401 . For a high school or a church, this standard requires one space per 60 square feet of gross floor area in the auditoriwn area, or ones aceno seatingixed , is proposed. The earlier review of DR 15-89 demonstrated that 250 existing pace support the 50,999 square feet which comprises Phase I. 9 R . a0 tc„. , f'• . DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) Page 6 of 9 , , The applicant indicates that 186 spaces which have already • of Phase I improvements will remain; some of these 186 saces will be recon constructed t a part as a pact of the proposal. The applicantr .. ' .. .: • ' • 0 in the south parking lot, which would increasethe to construct anp additional xhl 206spaces total to 392 spaces(Exhibit 13), A total of more than 500 spaces was approved 8S) upon demonstration that this total by the Planning Commission (CU 2-. upon completion of Phase III of construction. Ply the 102,880 square foot building y' The applicant indicates that an additional 37 spaces will be constructed i° and 163 spaces in Phase III, which will raise the total to 592 spaces. Phase II, J �,1 142Theapplicant's current proposal would exceed the Previously approved 250 spaces by The applicant's proposal to construct the proposed,206 spaces as a reviewed by the Planning Commission andpart of Phase I was 85(Mod.4- BPS 4-87(I�Iod. 4-92 approved on June Planning22, 1992Commission . ' encouraged velopment Review Board to conside The intensive landscaping alongCarman Drive due to the increase in daily' 1pg more P g Painting. `; This standard requires an open space dedication for major residential, off commercial and industrial development. The a office campus, school)provides landsca ier � Pproved institutional use (church/high P g egos.to 23%of the site following completion of Phase III. Though the standard doesn't appear , form of landscaping is provided by theproposalExhibr, adequate open space in the (Exhibit 7). Latac� This standard requires that semi—pubwc uses provide 15 or 20 buildable area in landscaping, percent of the net depending on the use. The approved school demonstrated compliance with this church/high , or II landscaping,and 23 percent upon completion of Phase III. Phase I with 71 percent . . The applicant PP proposes to limit plantings to the area immediately around the south parking lot(Exhibit 7). This plan differs from the landscaping plan approve •d F Phase I[Dl2 15-89;Exhibit 25], The plantings originallyPP for Drive and Parkview Drive have not been completed as aproved. Additionally,Cyan Exhibit 7 illustrates a more elaborate planting plan than the original, propose to install it at this time. The applicant must reconcile but does not • propose landscaping measures necessary this omfene sio and concerns about parking lot visibility. This willaddress requiPlred s ag condition Commission's action, if approved. At a minimum, the applicant will be required to of this q u:2 to install those plant materials required by the City's aproval of DR 15-89 (Exhibs�25), a This standard requires that drainage alterations not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant's proposal conforms to the drainage system which has already been approved as a part of the Phase I construction permit (Exhibit 22), o ' DR 15�-89(Mod, 7-92) Page 7 of 9 ' i k , 1 / iUtiliW'i3and 14 005 14 0411 This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be instralled underground, where possible. • Access Standard This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. The site abuts Kruse Way, Carman Drive, and Parkview Drive each for more than 25 feet (Exhibit 4). Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways (19a005-19.040) This standard requires that driveways for single familydwellings • � �• grade nor 5%cross slope. � not exceed 20% ,..• 8- percent The grades for the parking lot are approximately 4-to 8- grade (Exhibit 5). Site 'ricnlatinn _Bikewpys a d , yc,�20 (t nerit i As noted earlier in this report, sidewalks have been constructed along Carman Drive� � r and Parkview Drive which satisfy this standardp. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • . • The applicant's proposal is in compliance with an earlier ODPS approval [CU 2- 85(Mai.4-92/ODPS 4-87(Mod,4-92); Exhibit 20]. There are no future street plans which affect this site. E. CONCLUSION R• Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal J 1 4` ' • complies with all applicable criteria. • ti , I I RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed modification, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install landscaping east and north of the existing building as illustrated in Exhibit 24 and required by DR 15-89 (Exhibit 25). 2. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of development permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. • • Y . I .• 1 1•' DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) Page 8 of 9• }1 f.. E'H S 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative; dated August 21, 1992 3. Boundary and Topographic Survey 4. Plan:Parking Expansion Limits; dated August 21, 1992 gGrading dated August 21, 1992 • . �. 5. South Parkin Lot Plan; 6. Irrigation Plan;dated August 21, 1992 :. 7. Planting Plan; dated September 10, 1992 8. Site Plan (portion of Sheet Al); dated September 5, 1992 9. Elevation: Proposed sign at Parkview Drive 10. Plan: Site Plan illustrating building phases,Sheet E-1;dated December 16, 1991 11. Perspective drawing; dated August 23, 1992 12. Typical weekly schedule;dated April 9, 1992 4'+ 13. Parking information;dated May 26, 1992 14. Striping plan-SW Cann,an Drive(portion) 15. Striping plan-SW Carman Drive(portion) 16. Striping Plan, P g by R.Woelik; dated April 21, 1992 • 17. Division of State Lands Permit No. 5566;dated November 28, 1990 18. Foundation Investigation Report; dated November 1, 1985 , , .' 19. Parking perimeter and interior lighting information ;<' 20. Findings, Conclusions and Order,CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)10DPS 4-87(Mod 4-92); dated June 22, 1992 21. Zoning Map(portion) , 22. Construction Permit(portion),DR 15-89E,dated September 12, 1991 23. Site Plan (Exhibit 7 from DR 15-59); not dated • 24. Planting Plan (Exhibit 13 from DR 15-89); not dated 25. Findings, Conclusions and Order,DR 15-89; dated December 18, 1989 26. Transportation Analysis by ATEP; dated August, 1991 ti • • • • • • 41) • o �•p. 4 • • re. DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • Page 9 of 9 • Z`.. %,.,. , ., .a`.B'�, , 1, it y r� t ♦ i 1 1 ti is 1` Y •J i. I' ••• .. • .. • . „ . . . t{ , , • •, . . 4 M °•• • • • S 1 - F b . • • r 4 3 51 ♦ 52 4r • • e w n..r a �a 5• ^� , 2400 c LF '.. a ww r • y' • S r7N � 4.,,4.,,, 21o0 � 5 • �z200 i ' �°'' 1000: • S N�o•. 2000 ': r • s5 �• �1900 •°' JI 23004•e • 1KJJ a, � " ... a^ p 0 a ./.; 900 +a\ � • �5 9a 53 S a / tr.; y �'�\0• 071 .5g . " 69 tr � 800 Ooa8e'• ¶% " 60 ; • A.sO tr ,0O •70 t:'"'•�-e1800 61' 'aWINTHROPs.a ; I11Go , CI • b• ~ '... ' at.°• • faea•' •S�,'r .■ ' .. . •'�}700','i��Zlf,71, 4 1w 79 a Ci"b 1700'e.M1600` 1500 1400. 1300 ,1200 ^ r" '. ''''.• r, i. <. Y e)J',' Ak 200 d aLaa:r�.72. ..a,r• ' fr.fafr'o = yet•"2F 6^c 63 64 65. • 66 • '�' ,, 600 76 PAi2KVIEW DRIVE : / 3 •4 c o a.' a „ A` tL73 0.0� ''� 500(a 400 OG ' •• •Y'o.74�Fy'v."�Iti d° 1.41 'Le L• .. .�..�.Li ., / 1� •ef a •W . ... yr` 75'�" tl360 ... . . • ,.. , . .. . . . ... . , . , . .. . .. .,, . , . ova N 777 :... ... , ` v, ,. • r.rp.7 6 PARTITION ' PLAT �a C'_L• • '�. �,,; , 1991^141 f�.. le.lai, •_ l , s twrn 1991 z 5s0o PARTITION PLA'r ' L _- �0 0 32AC 1991-141 1 .� 5400 1 1. o7iAe PARCEL 3 • I r 1 . . Op, a 2 •\ r 1 e r 5590 ° I C J• , 093Ac,> sr • • y * 3 if..1),. ,.,.....-ti .,.., . ,, • • • '1M Cad I;Q•• • • ; . a „45,...:1'. •. SL' ' '''.. ,;:, � EXMIBIi i I • • SEE NAP 2 rE G8C: tk,00, a, ° ._�•►.},l,.r- ••r a .r.., 4�, •a it c • Ciry .r .1i140 Rdt - • a..( ' '4/3r l': . 4 crMl°r 1111. LAKE 4y•, ♦t, • •• • • r f. • • . 1. r 'Y f ' 4. • P. ,a !� Y `., f 1' • A . • • • E I • • { It y v • f r RE-vlo .p 6-21 -1z. J ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH APPLICANT: FISHER, WALLIN & LONG Architects-Planners 5331 S.W. Macadam, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97201. ' PROP og: LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH P.O. Box 1465 } Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; > • Tex tvikr 2 le yap -- AA Lt9Th- 9Ub AND * Q LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Carman Drive • and Kruse Way. • NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ' • Westlake Neighborhood g Association (forming) ZONING DESIGTIYATIoN: R-5 and R-10 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: • R-5 and R-10 •r. I . REQUEST , Lake Baptist Church is requesting Development Review approval for development of the south parking lot. See attached plans. II. REGULATIONS A. qi..tv of Lake Oswe o Co prehensive Plan: Growth Management Policies - ` General Policy III 4 ' d EXHIBIT 0 Impact Management Policies �/� C13p�s� General Policy I . • General Policy II • bIS4,101Mo7.12. 1 V.' Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II 0 . . y.� Weak Foundation Soil Policies General Policy IV Quiet Environment Policies General Policy II Water Resource Policies (Ground Water) A General Policy i General Policy II • ;` Wetlands Policies General Policy I .. General Policy II ` Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy III General Policy vii Residential Land Use Policies General Policy i Protection Open Space Policies • General Policy T ° ` .V Bikeway Policies General Policy I Pedestrian Pathway Policies , General Policy I General Policy II B. ctv of Lake Oswego Coning Ordinance: LOC 48. 120-48. 155 R-5 Zone 0C 48 . 195-48 .220 R-10 Zone FLOC 48.535 Special Setbacks C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: LOC 49. 300-49. 335 Major Development Procedures J LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49. 620 Condit ,onal Approval I, • . • Ap 4 ' , M. 0 ' ' 1 r . t D. City of Lake Oswego Development,Standards: • `, 2. 005 - 2.040 Building Design 4.005 - 4.040 Wetlands 5 -%)05 - 5.040 Street Lights 6 ( 15 - 6.040 Transit System `Y 7.005 - 7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 8.005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space. 9. 005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and 4.4 . Buffering • 10.005 - 10.040 Fences • 11. 005 - 11. 040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 13 . 005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 16. 005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18. 005 - 18 . 040 Access Standard 19. 005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways 20. 005 - 20. 040 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways E. City of Lake Oswego Tree cutting Ordinate: LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits 1 ' i �' . n s h r . • ♦ .+` , • • • Y s t r • • • • • . r., • • • /f b t_ • kg •. • • • • ti » t 1 r ; Sy' •..�. ' r . • 4• , • • • r y s• 1 l 44 • I I X .A • 9 •44r, R. C:omp1 fiance with Cr;tAr; a fter, spars a1 • 1. . �.tv of Lace Oema u i Y Camr2laow . n,an '/ grban Ser vice Pows _ .�� c e These policies require that lands within the Urban Services Boundary be designated as suitable for immediate development and that the City's Capital Improvement Program give priority to scheduling facilities to serve these areas. This policy is implemented by ' requiring cdevelpment applicants to construct improvements as development is proposed when the current Capital Improvement Program does not provide for the needed Facilities within a reasonable amount of time. This policy has been previously addressed in CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87 (MOD 6-89) and DR 15-89-731 hr. regarding half-street improvements along Carman Drive. These improvements have been issued a permit and are under construction. ` Additional recommendations for the Carman/Kruse signal are incorporated into x traffic report and will be constructed. I1Aact Mana2emef,t oo1 icies r: These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and pp of an equitable share of the costs ofpublic facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, J • addressed further below. The policies 4 require assurance that distinctive areas 4i11 be preserved, soil will be '' erosion, trees be protected from ' protected from removal and that streams be preserved, Compliance with • the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan d policies. aI i • 4 . r .i' I/ Wild �ife Habitat :.nl ;ni es- 0 li ," These policies require o and waterfront habitat inthetform°ofupland preservation of open space, natural vegetation, or fragile slopes. This was met bypolicy possible on preserving site gand byas nmitiy gation of the wetlands on site. Related development • standards are reviewed in this application following analysis of the applicable Plan policies. By meeting the related Development Standards (which are under permit) , such as the Wetlands Standards, these policies are met. I Wea}c Foundation Sdil Policleg • These policies require the analysis of soils for development proposals on sites that are designated for having the soils. potential for weak This policy is met through previous , ,r conditions of approval for obtaining a Soils Report for this particular site. These policies are further implemented through the `, '• " V Weak Foundation Soils Development Standard which is reviewed in this application410 . following an analysis of the applicable Plan , . policies. See attached soils investigation report, "Dames ''t Moore", dated November 1, 1985. Wetland Policies (?",_These policies require identification of 11,,,,, wetlands and designation of wetlands as Protection Open Space. These policies state that the Wetland Development Standard be used to implement these policies, which also require preservation of essential wetlands. A review of the p pro osed Wetland Mitigation Plan by the Division of State Lands has previously been completed and a permit Under the previous conditions of approval hat; been „ granted. These policies are further implemented through the compliance with the Wetlands Development Standard which is analyzed in this application after the applicable Plan policies. No modification of existing wetlands are anticipated as a result of this request. b , • i , r . Protection of Open Space Policies ..,..e. These policies require that stream corridors, ' p wetlands, weak foundation soil areas and high ground water areas be designated as Protection Open Space where necessary to Y ' protect the natural systems while allowing " :'' - development compatible with those systems. •y' The church application meets these policies by mitigation of the wetlands areas on site and designated them as protected open spaces. .� ,- 4' . % and designated them as protected open spaces. . . .. e . No change of the open space is anticipated as -0' a result of this request. 4. . • ' kY policies , .� These policies require implementation of a bikeway plan. Such a plan has been a.dnpted +, in the December, 1988 Pathways Master Plan. These policies have been previously addressed and the conditions of approval in the • previous application and under permit and being constructed. This construction complies fully with the 1988 master plan. Pedestrian Pathway Policies , ti These policies require the City to plan a system of pedestrian footpaths to connect parks, schools, public open spaces and residential neighborhoods. These policies * . are mat through the adoption of the Pathways Master Plan discussed previously under the Bikeway Policies. This policy has also been , . previously addressed in previous conditions of approval for this site and designs for pedestrian pathways have been implemented. Pathway' are under construction from the northwest property boundary to the southeast intersection of Carman & Kruse providing all y required improvements. Transportation Policies ,.`.el -. These policies require development of a balanced transportation system which will provide safe and convenient access and which includes a system of bikeways and pedestrian paths. These policies are adequately I „ 4 addressed in the Associated Transportation . ,, . • Engineering and Planning Report previously completed for this site for the church. • ,} ,. s el_b. 4 fir. J y r • t `°. S. 2 . City of Laike Oswego Zoning Ordinance • . ' ' ' P: LOC 48. 120 - 48.155 R-5 Zone and LOC 48. 195 - 48.220 R-10 Zone. e Major public facilities, including schools, are listed as conditional uses in both the R- 5,: and R-10 zones and, as such, are allowed under conditional use approval criteria N>. following in this application. P LOC 48 .535, Special Setbacks Carman Drive north and east of Kruse Way has a special setback of 30-ft. This setback has been addressed and complied with in previous conditional uses. In addition, the building setbacks are: 600' Kruseway; { 300' Carman Drive; 150' Parkview Drive. .. • k 3 . City of Lake Oswego Development l pment Ordinance ,R; LOC 49.300 - 49.335 - Major Development Procedures • • • This Development ap plication Review application is being submitted as a major development and includes information required by subsection 1-12 of this section. LOC 49. 615 - Criteria for Approval and r. LOC 49. 620 - Conditional Approval We believe we have met all of the criteria for approval of conditional use in answering ° herein these development ordinances/standards and, through previous conditional approvals, all standards of 49 . 615 are met. r 4 . City of Lake Oswego geylopment Standards 1 , a. Building Design (2.005-2.040) The building design has previously been # ' reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board, and is 111 under Building Permit, and appropriate Conditions of approval have been addressed. No changes in the bui,tdinq `` design are pxonosed as part of the l • request. e. i. b �' - . 4 . gip. •�. ;YY b. Wetlands (4.005-4.040) • • The wetlands on this site have been mitigated and a permit has been granted by the Division of State Lands and the City. These plans have previously been submitted to the City but a copy has been provided in this application. No + development in wetlands is proposed as \•. part of this appliation. c. Street Lights (5.005-5.040) } This standard requires that street • lights be provided and that lighting of public pathways and accessways be nonobtrusive to surrounding uses. • The street lighting required by this standard has been addressed in previous `: applications and issued a Construction Permit. See attached lighting submittals. d. Transit System (6.005-6.040) ,: There is an existing transit stop on Kruse Way on Carman Drive at t d " The present design and Construction � Permit provides pathways to this transit , ' ;. stop for access to and from the site as indicated on the site plan. e• Parking and Loading (7. 005-7 . 040) Parking standards for churches require a minimum of one parking space per 60 sq• ft• of auditorium area (non -fixed seating) and standards for a private high school are the same. • 0 . . ' ' 410 . j +i• s, , • % , The original application clarification 0 . ,, letter of April 3 , 1985 indicated the • calculation method for the original building proposed. This letter stated • that the auditorium would be 10, 000 sq.ft. requiring 167 spaces, based upon 60 sq. ft. per person. The Building Permit Approved Plans has an auditorium of 7, 500 sq. ft. Dividing this by 60 sq.ft. per person, the required number of parking spaces is 125. The future requirements for Phases II and III of `' the church would require an additional 334 spaces, thus making a makimum requirement of 459 versus the 592 provided above. The parking provided for each phase can �' meet the minimum requirement for both • uses in the event that there is an overlap of hours, Section 7. 005, 8 . indicates that the standard for calculating parking for churches is based upon the size or capacity of the ` auditorium area and that the basis of computing parking requirements for a • high school is based upon the size or capacity of the auditorium. Therefore, �p�, ` since we have only one auditorium, the calculation is synonymous for both uses and an overlapping of uses cannot be assumed; i.e. , if the church is having a •I •k . 4, . Wednesday night meeting, the school cannot have a Wednesday night meeting • ;', because they both occupy the same space. See attached parking data,f. Park and Open Space (8.005-8,040) y . y` This standard does not prescribe a specific percentage of site area to be set aside as park or open space ror institutional Uses, but doss require that Protection Open Space as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and tree groves to be considered as high p'' g priority for reservation as open space. , , . .3 ' f a • - - + r •. The existing church development ? illustrated in the site plan and the ` wetlands mitigation with the wetlands features grovespreservation of of trees along Carman Drive a high priority in this design. In Phase One of the church development, 5.5% of the site will be .' developed as building, 23% will be developed as paving and 71.5% is developed as landscaping. After the :.'i'. . ,. final Phase Three of the church master plan is completed, 23 .3% of the site e . ' will be landscaping. g. Landscaping, Screening and buffering (9.005-9.040) This data provides flexibility in the amount of landscaping required for "public" uses. Due to this site's surrounding • residential character, the church has provided larger than required setbacks for the building and used landscaping :` and open space as a buffer fot the surrounding residential uses. We believe this is a complimentary solution " `.' to the surrounding neighborhood. , h. Fences (10.005-10.040) Because of our extensive use of ; landscaping and open space, we have elected not to use fences as a buffering device in this development. The • existing landscape berms at the perimeter of ' he property present a natural buffer to the anticipated residential use. The western property line consists of a 20-ft. wide landscape h area with a 4-ft. high berm with planting on top. i. Drainage Standard for Major Development (11.005-11. 040) The drainage standard has previously been addressed in CU 2-85\ODPS 4-87 (MOD 6-89) and DR 15-89-731. The existing a improvements were sized and designed based on the ap • proved master plan. • • • +,... _ . , . , a .« I• •„y i }• - , , t a f i4 jj'� . j . Weak Foundation Soils (13.005-13.040) • , , , , . , , . The site is designated as having the potential for weak soils. This standard has adequately been addressed in previous conditional use and design reviews of this site development. Construction Permits have been granted, ;m meeting all requirements. The south . • parking lot construction will meet requirements based on the submitted soils report.. k. Utilities Standard (14.005-14.040) This standard requires that the ,, , following utilities be provided to all �e ri ` development in the city: Sanitary sewer, Naater, sidewalks/bike paths, ' traffic control devices, street lights, :: underground utilities and adequate ' • streets. All utilities under this standard are • adequately provided to the site as part • of the church construction. This has also been illustrated under previous design and Planning Commission reviews. 1. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005-16.040) This standard requires that the development be designed to minimize disturbance to natural topography, ~ ` vegetation, and soils. The design of the south parking lot has 4 minimal impact on existing topography. See attached grading plan. 'a m. Access (18.005-18.040) This standard requi•. . that safe and • efficient ingress and egress be provided to the site. r • 4• • .y :r.' 0 o rJ.. . . . . , - . . . , . _ . • • • . . • , . , • ,• q With the development of the half-street improvement at Carman Drive, safe ingress and egress to the site is provided. This development standard has ,, also been addressed in previous development and Planning Commission reviews. The amended traffic report defines changes to the Kruse/Carman interchange proposed as a part of this request. These changes will be ' constructed prior to occupancy by the school. Other existing church site • access is adequate for school vehicles. n. 8ite Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways (19.005-19.040) The parking lot deign gracing and utility plans as shown on the site plan .e meet this development standard adequately for church and school use and complies with all regulations in this standard. This standard was also previously addressed in development and Planning Commission reviews. Y , ' o. Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways • --4. (20.005-20.040) • • This standard specifies that all ' required bikeways and walkways be ,• constructed to City standard. Careful design of the pathway under construction . ` :: '. . along Carman Drive has met this standard and, also, preserved the wetlands and '�.. tree groves. This standard was also t'. addressed in previous development and 4;. ' Planning Commission reviews. . : 5. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cuttino Ordinance - Criteria for issuance of permits, LOC 55. 080. This ordinance has also previously been addressed in development and Planning Commission reviews and conditional approval from DR 15-89-731, condition #4 . All work rttference this criteria is Under permit by the church. There are no proposed tree cutting permits for the south parking lot construction. ya, •, ® .... 4 ,, • } 0 . ry corNCX ?5xON This application meets or exceeds all applicable approval criteria as r:et forth in the City of Lake a Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Development Ordinance, and Development Standards. We respectfully request the approval of this • .,•, application based upon the evidence provided. We believe we have addressed all of the regulations pertaining to this development in this application and in previous applications to this site. • ,40 . • `1. • ) • J_ � 9. ILA i� •1/ 'n ', _q \ ' u '. .. ' a I, 1 ..71/5 flJdf7H9 .lS/.LdD'B.71/!�7 G.3SOdObrd t s r R! ! a .f3�1X17S /fldC�f190d01 &' .(d�D'ON/,1�A ��y� �� ` ' t • r ill l!11111 f 11 itili11111!! Ilrll(lllttt,lllll : l x :, '..11 7........„.....„........,„..,..‘4:........ • ' 41 II.1I .......„1„ ....•••••#.,11 I „ 1 1 , • ••••••••t.......,::‘,.... ••••••• , ..s...... . \ \.1 ' '''\ ''‘ .‘4‘4.4,:s's$,. I \ �\ _=:� r"��'.. "'ate s t , `� .,I.,MR .1� £.� j] • f /if 7 /z,... ' •0.1... • • ns.........4.........\ 1,, .."'•,..._ \ I ,„/,''',,... joi'/ ""••-"." 4 AMOMMIMIMEMSEMak • i•• ///://// :,;..V iiiiimr. • •-•4. ;1 \ t.-4---:-.....:-....-.4 1 \ il))." At' . , NJI:lill 4///14" '''''''...."' Pak! . 1 I .l! \ rit oi ins':- I �1 ;*� If. \ try \ 4 it , \ I, 0�> \.J f' /: =� I �1 rix". 11 ram•\.. _ �,i•4• � !II 5::•• PI/ I III II y ili 3- w .r r 1 t ` I 1 I 1 1 i• v e s; / . . . . 0 ' ,..:,... - ., i+ 1 P. 9 +'...'" i sv4 VT. � --�-�.- +-.�-s• -ire.e 1 _a Ip/ ry II 1 09eW i I F • ' ': „' I EIVT: —4 i ' I4t1t,T; 1 1 F1 y ..e I •......,1..f'k::,: • .MI a, ~ —la // • ........") ti -I- 1'•-. Ve/ l �/ l I � 1 /ii" A r C r /JIj. ii4r • / / • . . . ,.., . AfTia, .4 fir A Atsw :AC III n fin 11 9 1 1 ".„ i/IE1d ♦ ♦ ` • IYIir « / QI it ( ;1 T i`t' TiT �`�• r rARKI4e0 N o 4 ,� w.44 ?usT /Q? LIMITh Fv . l 6 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH '� •s .' —1..... PRQCIIM tivtr'mo PLAN T II y KEW B-ZI-qZ a'I.: �+ y f I ao INerg PI ► c i i._. } / I Y 1 1 • « y f iD215 1IMO7 9 i i+:�s rt:r•�•: /ill WL \ REPLACES SITE PLAN DATED 4/10/ 14,0�r / IU�IVIPE ASSOCIATE (NIL ENGIN N. I vA LAN© JRVE1 • 1A414 CO/ r'Mn11NAA1 t, • 0 0 • . • 11 , �. �...•.1`. a • r� �-Gt�APiIJG l-IMTh I ' IM•1•r�ia«i, w Le.•.��_. r. r w _.'ta"�'�.�•-•v U+ �_- -�-' ... •- tw�'-�---_.� —�.- -- - :'—t Ir.rw ♦40 r mar-- 6 P. II * VI 56P I 40 W. 1 4 11. 0 ..—.=. , „ . , ., •.- ,-..se..ssai o al° . IL. f .. l• I.4r 111 N err ...pm ✓a ,..rr yrr �� ».-....�«-..e___1...11 . ` ti rr . ,, I �► // ►, rd . ," .LI• ,�jO �•• •fit .0 .lW f' y.l I f/, p �• ,4 rp � 4 �� 1�• �' r\M • .err d'` r r'wr (Il7►7b �y� I 4. „Aw J r 14 ►n r• w•ijip llI • .e• . .00/ 1 : •:‘,„io ei ,./101 .if r ! 4. '• .' / ".:,,,.._ql ''41., *4 .4; 1 §i kL.,14, ,.• ,, , .. , .. ,,, • i Yeti:, , ,st---'0,:. - --.ft- — ... _ • ..._. /1- '11-1 .-\----A,.......a...f. l'" 4.1V \ it: .4 I. 4 g . ...,_ . . . .. ./ . ..._....„ ....._........„ ., \ .„. .., tla. / 1 B". liee-A-.94 ..'V II -....,, - \ ....,� n, , y rl /*A gal • Y „ ' ./� g" :0-47 : r-\w. a `\ 1 ; ♦at Ai41 l. Iop . * 0/ �f w 61:1.4.1 Ill f -4..1 ill"....".-..,:.,.„' '1'' ,. /0./9. 'r:',T'=''''='. 1.°4 4 0I0/IM1► % 1 y *..,...\ ,. TMMON 11011100 CATTAIL -z I-12.. .1 'N's 'N--‘...."N'"'NN.'.....N--•\'s-..'..'.'..'....''„\\\- \ . E".5..',."". p, , v/ q 11 r ....,..*:. � ' N —`"_ � XHI r \ , 1-\ ', ..r�rN.. N f war Mwl.A.* + .'. I il,ti,1.....a. i I , j� U IM�IYNIMIMMI /// ` Ate. s _ -> 1 El El FOR APPROVAL ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I, ti a y. ';N. • . - a. ..... . 1 _ it • • A ' IRKP.11c1N - .._... :, / / / _ .w�+...y:.1 . +ray...+ ....ty'1=.mQn >v� "::1��� 1 � . U0..9=oz1. ��` coiurn 6/0 .► !t! .r::". . . . / / •. /.1 . ' • 1• t M/M1pv1.. •�• M' • / / . .' ,'-i J. p, 1� t • 1 M %f...pt..... 1\ ..),,, , NOTES \ r ot 5 .�. ,,'Iti.'7:: '''i'l /,.�1h+W NMIIM./Y.1.1.1 rolwlrf '\>'+ } ``,�•"• \ J ( /`cVR I 1 +/',,,. YINMI NM w r RMM rN+M rwM Con..~mom Egilow i• `J'(� i\ .'/ rrt rwN.4149 • N.\ .. * 1.r ' • i ,S \ i f -n.t Er r. ,_.. _ _ / 'i I 1 1' i� • N 1'..� ( :) i / \ ' '/' ( 1�3- :',t7� 11 .✓a, / :k 1 lul.l�w, 1 / / i // / , , r 4111"; ,It- N . • •r,fi,,�t A ` \ �•.,J /r r HEAD KEY 1 f ; • ( / ^C r' • v rl� ,// O 1 r1�oINYNO M rI1N/111Iw1 .i ll `��`• 1. . S (.. ,�..� ! tfr E x H I I� 1 Y R_....M � Jl `y 111 \ • Ii 1 ZI s,f s / // r°O 11uCr./1111 IN Iltl H WHIP/111 ./+ / , ///''' 1 } ' '•r: "� r�`y'`,, ,°' ; r/ re "."'"'aggNit N IUIN cc Iu , r,, �� _ 1 �i t 4 1 / 4, m Nr.rrorNN,I.II N 11 MN IN rr �y,\ j J /'" I i rr e II..I rorNNllrl a 1/ nIr Ia11P ��i1, ��\ Y t! , ` 'Q „ r • 14wrorNIWM11 N 11 cc NN �• ',. / LEGEND Nolt& �� \ r /' (. (�J'� MEQb�w�i�. - J t /14({Wy. \\ ,,, jCHI WoMi WIC fYE 1M W NI N.,wW 16o.Ml ra rvc l wN b. akia:‘ 1'C II Vogl fC lr«rM ' I Ur CWIIr 1YC rr111N _ —yam IlrCrllMrK l"«YN ' '1/ r LCIM l 11 Irw"lW N//1vowed ♦ Li 1'CU/YIMCMA N/C•'wKCM < �. a. �\ ' ...GA-C ��ydLr �� t'M(r 11 q j d 410 / • ,. . , . r411.•,, ' _. . , - .. . , • . . . , . . „:,.,,, 7 . • • - . . ...) ,. .. . ., . _„:. . • , , • . . • . . A 'P V.1 y •$ • I J� 1''l�a'�.r 4 i • r f -a � I� r' , ' a` • 0 Y + l 0 ;� • ���1N''.—w,�.►' N� � l�/�I�iiiiiiii%•• :=�i�y �i o y..h �IM '' . ''. ' 0—. . ' . 1 �'` y' 14 %�%iiii iiiiriit.il7,�\ .. ;y4T• r . J.r, `Lf ly „4 ',- ,d R Mt3 •/4: r ±L'i' ,a Y� -,j� �� /� ll n# .1� ��' ~�~`�vr • le: l ,4 4 {� ..�,�,.�•,- d , 4�� or, i ft: l .0 l �� I �r jl r - / '______ 4 /^. (+� 1�•kt tr{ r• .+§t `I '11>/. �JISA•�C'� it, �1 I till. .. : `�t.44$ Ilk IN r- : �% VS 9 , �1.w • `h�. �i ''!'' a 6A►vN /,�•a. , 4.ilr « -- _ .,.,z4t74::tgr ye \N i.`. .,,� �;�, ri, , ,,;, .max E i :;: ,....\ �- r .. . : ... ., .....' . - , , ;., , ..:,. ' --2---- nn ���� /, .�, 1 i . + I I LAND N r. r :�/ ....:,:, ...., i,. .. ....:A.:•.,:t., ... . .. '', I. po ) ..:, . .,.... „. utis..tzi("acrpri a,,,, -.....'.„ ,,..:::::.:.,:t.•14,'„4,1,vc.„, 70.t 4 '• ; N ‘. 411N,1/41-ii, :''.1.:; .1.'".1!; :iifil r) ' I , . ' t, • s,/ • I , , ...L. ' \ . / . . . ...„ . . ,. 1...r.,..-:. ..4-4- I IP A \ ';te#4 /' ..17/ ;It' • ,, 4 . \ it /: u: . 'ice �S r I 3 x ••' ,...,4 ` 1 • iA. 4 /• '• E:'•..'"•••"=ter.•,• .1 r. „..„, \y� `� •�: �� �. V '• {.� M y, {, . •,•/ . . ... i.r.iGGr.r "" �,,, �' `11 v- �+ t.�f+ i nry'•.i SKI ✓ • • r // V ,� r..b "b ti M ill' rpy .:, ` r 1 '�t.! K+i..aw ✓ , •�•'� '�" k • A ..� \Q �, � ••�•4 h N N •/// ,lu +� ' • ►.e.•,1 ...,,...,..,'L. r, tt ' • / ///I *TA rain+ +�+••M �.V C`1 „+ ,1i��� , ..1+. , p+ ,/ •,tom...:`ti vim.. •" �•' :i� .•1, (• `//% /`�Cll Mdew.. , " Y. R] fL: -t •• 7;� ... Mttt G 1, ../� II I ,•�,,'• FYI , •.•. Er •.r•r ` ��i� ,, , / • • , •''• ,::*,. irds • s - s C`�. 1� gyp. .. - • r c C4 + .-+. - , Tyll' • r 1 _p e tl 1d. 4 /(/ \4" r Y A ;a' . • i.. .: ..:::. ,,. ..,...-7e..it. ' • 1,.. * — ur "-- --- --- y . 1 .. ....-, Ir dna 1. ,zi .:. t . , ' •,'• ,.. . , ,, . ; !............."4.-___....,„ Ail j • . , / i 2.1 Alif` ill lilikt b '•' I:?*• • . '.''.'.7. ..:. / !:'-''.. f•' .t F i / . / . • ., ,.,4 Arztz..tif .::1'4104 •ii - ' ' ' — .' '. '' . -* ` ' ,-*,,--„, --/ I • , ', A 14 1Prlif!'• . 'II", ,1 f I ,; . s:• :',' ' as il,,,..... / , e,,.:271, ' . ,,i. ‘'.1'.'.41 . . . ' . / ' ,••, It I / .;;:r,• .: , 1,Y,.',.'1.'..•, • T_ IIP4iI ., I 1 «<III 11,1"-. 1..„,,,....„..,,.... ,.. •. ...1 j4...... .1 : 'T.'. .. : "... ...4 ec 'I. . • • 1•'. 5 C, Ill ,/ r ,, SILJIe , SIbEWr4Lk.` � ft • ' Ilki► l �vl:�-Imol r..1- t..�}•,�.tizflttb'IC •'se• � w ... �� '":M'�"`� �;......./ • +. r I�I�. amr + ~ \ �� ,' ' 1 Y1,1' j.] 'ft ' del; ,, ' •• , ' (l IALL+.✓'• .,,,4 EXHIBIT 3r N.i •,' ,t�,• �.::: • •�. ','�•' `' � �� ,, � Y' •r • • g (2,05) - .. . • „.......,....,.,.,..„.,•......:..,c,,,,,,j,.. 4,,,,, , ,,,,,,, ..,, 4 ) , , . . • 111 •U4.YY 1 fir I Y 3 6,1. 3 I .1.1 rr.......... ... / .).1i/)ile. pile Alnl, I.fl / "an , P'• „1 I ► r Ys<t,�/;� 1 1 / ,_,.r«r/ c : / /f Ili♦ I / /II !Y.f,l ! '.1 f l»I#0. / � / I 1 qvS5� .!! 1 L ♦ L T q� a_ .�. `may �� f x Y,... ..._ ` L ti/► . /M us", b\+, ',� / . .• r• 1 /K ,I Y, l 2.t7., �� � f •1, - _^ -__._ r f, ` I � /rr�. /1 x,. i• -- / ►,t YH'•. (t �. • ,� a ,ti��_�r/.��♦� 1 K /, 1/. . • ! ' e I / I y/7�16 B=1`► 1e✓'•Jf}a+ T�/. .111. I i-• .... •�a/ d'.R^ i(t411= .-' .r• I jj��1{1 1 • ;;,y_�.. I / � fi' r.InR./ �IYwta+s !'!y tY• 1, .71 * �:'�• n.r...• ,n. .1_ t ), IAt • • r/e j�X;1 ¢ ! •• N IF/a�V ! 'IY/ 11.�IMw Twr L"lrtr�� s„ ..;: 1♦•�i� r- i r i Y 1t t ! n Mw IA . .1 `.-. .r-_R``i 1 - -Atli 1{. ( -n . 1 ' r/ Ii. » • • I 1,1 -._............ t t �ilh «, .tl y J" r.} n !. n me �- �" / tl 'W .NY•.•I M! 6// /Jpt.lete ,.\ / Jylv� s. .r• rz,�-� � :), �i1.v . •^, A rc.•I1ANT• S y,�•,IYeI IYtY.NiY•1 f 1 • t:.i,♦r: 1 V` ...•• * 1 it N7 , 1` .�.4- U M Q Y , sl 1 .1.', r \ ./ t. . ..1 �, »w ' `' .'ri`i w1 T.W M -fir. 1 ♦ ''". .. f , t ,. - .. r '� . - .«n 1. ............... e.1 r u M ' a.........-_..., i lj � / •. 1 i \ t. ./ /1 IlI�wi IaNu w`...uro F O d let '1 a \-+� 1 ♦ 1• / / �.1 . .. ._L'•s 1.1'»..,,.- . ' , rY. !I, i ,r-- . '\ i L`Iw t \ /�� 1 i I.1r► Q OO t. tt-.0 ...._' ,� �, , . .lei Z •['t ~ •*no.We r .. _ 1000.0I . Wa_•n 'N.•r.•„" �• \ \1 A. a.l l�� a""• +...w.. Z,1 2 M I I i n r 31 Iry. 111r4 1 Y kA tf 1'• .-.»..... 1 1,1.... iAt I . .� « Y �r�,.j y.r b' y 1 � ..� kl , .._... .. °j• ,I"T • EL-AN �, .-4 » IUYIMU a Fhl I'.Y•,p..OI �•- .r r•5 • 1 �11Y _. t CCTCIID \\ -.N %.. • , /i .-... .• .« .. .0..m .W/ •Inlet 11«rbiN !, ♦•ARAM kl. F...-..* o / i •..r _a. Ii 4 l W♦Yue r wu PAL IIY.♦1 1tiA..Wl \ (. tt..Il.. 1\I e....y • •. ' t 41.1.1.r 001 r l,,/111yyh y1•..1.1 rW•hie • 1 00 faY.ef l,A fie Y.. 11.'11 / ,• 1' 11M 0111Y1.1 r 1.F.1.00r WIN,J f1.410 _. y w 1 T a.•..- tt 8.+11.1•k N✓li I I:1u 144...Y hM . UIr1. .^�. 1..•.f 1• V W YN x l I J. 1 If kW t `.' 1 .• .. .J ;Li'tr.l 1 •1.I .«.a.... .. r . MIM.w rY14Mr4 41•M .. ..... . 1 Ma•l", WS r. ♦.r a 604144/ +1 na»Y r 14,1.4 .iY uu.1 .Wr41• ♦ uiw,tlt l:a/., CJ♦IIN:1 wr/ IH• /1•+Uf.•�1.11 Ma♦ u aa. y.Y:at 4,111.4. ó 1....1 w 1.rl•.1• 1rN1.N11 YI�� �1. IWwrN eY1.116 _..it, • W * �T1L �_` Al 1 ....a' ..•1 i /M M 14.+11 1♦�.+ 1�N.•1 _.- .•,.a ' ( 1,1^13E t 1, .... 5 r"I/ Ll'i a he L.. 1wu♦ UM6.14 N• ..a. WI « 1 e11 4041 Ih.lt .fR.aY + n • Ae 4 + 1 4 •. ' + r Y 1•1 f 1 . ,y . y� ` .. H' .. ♦ ` . -S . • 1 r• ;. a • _ x 1 • „ •r I• " ..d, 0 0 11 0 . . —f . ,,. ,,,.-" t .10 %..! Westsjde ChristjjjJ T. • Hito 0 .. .., . .. . ... �. c . . N- 1 , l . , ..... . . . •.. . .. .. ....... Lake Baptist, . . , .„ . ., . ,. . . . . ...... ., . . . . . . 0 _..1 .4, Church . : 1 .. ,. , . • n. .. .. .., ... • ,, ., . , .. .: • : .. r .. . . , . . . rcps.evp_p 616,[1, q:s. 1fI ~ Y I7V — EXHIBIT R ca54461ALTiottna is-$ « o1.iz • N r C.. . J , 'i / I , u I tI j •,��: rY NOTES THf8 SHEET e I +•- - �U Y 11 11/� uur+•• f _ I 1 • lr„„ •� • • I, ii r=MI rr I rr ur Ir rru cwut / r/�„ -•'"`-;1_ 1 w Iul1 uW1tU 1 r i� GYIUY -,-1-1'.�-y-`•' �•�.,�. '•YbTj.'-s�_.�.. 1 � , Q� 1•Ir 1 1..e fuwu re/ r.1ru /' Y 1 .'I. a I' r y�.�.' I r1,rlrr 1•A IUIH III;. l;rrun 1 1 I �` I'• {L•' • tll� I U Ill Ir1 ., IWIrI• r111a• {I. J a •� .1 ' Y! 1 •' ' } !1 ♦i '�• �f a. M,.lr1'. /1•In rr1 ui. A• ,�P r 4!f 11r1'11»II IWlllw w 111111u r•Hr / ' r 1i1 • �;• •+i•w R;u(1� •�ri. :" 'I)YI /,,•u.rJ •• )' ., �,.0 1 Cv , L1 VIrnMlnnc wwn la ruu.r• y1 'If ,s+r„' r, � • ' i. .�,il n'•• •'qt ! -'�:.V a ♦/111 •: au iw Mill nu, r•w nrun Y , ." • (}D �{ r Y u.1 i•u1.iw►;• u;•u,n rt. /� •� •IF { - } it„P. "` r! 'Y/UI" ' 4..M 1.•r nwuu Ii r•r,a III' w •. �r ! k i) n , ,1I1111USIN., 4. .0.4 . I/ -.,r Y. q p\J 1w pl Iw11 -uu• . tr/ .1r yl ' , �.3 YMI.1' 11 ' I•• 1 n•.•,.H ® i ' F I11'i1 i`,;'1 jou, Juw l un.•u u uHn, 11 ur „yl y -arlllr II tll•tr 11»III IWI r1;11 `il./ IiHl.l114114ul, rlr if11 - 1 .III••! I.h=•a' Y IK► 1'• ,'� ('• l�P 1 iyII; tIIlri4.1Iii/»Iii1•I 1 1'11 i/y'• (t�11C•1 ' ,� } ('��y,. (,1 ly.�' ` `� I �' 'INri!) f. Il+llr1WIII+w tllb••1 IU ,~.•\,rl„••:...-._L...`r,1i.A.:.�I- 1 L `�'li fr ;a ,W40•3•10 II, YYr Nh•1.N Iri f{ vu �+ rt rl••Irlsy • l �/ tM W11W Tu.W •i•ii n1 I ;•nl•I 1 ®�. r `/': u'� I IA .'tf r A � Ha1L. • �') iiil�l u 1 •1 1 w uu uwu++ • '�.'`•. 'k, 1 N~it C , r p -,` ,•,L it.:':."4.0 . '�� ♦t ' I r!y•"+'I• ,11•IAI•�the Yllul u.r 11 ru r»»Na1.;i1•uu t.•, `., V1�, kk++ ,+'1' IfON IM!al t\s r.11 • 4n,4 .\• roil 1..i.::) •i11'i} l,- I. ,f 4.1,,` IJ l/w11 � nH /l I Mwlll ' ' dl A �' ' I Hur1 . ur•+ +t , 1 rAC j4 •'- I �1I .. WYt1 a,Il 'u _, \ y _ •rft , r /•.r a=II�,,L(�f1J' ♦ - 1'�ti1 '12 ♦ `•� !_.. 1 �'-♦ + I, u .I . o Iiw I.wH Wr ;•1 u• r tulw; a 1�fY •\ '•f f`• ry�t'•N Il ra1 r•I .•w u / I v 'tll \`.• , .}.eV 1y,.Y, (r. y,f < �'� _ - ¢Zl=,i 1 u/HH.• 1:'�'t.: uI'11 \ \ t 4` t 1 g444 fIr i U %11 I,1 r 1 rlwn,r 1•u ru•Iu I,� \ 1•INrIr \\ 1• �R If , E■ i•H nllu 1111 {/IHr II {MI.1/ /���) 1•} •l�n.y / Y• }. • Ir1 IIr w N Iwrlfl IM,r INIIN ;.L 11 1j1 ' 1 �. rI•II'•W ♦♦ _ • � Nl� �••.I© 'v ; IIfu1111 IrlllWl M IIMIII wll . 311i •y /�`u M ,,.aaa J • ,1•I •1 ' �. •L 'I' . / •Il'!i 1. ur NnilltMll/1 fNn /w 1,H1 {N▪ , tl1 t Ia11 III IIr11111 I;ru 1 Ir ,1 `i 11.nHlu 1 u rr nw /u twHr I' j ...ova'. \ u{gl;p w/w1w7.11w11rina U rl tiin=1irm 1luu•n 1' Uri 1 ral :.g. I•H,w-Imp '•+ ,^y`• wi, . 1 /`FII q'• �' 1 �wl Nlw Y IMI MI 1�MII li. '� Q . t ' 11 •1111• Iflrl 111E/1,.•wH 111111 ,1•1 . A ,j :�l�i,,r�,, nn i Iwnu .1::„::'''nu{ .- •WA0•�4_. t�.. Y ! rrHt, fn"'i tj'il lu rr rl l;ltltln f ,• \ \ / I Q 1/ n,a11 II:):• 1, ulwutl 3 l!t.. . (( �• /YrN Iwl/11W1•, IM1wl) _ • :Linea. :�''•_' !/ ��,•'''�>� 4 M 1 to qi 1111•s HI•ulU r.;u 11 111bu 61 1�1.•.uu 11. ., • \� j N 44 11•Ir1Ifl111Wlllw Lr 11111164 1116 I./•u Y�7 uunu•mul • , `,\° ,y1`i ! Y W Y 0 Y.' • 0) Ir1111 141.11 11 111 ro11UH 1• �1 Il{�, ,1 LL ` , • /111 larw1 rWUHr1 r• IH1rU• (l l IYLItiH 1 IIIWI»I IM• Ilb/•Ulllw ! r uedtr DETAIL i '', �. .. III Ir IIIIIII IIIu III,U 1111111t i �,% I : 111+111•Irlllr a/f blll�••;nH. I • N. r vs. 111 L11 lr IW11• LI ,aids 1•ul • N J •�; 1y nlil r m I.r luxe/nu 11•r,•Illtl II IIWIIIr �'{'Fy� Lam{ AI / ' •�. -__ ,a ,1 ,I ',41 II 1 n ir,11 ,.., + wJl LF. 1 L>/'11I ILdI.1 • `' Qj .• � _e_ , rinn./ia u • 4 EXHIBIT /.••wIW•,m•,r +I..W wY IV La 1 ; II 1 , 011.15-61 04141103-1 t ;. E-1 , IIWI I1".11 6 M11 1.1.y 40 11 J., •I`. • /.•.r•.YII M+IMI ",, ' ♦ j •+ Y 1 a 410 1110 41) . • . . . r' y4,.. . . , u . . . . a r + ♦" 4 i /r0. . • 1.,., • 0 • 1: tip EXHIBIT r ' Y r Y 5:a,15-e 14.0 71iay) • / a r r �' t 1 a ; ! 1 ao, w �' o It •.•.S �7 ..1`N\i \\M. .d�,j y".,/1 A `"1 \"\6.41).NJ)fj//i4. •i',..- . . . , t01,4 .S' f door-ti r ii/k,A.),. ). . , , , • 4111.4( !� 1 2 .-1 1 .1. '•, . 1' ,t\ s P.y. L1/,1/�rj�! � u1 + •r�4 A J 1' 1�' 1,� J�,. -+' „__.. _ dill .' , vM.1 1 !M Iy,, ,t / , C+.i . ,s•<" i ' :w.t +, s". • . (}Y 1' y n •� '�" ` !, • "_.• y.,�lt',Ir•��-.i{I.`, r. �M I{J ,,.=.w 1, 1�j;T+ �•..- � y .y 1 . ,�. ._ti�/T��r1 -1�Ifirr.�:. .-..�..�.. '11 rfi�,.�� ; : '' i j 7Y' ,1. .(r,r �;'•r. 1 r .r 1 1►.Nw Towni ,,og 1 1,4 1 '1 nil SW 11...44. A 1 •:; .! ' �' ':.. ��„' •V .'1.� :: tj ;' '� ' ! 1 ,y/ 1 ''tl '� +l e.!+ert O 11f• .r. i .• fl �` �: 1 /.r"Y, L�,.,7/�'y�� 1 _ 1 Ir�! YI M.IUYNYW t 10 • .11 .....i.Ti` . in. a ?..t;1. j1 1 4 . ,�.1 !I It1w,Y-.- ,,,"tea. Lw« �'- �I � �:._I.+ _ +w !�Y��.��. I,�G,,I,�•.�� '1'.'��I _ ( t,: W W a , 'F �'I•,il, •�""��... -i! �'�, iF( �'�:it,,,,,,,=,. ! M.r1ru Mw • { . •+�y`� �" '�;, '�...--�_ .. ' ty 7�K"�'Z"'•^,"� '"�,M't., �''.T;1�� Hi . �,.tis...._ l .. �r,,,,.t,. x ) / A.).1V1*.° la II a • (i t I'K C.; In .. -f. a n o o u . [ �� [ C ['n`l a ; o ra r 0 II a . • • IiY...kiu._ Inv,Iru-oN v1e1ti,11r rl�r . (In trW Y �y�{1yy Ile,1! t'"+yy /\ly f�Kf!VIATID!!? P AWINtr IW11fJQ 1 * MYN r1. '1 r. INN,1�11,41w4 �..t.i ;A,N Fr.11, {V r 1q1 _ t. _ -. - _ y a 1iY, r .u,.r \4Ll8L'll!!i l rN .,yi.:'...- .1. ,tit + R ; ': ' 14 Y1uMMrr + 4 ,1 •• E. itrN' 1ti.i 1 l rl� ' :d. �! . n1 Yti...•ptw�y "" "rw.N d,»� yS p111Y , . }i1a' �.\,leyf t r: — ww.l�ry- j .l".111.1.. 11. , Mf. .w.►\Y. - I.'. tat!IL.m.1.t_ ,...+,•.W,:S 4 ��L''t' 1111r C r ri p _ r = t. = !i •1..Ii aJr r II. r1..W y • ; Il,a■ ixu NIYY1 rrw'w...wnY nl�i:I ri ta) ill a.'� ��,1. t4 i -_ p iiii . I,w 1 MI.11, 111 • % i 1Y, I1L/ (pt,Yv�� j,�„ H Y'� ■ rw _ = iwlr M11 w1 f4• F V : ! C,r! 11 C ..,,,,.. , 1 ..YI.11 ►y'nt 7I 11Nv\I I. :•.= ' r. 'ii ti '17..n" pH1• .., f.- MWI: , GIVel! N ��Ilwnrrr. r K, ri� 1�i11 ' • i,MlHn • ,,'j� _ 11MI ,rlll 1 r«t r i �' I ur .. .�.Y.` yyt} A1�IyR�Y _ hh,, w.M Iawi.� •�hY if.1/ t w .7:'IC,..I�. �' 1707! tl11NW l C 1 {:iwl:r� II" �y'Witi�r .rwrrl.o r.r ! n b _ — l 44'!'"". 1 _ .3-' _ —.., +�++.� ,Iw1 ..w..1A, ):::;..Iiit !'1 w C,� citi t ,vtAtt"1 - ; t fiylwlt.I«1+11.Irlr Si j,, Yw11 i„ t1" 1 1.N 11rr.1 _ w I..11'.r1 t111"11w r"."1., '•.., l�+11 r4.Jl,,(.`r��u 1/ ��w..M111 1 1/,/,Yr. y' ' .,... .�.. A� .'1.N;1.,.N +.1,111 1c�W ' t n "r ^ / 1'11r II�w 11'11w M.M1 ' 11 ,r.ti h.' 1 •1 1 t At 1 (Jt.fl,l11 l,'\ P 1A.,i[It frl Al! ! , wr s).At=i,' 2_._ W- .——.`.. _ {r6. ' /, 'mt.. Nw,.1:::......,,,, l 111 11 r.«.. �"' t, fWM. •1 •• �—„r i,+u,•7 ..i',�i�IMlV111A1111 4411,. IIr i.Y �!�!.Iy 111 11 �� j •M 11 M41.JIIYIM1.11 , �8 • ►41.4. 1.•fY1 _�.r1 MV,► i,i1 L.+: •,f' 11Y11,,,���y� £ rI,Lift."1,....tirv,„ Vt.W, I.H1_ r11lr,iu.'r• *mew. MIJ M r 11 +a..wool �d= Ywa Ywll k ♦. \IM, 1.1,. ..., • 1<.nrRIW ,,Y 14M, NW �'•Aro , M �i - •1 ti ± t' 11 "r..,l 1r Lwrlri'a 1"'� 4i IN Y. .1...I,.•+.I14.M.. ••+ ' .I.,u1•If,1`1,hr. l�`. III�N 4, l•CN-77141 !! A.,.w 1+,.,1"'NY\4 ,,. 1.r_ . L• ..ww..r._.. n ft.r s ...:.-., L ': r11�11 I «�..Tool«.-, ' a r, 11 H.w......awl / / is • ,. 1 1 TYPICAL. WEEKLY SCHEDULE 4 . LAKE BAPTIST Qy , i \ , SU?1DAY MaNDAY TUESDAY WMNISDAY TEiUI SDAY 4 FRIDAY SATIRE 0 8:00 li 4 _ 4 0 7 9:00 • o 0 o T o w ® r I0: gis M p�p� w'ro . ukw Ni: + nn c�v re- xr. v g :00 z. k^ aS w T , m �-oq "" ;; a. I:OU o P : o°O An4 � Z `` N �N -o 0 tLvb 2:00 N o �� r• .,CO .+ rrp Zia` '--A y v 3:00 M v'' N— U)= 4:00I 1. I I ,I 0 z . ., . . • 5:00 -a . EN TnUM N 6:00 a. Nv 7:00 , r 1 r r T � T L el o W.... l •w T Ltrf 40: Win . Jr: I A 8:00 t3� o Q 0 Ifs y r T nti yn m Mee m �" tlh Oh o Zr► a�+ • : N+ o F.o Fe in.... ,42p; • i^ 1 o y PI C ici a up oIn o •J^+ ~N Z1 RTz-rs 4Ns nN� b` -I- . 9:00 Cry 1 1 . ...01 0 1 o Io ®� VocWi°n "' V a 1 v 1 1 0 I 0, Io.0 1 , 1 I i _KEY: Activity Attendance—"'•"� XMIBIT Present/Phase I/Phase II i __II-- NOTES: W.15-Sq 7..qi%. T-Staff typically in office: Pastor 4-8 hrs., Secretary 8 hrs., Interns 2 hrs., Volunteers 3 hrs. Larger facilities will bring more concentration in Wednesday evening. �. During each weekday, there are deliveries, Y varying times during the day. There are lso appointments, w funeralsreach�yh are in & >.:� rc Other occasional functions are weddings, special year held in �.I<urch. 5 Fart of Phase One is a Multipurpose Gymnaspun/Meetcngfngs, etc. ,., g Room. , y_: _ •-W-LI 0.54' .4'4 r1 -1" .4 ' t ! , n1 ,,. Ar ,osi,Man Doe4ipo,!'L�eir.;ei 220 Tim Wear'bast 6331 W,Ri itawdem Aram PAatluid, 972O1•3887,rAX;S03/248-10',8,TEL d03124G104, �.c'.. •rt • DATE s .. CIS w Zd+ ,�..1.�.. 1992 roV//7 I T oF LAMS. Ow Y PROJE IN.srl . PII4IaI6, ..: ., . ., . .., . .. . AUIIT CT $ MIIEWNEELa ATTN T R A N S P4 1 T T A L • 0 DRAWINGS 0 SPECS 0 SHOP DRAWINGS OTHER COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION 11 INrOIcHA PW.:ffikti 5 I (McoMitnttlaTiot4) = IBco rr TOL 9 2 • 0 FOR APPROVAL 21.AS REQUESTED FOR YOUR USE • REMARKS 1 r, / "'(RE &VE.,. rANICk114exam.11.1T -1f t Me;, -r AccU „ To A . THE FRI-v1c91S l., ND- l Ke..v IM/4, lidk•is. rrI'oK .. P ItdGc •fi ' . I N C A.C.. NlJMteR a I! "moo+ CAR42 . ihl_ S. A4^T' Au N i uT of . RVIX J DRIVE' AND'LA44D 5.4 )4 k j.' G - RIIVT p It, ' rT4 VA+ 1 I,ILIMBE•es • `TAB A6o�/E.•-f?5"'Ja.L CcLUrP'*ME R4641. '+ EHIBIT 7 • Q i 0 HAND XMA1L 'i I7) ;$ FAX • • COPY TO , . „ FROM r 1, i • r, t h J ,. ... e. L # \J \ i 1 • v ,V a Y,. ..- \ yr-.iJ'- . • • &fRiP'INI� f'I-AN- �•�/ G,o,RfriAkg b • • • EXHIBIT .. 14 . . .. • • 4 1 I , 0 . ' I0 Aih filo, • rM a.`0 0 0 . .. / h• o .• \ 1\ i • 04. • 1 14 ., • 1 •hSJ. 0 ''PG _ � •din \ \ 0 \ \ )4' \ \ • \\.:1%,. , V ) * * .. • \ ,.-"7.--- 01-R I : . ' • o • 'A,s sue,,-"' ~`' *,,,,i. ' \ \ • . .4..t'.'''''''a '.4k's\\\\. \ \ \ \\\\ • ,# \ \ • El EXHIBIT • IS ..1.,.. :.) \ �;•� � �. .6. �.'t .� - - Sit ,. � .... .. .. .. :� _ . *1 Irk v et.4444a 4y 7 Ci� .—Lio :r* /. 1 \i, \ 00""" ' „e"-----: e ..............;...e._,_. . ..............:_ ______ 7 :,.. . . . . ,. i . , Vilid:. A 411. • ., . 1R t 4„,,,„/,.0.i v • Acu,--7-for ..J. . ,. t i . , • Lti.01,•Zr4•91 .*. Clif 414414,....., 4 4--->,........„.—cot. 1 1 * \ s i r --- �` •.. , /...----/ 4. ' ..--------- ...---- k*INA, gr • . . . I _ o , . . , Iii t XI 1 144 ': ...',. / ' S'� lSs►N et >1 16 ice, , 4' ll.l5 y N. WO _ ' 70-'4,471:00et,t4b 1 EXHIBIT , mad 11141 4. . 1.• *--....-..----".'"."4""*.L...1 1 67 ' ,• s.16.4g- Yb ° a . '' \''''. • • 0 Da i --1-4 ../ 4 1111 t - n • " Division of State Lands Permit No. 5566 4 775 Summer Street NE Permit Type Removal/1°1ff Salem, OR 97310 Waterway We ana aster reeK trio. Phone: 378-3059 4> County Clackamas County a 378-3805 •, io Expiratn ate ovemoer , ,' • ' 4110 A LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH �Irr�eAUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 196.800 TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS UG Ch.. IPLICAT ION SUBJECT-TO 1 HE- SvECTE-MM 1TONS L1sIEU`S rrAC 1 . This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The permit holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by another. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance with local zoning or other local , state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this permit. The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceeding under this permit. 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this project are set forth on Attachment A. ; 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit are subject to * administrative and/or legal action which may result in revocation of the permit IIIF or damages. The permit holder is responsible for the activities of all • contractors or other operators involved in work done at the site or under this ' . permit. - 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the work site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. ` • 6. Employees of the Division of State Lands and all duly authorized representatives •, ' of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the conditions of this permit may request a hearing from the Director, in writing, within 10 days of the date this permit was ' ,f. issued. ' NOTICE: If 'removal is from state-owned submerged and submersible land, the applicant • MR-amply with leasing and royalty provisions of ORS 274.530. If the project involves creation of new lands by filling on state-owned submerged or submersible lands, you must comply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Division of State '`'. • Lands, to conduct activities on state-owned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal liability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Division of State Lands, Waterway Leasing Office, 378-3805. •` . , , 0 • EXHIBIT R • , Martha 0. Pagel , Director �,0 . .% Oregon Division of State Lands 1 _ '. Imo.IS-1 woo 7..e b::-.1 November 280 1990 / ;" Authorized Signature Date Issued a ' a ` • b V 1} iry I- , . . I • . . ,1 . . 0 ATTACHMENT A r' Special Conditions for Material Removal/Fill Permit No. 5566 1 . This permit authorizes the removal of up to 50 cubic yards of material and the placement of up to 900 cubic yards of material in Section 6, T2S, • RJE (Carter Creek Drainage) for construction of parking facilities and storm water outfall structures as outlined fn the attached permit application, map and drawings. This permit also authorizes the removal of material necessary for wetland ` enhancement and/or creation, and subject to special condition 6 below. 2. Work in the waterway shall be done so as to minimize turbidity increases in the water that would degrade water quality and damage aquatic life. Turbidity shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities, except as allowed by OAR 340-41 . p 3. Care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals or ° other deleterious materials from entering the water. 4. Waste materials and spoils shall be placed above the bankline and not any wetland areas. in 5. Removal of existing woody vegetation shall be minimal . -° . 0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS • • d 6. The following conditions apply to the replacement wetland/ponds as described in the application and as depicted on sheets 5,6,&7 of 8: "' • a. The wetland shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the construction project. b. The wetland shall be excavated or maintained to a depth sufficient to insure 1-1/2 feet of standing water throughout the year with slopes of 5 to 1 . 0. c. The shoreline of the wetland shall be seeded or planted with grass and/or legumes, and native shrubs and trees. Trees and be or two year old stock planted on 10-foot centers withssomes shall clustering of vegetation. A total of 150 plants shall be planted of ' the following species: weed osier dogwood, chokecherry cascara, , Oregon ash, serviceberry, hawthorn, blue elderberry,►°y, and Indian plum. Following planting of the area, the vegetation shall be allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance. The criteria for success shall be 80% survival for a period of three years. d. A vegetated buffer of a minimum of 20 feet shall be established ... .• .. 41, bet►+ieen the wetland and adjacent development (road and parking areas). Following planting of the buffer area, the vegetation shall be allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance page one rT a r. .Y. ;.<• $ r u v , 0 .1: �r r J' Attachment A • RF 5566 Page two e. The pathway as required by the City of Lake Oswego shall follow Carman Drive as depicted on modified Sheets 4 and 5 of 8. The pathway may meander slightly to avoid larger trees. f. The objective of the mitigation plan is to create 0,36 acres of wetland to compensate for the loss of 0.29 acres of filled wetland. MONITORING COND • ITIONS ; ,. .; IM 7. To insure a successful habitat replacement the permittee shall , for ` ` period of three years, maintain the created wetlands integrity until • vegetation has become established. 8. The permittee shall establish fixed photo stations on the north and south « boundries of the wetland mitigation site. Photos shall be submitted annually, for three years, to the Division of State Lands for monitoring , purposes. CONTINGENCY CONDITIONS 0 '''. 9. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to require appropriate corrective actions to the mitigation site in the event the newly created wetlands are not functioning as designed within a period of three years. , 10. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of excessive turbidity or damage to natural resources. S COMMENT: We recommend the planted areas be watered extensively during the first growing season. Survival rate is greater when the plantings are heavily watered during this period. November 28, 1990 3449p .' r• 0�';7� a C t Jc,r hT "PPLICATXON FOR PERMIT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATE OF OREGON, D dISION OF STATE LANDS • SAS 0<parrnane of the Army permits for ;proposed nark is oeafgace! ng discharge of dredged or fill 'monde], into chomps wacars, and the transport of frdred edCere e rLof the rnaL for thed S Gtae, the Aumeias to into ocean vetoes Ara authorized by Section 10 of the River sad Herber A C of1899. Section 40purpose of the Sees Vaecr Act of 1977. and Session 109 of ohs Marine Protection Research end Ssaccuariee Ace of 197I, respectively. ---ithM.-•peewits for that pars of those project activities which includes the remove/ or fill in the vacazweys of Erman of rock. gravel, silt, AO der are authorized b- theraE 1?al.It:.lTIOtt ua.:. MEET T , State of Oregon seder O.R.S. $41,603 Co 341.6l3-« a Carp s of C- • .. . ra. R1 /,.l n f ai Engineers 1, .) i. !L� O 5LYL� _-_-._.�r,�..�.� Stets of Oregon v Ia y.•. • s .. � � . o :,tie received .4 4 ''�� ,� Data received • MOM o f Unnamed drainage to ti �.canr•vr River Loess/...._....a_., }tlLa w�/A Res• P7/1� • „manshlo 25 &loge 1 , s.t::a.cc.t SGarclna Estimated Completion h.!t• 4i °rules: February 1990 b Dace of Project SeDtetn �+r 1 gg_V . gAMrr or — — Amon:co wpPL:C;.�: Lake $ O ]sk Q �LLO11 ! .� ' A Fisher, W • Addreo• P_Q_ Spx 146S ti. : staca _ jj' Addreee 220 The Water i T. sues, cis Tower,, 5331 Macadam a O`iWegO, OR 97035 zi Are. p Code Portland, OR 97201 Moos.: Work r Araa .S_,.1,Q� WM-4R Z_ Rose f ) Phones Work Ale* 80W4Arne PRAM= sner? Wallin F Long Archs. 1: strrcnvlsoR Mane:Dave Fishe1 Ei Ade Ana 4y:`:. oosa Workf 5n'�) ?aA_l nag ttos. ► ' t F O .iR Tun i P RO•JLC=NWCorner of • '—_ i•, .,PPL:ci.NT Karen:flemavne Attu Carmen Drive and Krncp [lad a \ Aii2ru�aJJO SAC Brenne Stiff/, Count).. Chace �^ Zip Code ---.."".'-. 1.akP o. OR Q7035 ," � to ease ....for Portland, Oregon 97225 Aaaem oe'a 3ecarde-- 4900, 4990, 5100 i I shout' on Hap I 21 E5C)C - Tart Lac 15000, 5200 Mao": Cori: r 50.x »g'OJ Room, Area Name o! --� 29L fl , Subdivision Los block ".� .n ordrr to ex pedite the peocesalna of Ghtc eppLLeatioa; the follavi on,urisdi‘zion over the proposed project. has been concerted: • • airy end/or county deparnaent, which ku♦ local Nara of Department: City of Lake Oswego ' Addr•ae; 0.1..6 Avenue r Phone Number: j,3ke OSWe9Or OR 97034 r APPROVALS OR CERTIFICATIONS applied for or already obtained fro. outer agencies city, area) forsay of the proposed projects described to this •ppllutiont tlel.ral• iaceratate. date. touaCy, • leash ARencV s of ADPrvY<l City Of Lake Oswego Idaneiflcation I Dace of Application Date of Approvnk • R topnental, tU2-85/ODPS 4-87 6/23/89 Pending • • Procedut a (MD 6-89) t: . .. . tri fq r% 4. • + o • y a• V f.• 210 1 `r'Pone �30 Enclosure 1 ,��� ,, ,: zJ i r . 19Q0 `~ . 41-31-0440 t•i`. " . 1 , • Ras +tny agency denied approval far the activity described herein or for any other activity directly reLacod to Lt1 i ti "re al Na If yes. please explain Ln Remarks. ' _ , 41111- ' ' ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE WATERWAY: Give names, addressees and phone numbers of owners and/or occupants. See attached sheet. • �"� PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: your plans to restore the area to its natucaL condition. • • Refer to attached mitigation plan. • • INTCKSITION FOR FILL OR REMOVAL: PILL NTLI. INVOLVE 900 cubicyards annually. y. and 900 cubic yards for the total project. prep ❑ Rock Q Gravel 0 Sand CaSilt CE Clay ❑ Organic =VfAL WILL INVOLVE S� 0 cubic yards annually, and _ 4(_ cubic yards for the total project. • ❑ Rack 0 Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt Ea Clay 4LSC3IIE IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY---Eta primsry purpose and secondary purpose, if any,---intended use (private public, eaaaarciaL)---type of structural and use---type of vessels using facility---facilities for handling wastes- type of Conveyance and manner of extraction of any fill or removal---the quantity and composition of, and the -carts ' tad diroosal sites for any fill or removal. (If•additional space is aerded, use plain cheat of paper.) d ` • The overall project purpose is construction of a church. That portion of the project . requiring a permit would be used for parking facilities. Currently the site contains .33 acres of wetlands located above the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to Carter Creek. Construction of the parking facilities would require tilling .29 acres. All fill material would be clean and the excavated material would be used ansite. ..:b compensate for the wetland losses, Lake Baptist Church `•y � • ant wetland from existingPleaseproposes to create .36 acre of upland. refer to the attached Mitigation Plan and Wetlands Delineation Report for full details. ipplicatian Li hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the acctvitiee described herein. I certify dice t u familiar with the information contained in this application, 'and that, to the best of my knovledge and belief, such 4 1 infors°ou le true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I posses. the authority co undertake the prnpos. ' m activities. :C- :; /A.......9 \- 25\:;:..P-A Signature of Applicant or Authorised Agent r IS WIC /001 provided in part: "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department , , , of the QeitaslStiletto knowingly and willfully falattias . . , a materiel tact or rakes any false . . , statement or . , a ua say fate . . . document . . . skull be clued not more than $10,000 or !myrisnnei not more than five years, or both, . • . N E .. ' : . . 0 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH +: ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE WATERWAY George Berry Dominion Development Company . 5911 Orchard Street, West Tacoma, WA 98467 Ruth Tustin Burke 14575 SW Fosberg Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Caravan Oil Services, Inc. a�. 9498 SW Barbur Blvd., #205 Portlana, OR 97219 Church of Latter Day Saints • • LDS Church Real Estate Division 50 E North Temple Salt Lake City, UT Charlotte Knox Larry L and Nina Lindstrom 3841 SE Belmont Portland, OR 97214 • Kruse Way Assoc No. 1 Ltd. , c/o 100 Tamal Plaza Building 170 200 Tamal Vista Blvd. Corte Madera, CA 94925 Alfred and Mary Y. Ventura . c/o William M. Bauce 4403 Sundew Court ' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 rpropertv.ownj ' J \ C,. • ' • rL.••�ArLe. 1 • ` !. l0 1 I1 ti' . 0 .,,(� r r 1 . •..i . 1 1 A •• •:.• /may i[rj,•,•.i �� �. . ..;• e. • /'�• • {I •- • _ , • ..ten ••[""i'4✓✓": f:.. '..t rig .tI •.. • •� • '�• , -.. .. . .. ty`*.• .7 T Z S. i�L ..* r;' ell ""'+sY+• 6: • :� " .; n• ' Z ''••••°11•••n, . . • . . .irlE• 0 ' • :1/1 ' ; ''..'•• p ' .."— ' '''i.ad , LZ1J11t • 1 (:3-.1•.,:4.. • • • '...".....'". :1 .1611.0 it611;,I, lqic,.... . *. .::,..APW li.IF ,, • ! fli•••.• 771- • 1 i ilti.FI 4, 1,. ....i...?:::: '.' .1 •:•11 :k •'• 7.4 ,aly:, L. - • '1'1 V°1 leZ • • r i'•7I' ply 3 _ __ •1� - �� •,E' •ns �-�}.!�� 1 {( �a1 ^� a , Nw••i t,rA.�.,' �• r .- 'F)4s. -r ` 1_;�••_• • .i� •�• ly • f10 R'44•r•4 -1t F • .o t 1 :11:•i 4•14• 0 /)• f r • • 'ter^ t�* i,1 • ' 1! SUBJECT •'\ " _ ,+, .: W�\\ �f^'t, ' 1 SITE J,.- „_.�;,-`'r"r' r• _ l ;: •": A 11•,o...w 1 • �`C. l •• HiRh&h 1 II C • • 1orsclo ` IN� b. • d a �.. .•� r«— • ws+�y�•d�• ;Om [eir*t 01 •.i 251�• r /�r �{. •• '.•:.�.e 7t9C`-`-' •1 ��l/+•.way1 1 `•',i' 1•yl 'i. Ir•`•1 . kw+� Ira . . 1 .t..11,1*.• s ont,rit . .... .. . . . ,.... :-... ... .....pre•-"*:. 3 • , 44.QZ.4",,en. ill --7."•••• ,.: 7. tv2••• x t.�Ln�l... r i 6� :�' •r, lYb 'p I • / . ' J• j ! • .1J * �`�p' I •/ • LAKraMVR �t'�i �w I y ' .ii ,AYe : 1 gyp. ► � iy s.4•i- L A K E L ... Pub Y ,Y,c GO :t1•.e.,,,,p�,'}tJ1 ' + 1.Y •�•� �..?• •„� -,. �r .n//✓ �...y - u.." yl� • • � • o •-+ L Via• SOURCE: USGS LAKE OSWEGO, ORE. 7.51 QUAD,RIW RIE PURPOSE: • VICINITY PROPOSED CHURCH CONSTRUCTION ' CHURCH CI7NSTRUCTION IN: UNNAMED DRAINAGE 0 2000 FT. ` DATUM: NGVD (1929) austmunimmunimmAT: LAKE OSWEGO . . ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY'OF: CLAC KAMAS STATE: OR SEE ATTACHED SFEEr APPLICATION BY: LAKE BAPTIST CZIURC 'i LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET 7 OF r DATE: DEC 1989 • f' • ( s WESTLAKE '89 - SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING (PROPOSED) o � ,�L 4� cc d�Vt. a E s m rod o • POINTE SOUTH LAKE BAPTIST APARTMENTS i''` (PROPOSED) CHURCH SITE v`y� O • • . i*i::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::: 0 : . '1 • TO INTERSTATE 5 kRUSE TO LAKE GROVE AND HWY. 217 Wq CITY CENTER • • , ., SUBJECT SITE AREA: 9.2 ACRES PURPOSE: • LOCATION PROPOSED CHURCH CONSTRUCTION • CHURCH CONSTRUCTION iN: UNDIAMED DRAINACZ 0 ' DATUM: DGVD (1929) 0 300 FT, eresmenammommummemi AT: LAKE OSWEGO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: APPROX. SCALE COUNTY OF: CLACICAMJ\E STATE: OR • SEE ATTACHED SHEET APPUCATTON BY: ST CHURCH BAPTIST • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET.Z or : DEC 1989 �' DATE: • PRFPAgrn nV.?Or to Wurra ..mee49ry wi.. • , • \A ., \\111'4.11,\ N ....„,,, . . . ....,...... . • . , . .0NN.\\ • , ................N. 04,4„ \ (r.,, , , • .re,\\ . , • ----,-- ZONE OF OLD W44 • 27s PIPE/TILE SYSTEM /►l \ , / \ / .St• . i. . \ \‘ \ \ 4 . , , . . .. \ I ' n \ `� TREE/SHRUB J CANOPY WETLAND _�t�� - ARTIFICIAL '' SUBSURFACE �4 ._ _....__ DRAINAGE .� . N. 0. W \�O ii m F' , : / .. • • `mow ` j ,' kAVSE r h ELEVATIONS IN FEET no WxIv • . PURPOSE: EXISTING PROPOSED C -IURC-I CONSTRUCTION . • CHURCH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS IN: UNNAMED DRAIIVACE :. . 0 DATUM: N("V, D (1929) era s ®a AT: LAKE OSWEGO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF; CLACICAMAS stir IE: OR 0 SO 100 150 FP, SEE ATTACHED SHEET APPLICATION SY: LAKE BAPTIST muuRC LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET 3 OF 7 DATE: DEC 1989 rfeaetrsncn ay Tale in 4UU0T4* .+n+$1...4t.i •.... 1 • ! ' ' TYPICAL.S CT CIVA _.; • lNt7Rdlno • reaeorarny I. j I •�!'alMa"�'i7� yY� • .1.1111,1401.11, r • ctecw. � ,Itl ...� / Ar.)y , wA asat 11414.1111.11 rarts hi1 ( P uaro I I ,y6 OQTO1f1011 d1601 011AM1401lMT I FS Ye ma a , 7""ammas I\ 7. IH .11°, , ei uA/11®T a11ROL71 .. ✓ or a AMM N ROCK O .1 ..pprOM � wtnMNEm MOM OIA11 ' } . • . . . PRIMOfv�. / 1�. u1 3:+ r ° oAOI►R8 n�r.11ne�e stew ®�• I Ien. %nem rw.,.. ran, 141 Mee / 1 s: .le... �'. ,.. , .r ASI�t OA11� J � rerllsn v 1 / '?w.,�wrlew 10 MEMO I rx;c' lotausees w•ra w.il•YIl M•4te'oR. t wP111 w .es VPAaVa or rrwa r6~4 /caw Dams ""v MD RVAIh o D�ww WV ass �.. . c�feon �w lino r Wan I maw i • IMMO let 1`Y awew Mnl.e. 1' •r ikauld , ` � N1Ya1 I y 4• • , moron mum demo a,s�c,l.. It Y; rAR1A1� ...�',�y Mq YI,p, a�V�, 1 ' staonlolrel oflSmoll \ '4r-;1' CI // 7 AMA • WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN 1, I u~7C1 Z. ia ! imam el «aeww.M.r wmi LBkO Baptist Cl,�;reh Site • '. _•. � = r••• oat wnLM,o Like Oswego, Oregon V t 1.1/`]^5117 y e. •44, \ oa.lI.e ILK • N . A:, e� ate AA • .., al M IBrr. y= NMI NO Oran 411 FM L2 , t Sw •' t . •; . 1$ a , r ` i • • • 4 F. '/r'.i;C• ,e it., 1•i..4lT i.+fl t.I' A.r 1, •�t ,. • ', t .. . q, A . ^ - .r r •rr.J. t,•1 'r• t t_^x 1 ,..;1 xy • "� • +. `. ,•.'.11 `.. ` •� ��1. •� ILL Ity �•J.��p•.�•.•c1�Y. . 'Ik• ..• _ ..,. ,z„,, , 1,,, .,,,, ,,., • ,):'..- gi , \ mov...s. 4 ZIP? r • I . .•.*—1/.4;7 tr..„,,..---1 ,v.,---„,, -.- 51 tt\A L Ar)tri,,,-/..,4. 0 . r s • REPORT • FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH • ',` LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FOR FISHER, LONG & ASSOCIATES JOB NO. 14665-001-04 November 1, 1985 OaMeS '1:." . Moore . EXiil�tiT 4,r) • .• ): . o t (s-el ...� �... ,. L. i. It • 4 , ' Dames & Moore 1220 S.W.Monson Street Portlrand,Oregon 97205 (503)228-7688 TWX:910-464.4790 Cable address:DAMEMORE ' November 1 , 1985 . . . 4, Fisher, Long & Associates ' 5331 S.W. Macadam Avenue ' Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97201 Attention: Mr. David Fisher . Gentlemen: • Four copies of our report entitled "Foundation Investigation, Proposed Lake Baptist Church, S.W. Kruse Way and Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, w. - Oregon", are herewith submitted. . We appreciate the opportunity of assisting you in this work. If you I. ., have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, . H DAMES & ,E '• • 024.4.1 ti ' I ving Olsen Partner • i • 1085-2 A22 (3) ,., IEO/SVM:cab (4) 6 ' 14665-001 n 1. J • ' •:.r 1 46) • , /. an • • . , ^ . * • • • • 1: II ` I r C INTRODUCTION '- This report presents the results of a foundation of investigation at the site of the proposed Lake Baptist Church located tatil of Fosberg Road, . northwest of Carman Drive and north of Kruse Way in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The location of the proposed structure, with respect to P general surface elevations and surface features, are shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The purpose of the investigation was to provide recommendations regarding site preparation and foundation support. To accomplish this, the _ scope of the investigation included (a) exploration of subsurface conditions by means of 9 drilled borings, (b) evaluation of pertinent h sical p y properties of the soils encountered in the borings by means of laboratory testing, (c) corre- ' r J lation of the field and laboratory data with information developed by Dames & Moore during previous investigations in the vicinity of the site, (d) engi- neering analyses and studies to serve as a basis for our recommendations, and (e) preparation of this report summarizing the results of the investigation. The ro p posed building development will ultimately occupy an area of about 260 by 260 ft. It will be constructed in two phases. The initial building phase will occupy the northwesterly one-third or so of the total area. Exterior walls of masonry construction will be about 24 ft high to accommodate two floors. One hundred foot ceiling spans are contemplated. Cutting and • filling of 2 to 4 ft will be required to accommodate a finish floor grade of about elevation 280. Parking areas surrounding the building development will be established at essentially existing site grade. / SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions , ' The surface of the site is relatively flat, sloping gently to the ( y M 1 1 .i,'• -2e _.I1 southwest. h est. Ground surface elevations vary from elevation 260 at the south e of the site to elevation 300 at the northeast end. y .. At the time of the investigation the site was being used as grazing land. Surface vegetation consisted of ankle high grass and weeds with dense brush and trees along the southeast margin of the site adjacent to Carman 1 `1 J Drive. JSubsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by means of nine borings at the locations shown on Plate 1. A discussion of the field explore- .' d tion program, together with detailed logs of the borin g are presented in Appendix A, Field Explorations. The surface materials, to p depths of 4 to 6 inches consist of a highly organic sod layer overlying up to 24 inches of soft dark brown silt. The upp Y soft silt contains frequent fine roots near the contact with the sod layer • : I decreasing with depth. The underlying soils are predominately tan and gray silt ti: with varying minor amounts of fine sand and clay. These soils are generall• � y stiff to very stiff and extend to depths of 19 ft (borings 3, 4, and 8) to greater than 21 1/2 ft (boring 6 and 7). At borings 3 and 4, the tan and brown silty soils are underlain by very stiff to hard brown silt which contains ere- - 1 quent angular basalt fragments. This material extended to the maximum depth 1 ' explored, 2l} and 21 ft at borings 3 and 4, respectively. Boring8 I penetrated purple and red highly weather basalt at 19 ft which extended to the maximum depth explored of 21 ft. The borings were allowed to remain open following drilling to permit ,'• � measurement of �• �. groundwater levels. Groundwater was measured at depths of bet . 'peen 9 and 15 ft below the ground surface. A perched groundwater table w• as . observed at boring 9, where groundwater was encountered at only 2 ft below 4. , , ground surface. W ' . �. a1rr t� Fi t r t - k d -3- LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pertinent physical proper- ties of the soils encountered in the borings. The testing included con- solidation and direct shear tests, and moisture-density determinations. A description of the tests, together with the results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.` The consolidation test results indicate that the stiff silty soils are of low to moderate compressibility and are of moderato Shear strength. The Jmoisture cantent of the near surface silty soils is generally in the range of 20 �' to 30 percent. . • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E General The site is underlain by predominatly silty soils of moderate compress- ibility and shear strength. Sup " :' ] port for the proposed structure can be provided by conventional spread footings. The silty soils are easily disturbed when wet. ` JIf possible, site grading should be scheduled for the normally dry summer months. Site preparation during wet weather will require installation of granu- lar haul roads and working blankets to provide support for construction equip- ment and minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Site Preparation and Grading The near surface soils are predominantly silt (ML) with varying amounts of clay and fine sand. The soils are moisture sensitive and are easily disturbed when wet. If these materials are to be used for engineered f•) , it is essential that the work be scheduled during the dry season, usually mid-June through September. Performance of the work during wet weather will require the 0 importing of granular fill material, together with the construction of granular pads (or working blankets) for support of construction activities. Bence, site 0 1 e 4- grading during wet weather is significantly more expensive than during d weather. �• Our recommendations and comments for both dry weather and wet weather , grading and earthwork are presented in the following paragraphs. 1 • . Dry Weather Grading: Within proposed building, fill, and pavement ,.: areas, the surface should be stripped to remove vegetation, topsoil and organic .d materials. We estimate that stripping to a depth of 6 to 10 in. will be required. The stripped materials would not be suitable for engineered fill. Subsequent to stripping, the resulting surface within fill areas should be proof rolled using heavy rubber-tired equipment, such as a one-half loaded dump truck. Soft or weaving areas observed during this operation should be scarified and recompacted, or overexcavated and backfilled with engineered fill. Except for the surface stripping, excavated on-site soils, free of .".:.- A ..1 • , . organic or other deleterious materials, would be suitable for engineered fill, Fills should be installed in a series of approximately horizontal lifts, not greater than 8 in. in thickness and each lift compacted to at least 92 percent • a of the maximum dry density obtainable by the Modified A.A.S.H.T.O. Method of Compaction (Designation T-180) . The contractor's procedures should provide for ~ ' a uniform coverage and compaction of the fill. We anticipate that sheepsfoot or '' segmented-pad-type compaction equipment would be suitable for compacting the silty fill soils. ". Due to the high groundwater conditions, the silty sot'.s below a depth » ► of a few feet will remain essentially saturated even during the summer months. . . A. ] As a result, .care should be exercised to prevent disturbance of the silty subgrade soils. Filling utilizing the on-site soils will be limited to periods ' , ' of extended warm, dry weather when adequate control of the fill soil moistu can be maintained. The laboratory test results reveal that the moisture content of the near Surface silty soils varies up to about 30 percent. We anticipate ' . 1 d t i Y 1 A !� -5- •0 that the optimum moisture content for compaction is in the range of 15 to 18 percent with the maximum moisture content for satisfactory compaction on the order of 23 percent. As a result, aeration and drying of this material will t probably be required to lower the moisture content and achieve satisfactory compaction. ,'. Wet Weather Grading: Site grading performed during the wet season will require the installation of granular working blankets in building and pavement p granular areas. On the basis of past experience with similar projects, the g material should have a minimum thickness of 1} to 2 ft to provide adequate sup- port for construction activities and heavy equipment. A greater thickness of granular fill may be required for haul roads. i When wet, the silty soils are sensitive and are easily softened and J disturbed by conventional stripping and excavation operations, Relatively free•- draining sand and gravel or pit run rock of up to nominal 4 in. maximum size and having less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve would be suitable for use , r4 as granular fill. The fill should be placed in 10 in. thick loose lifts ,+,nd compacted by at least 4 passes with a moderately heavy vibratory roller. . ' Foundation Support L' Satisfactory support for structures of the type contemplated for this site can be provided by spread foundations established on the undisturbed stiff silty in-situ soils or on engineered fill. It is recommended that spread footings be established at a minimum depth of 2 ft below lowest adjacent grade with column- and wall-type footings having a minimum width of 2 ft and 1 1/2 ft, , . ; respectively. Spread footings established in the in-situ silty soils or com- T plcced fill can be designed to impose an allowable bearing capacity of up to 1410 2,000 lb/sq ft. This design bearing value applies to the total of dead and fre- ,_ quently applied live loads and can be increased by 1/3 for the total of all uT • ` . n . - , •:� -6-- ..:,, . loads, dead, live and wind or seismic. Estimated settlements for typically loaded foundations are presented on page 7. The settlement of spread foundations can be reduced by the installation "r ' of engineered granular fill beneath the footing. The minimum grading require- menu for footings that bear on engineered granular' fill are shown by the following sketch. Well-graded crushed rock of 2 in. maximum size and having 1 less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve would be suitable for engineered _I granular fill beneath foot:nl 3. y y, . INTERIOR •.• EXTERIOR ,- FINISHED FLOOR 1 MIN. 2 MIN. Ii MIN. \ , i .FLoon sLAB -�•i.•b �,a, o•�`'`': ..?ip` { .`p4941?, BASE COURSE ' ` .. ,��° � .ate ' b p'Cs ;bo•o voles.,<<Oa :n.��J1.�•�i3�. 'w ,�..pp d lea .4i:i itY...,. -acf. n r UNDISTURBED IN-SITU SOIL 15 COMPACTED, WELL-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK - 2 INCH MINUS WITH , I- • NOT MORE THAN 5 PERCENT PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. * t - THICKNESS OF COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL BENEAT• SPREAD FOOTINGS. DEEPER EXCAVATIONS WILL BE NECESSARY IF THE IN-SITU MATERIALS ARE DISTURBED OR IF SOFT IN-SITU SOILS ARE REVEALED AT THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING EXCAVATIONS. , • .,4 , Soft or disturbed soils encountered during excavation for footings should be overexcavated so that footings bear on undisturbed firm soils or com- 4' pacted granular fill • . During the wet season, we recommend that a 3 in. layer of •w A 3/4 in. minus crushed rock or a thin concrete seal be installed in the bottom of• ..- footing excavations to prevent disturbance of the in situ silty soils. W r Studies utilizing the field and laboratory findings were performed t estimate settlement due to typically loaded column and wall type spread ' ,i ' '' footings. A summary of the findings are presented below. Due to varation in ;,,, , ', . .•: i subsurface conditions, it is estimated that the indicated settlement values may • vary by as much as plus or minus 25 percent. .4 L .. V Estimated* Width of Total Footing Settlement � ` (ft) (in) A, ..._ Column Type Footing 3/4 5 7/8 . , .I Wall Type Footing 2 3/4 *Based on dead plus frequently applied live loads of 2000 lb/sq ft. 'a • Approximatel: three-fourths of the indicated settlements for spread foundations are anticipated to occur within one month after application of the dead and real frequently applied loads with the remaining settlement occurring ;. over a period of three to four months. d Pavement Support Following excavation or filling to subgrade level, the resulting sur- ® ' . { ` face should be proof rolled using a one-half loaded dump truck. Soft or weavy '} N areas encountered should be overexcavated and replaced with compacted fill. Our recommendations for pavement design are summarized in the following tabulation. r 4^ Y- I I. '44 .o • L • 4. 1 d - - I a - - , 11 -8- J ;,;f Granular Base Asphaltic Course Thickness2 Concrete Thickness Pavement Usel In. In. Parking - automobil p 7 2 1/2 Access and delivery routes - 9 3 Automobile, light trucks and ,} `� occasional heavy trucks 1. The indicated minimum pavement sections apply to firm subgrade conditions. .I 2. The granular base course should consist of compacted crushed rock of 1 1/2 in. maximum size conforming to Section 703 of the Standard Specifications for State Highway Construction - Oregon 1974 having less than 5 percent M. passing the No. 200 sieve. The design recommendations assume the base course will be free draining with adequate drainage to prevent saturation. This can, in part, be accomp- lished by sloping the subgrade downward toward catch basins and providing weep holes in catch basins at the base course level. If irrigated landscaping are ip . ‘ . ;.-,0: - •' .1 will be located adjacent to, and within pavement areas, it is recommended that t Ithese features be designed so that irrigation water entering the base course is minimized. This could be accomplished by full depth curbs and impermeable barriers. a ' To prevent damage to automobile parking areas during construction, we suggest that these areas not be used by heavy equipment, dump trucks or concrete trucks, or be used for storage of heavy loads. . , ] s, , Limitations 1 We understand that development plans are preliminary at this time. We l recommend that Dames & Moore be permitted to review the design plans as they are ' J developed. • The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are base on the information obtained from 9 widely spaced borings. Generally similar subsurface conditions with some variation between boring locations were revealed -I m A I r,„ by the explorations. If different or unanticipated conditions are encountered during construction, they should be brought to our attention to determine if modification of design criteria is required. Also we wish to point out that it has been reported that springs may exist in or near the property, however, none 1 was encountered during our investigation. If springs are encountered during g Iconstruction they should. be called to our attention so that appropriate measures , w can be taken. p. -040= . of J 4 . . y • • fJ %. • • 1 • • 01 . t. • . . • • \ \ r` \ f 1 Y'r I: �(� 7 .�\ ',is... `� •••., \ Mk\ , ilia .10. ' it • -�. ,a` S00RIN0 A `,�• \ :fir. \ �1 'e ,."N ) • y ...�„r 1 PHASE 1 e Ma 0 •,f...t-._-H:1 y I , �V p • ') .i.a r r sooRlNa T \ ] -.� I. 'he r.� • ' 9 _''• / __J . ,' OORINO Oor4^ram I%I' ,� 'NV' Y, P• ..., . , / I • /- .......40,--..._,,.......,-- —74r— :iii •"seORlNa a RORINa 0 / ! 4(• • •+° 'r` • ..:7� =..-• •s.4 r."4 t . ‘�eoRlNa / '2 '.. • • • 44. • 1 W II o 1 111Iw1 ip::a rg N WI Ml.1 III r�"r `-•+ -w•�'+. -,L •� w rat r=i.rwn. uu , ue rrrrma arr .urla s 6 t;3.. �' '14 f . I w.lw rrWNw 111 F Ngy"`••`...'7'''.. \ ..,..,•....i '.: .W..•0.•. ,GroGw.N turn moan Iul mutt tn.n•tin,II `'' 7�. r• It r,,n rp r.•uatutt n.ni in, I ` i' • =1:.•• �� t4 r,l .„II Wirai• II.a. ,r.., ..w.•i,ai.,wiir PLOT PLAN •:.7r II.IMI , O Dainci 3 Moms t rq . 0 0 0 • • • , . ` • . - .0. ., . , . r4 ,:. . .: k . . . . • . . ., t APPENDIX A ,,. - m FIELD EXPLORATIONS ISubsurface soil conditions at the site were explored by means of 9 borings drilled at the locations shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The borings were drilled with trailer-mounted, continuous flight auger drilling equipment. The borings were about 6 in. in diameter and extended to depths of 5 to 21/ ft below present site grade. pie The field explorations were coordinated by a geDtechnical engineer from our office. Our engineer maintained a continuous detailed log of materials and • conditions encountered in each boring, obtained relatively undisturbed samples r at frequent intervals of depth, and recorded other pertinent data at the site. . Soil samples were extracted with Dames & Moore sampler of the type shown on page A-2. Graphical representations of the boring logs are presented on Plate A-1. The nomenclature used in clasr;ifying the soils appears on Plate A-2. J J ... r .. , - ,' ,. , :, 4.. . ').. . .:, ''.:.. I • " . . . . • ' • J •P . . . . , , , ' ' ' ' III ''' ' : - . • .•1 t r . iM1 ` c. ,/-17,\N....„.... . 0 •.• . ' , _ .. �0. N. SOIL SAMPLER TYPE U 'DRt FOR SOILS DIFFICULT TO RETAIN IN SAMPLER wela OR PUSHING , . �. MECHANISM " COUVLINO \ ,. f ~�• �, RATER @UTI.lTS • - ' 0, ei t. N ET►�CAES OS FOR ,NI, P FISlIINa TOOL 4' ( lt/ CHB=VALYn 0A. li al. NEOPRENE 04,SJ11T 1 HEAD 0. s. • -c• "O %.• % VALVE CAG t NOTE, IL •NIMI IKTINVCOO CAN '^ • el INTRODUCED 1ITRIIN J, •r,.•A•NIAO•ANO•s►LIT MRRIL" • ALTERNATE ATTACHMENTS0 . IlUll ,, SPLIT BARREL _+ (To 0/COIRI Arw REmovAL . 1 I ' 1,. CORE.RETAINIR (l•I. .... '.,•"h .."•.--].•.1I 1 RINGS •1 i0rFs,/.41.s.•i 11I2t I`In•ILO.IT I•LDNOI r • . . I4 ,i .. SPLIT OARp • LocKINa-» tm coaE.Ae7A1NINa • amaI60 . DEVICE • SPLIT T"�'� BIT I � 1• % FERRULE CORI.RETAINING d '# DEVICE i•r 4. - RITAINIR RING�/ RETAINER PLATES r._ �• rr .� ANTI OTHER TYPES)PITO r 14 ' SAYFPIINAInl0 , a IE �•� ,� (INTLIT�11ljA1L! ti o .....„,....: . • r . 0 „ 9' `$ to , BORING 2 ell BORING 1 BORING 3 • el 0 r11 - Illlillaw MI III G 6 (�i 1 IY.{Y U rut n• ri• I nnla n1• u1 q IIIII ML 1•+uu Yn.rl luul«btn tifnl �•HI ' MI u.n ...'. D 1 n.t« on•N ■ IP«tl raal..................... N WI11IIt.1L�;At erl•w 11a Ytn IPM11 llr WW1(WII e u eras Mlurta t1eu1 IIII rlln IIW 1a11 11■11 i Ie•MI l/MfWtn tlalr /N.IL • r1IN /N NO w1 MIMP Illlll nil N14 rlNlsw ,le 111'ft • Il II I ML u1 alrrl IIII 111Y hill 111n1«1e1 nte110W IIN Nan IN Ile ran 1111 111/1) ! PIr111{II It ta«U 1U I - 1 INN 111altln IN Ya'1u. 7e1 Ia1K uMlrib e1 WrN r 1 n 110•n•Iq a WIw1 am t J M1' r' We1N IIMIrt111t r11N e 1 n(1071eW a II ill III( r rMIlt • ca«a MU Ma.6 Wlu Hull/10414111 Hael III•II ■ / Aet Will tilt•'ti ItA MINK 1ae11P lull) I • III•« • 1I11.3-.3 110e lllryl 11a YIIY:N>.1WIYIK.lee—i,ra (IIMN 1►A1M«44:It1ae111 IrNI • ! IIIN,IMIMle a 0t1•e r,It II We11 111 ,q i, ' i I BORING 4 1 / N« BORING 5 In BORING 6 �,t tel �IIn'�1 111 N I«U111 !et II IIIIIYI Me UIID➢ WI nor IIII ate Ie0u1U(Ie IWII Ilrll C 1 11/IY.1a1 1e111 1 « 1 I • nt.N • mnl I° 1 wl IV II 1111+1t1t uIt11 IIII YIIN elnllae IIIII ML lIr Ilaw IIn rIM f11aNN list ism hell t 1I : iv 1p/1el Gall mn ftlltl $ 11t•ist • �IIIIII#MLJ 411111110111 IKe Helmet f1111f le elm 111111 ,q Il �I NNE M Sea.IIII YIIY lei}SI IrN well Itrtl• !11 11 retie le tee iN ttt qq Ill•;1 • I • ret11111N W wl IIII YIN live It11.14 Ills 1101I 111•IN • - �•l G MAIK IIWIWIIe 11 term V 111 Indldll III t11•II ♦ I I INN II IN W 111ea1 nm nine*Mir C 1u I in•el II 1 eltetl ream MI/le stilt trl Ar J p i } /N.1a �1 I IIII ie lama lee Na Oat me enact WON uul II .•. j WIII Inll If4tla1 {iL Illlf 71Y • r 3 Niotl Mil to tlU(IIn 1`I r•rills Ilrn In tl•nl 1 IM q I Welt le nfYllll tam till elte 1a Wla liar i1n11N r! = /11 M nine Kiln l'lll le IIII!7u ){ mi.(IIIII{11 rile IIIN lnlel.i,live Wnae11/a111iW111 Ill•a/ ■ APE. j 1._. r eK4N NW I,U:V,11 Iron IN•q ali 1 I Sallee IITIWIIe 11'Hie iv If If Ile II ill Ise 1111W 1II11 t1a11111 Ill WIK tlMleille el:Me le/It 11 11e•11 Ill I I f BORING 7 BORING 8 __ "' BORING 0 be Mnet1Y1 nn IN 1 q u 1 li rellee rli pp ' .. IIIIII®eel INY Wa 11N W111ea lire 1011 Well 111/11 q nu I ji 1«Yawl +.' ;• O INNIb Ili as HIWIIIIII Ib a4 11111 1 ®«Noon Iva':tin 1NlSIl it.,611411,Ie11 • �itr 0l lit•IW ■ .1111r Winn ea 1011111 win len 1WI11K I1I11 Illlll to IIIN tf It/ 111•B I,' Willy IN MO W1 IIII Yld IIII If11NK Ili 111 10 del /11 =t ((11� /MI Mser Iijtul t/llil IIII 110111 IP.q N ttoo �n(�t tree 1 WrW Wa•11•W IIIUIII "aI 1+IN ua WIti.lok N.oloa.t No.oN It ,1• t llt•n d tan Ib IN I.a IInnW 111/I Illlll • e In r 111 WIeIIIMIMIIIe`7111Nr • 'I e III•11 ■ Moll dbly{IIII !1 t 61111 Hill IW tI.111 1W Y'1 P t Wlll lnll WWbt11 *� h1 161"1{ • WtlII IIIWnt tUiU KEYS 111II $ We tUl WIII°lilt Ills lea 1111114 IM WNN11 111111 Y• • ` Ill 11 II llel IIIII) M71 1 revel IIn I lode e • S 4_,.*aM11 el Mai Pawnee II 1e1 ter le •' 1 ' 711 1 1 SIN IN/1W Nina Ie1iiK I:le ell ■ Ia1 11w1Y/Irr11 !W 1 6161 IRO tlIN111:1 On lice 11eI/1W IV rYN111{Illlll) 111Iwn I I S II Illlll® I«t/IIr1I 1i1r1INPa NIIII/WNI 1y1111/11t Ie+I/It11M111W M eUN11 Ilt II • 1 1€llllll� /✓ell W 116 Nllelt Yl1ie(IIb WYII'NMI 4ryalln INI!«IW litn111r1 IIII Wil WI.U • 1 lu e111fw lsilet.1 YI WII"IN' • IWIK Ilrelu'1;I NIN W hill li Ile ll taw Ni 1e H.--11 II IY MI rKlll,IIHY 11 1 lank t11nIUlU II NM r tl n Ilrtl-Itl LOG OF BORINGS borne'4 Moore? • • w. ' t e„ ri 6" �. A SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART • n•oe•11n1w 00~ INTI• Ire lNc�nY>,• GRADATION CHART IYY10l 1\YIOI yyyy \�,- �.11 f•i‘ ;PUM••Y.1••Y.••• /1CIKlf llif •. •• •.r w•11..1um•w•r 0001000 S faj}1��� � YIllM.11 slit lOP1�1w.1 1MIIII tw.I + •1wN\ Iiw11«'� MIT{I IOM1\ear/w•.•u 1'10.1r11111 1001141• wl1•l11.1 1NH YII• �7. 0. ..glut Ili 11,E wlYilllnnt /� •.iY I01 •11 •Iw• 0.1 •41• -a /' 1M• Y W.MYMO.1t\ •. M ••1 •N• 100 •0• • rwt ID.Y1 •u•INrM1w11 " Wr i •1"Y1 /p10SON11 f •N• •1. ••• .. •1 MMrIMC ' 1OYl 11011 :IOW .01F .1WY +, li .��•~ Iwl /N ..• NI 11•1 OC t1M r lime I0..11 __III I.. III 1•• 10.h11 N• "TT--_ N1• 4• t •, ••: .,•4.,.N•1.rN1••wal\ •P•N.l 111• I• M• N' n IIY 1.9• IN 1.w•.LIMO. .al •0 l 111•N11 .11/N/w1u/•NYwt1 k �� :•I:1 ••�1 •If111••.0 IMII I IOU \ 100.11•.tlf•Yr•0001 •.' CDomll NnNN% 1 r l•1Yo•.Uf11004.111 y - f v1191\`' ,'1I11 • •Y••r1Y11•11 ^D "'•" "000.0... ��IJ PLASTICITY CHART.•..iaF1F9 ��� K ,.:\Y1,1NL.1a,1r•h•\ 1 /j' I/OWO IIYII /I m to „ l t7. N 10 10 m 4.1 •now•.s W h.11 w\Ir• II II W 10,.OR•1•N•..111.1 • • h4N\IY t•.r01 h•\•1 M.11rMN W\1{MMf\ • 1 M10.1KtVN001..R 10 r. __.a._.•us. ,.\. 1 ;• rN Ilgn::•1i , n C.V.••.•.0,001wn1r CH t1•11.1101/11•12 • j,j,.1;t•, IK 100 M11P 1.A.1.1.00 V f{ettt,J wON•.•Wh rtK\M0M4 _.. •YI n11p1•t•P•/W MM•P A CL I -_ Y11\1011 II N1 •1MI M.•N• `1e `- nMT1M114 DIM 1,0.01w1 1wl..cn•11w �..• 1�9im M0 u:N w•nq\u.•N � :• cN rw11c1n INtuN t' YH 9 OH •. C •• {1(j`• i �a+.N nlNwlwP•rn • ��"'-••f). I11 .N n•10111v 0.•0.0 6411• S1•h I ML 0 01. .. sue. I, 1w1111014..4 1••03': IT N.i...AIt.ar ra•1rn _. ` i I+W OWnt R•11Wn MOTIF 1 4.Yrwd01M 0110 M.10cut1•Po11.M UOtWNIic•• SAMPLES I•M•YN0.Sr M 114M UN.t1N rotten.,1 w la NI11.11wI1 IM IO1M1111i1 VIta•11M/I►1 M/q 0t11i•/ N•I 100114.0.611 1n 1 S r n•ulll Wit1W00.0 , . 1II 1$5 •1••.ii 1 1ou t0111M IN/ toe N/Nw110 Una ••c11111Y•11111\11W son•llt10.ln 10MN.r111 1140.00 11«.1111Q111 M iw.•DD1 • 1 .111� 11Jlt1_ Yet= • VI•f\".' uN +N n N•/1011 IMny1I I.t YY+.10 K rImY00/OYt wnlbY W11.101M 1/YNII w • • 1�11.1 mn :11I�111 WNW111•N 1441145Ll�wti, I•ItN1011M INI Nwr.11 .1 Mf•I1.110 • • I100 11 N 1• 0111 NM I.l\N•I NM5• Silt 11►I II N•♦ HM Mid p ••t1 CI,0.101104 N•Y\•1 'P 1 Inta UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Demos&Moore 1 r 0 • 11i Ylrk t',1 • . _ •1 APPENDIX B • LABORATORY TESTS A series of laboratory tests were performed to provide information regarding pertinent physical characteristics of the soils encountered in the borings. Tests performed included a consolidation test, strength tests, and moisture and density determination. A consolidation test was performed on a representative sample of the .rr v upper silt to provide information to be utilized in settlement analyses. The • test was performed in the manner described on page B-2. The results of the test are presented on Plate B-1. Direct shear tests were performed to provide information regarding the shear strength of the undisturbed soils. The tests were performed in the manner described on page B-3. The results of the tests are summarized in the tabula- • r 1 tion on page B-4. 1. Field moisture content and dry density tests for correlation purposes were performed on a majority of the relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the borings. The results of the tests are presented to the left of the boring logs on Plate A-1. • • • • • :rJ • 1 . ' • to 1- B-2 METHOD OF PERFORMING CONSOLIDATION TESTS * . ''''. I. j CONSOLIDATION TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO EVALUATE THE VOLUME CHANGES OF SOILS SUBJECTED • TO L`CREASED LOADS. TItifE-CONSOLIDATION AND PRESSURE-CONSOLIDATION CURVES MAY BE PLOT- "I TED FROM THE DATA OBTAINED IN THE TESTS. ENGINEERING ANALYSES BASED ON THESE CURVES u JI , PERMIT ESTIMATES TO BE MADE OF THE PROBABLE MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF SETTLEMENT OF THE TESTED SOILS UNDER APPLIED LOADS. .. EACH SAMPLE IS TESTED WITHIN BRASS RINGS TWO AND ONE- .3' :. , 7 • -y HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE INCH IN LENGTH. UNDIS- ,.ds i TURBED SAMPLES OF IN-PLACE SOILS ARE TESTED IN RINGS ,, ' r1 .'f 1 N� ` Sr • TAKEN FROM THE SAMPLING DEVICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES ' WERE OBTAINED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOIL3 TO BE USED IN w},:: � ir,_ , , ►t� ' CONSTRUCTING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO ' PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED. 6. • 1 IN TESTING, THE SAMPLE IS RIGIDLY CONFINED LATERALLY r' J BY THE BRASS RING. AXIAL LOADS ARE TRANSMITTED TO THE DEAD LOAD-PNEUMATIC CODSOLIDOMETER a ' ENDS OF THE SAM:'LE BY POROUS DISKS. THE DISKS ALLOW DRAINAGE OF THE LOADED SAMPLE. THE AXIAL COMPRESSION OR EXPANSION OF THE SAMPLE IS Y 1 `,IEASIRED BY A MICROMETER DIAL INDICATOR AT APPROPRIATE TIME INTERVALS AFTER EACH ,' LOAD INCREMENT IS APPLIED. EACH LOAD IS ORDINARILY TWICE THE PRECEDING LOAD, THE IN- trl •F■ I CREMENTS ARE SELECTED TO OBTAIN CONSOLIDATION DATA REPRESENTING THE FIELD LOADING 'y y CONDITIONS FOR WHICH THE TEST 15 BEING PERFORMED, EACH LOAD INCREMENT IS ALLOWED TO c: ACT OVER AN INTERVAL OF TIME DEPENDENT ON THE TYPE AND EXTENT or THE SOIL IN THE Ask • „ r` • ^4 FIELD. z o • . y • • ti b I • j B-3 R V METHOD OF PERFORMING DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS rf. .. . f r DIRECT SHEAR TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE r '''•'• ` "" r' ' jrl tip„ . '., THE SHEARING STRENGTHS OF SOILS. FRICTION TESTS A t••44.,4• .• ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE FRICTIONAL RE• i.y... '�d 4� r SISTANCES BETWEEN SOILS AND VARIOUS OTHER MATE- • RIALS SUCH AS WOOD,STEEL, OR CONCRETE. THE TESTS . .•1 - �'; r �+ARE PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SIMULATE (, 1 ANTICIFATED FIELD CONDITIONS. • EACH SAMPLE IS TESTED IN A SPLIT SAMPLE HOLDER, I r � •' TWO AND ONE•HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE ,r, INCH HIGH. UNDISTURBED SAMPLES OF IN-PLACE SOILS ARE EXTRUDED FROM RINGS TAKEN FROM THE SAM- PLING DEVICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES WERE OB- DIREICT SHEAR APPARATUS WITH > ' ELECTRONIC RECORDER R ,' TAINED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOILS TO BE USED IN CON. STRUCTING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 1: A ONE-INCH LENGTH OF THE SAMPLE IS TESTED IN DIRECT SINGLE SHEAR. A CONSTANT PRESSURE, c.` ' APPROPRIATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE TEST IS BEING PERFORMED, .'.R �..+�.. ' V APPLIED NORMAL TO THE ENDS OF THE SAMPLE THROUGH POROUS STODf ES. A SHEARING FAILURE OF THE SAMPLE IS CAUSED BY MOVING THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER IN A DIRECTION PERPENDICL'- p'. LAR TO THE AXIS OF THE SAMPLE. TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT OF THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IS PREVENTED. • THE SHEARING FAILURE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING TO THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER A CON• �" • STANT RATE OF DEFLECTION. THE SHEARING LOAD AND THE DEFLECTIONS IN BOTH THE AXIAL AND -,., 1 I TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONS ARE RECORDED AND PLOTTED. THE SHEARING STRENGTH OF THE SOILS IS DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTING LOAD•DEFLECTION CURVES. FRICTION TESTS, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE :HE FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE BETWEEN SOIL AND THE SURFACES OF YAM. • ,p OUS MATERIALS, THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IN THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST IS REPLACED BY A DISK OF THE MATERIAL TO BE TESTED. THE TEST IS THEN PERFORMED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE tr1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST BY FORCING THE SOIL OVER THE FRICTION MATERIAL SURFACE. fal , I a ,, I ah B-4 1 SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS SAMPLE NORMAL SHEARING STRENGTH 1 . • SOIL DEPTH PRESSURE LB/SQ FT BORING TYPE* (ICI') LB/SQ FT PEAK ULTIMATE 1 3 ML 2} 500 860 340 4 ML 5 1,500 1,060 820 6 ML 2+ 1,000 1,180 420 • e 6 ML 5 1,000 660 520:.t ' ' A .. . , . , . 7 ML 2} 1,500 1,410 ' � .l 8 ML 5 500 420 280 • . * Unified Soil Classification System I . • •� ,l 1' • • .\` 41) ,.. . . iii • , 0 f i . �'a a. .�� .co$ Pf126SURg IN 164 /S0. FT 14 .. i ! III 1 i .o: I ,„: _ . _ . . p` a a • I f j ; i B 1• 1 I o�rsmr.,� I I I I I I ' i. 1I ' • • lj SAtvPL.E SOIL MOISTURE CON1 ENI' - '6 I DRY DENSITY -PCF- BORING ELEVATION SYMBOL BEFORE ( AFTER BEFORE AFTER -FT- TEST TEST , TEST TEST } j a 7 2104 ML 30 28 90 96 ; ' , % '. •••, • f• i I CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA, uawraar■ a racoons," , • • Form Ten H Arm Mount Form Ten H:Simoitciry of form is J combined with soonisticated design v • '` r corcatlts achieve great strength to , , wer;,r:t ratios resulting in a family of luminaires with aestnetic aooeai and 4 a - unusual durability.Luminaires are 4� N� ' d arm mounted and are available in v i`� one-way.two-way and tour-way y' u , configurations in three sizes with HID p ' lambs from 70 to 1000 watts. ti Configurations 1 2 4 ,: } Distribution Patterns Type I ii�` Type FM ja. Type III Type VS, r n • N , Type'VS is not available 1' ,, I( r ,c h •1 ,J.' !+l;n/•,t,•F '.albR t '.r re `,.. .40--"f���'y�.. r.',.� Type V0Ilair in 14"or 1000W HPS. • ^.,: Yp Supplied with sag lens. see product details Pg.t T, '• ., Ordering Information Example Pre Sias Configuration Reflecaor Volts I Lamp Finish Reflector , Printery Banas: . H 14" : 1 •• 1 120 Refer to BRP I Volta;e 19 r H " ' 2 3 208 Lamp 8LP Configuration! t.arro �', H 26" ? 4 0 240 Selector NA• ! r art!^ • l t VVSSS 480 9L BRA.A• I �...� Prefix 1 I Cottons 'Anodized finish available only in 26"housing. I I Lamp Selector H 19 2 3 120 490MH BAP rommoommet 14"housings 19"housings 26"housings Finish: + TOW HPS 1000W HPS•• NA am Natural Anodize (2n"only) 100W HPS 250W MV 1000W MV BRA••Bronze Anodize (26"only) 100W MV 250W MH 1000W MH BLA a Black Anodize(26"only) - t.; ' 150W HPS• 400W HPS BRP.Bronze Painted 175W MV 400W MV BLP a Black Painted 175W • MH 400W MH Lamp Abbreviations • `�. 'Supplied with lutist to operate 55 volt MV at Mercury Vapor tame unless specified otherwise, HPS m High Pressure Sodium i''". "Not available in VS. MH 24t Metal Halide • C • bSM'1."....OAd...n �. ; w1 -P 1 CFI .. . p y Ma00.."Y : 1 .. ri1144;Nary. AMP:::: L.� MYg •. Nf 1 1, ' 'at�� � , � l u far e �i htin �--- Design Temp o g 9 Scale. t3 . '.,. Use thin master to reproduce working templates ^ Watt w, ' ® , ® � ' Hlgh Pressure 3odiu • MINIM ,• ®' ®19H13 • a 819Fi4T3 / . * ', . a , ..: . \ . . , . , B19H13 b� ii- V I l ' IL, � • (� A TYPE ill • v.<,: ®sa NMI s® MIN IN sin mai lem INS no ow Ns nu ON 11111 INS S Pm" il `40® 1 if ,,,' U „. ,. ‘ I .• . , 1 ' I E319H23 t, 1 . B19H4T3 .� V. b J f ® 1 .,:,itiiit , / ; . • \, . i . . 444%4 . -. loof , ..' if i .1 . 4 I ll.h 2511„��. TYPE III 011 mg® sso cm r ima se bss ® MS — NS Ns MO • • • a Gardco Lighting ►' mCooynght i977,Gardco Lighting, Inc, 2661 Alvarado St., San Leandro. Calif 5,14577 • Form Ten Yoke Mount • JEH Style(Extruded) JH Style(Fabricated) ti r ;. Form Ten Yoke:A co-axial mounting ` , method(utilizes a uniaue yoke support y , v • r which appears as a floating reveal / ' , f i:�' ' r complementing the clean cut " T • • • J. . contemporary styling of the luminaire 1 ' .• • • i housing.Used in conjunction with : . `' w Garddo's array of optical systems. sizes. diffu.sets.luminaire anti lamp �.- 1 i it ., � / Distribution Patterns Type! ' 111p6 FM i • Type III Typo Va Fi t 1 • • Ordering Information . Example Pmfix Size Configuration Reflector Volts I.amo Small • JEH 14" 1 1 120 277 Bestir to NA Reflector Type Primary avast • 410 J'-J•i 19" 3 208 480 Lamp BRA Configuration' Voitaca ,�mo JH 0 240 Selector BLA 28 FM SIN— '—=nnn JH 14" 1 1 120 277 Pieter to BAP Prefix ! .;:-s 19" 3 208 480 Lamp BLP Dot os wa 26" 0 240 Selector FM JH 19 1 0 120 400MH 81:1P Lamp Selector Finish: • NA m+Natural Anodize ; " 14"hou,sings _ 19"housings 28"housings 8RA a Bronze Anodize . • 70W HPS 250W MPS 1000W HPS �.. BLA=Black Anodize 100W HPS 250W MV 1000W MV BRP a Bronze Painted . 100W MV 250W MH 1000 MIA BLP 213 Black Painted 150W MPS* 400W HPS Lamp Abbreviation= 175W MV 400W MV MV=Mercury Vapor • 175W Mlt 400W MI-1 HPS=High Pressure Sodium 'Su id with ballast to operate 55 volt lamp unless scaati5ad otherwise. MH"Metal Halide am sea..aseaseear 106 i FAI2 tit< Ir414 . . (-----________.. ,..._„, 1 N'aren forz, I "' III': .4' ' 'N Lt4TN Mti�»rMLJu.w INS f wo Nwa w 4..agai.i1.f.y 4°4 • • Gardco Lighting — Design Templates Scale. . 4 .. Use this master to reproduce working templates High Pressure Sodiur Oki : '4 .' ,.. A1GH2 T`fPE VQ , ® fir • • • � ' . :6 . * A19H1C r 1 . j . t"..".".'"" ,', a : � r . • i . 2iiH2Q ' • 1 b c i - — f . i ' . I ® .. ® ill ® 1fl ®a„g ,®,, ' .: • Ir®' i • • , N Nie „■, em, r. 64 • '.vn ....,... .. �... : �ardco L.;ntms. Inc, Col Gardcc Lighting !�. a: -w 411 .yy "�� war .: �i �v1^ �. ,� d10. ._ ..:..gin BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ( 'THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ti . • 3 . 4 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ) CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. ,' 5 A MODIFICATION TO A ) 4-92)-960 CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL ) (Lake Baptisr Church) 6 AND AN ODPS TO ALLOW AN ) FINDINGSt,CONCLUSIONS &ORDER. i' ., : 7 EXISTING CHURCH TO BE ) USED AS A HIGH SCHOOL ) '. ° 8 °. ' 9 10 NAITME OE AP LIC TION 11 The applicant is requesting modification of an ODPS approval and expansion of a 12 conditional use permit,previously given to allow a church (Lake Baptist). Approval of 13 these requests will allow a private high school (Westside Christian) to also occupy the 14 church structure now under construction. Also, the applicant is proposing to install a 15 portion of approved Phase II parking during completion of Phase I construction currently 16 underway [northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way, Tax Lots 5500 and 5590 17 of Tax Map 2 1E 6DD]. 18 • .• 0 19 f Eth 20 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its • 21 meeting of June 8, 1992. 22 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS '' E X H I:B I T , :. • 24 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: ( 25 i0215-; evio?14) v Impact Management Policies 2 6 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 27 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 . • .• General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 1'; Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 ' 31 Wetlands Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 32 • •• 33 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I • ', 3 4 General Policy II PAGE I CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92)-960 1 ,:, 1 r. ` 1 Bikcway Policies 'y , 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2e • 3 Pedestrian Pathways Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 4 5 Transportation Policies rt General Policy I, Specific Policy 1f., 2, 3 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 3 t 7 B. C of Lake C7syyS$Si• 111g Ordi ante: v , 8 • 9 LOC 48.015(28) Definition of Institutional Use LOC 48.120-48,155 R-5 Zone Description 10 LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Descriptions 11 LOC 48.515(2) General Exception to Structure Height Limitations 12 LOC 48.565 Specific Standards for Churches 13 LOC 48.575 Specific Standards for Schools 14 LOC 48.810 Quasi-Judicial Evide,,nary Hearing Procedure 15 LOC 48.815 Criteria for Approval 16 LOC 48.820 Restrictions and Conditions 17 C. City of Lake Owego Development Code: 18 LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards 0 - . 19 LOC 49.110 ' Concurrent Review of Permits ,� LOC 49.125 Authority to Approve Changes in a; `'0 Development Permits 21 LOC 49.145 Major Development 22 LOC 49.300-49.325 Major Development Procedures 0 .� LOC 49.400-49.440 Overall Development Plan and Schedule 23 LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing • Procedures 2 A LOC 49,615 Criteria for Approval ' ` '' 25 LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals ` ? , •. 2 6 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 27 �. 2.005-2.040 Building Design 28 4,005 -4,040 Wetlands `9 5.005 -5,040 Street Lights , • p 6.005 -6.040 Transit System • 7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 31 8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space . 3 2 9,005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 0 11.005 - 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development • 33 14,005 - 14.040 Utility Standard `,. •, 3 4 18,005 - 18,040 Access Standard 19.005 - 19,040 Site Circulation -Private Streets and ' Driveways 20,005 -20,040 Site Circulation -Bikeways and40 , + ' PAGE Walkways ' 2 CU 2--85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92)-960 - e kii . F ti « . 1 alliCLUSLOE ., 2 The Planning Commission concludes that CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92) 3 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain 4 conditions. 5 6 FINDINGS AND REASONS 7 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report on CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 8 4-87(Mod. 4-92) as support for its decision, supplemented by the foil-Ong: 9 1. The following exhibits were received by the Board and entered into the record at 10 the public hearing on June 8, 1992: 11 12 Exhibit 36: Area of traffic generation impacting Carman Drive, north of Kruse 13 44 . r Way. 14 Exhibit 37: Photograph-Lack of Wetland Mitigation Plantings. 15 Exhibit 38: Photograph-Lack of Wetland Mitigation Plantings. • + 16 Exhibit 39: Photograph-Sign attached to tree. 17 Exhibit 40: Signs in public right-of-way 18 Exhibit 41:. Roadway Traffic purvey-,Kruse Way East of Westlake Drive ' 19 Exhibit 42: Traffic Generation Manual (portion)-High School 4,' 20 Exhibit 43: Summary,of Trip Generation Rates-High School (student) 21 Exhibit 44: Summary of Trip Generation Rates-High School (employee) 22 Exhibit 45: Newspaper Article, The Oregonian (undated) 23 24 ` 2. The Commission found that it was important to limit the number of students 25 ., attending the high school to 250 as suggested by the applicant (Exhibit 3). 26 Similarly, the Commission found that it was necessary to limit expansion of the . 27 physical facility or parking to only that which had been previously approved. • 28 ;• �' 29 3. The Commission found that the increase in parking lot usage associated with the 10 high school prompted the need to review the adequacy of approved landscaping. • ` I• 31 The Commission agreed to direct the Development Review Board to consider 3 2 requiring more intensive landscaping along Carman Drive to screen daily parking 3 3 uses from view, 34 • 40 PAGE ` 1 3 CU 2-85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4--92)-96C) t ' `• . . A _ _ 11 r i , r J' :( li • 4. The Commission found that it was necessary for the applicant to apply for an 1 administrative modification to the ODPS to satisfy an earlier condition of 2 approval [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89); Exhibit 21]. 3 4 5. The Commission found that it was necessary for the applicant to seek ,. 5 development review approval for the parking lot expansion and modification to 6 the entry and exit on Carman Drive and Parkview Drive, as recommended by the 7 applicant's traffic consultant(Exhibit 12). 8 9 OMEN 10 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego 11 that: :' 12 A. CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92) is approved subject to 13 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection B of this • 1 1,4 Order. . 15 B. The conditions for are as follows: 16 1. The applicant shall submit final parking lot plans for consideration by . 17 the Development Review Board. 'tk r 18 - 2. The high school shall be limited to a 250 student maximum enrollment 1' 19 cap. 20 3. The Commissionn encourages the Development Review Board to 21 consider more intensive landscaping along Carman Drive because of the 22 increase in daily parking. 23 4. The applicant shall comply with the condition of approval for its earlier 24 modification to the ODPS [CU 2-351/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89)-706] by 25 applying for an administrative mo,�tification to the ODPS. • ,.` • 26 5. The applicant shall si.bmit final design of the entry and exits on Carrnan d. . . 27 Drive and Parkview Drive for consideration by the Development Review 28 Board, as recommended by the applicant's traffic consultant. 6. No expansions of the physical amenities (i.e., structure, parking, etc.) 10 shall be allowed for the site beyond the existing approvals. • 31 .• ` 32 33 y,4 34 • PACE Y 1 4 CU 2-85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87.Mod• 4-92)-960 . y y 1! r ". • • u I CERTIFY'FIAT THIS ORDER was presen►ad to and APPROVED by the 1 Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. ', 2 3 DATED this 22nd day of June , 1992. xV 4 5 � • � At:z.1),6/.//,(:- `6.-'7 , 1 ( 7 Charles Oldham, Chair ' Planning Commission 8 ^ ' 9 ' zt 10 HçCMk 11 Secretary ` , • 12 13 ATTEST: • 14 : e,,,•. Substantive Decision Approving this Application at the Meeting of June 8. 1992. 15 16 AYES: • Beebe,DeLacy, Oldham, Colquitt,Garten 17 NOES: Finnigan, Rohrer 18 ABSTAIN: done N ABSENT: ., 19 None 20 Vote at t_he meeting of June 22 192 ving these Findings �ccurat,ely reflecting 21 the decision of the Planning Commission. . • 22 ' 23 AYES: Beebe, Finnigan, Oldham, Rohrer, Colquitt r 24 NOES: None 25 ABSTAIN: None • • 26 ABSENT: DeLacy, Garten 27 .; 28 • I 31 32 ' 33 34 41110 PACE L. 5 CU 2-85(Nlod, 4--92)\CDPS 4--87(Nlod, 11-92)-96O • U SIG ■•n.,�c^ :: Y EL ; N ETAENT , ' y �,y I I tSi 1* a10p1 e 1 1 i r c\k ! .4 1,) . f ` •1117• ■, WESTLAKE PARK . . a p �' 1✓ I I i CJ Iil ♦ 1. 1 i. a,,, it:r�, ,f 1 1 i .- .�.•w.•d �-„„ /1 ry,•..,1, •- ,r •.. 11 ../ � / •1 i., . so , ,,. y. ••..,.„, .. .a.;.,... 1!„� ...v.r�_• Y•----,.r y,'•��•',ry '^:114- li. a n� /. 1„.bi•,4•x •k • % "• i Q, { /� • ,i at .f, u. 1•re .�7 ! '+ 1 ' r l�f•I�Q r I. ` 1 4 r ,•, 1r, N,,• 4 y ''••., ,.Ia.,l a. �3l aye �I.�•,VI !�' �NI,.1.ifA1..11.•IV•1,.e • S. y •. ' ,, y. ..U. ,r,•'� fir, ►••4 4'11..< 1"•: ! —4 1 ' I I, / � +t + 1• ! • ^'! t 4 L,.In.. >r,t I- .1r1•••- `!R.,nr4 t� ,.` - +eao i I'�u_ yl hr't, • 11 ` ,: • ` f f�k. • • 77 ' ' •,` • I: ,a1Pa. K+. ,(. r I .0 '1i I.,' !1 J 64.0y :. . 1 41 I R.7 M � •••". ~ ; rr. r:• if 4' i. 'il :ji, �� { ...il:. : / Y /l,vh' Srdti, r.. `�' !__ ,•Ea�.�:�ta.y{I••`i.. •s•�• 1�./� � ("r�L►,1l 1 �1 bra . �) - -,/ 4/ I, .c. ' " , .. . o • 'L"MOWN, • • • • ��P • •`t• +- r0 �' l IV% •o 1�01 i� / .'',... .1. ''. Ir V CR&D • `, ttr . '..1 1 ti ,. ."• _� q�„�. .T.1' '.t.'=tii _`A,. t /0/,.. - .y.. ..`s�`.;_. a • , , 1', A - 1 L. C`' -v, . t l: , - ':1; It{t{ , V:' `7yj: ..11t F7 p' ,R-3 C `, 1r w / 1 ` • II • 4 "'' ' `• '•,.,. 1 ,III v ,- - . W„f illpitil I , Il,i`t :• I 1'~' .1 y 1,/ 1 •: 1 .•� • i •• , fp.:^) r . i .f. 'i. I. ` A ` r. N Mta� (' A EXHIBIT �., •at• r"'f /1 II' `'•� �,! WALWA I tauu:._�i:w, � i (t ' . F , �.�• IL r I 1 i it 11 1 d13e a i• 4 /.�` 1;' '. ` PARK :1/11W.. I .-. .'.yllah',' 1l - .•.-a; awkir imilit: • . e•y� , ►_ , . • � '✓ •• ` fir ' , ,.. .•., MyY374tW V y'InW us.u. �/G "•' a. I� �1�` '°' `� ,� , •+ •' .. • L n • '' ' ':i.44' 4;:‘IiH 14. t MI W 1 » • r 1 N. s•. v'1r ,' •. y• I, ,, br• ++. IY `, ••®.• if ` >t.,.."��� \.`.` ,. 1 "�. 6 � � / - , 3P I 1 �a , 1 1` 1 1 , 1 1, +aril 1 • J.•i `'• r A !_. .` .. _ �,.T'4, 1 1 • - , •,..wei ". ► - • 1410 Iyld • Y^, ° l Iwo Y r 4 ; ' l d ;'..., .1 si %.) . c . IIPPr \ .. . • \ � : -ap , � ®. , / { 1. r 1. . ���99Y31 . . 4' . Iffini II 1 kW' '. ' -- , I r {jp�f Tr 0 v cc tEl�■ .�EEEEE� .. .. ... O EL ri ..0 s VICINITY MAP Q M • UJ 4 e J n0[XCCPIION TAKEN �' KE MA CORREGTIOKf MOTTO Er. e REIEcTED 0 SUTAUT SPECIFIED ITEM 0 ` I h, REVISE ANC.RESUIMIT rj � CHECKING IS TO INSURE GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONCEPT' ..r OF THIS TRO1[CT,THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ANDIgR COMPLIANCE WITH ,IWEI CITY CODE. THIS REVIEW DOES NOT RELIEVE CONTRACTOR OF DUTIES ASSUMED IY CONTRACT OR OF COMPLIANCE WITH CITY COOE. CITY 0=' K; OSWEGO TY !, DATE 7-/2 4/ . 2 - 0 /46S IEa a /4/!;'..i.e-- i y • 2 BXHIB1T 1 al . torus-si .-- ): in 0 3 PRoFe�r�, �u . .• 10,538 +, �'�60NR6Ob . PRINTED 1Q V I3. 141 4P+ r. • . 10\02E ASSOC., INc. o ,, , • : 9 ti. . txt , r I } . 's .0 e .. ,. . , , . ,. ..ii, .. • l N •o{. • . , MI/LINO f ' / / I / I ' / / wfltrAm /, / / / / il tiw �/r of _ . a , i !S Ali) T ._. . ,; ..,• —'=,,,� ,• / 1 'P !// // /.r' a gal u11t li T oAMAa/• a"'�� % � r AZ i /' i 1 +I' 1 /fj11i11, r' 1.1/. 1 / • //% 1 rpnfni AN/IMOI/ ' .1, 1 - I f I1 111 ',f.11 :minim a �' l�; ? .•/ r,/� r;�/1• ,LA t �1 ( Ii r ,-/ u / • 1 n r M te�M 'I / / SJ_.;"r.+'j a �I 4n, � f :' • V 1 It / / �� 1.yI 1 vi 1'i � a_ oun tooth n .tj J 4n,I / /ILlitailli ` �' / "'-' / �' G TINOt►NNtl -b Its .• , ♦ / - '.• / f " I / YT.W.1«hN.K , �''•.,` 7-�r.` ..,,y+ et y C. A� } /' . ,I,A •\� I« , • '� f•'• ' 9000 rL20 M.cwL•m rN • •.bat 1•AlN �f/, ••�•`�� •-.,ti.. +{ 1 /�riJ. sill PUTUill NAOMI', igi I. I • ••:� / ��, FM14nd,Q/07201 C= 'A .\f., ,It 91 }}ry�jl �lll ' 'r:: / ... A(� �' /,''i�/� 150521/1M1 . .. • ,, �' • .� " —` I tNl`ruou (i" ,•1 ,('Ur1� l� ae w\ \'• j Ar1oN (i + ., orno ,la 1 J L'i Yr".1 ]T a\ 4 S, rt q 14� i o LEGEND ? r // V 1 / ' pp NAVE COMMAS �i {♦�I ) .. ,-- .a.. + / 1 t ) it11TINtl CONr \ k .'®,if �r^ pi a.. i ', PION ..-_a..� ..--_.• .- -� a �. FVTUq tA►AamaN ►OWIR►Olt TO II IIILOCATIO•-- �, .... t 1e . / + Y1 ell 0 v W t1111TINOWR AMA a.-. -. 4- - IAtlIM0iMt/ t y it • raeYlroArMbovte \� . '"� IJ.•�r( ��� /� /' f� �' O aunwrAhrcrn Y. // N e harmful?toCAltON1 1;uiii ,� a r 1 4♦ ; IANIIA/1 flat/ • 11f/ WATG `._ .r 6, 11 Y i -0 , pA►oi♦ol PIKE Mill, • \.1,\ `•• /'' q '� - - . ``\• �'\. A. 4.1 w/nNa knw a p `, » O • ',-..\\\\:', • • 0 >, 'PANKWG a • ..) N _ r7uu I, rNAtiI N. °e ' =LNG_ . _� o- :,�F0SBER(3 ROAD , • • .6. tail II/I CAM 40 S ' rbr CA 31tt CAM 1t1 . r\ _��.,......a....�.. • 8jA COY►Act CAA/ Ili COr.Am CAM yM AM IIAMgW i MAMTNCA' • • talk MI TOTAL ell 6. \ P,...I., /♦I♦ • l ems 0 IMP ' SITEPLAN ...., '+ . te A• i 1 i 1 • • • . - is ' : ♦ , • + Ltd.. )CL LIL ,I, s ,...,..... �L,,, r ,._ / !: . -.._ .._.__.. .. 'ram • .-.. ^-'. .•••..•.. r. YII y. j1 ... — ""`______ \�-'Y • r.Yt —�;�� AE�" 1y7., •("3 Ill • rs . • ,1 1 1 I ILL. fir r. s • ' •' 8..,-:.... I •, ��'�• ••}t =�,y1Y�y+''jIJMFs �Y �c�'�'"•�ly- 1��w'1•1t �'tia�wr r— Y• ,.......—I 8V} r 4�t L•h " I 1.1)/60:1.0,%4‘ ./•8,, v • �♦ J� I t( —lit.tf' }p�,if - T� t 1i •Y ` ; 1:`1.-� j; w Ili -2-I ■ ! tr_...... t, \ .9 . �7i .T1 I 1 • • , f u i,. ---., .0...., .... 1 . ce_g 61114- .•• \ 1N•3, I „, . .,,,,, ,,t. •W. ',i WW i 04 „t. d SZ...1,M rn r• `j ' rI(l4al ) •Ij(!/, �'')li. 1 Z, ' + z, . { R 1 ['�[ `'•1 -U y� IIYIf 1 rl l .. • < �� )Ill 1 -, ' , • • • '"' ►•.• .l r)Ed. Ise. / It! I. ♦ N11 11 l N + J'ff •� . r r ;�Y rt _. - .._-, «.- r r r {(�M- �� I eli;i -' I It, I ti • �• Wyf c (kt Ire 1S 1 0 ..,. -*,• 1I .. " "'T"• ' .a'H.r,�MCI y t`'` 1lt� 4 ..1 I�'9[. / Q j tl ; ;I ' 1 I. .YYl. kf �}'y1s` • t`1ri- o . ..!•rvN4.,/v lw. Ir.', mi.. lit DI a•• r.. _ 'e ._.-. } ri�►\ �,I,r+.Y....,, �IFk '4 1. �♦) 7�'' _ Y:x,w'1.1�,/..-n p r y k i•• • S. r• . rL.ANT N{ " 1•M1+w 1 �FYA'T ���W r I ; {1 �/�ti a/ . 6 711•f•f�\. 6.M •` �•tl ""II'� u• 1�•1 � •J ,.^^1 ♦Y ♦• WI.�r.1,•••Y0,..MNNrr* ri coo { I-- )/ ki ' 4.1 I lr h NUM•/rM W.I p.... I•Y. . 41 .* le Y hfY YN t••., •1,..'�«•.•I..Iw:/11wu•... 7Y4t ` �♦I • • / 1 r•hN r••.,•4n y,u•r•Yw•rr.eltrr•••. Y111, pp�� i .• rv. *+.+wwYnw/n•g1e'♦^l. It / Ilff i fl •� •l- ' � S{♦ /\•+.•"+Yt•Y••d4rY/4♦u..I nl,. {•.l ♦ I I 4. • • yy•,, .�:_!'ll/�yy��Lj�S��IlJ'.11H60-.. \,I, 1 '4 ))1• 1 'S _ . 1 1�Y1{,`.`P'tvdlt/�./C.P N4•!••.•M.♦Y iw ••••• �\f` v, !1-. _ (.('/'/ /. mod, 1 �•I • •IIY r0=1 l.• •♦••IJ"YW•.••NYIJ ♦N � ' K �� i. `ty1l �41 b 1 S ./ YIM Ilr 14 LI ,,• I0•Y4 }.•nrYr•MM.4..W. /1 1,/.r f.W/11 1144,44 II.M' !4 .tti, ,t\ - . '1111 - It + , •.7 y .r ..• M.••rh.d•u w.s.1r.+ �.N. ,4i tN"� V....1 �4 i !I ,1 , t r r•rh••♦nu•rII,w.. 1� („I ' ra r1 w.•...••.w.iw/IW• rw. 1.••r• \• •• P • r r pr...♦.•4w.lA/WO M••ttY♦WIN W.IN \ - j�.•• �! • r t..• r•,..0 wr.MMa•u.'•1M u•..../r11...,.."... IM•.e 'lI"' t`'•..,. i l w ,�� O./ �"/ (, i ' /•• el ..r..•t•q.1.4W••I.r•111W'I wt.•r.Mr.eU1 I,'•.N' ' ^ • •• 1 • • 4 rr ••••••♦•M• IiaiY.two oe♦•Na W Y' . I'�� ) .. rN.♦Y.MRN M-•Nr•K�vIY. w If 1 •..�.. ,..t. •lx. Y 14 Y.M..yr 1♦r.w(,N 11441MY1Y { I. ' 1 y 1a ^++yflal'Q!�_ r+ • '�• /• IIt♦N •+'..w•NY M`lllllw,.'/I41r.f.N•L YI.J♦r• »,r�, yr,el AYr. -. �•, .1t hH .. • • y .•.�.JWI '"` 1'ylywv(W I111• I' ly • .. ✓4, IJ.11 WW.r.Y MiM Yr '.\ lilt. !ht•� 1'.. y .............e.u.r.•'1♦..• 4Na'�' • 14.4 '1 ,. irii of ' 6AD•SI.WWII N•1 woiC B•y I ' •jIN_S I ti*t f''I..AI,}'rIh1L•1 �'I..A}J •/ •l�1 • y •t I C•h Ma+f tY '•I I tl•If N/M'O' •-xt '.f�i�.:lw 4 Y•IAl�` • . • •l• • ' • I,t .. Y + li • l ' ,, ' 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ' 3 , 4 . 5 A R^QU?",ST FOR APPROVAL OF) DR 15-89-731 U, 6 PHASE I OF A NEW CHURCH ) (Lake Baptist Church) FACILITY ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 7 8 ✓▪ EXHIBIT 9 C t> 10 11 011569 7.mm`. NATURE OF APPLICATION "' 12 The applicant is requesting approval of Phase I of a new church • 13 t .. facility (worship and educational structure for 750 people and 14 parking for 199 cars) . • 15 16 HEARINGS • 17 The Development Review Board held a public' hearing and considered 18 this application at its, meetings of October 2, October 25 and ; '`° 19 November 15, 1989. 20 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 4'. 22 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 23 • 24 Natural Resource Policy Element Residential Land Use Policy Element 25 Transportation Land Use Policy Element 26 27 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: 28 ��. l9 LOC 48.120-48. 155 R-5 Zone Description LOC 48. 195-48. 225 R-10 Zone Description • 10 (setbacks, lot area , lot 31 coverage) 32 C. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: 33 Chapter 47 Signs 34 g A^ ' PAGE 1 'R 15-89-731 . • • ` 1. 1 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: 2 3 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures • , ` • 4 LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals • v` 5 6 7 E. City of Lane Oswego Development Standards: . 8 2.020 Building Design 9 4.020 Wetlands 5.020 Street Lights �a'� 10 6.020 Transit �' 11 7.020 Parking 8.020 Park and Open Space 12 9.020 Landscaping, Screening and 13 Buffering 11.020 • Drainage for Major 14 Development 15 13.020 Weak Foundation Soils 14.020 Utilities 16 16.020 . Hillside Protection and 17 Erosion, Control 18.020 Access4 . 18 19.020 Site Circulation Private , I;; 19 • Streets ,. 20. 020 Site Circulation - Bikeways 20 and Walkways y 21 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: A'• 22 23 LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits 24 • : , 25 CONCLUSION • 26 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 15-89 can be made • 27 to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of rt 28 certain conditions. 19 ti 10 FINDINGS AND REASONS • • 31 The Development Review Board incorporates the September 22, 1989 • 32 staff report on DR 15-89 as support for its decision, 33 supplemented by the following: fT) 34 PAGE 2 OR 15-89-731 • • . vj 1 • 2. r, 4 tl 1,' 3 1. The applicant had provided a final wetlands delineation 4 report a wetland mitigation, and a revised street •• 5 • grading plans which illustrated that many trees would i y • ‘, 6 be preserved along Carman Drive, complying with the 7 Planning Commissions recommendations, and which 8 illustrated that the Wetland and Drainage Standards 9 would be met. A letter from the Division of State 10 Lands (DSL) indicated that they agreed with the 11 boundary determination of the wetland. These 12 conditions resolved the concerns listed in the staff •" '",.: 13 report of September 22, 1989 regarding these issues. 14 The Board found that some conflicts existed between the p'' ` 15 landscape plan and the mitigation plan, but That these 16 conflicts could be resolved provided the final plans 17 were submitted for, both DSL and .staff review. 18 2. The Board agreed that it was necessary to modify 19 condition number 4 to insure t'4 .e trees would be 20 protected during the construction .phase. 21 3 . The Board found that additional lighting may be 22 necessary for security, but that the 250 watt high 23 pressure sodium lamps should not be left on all night. 24 Condition number 6 was modified to reflect the Boards 25 concerns and to insure the staff had direction to 26 minimize the off-site efrIct of any security lighting 27 that might be proposed in the future. �'� 4. The Board found that the roof of the structure would be 28 visible from nearby residential areas and that a "' neutral color which was complementary to the building 10 • should be specified by the architect. The Board agreed 31 that the blue color of the canopies should be darkened -, ' 32 or modified to relate to the brick wall surface more 33 closely. They found that a finalized color board 34 should be returned for their review. PAGE / ` 3 DR 15-89-731 14. ,.: , :. • 1 . ` 2 „ ! 3 5. The applicant had not finalized the design of the i 4 mechanical system; however, the Board agreed that the • 5 location of mechanical equipment could be reviewed by A t.. 6 the staff. They found? that mechanical units should be 7 screened if roof-mounted. " { 8 6. The Board found that lighting of the roof-mounted cross ri • would in`.rm z on the residential neighborhood and that IM 9 10 it would create a commercial appearance for the church . 11 use. The Board agreed that the cross should not be rN 12 lighted after 10U0Ki p.m. since the church was located ': '' ` 13 in a residential zone and the restriction was 14 consistent with City Council action restricting 15 lighting on the nearby LDS Temple, also in a 16 residential area. ` '' 17 ORDER 18 ;�� IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of 19 0 ,. Lake Oswego that: 20 .;.'. d+. * .�.1 22 DR 15-89 is approved subject to compliance with the 7 conditions of approval as follows: 23 ,f 4 24 1. The applicant shall be comply with the conditions 4' . 25 of CU 2-85 ; 26 2. A final planting plan consistent with the Wetland 27 Mitigation Plan, and planned improvements, shall 28 be provided for the review and approval of the •+ Division of State Lands and the City. + 4 29 16 3 . An irrigation plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A final tree cutting and protection plan 32 y/ 4 n, illustrating measures to protect trees along the 1• ,4 33 Carman Drive frontage shall be provided including '} ` protection during the construction phase. Those a 34 measures shall describe grading, pruning and fertilization measures, as necessary to maximize _ 4' tree protection. PAG2: . , 4 DR 15-89-731 4 1 • t • uye'.1. . r 1 . i 0 2 • 4 >; B. An arborist shall recommend measures to maximize ` t' 5 the growth potential of the Large Oregon White Oak 6 on the property. Those measures shall be 4 implemented in accordance with a schedule 1 4. 7 recommended by the arborist. S I 7 •1,, 8 6. Final parking lot lighting plans utilizing the 250 9 Watt High Pressure Sodium Luminaires shall be f 10 provided for the review and approval of staff. Lighting shall be allowed from one hour before the 11 a.m. opening and one hour after the ,� of the facility, p mW closing � 12 r y, and shall be reviewed to minimize glare on adjacent residential properties. Any ' 13 additional security lighting shall be subject to .` the approval of the staff and shall be at a low 6 r , 14 level of intensity and preferably low in •' �`. ' 15 elevation. .:' 16 , , ' 1,... 7. Final drainage plans, providing pollution control 17 catch basins and adequate detention in conformance 18 with the Wetland Mitigation Plans, shall be , lg. submitted for, the review and approval of staff. 20 8. Final utility plans illustrating half street (Carman Drive) improvements in conformance with 21 the traffic analysis (Exhibit 18) shall be 22 provided for the review and approval of staff. 23 9. A final development schedule for Phase 1 shall be provided prior to the issuance of permits. � � 24 25 10. A color board including the color of the roof and 26 the color of the awning shall be submitted to the Development Review Board for review prior to the ': 27 issuance of building permits. • • 28 11. The applicant shall submit elevation drawings and 29 a plan showing that there will be no unscreened R mechanical systems on the roof. The plans shall 10 be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 31 , , �'r} „ 12. The cross shall not be lighted after 10: 00 p.m. at 32 night. 33 ,$, , 34 9, W . 411/, &i.• " PAGE 5 DR 15-89-731 ,.J -,2'•':.. ,.` . ' :,' l'' �,N . ,4 , -. a { .. �',• ♦ N.N �' yI, bin •Htv .� ,. -.W J L � 1 1 4 2 • ;J t . R` 3 4 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED • , . 5 by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. } E DATED this it-6, day of �•_____�________► 1989 7 — 8 ,. _._ 10 Robert D. Greaves, Chairman 11 Development Review board 12 �a. 13 3t1,/ biM � i.I ,ar, -C1� -14Secretary 15 i 16 ATTEST: iv 17 18 ORAL DECISION - November 15, 1989 , 1, 19 AYES: Mr. Foster, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Miller and Ms. Remy • 20 NOESA None f ,� 21 A.r3S 4iN: Non 22 ABSENT: Mr. Ingrim, Mr. Starr and Ms. Sybrowsky / 23 �'.. 24 WRITTEN FINDINGS December 18, 1989 v :% Y 25 x , 26 AYES: Mr. Foster, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Miller and MS. Remy ,. NOES: None 27 ABSTAIN: Mr. Starr 28 ABSENT: Mr. Ingrim and Ms. Sybrowsky , 29 a 10 31 32 `:,.;° 33 34 N • PAGE 6 DR 15-89-731 ♦fi , -:i ,'., • 22 • } TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH LAKE OSWEGO OREGON • PREPARED FOR • FWL ARCHITECTS _'. PORTLAND, OREGON • PROre F£ 1 N A, 13.• 41 r r 1g® EXHIBIT t07—la t , PREPARED BY .o. j ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) ° 4040 DOUGLAS WAX LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97035 91-454 AUGUST 1991 arr • 'th '1.•:\ } • •tr ., Y l.: 1 1 ,✓. t. n y�; 1/• • • A • / r.' ttl't 4 t, TABLE OF CONTENTS t,. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY " REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 INTRODUCTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE 3 7 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION 12 ` TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT . 12 14 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR 1992 WITH LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH 14 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 20 FUTURE GROWTH 23 ... . ..1:.: lb CONCLUSIONS 26 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX 26 . . . 27 APPENDIX A - Existing Levels Of Service C:Iculations APPENDIX B - Trip Generation For Lake Baptist Church t APPENDIX C - 1992 Levels Of Service Calculations With Lake Baptist Church APPENDIX D - 2005 Levels Of Service Calculations With Lake Baptist Church • , A • ` • g. 0. t 1 V ' + Ic, • ♦ .. .• •. 1. w . 1 , + ♦ •.. w.. , -.. • F - 1 , '♦ . ° + to ♦y t l t 1� et, t ; TABLES 1. Level of Service Definitions (Sigrialized Intersections) 8 2. Criteria for Signalized intersections 9 3. Level of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) 10 •" 4. Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 11 5. Levels of Service for 1992 without Lake Baptist Church Retail Center 12 6. Trip Generation for Buildout of Lake Baptist Church Retail Center 13 7. Levels of Service for 1992 with Lake Baptist Church Retail Center• '14 • + i • • • ff • a' i f r R1 • 1 k • f IY � ♦t • 4. -II- 4 +' D • 0 P i z dF" 1, r FIGURES 1. Site Plan & Vicinity Map 4 2. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 5 3. Existing Sunday Noon Hour Traffic Volumes 6 4. Trip Assignment Percentages 15 5. Site Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 16 r 6. Site Generated Sunday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 7. Total PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 18 S. Total Sunday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 19 9. Total 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 21 : z N . C. • 1 • O yyyyyy- j 1 t I a 1 0i A • -lll- 4, u 1 r t ;t a , „„ �7 , ,gp / r•••• .ypMkw L w•••• n.+n� w ," : avu ,VAtiht1 . Ltf� l of •.N•• � ("i%•,+..+c ..•r •�t.t'. ' V ':�.• 4 This report covers the construction of a 110,000 square foot community church with a 250 student church high school located on the northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way in Lake Osweg®e Oregon. This report is an update of the April 1985 study conducted by Associated Transportation Engineering& Planning (ATEP)for the church using current traffic volumes and road made during the past 6 years. improvements Traffic has grown considerably during the past six years and most of the Intersections along Kruse Way operate at or near capacity during the pm peak hour. The Intersection of Carman Drive and Kruse Way operates at level of service"E" during the pm peak hour and would operate at level of service "O" if separate left turns lanes are installed for Carman Drive traffic. • Field observation indicates that while the intersections operate at a low level of service, traffic does manage to move into and out of the intersection streets along Kruse Way with little trouble, The traffic signal system seems to operate at at a relatively good progression rate through the corridor. The development as proposed Is to consist of 110,000 square feet of community church which will include seating for approximately 2000 church members, a multi-purpose room and class 1 rooms of the church high school and Sunday schools. t' H: • Access to the development as proposed, is one main driveway onto Carman Drive and one minor • driveway to the newly completed Parkway Drive to the north. • The site will generate approximately 1,193 vehicles per day, with 81 trips during the pm peak hour • 41 (41 in and 39 out). it should be noted that the peak hours of the surrounding roadway Is not the same as the peak hours of the church, Studies conducted throughout the country indicatesduring that din • g the week, traffic is highest around the hours of use by the high school operation or a weekday service. There is little traffic (80 vehicles) during the workday rush hours. Peak traffic for the church will occur on Sunday during the morning services and Is approximately 75% of the Weekday traffic. • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH 1N1PACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PACE 1 ,' I r . , , N .rn..ej.�.ry - ..�.y�y�iM"wwvl'ww�•r �L ,ity wQm\ ti_ �1" WMwJ•gMw1 Mr•••w�M* 1 ..` 1 I f�4!r r. NJ M` lwf W M iJw �MNY:. . ! �}R I\f} '� ^'� !� µ..Ill•iJw lwMrfn+w w.lui 1�'� . '! F r \ , X nvv.vnrrl.ullnr.r PI' .1 IuM M r 'A...N. - w`RM.'n\ V•1 nwww MrlJ�WrV/rM 4 411, Yr.4r 111\' -'MM�w Iw 4.NWrYF wrV rY MWI—fM9M41 While the traffic generated by the development will not have a substantial impact on the r, surrounding street system. The following improvements are needed to provide safe and eas) , A access to the site and the surrounding intersections. ,, 1. Carman Drive be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane between Kruse Way ` and the new realigned intersection of Carman, Fosberg and Parkway Drive. 2. Left turn only lanes be installed at the traffic signal located at Carman Drive and Kruse Way and lane use control signs r"Left turns yield to oncoming traffic" be Installed for the , north/south signal phases , This improvement will let the Intersection operate at level of ' . : service "D" after the construction of the church. U • i a Jr t • , ti I LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PACE 2 . t ! i q • 1. 1 � �r '® This report describes the results of a ‘,1 INTRODUCTION transportation analysis update for the construction of a 2000 member church and 250 student , '4 church high school located on the northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way in the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. (See Figure 1, page 4) • The traffic impact analysis outlined in this report identifies the impact of the development on the surrounding street network and is based on three different periods of time: • First, the current conditions within the study area; • • Second, 1992 conditions with the development; • Third, future year 2005 volumes with the development; EXISTING CONDITIONS The study area consists of the area of Kruse Way between Carman Drive and Westlake Drive and north to include the newly created intersection of Carman Drive and Parkway Drive to the •-.•; north of the subject property The area is currently developed north of the site with residential • homes and a new subdivision is currently being constructed to the west of the site. • • Kruse Way is a five lane arterial street through this area and carries approximately 30,000 • vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on this section of Kruse Way is 35 miles per hour. I . TRAFFIC CONTROL Y, Currently the side street intersections along Kruse Way are controlled by traffic signals. The newly created intersection of Carman Drive and Parkway Drive is controlled by stop signs. • TRAFFIC C VOLUMES 4�. . The traffic volumes used in this analysis were provided by the City of Lake Oswego and consist of both 24 hour volumes and pm turning movement counts. These volumes are diagramed in Figure 2 and 3 on page 5 and 6. Adjustments were made to the raw traffic count information to account for seasonal fluxuations in traffic volumes. • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 3 1\\ 5 M t�RTGN I PARKWAY DRIVE ,,..:...... . . ... - 7_: 4'. :y • .f }:. .i 'r. .,,, '-*' 1.,. :' ' ' KRl1(2E WAY • • f G. t ir IAK15 13AP1'15f • • 51.1'E PI/AN • • 4 •, �, � � ,. a ,. ' � f ;�R,r - ''� _ '. � _ - , /. 0 ',C ..,,.. .. Y ' C 7O, . %117 M v E V V PARKWAY ORIVE �, .� 71 l� 511'E • P15-• + 115 r 100 • 1305-4. 4--IV0 ) t P •. . , . ) t rtt- , .. . ... .. . • � N KiZUSE WAY cm cc\ E 4"41 88 115 15 • 4. 1340-0 4--/40 m R 15"--+► r C05 m ) tr y- m m . 7�\. AKY 13 P 1'I1 MCI1 t ..r: . „ EXb1ING IKArifIr. VOA t) PM PEAK NOUK o , 61114\00 Y t Y V ,s1 N ' a . r 1: reg... z Sb ——la� 4 i—OO2 . s t .% ti ) t ��n 0. _. ,..... Ni i .1 1. c. . . oL--. a ` :}- 1 l' Z • r r =�. ::-.. , • • . . ,...... . . . , " CARMEN DRIVE a ' ›.. cp . . ........ •• . :, . . . . . . . . ..Z I . . ' ' 11 `r ,'I', ! •'• • ``i// . it ' ttla.. ..>:-(- S ' ' V �4 Y , Salmi 11.... '' l'—A 4—O1.L . °( -*1) t r" . .. . . .kr; a 8 u��c, • . 'tS. ....I n::', WE5fLAKE DRIVE » v ric7u4 PAGE 6 . . . AEA "� it . a ♦ "� . .n Since the development is scheduled to be constructed in the spring of 1992, traffic volumes were increased by three percent to be consistent with the construction year. This increase was • based on the average annual increase obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation a System Studies Unit. This was done to reflect the worst possible case for traffic on Kruse Way. A" . CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that was developed to measure how the driver perceives the conditions surrounding them as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. This degree of perception includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. As originally defined by the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these grades are f shown in Table 1. Using this definition, it is generally agreed that for signalized intersections LOS , "D" is the minimum acceptable for an urban area and for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is { the minimum acceptable level of service for urban areas. Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat different approach to determine the capacity of the intersection. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual offers the concept of "Reserve as the guideline for measuring the capacity. p Capacity" ' Reserve Capacity is defined as " that poi tion of available hourlycapacity that is not p ty used". It should be noted that the concept of Reserve Capacity only applies to the individual movements { k of traffic on an approach to an intersection, either in an individual lane or a shared lane, not to the overall operation of the intersection. This determination is made after all approaches are analyzed and the LOS determined is usually that approach that typifies the 'Worst Case" • • condition or worst Level of Servi-e. A description of the levels of service relating to the Reserve Capacity Concept is shown in Tables 3 & 4. LOS analyses presented in this report were ' performed in accordance with the procedures described above. p • r. tt YI • • ' LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 7 • • Table 1 - Level Of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of0 h Service • Traffic'Flow <; Characteristie;s . � . N.`A Very low delay, less.''than 5 0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles'arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop>at•all Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. y k i j B Average delay in the.range of 5.1 to 15 0 seconds per vehicle: This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle length,. More vehicles stogy than for LOS A, Causing higher levels of average delay, P • C Average delay in the range of 15.1.to 25.0 seconds per vehicle: These higher ,' delays may result from..fair progression-and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is.significant at this level,although may still pass through the intersection without • stopping. D Average delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result 1 from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high , I • v/c rations. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping 'declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Frequent signal cycle failures • , • .; r' ' and associated congestion. E Average delay in the range of 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered a to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate i . poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/e ratios. Individual cycle failures •k li are frequent occurrences. y . F Forced flow, with average delay in excess of 50.0 seconds per vehicle. This is _ considered to be unacceptable to most drivers.. This condition often occurs with oversaturatjon, i.e., when arrival flows rates exceed the capacity of the•, intersection• . It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with may individual cyde failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major ''=contributing causes to such delay levels. Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985). • ; 4) .-.:. ' -.. .- , . . .. .. I ,, a LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 8 i Sd, 11 r : v ,„ ': Table 2 - Criteria For Signalized Intersections Stopped 1 delay per' vehicle (seconds) r. A .00 5.00 • B 5.1 - 15.0 { C. 15.1- 25.0 D. 25.1- 40.13 E. 40.1-.60.0 E'`' • F >60.0 10. r Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special -'1 • ' Report.209 (1985). • • • p .. r I 1 ,; { LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 9 yai c • • . r r 1• 1 ! Table 3 - Level Of Service Definitions (Unsignalixed' Intersections) Level of 1 r, • Service Traffic Flaw Ch n . . A Average delay per vehicle between 0:and 10.seconds Free-flowing with.no co►igestron.. Very few vehieies waiting in a queue. • B Average delayper vehicle between 10 and 20 seconds. Slight delay to vehicles ;�, "' little or no vehicles in queue •{ • 7 C Average delay per vehicle 20 to 30 seconds.Occasional delay and congestions, more than one vehicle in queue. D Average delay per vehicle 30. to 40 • seconds. t~requent delay and • congestion,more'than one vehicle per queue.: • E Average delay per vehicle in excess of 40 to 60 seconds. This condition exists19 when the demand is near or equal to the capacity of the intersection or movement. Unstable flow which includes almost.continuous vehicles in the queue.. .,:: µ, � J • • F. Forced flow,with average. delay per vehicle in excess of 60 seconds. Queue • • ° ' , is extensive. • Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985). • p r � r :I • ' LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 10 I • t t . �' V r i '::'.•.'... '..'„ ... ,, 0 Table 4 - Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections . • .. ... .. .. .. ., .. ..... ., , . ..; _ • •.:,,,..•. . , . •., •• r Reserve. delay Expected to ..,.,,, • .. .. mor street..traffic >400 tittle•or•no Bela 300-399 Short trafific delays 200=299 C Average:traffic delays 10A-199 D long traffic:delays 0- 99 E Very_•long:delays * `F • • *When demand volume on any approach:or movement exceeds the capacity of the lane, " a, -, extreme delays will be encountered with;_queuing which may cause severe congestion i affection other traffic movements in the intersection. this condition usually warrants 'aiprovement to' he intersection Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway CappacitY Manual", Special Report 209(1985). • ASP ;, • ' • ,*- r {i . ,.,,n,,,•,......, .: • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 11 p r 1, fr' 4 i ,. Table 5 - Level of Service for 1992 without the Lake daptist Church \ i --_Y'_r I ( 'µ \ { Kmse,Wry&Carman Drive N3 Left f `t>�iii`•' ` 9.3s1. iirea. • Knhie'Way&•Wres*Iake Drive Wa Lek \\ { ;\t \\\ , .Tp Carman,Driva'&Parlavay }W T ru \\\� C 4\ c�S 5\ \ x33 i �• .Wa- � an W:hiO 110 irna ` ♦�\ I t\ \\\ W4567 y , [ \ As Table 5 indicates the intersection of Kruse Way and Carman Drive currently operates at a t level of service "E" which does not meet the Lake Oswego goal of level of service "D". By adding F.rotected left turns for Carman Drive, the intersection would operate at level of service "D" during the pm peak hour. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT } I r ` ._ As proposed, the development consists of 110,000 square feet of community Church including a 250 student high school. 0 ,. .,:- ` The development proposes to have one driveway onto Carman Drive and one driveway onto the new Parkway Drive. TRIP GENERATION :• I ' Estimating the number of vehicle trip ends that will be generated by the proposed development is of prime importance to City of Lake Oswego. is • Two basic procedures are available to traffic engineers for estimating the number of driveway a vehicle trips generated by a proposed but not-yet-existing development: 1. Apply averages observed through field studies conducted at other similar facilities located throughout the United States. A number of sources are available for this information including Trip Generation Manual (4th Editions 1987, which is published by the Institute of Transportation ` Engineers (ITE); and summary trip generation reports prepared by the California Department of ' Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and other public transportation :; agencies. All of these sources provide excellent guidance in estimating the trip generation rate • for various land uses, but obviously do not take into account the effects of local conditions argil ' • • • unique characteristics of the proposed land use-., ! . ` • . LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 12 I r a '{• . • 2. Observe through field studies the actual trip generation charact€•ristics of other similar and existing developments within the local area. • . „; , .: . 0 Procedure one above was used in the development off this report. The figures shown in Table 6 below,represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed i ': development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations • found on page 766 & 789 Sections 530 & 560 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 6 - Trip Generation For Buildout of the Lake Baptist Church ..Weekday �� Generated Trips (B) �� P M Peak Hour • Size:of Land Use Dai Land Use GSF (A) Volumes „ Total! In Out Church'. 1'10,000`' '847 70 37 33 High School included '346 •'10 4 6 't,193 8A 41 3g A Sunday ; Church, .. i ,•I 31460' 919 '' 386 533 laiiiiiniiiir ,. .• .t. ' ,... _. NOTES: A. GSF — gross square feet B. Total trips generated by the site •! , TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips generated by this development was determined by reviewing the distribution pattern of the existing traffic patterns within the area. The trip assignment 16 percentages are shown in Figure 4 page 15. • This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and • ; street distributions as shown on Figures 5 and 6, pages 16 and 17, The site generated trips from Figures 5 and 6 were then added to the 1992 traffic volumes shown in Figures 2 and 3 to arrive at the total traffic volumes for the Lake Baptist Church for the p.m. peak hour and the Sunday ; ,.• ' peak periods chnwn in Figures 7 and 8, pages 18 and 19, i • o . • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 13 " i rye, « b 1• • I • The peak hour levels of service were calculates using the volunoes shown in Figures 7 and 8 and are shown in Table 7. • Table 7 - Level of Service for 1992 with the Lake Baptist Church \. ♦♦ v ♦ �.�_.:,a\\t__��♦\\� \\\. .:SJ, '+c T�`1•.zl,!♦�� ,>a,♦ �\\��♦ Q \fit ,7i k,�. ♦ rY r. / iY!x f ... ::i�' tft�6L6w& �\ ' .Pr ii,•,, ,•'!,♦ .,y.\��`\♦♦ ���i.•\♦\\,; �•� .--1V 1))�r alr�r 1�x '0• + r,. \♦\�� \\\ \ „ - tc�s <v . {'\.1\���\\SZ*N \A,zv \i\ .. >tr/iif , . - '♦ •R`,3♦s.. �\ \. \+ \ - • y•,\ S\ r!r �i 1/ram � n ;\\* \\ : \ ` W <:�\\, \ $:p.?:•: '`. \ � \ :. 3 3 . `wl\♦:\ti' ;`,aFastl_l a= biWi. ; ett \\\, : �F �\ . \; ; .< „J%r-,: a !` �twR Vy ^: Q }`; p'\♦�: h\ t4. `\t \,♦♦ J ,ti, v\♦ \_._,�; \ s 0, J1`v♦\ 3 .hilt` \`4 \0 ♦ ♦ \ o. rx �♦eArIn e CWlal ��Ay # tum` `:` ;� ♦t36 u y ,W wjpnatec tpert . A comparison of Table 5 and Table 7 indicates that overall the developmer►t will not have a significant impact on the surrounding street system. ! / t + a s I 0111 i • + 1 1 1 • • • i. LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 14 • k 1 . • • H 1 1` • . • I ., . • • • a , • 0 1 II ?N.T. ' 4 • i \*".4 : ►°A1ZKWAY OR 1% 6% 1 • • ..� ... ,,. K1. JSE WAY e6Y S ,1 ` v,-, �``�� 1.0A0�� �® moawomsl ie��r . (. ... LA TRIP 0151'RIBtifIC,1N5. . I. A w • 17Y , , ..Y\ 3 ---A 11\ . .,_ 11 PARKWAY OKIVE N o l \ * 1 riry ,......,@_.._. KKuSE WAY .. ,..‘ ...r lA R m t .1 m �� BA��1'I (,OWN . 11`E CEO igt\fflC VOLUMES PM PEAK I . ....,......,......... , . . 4 it•vrgia it r tl•.vri laiiii ifik4.4 :_,L; , IThNIM �«r..•� F.......J *...-moo •T L.er.) ' .. 1 0 •• . ON ; rRT\ q � 0-- q \" \ ilk PARKWAY OKIV� 0- a ---------------ito-A, ) l . . ( ---. 1 . 5111E r •111• b ncs-� 1 170 —. — Pqe 37-''d 1 8 ~ 400-4 _./.----\\N...-- ....---il ______:, . . KRUSE WAY • a1tt m 170—' a-- 140 C m t GN --� LADE BAP�'I5�' G �Uf�GN it. . OAY 51 "E ivi1 %G V�I�U ES . y11 p����; _ ` y t ..a L.+...... •ate! �M r yr: ➢ � iJ,,r . - •.x 4 . .... . : 4..4, y 34 --0 PARKWAY DRIVE �" /I h� 1 iq :' , — �7) tep ,t-- 100 •s2 �$ 1 r /I� r , r •- Z15—j° v--- 115 q_iv ' 1331--• 4-- 03Z Zp--ti► pr- �5 c�Th ' v ''.- \...........___....__.ili 14 1340--0 4--140 • c • m �" �A �APIS� --0 5 . CP fol�t, cRAf fIG VOA . ,,,• k‘6'..%".""""M"*"""N""""n" M"'""d'""W . . PM PE N( •r , 4 , ,, , . ,„'..."'''. '',..:''' . • t n ..1'1 L1''9*'Mwow6i1fAaOI rr.1,yMr (r«...nY r...... r .,. oIl . .. .......... Y 0 • ------ • 1 F �i' ' `I ' I ®11, . . , co g , .. . i 4i --,....* tir- 9) PARKWAY otw __,e ^ R . t, El - V._•r 15 0-0 a-- 0 160-�J 1 L S,TE 42. °I t 06 1145--, .— b57 g�,s l 15Ikl/ t9 . . . . . . . . . . . . KRUSE WAY --�. p ' L55-A 196 1001--s o--.yS m 56-�. ~ 153 IrAKE 13AP1151" GI1J CH WAY 101N. 1'KA(11C VO 11*4 b ,. NOON 10 1 PM • • 7 w Y 4 • This portion of this analysis compares the future growth of traffic along the Kruse Way corn and the impact of the development on those traffic volumes. The traffic growth along Kruse Way was projected for a 15 year planning horizon by using the numbers generated by the Metro EMME2 transportation modeling program and is shown in Figure 9. This projection indicates that traffic volumes' along the Kruse Way Corridor are already ' • • approaching the year 2005 volumes projected by other traffic studies in the area. This also shows that the current side street volumes are not approaching the year 2005 projections. • While this increase is significant, the actual impact of this growth will not pose a serious problem ) the operation of the highway. oy ,, j •' • • obi v s • �;fAjjp dr . . •• • • 41110 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 20 iR11rF.ti I.4n41 g....u.0J ••.,..•sr a:ruw M.t,.• {w...,r3 ' ,.,:,. . .; ., :v ..,.., ,. , . , . .. . . „ • . .. ."---- a 1man 4 . • e6 --Os' 4- 50 ORT • 9 --%. /0— 9 t • • ) r c PARKWAY OIRIVE ? f l 1 ..A �.• 1Z5 ' 5— . 0- 5(7-1-----cln o "� l �� 51 E �"°� �'�' »5 .� Do 1175--0. s— 9.10 q --sel e5� 8 = EO —` • KRUE WAY • 165—4 105 m q 1300—* a-- lq� r 181 \,.8 6P ., • .• ., .2.2: LAKE BArrl5 C ft i1 • . . 01 YEAR e005 1'O1AI, rIKAFEIG VOft • . PM PEAK NO . „. • a,. NZl1+4'5 VW MO WOO 1901 RCP fq . 6 ' 1 ' a `I Ifs; ..1, . .. . .•` .. . » ' a • 411118/` Based on field review and the above analysis the CONCLUSIONS following conclusions can be made: • • • • The proposed development can be built and if the improvements listed in t report are constructed should not significantly impact the surrounding street system. • The intersection of Kruse Way and Carman Drive requires signal improvement to operate at level of service "D" under the current conditions. A Kruse Way should be able to manage the future increase in traffic volumes that • are expected by the year 2005. • • Based on the results of the traffic access analysis RLCOMllEIVDATf SONS described in this report, it is concluded that'the istaignims. property as proposed can be constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding street system. • • r 2 . To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians within the area, the following traffic operational improvements are recommended. 1) The proposed development be constructed with two (2) full access driveway -� onto Carman Drive and one on Parkway Drive. . , 1 2) The proposed driveway onto Carman Drive be constructed with two exit lanes and • u one entrance lane. This would provide left and right turn lanes for exiting traffic. 3) Protected left turns be installed for Carman Drive at Kruse Way. This will require • changes in the existing lane usage but should not require widening of Carman { Drive. • 4) Carman Drive be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane from Kruse Way to the realigned Parkway Drive. • • w S • • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 22 • • • • .." • 1.. . /` • r . • ' • .. . . , . _ • 4 , .. . , . . . • . . . • . . . • • . • , ., : ., ,,_,•,:. Y0'•e .;••., ..-; '..,1 ••• • ,. . ...•3i'4'.*" • ' • W,e; NI% • • 4:1:0".••••• ..41W1/.,• . ,s , . ...,,,,,:., ...........r. A S 0 CIATED. . .., ..„.,,, 1,4--iiiire A Nsp 0 RTATT 0 N ....„ 4-- Eir,_. -M. . . . . , ......ise V . . rt.:.41.il, .r.GINE E RIN G ..:.:.:.:.: ...... & I , , r , NNING .t . , ... „..........:, . *.4 1 I ii I I.PIP 4 A (ATE P) . . 1/4 , . • • • fl• ''''':• . fe" 1 •• .• • ..i: ' 1 '''. .....;' •: f; .1. .. • ii i i e . ' •' ' *. i . ._ "''...; e . ,. •• * ' • . . ''.:0' '; • ,. • ; e e . ,. .. • ., , ....e . . , D . • . , • • Re -. la ..".•• ' , • If , . . '01,,', '• . , 110 • .APPENDIX i . ••• • ' '' 'T. . • .'N. . • I I '' 1, ' I " '` '' . i''4 ' • I .4 " " ' ". ' " ' '', . - '. 4 ' ': ''' ' ' • ' ' .. - . ,.i • I av tP I • 5 e f .:!,'. : ...„...., .: „,,,,,,,„ ......„. ..„.,,,., ......,„„,, . ..,-..•.i.....,...,,•..,......'....•..,.,..:....,.....,:'..•..,•..'.".n.r,.,:•„...,•,..„••.:..; '.'','... Aar . 1 ERIN . .• ,.. i1.,11.. ..'•,''...;'.,..'..•,..„.-.'....,'.,..,,:.'.. ., . •.4.:.t..'7. -`s e ..,f... & \I .........•._...,..... y r ..,,,.:.........,...... ,, ,,.,. :.„.„.. S.A %:•.�1,, GINEERING .ix....: .. (ATE p ) ,.. ,...., :., ...,..:.•,.„........, P I,, 'lull\\ NNINC I ,�j, sir. ' • .y I , , .. . 4.' APPENDix A , . . I j i CURRENT .L.L"T/. L 1 t �•'.1 �fi1 rw s OF Y :. . . , . ,. • , !. / ... . . LVIcE AL� UL � TIONS '. ... % . ,,,, ; .. . . ... , , . . . . . , , . i• 1. b of 1 1 'oho tl .YA M .. .i �' r. f u 1985 NCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT $ftffftffffff'lflatffffffftfffffffffffffffffffftfffffffffttfi,Mffffffffffff • INTERSECTION KRLSE NAY/NESTLAKE AREA TYPE OTHER0 ' ' ANALYST DV 1 DATE 88/18/91 J TINE PM PEAK ' CURRENT..... EXISTING VOLUMES : GEOMETRY -____\--~---- EB NB NB SB : EB NB NB Sp b IT 215 25 98 140 : L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 TH 1386 B28 125 181 : T 12.8 T 12.1 T Ia.O TR 12.1 • RT 20 115 82 121 s T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.1 12.0 ',.. RR 15 68 35 68 : R 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.6 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12.8 12.0 12.1 12.1 1:��.1 `' - - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N min T ' ED 8.88 2.21 N 8 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 NB 8.80 2.18 N 0 5 1.90 5 N 17.5 3 ., ',. NB 1.80 2.81 N 8 5 1.98 5 N 23.5 3 f• SB 0.11 2.88 M 8 5 1.91 5 N 23.5 3 G SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH si 97.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 }" EB LT I X NB LT X TN I I TN I r . RT I I RT X PD PD k NB LT X SB LT I ,. TN I TH I RT I RT X i' PD PD GREEN 15.1 11.1 38.1 1.1 GREEN 18.1 20.0 1.1 1.8 ti' YELLON 3.1 1.1 . , 3.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE ..' LANE GRP. VI^ 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ' EB L 8.548 1.250 24.0 C 41.8 0 T 1.137 8.412 42.5 E { R 1.889 1.412 18.9 B NB L 8.186 . 0.155 26.8 D 30.8 D TR 1.944 1.319 31.9 0 NB L 8.573 1.183 34.8 D 26,8 p ';'. , T 1.378 8.216 21.7 C } 11 R 8.171 8.206 21.5 C Y *. SB L 1.091 1.113 59.7 E 41.5 E TR 8.768 8.286 29.3 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 36.2 Csec/veh) V/C = 8.792 LOS = D y .e 1 1; 1.. Y I' ° U J U '_t . ,.. ..'.. ::. ':l'I.:. . e i i r414 III .::::::::: , Ls., SOCIA TED . • ::::: • ..,,,,,,,, .„, . . . • , z ...:.::::::. r,,...... . .. . . , ..„a . A NSPOR TA TI00...N .:.::::.:. ,,,....:.:.:.:. „,.. pi., , • . • . :. • . . . ,, , . ; .::::::::. ,„.,,,,, . „, ',., , GINEERING oc-, . . , N.:.:::::::::, ... re, .,;; . , . .. • ..� ( ) . { + LANNING ATEP ain . 6� la 1, . . . , t jA ;' . , ,. .. . . i a r tc • ,- APPENDIX C 1992 LEVELS OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS 1 '` N • 1 4 1985 NCH: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 :' tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttauleattttttttttttfttttttafttiffifffttt `` '' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9' • U, AREA POPULATION 188888 ti NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SITE DRIVE • ` 'z NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET CARMEN DRIVE J NAME OF THE ANALYST DO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS Ien/dd/yy1 88/11/91 TIE PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK c; OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT '4 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL • . • _________............._______________ , .: . . . INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH --a CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WO MB SB +; 121 LEFT 9 -- 28 I THRU B -- 422 258 RIGHT 28 -- I II NUMBER OF LANES , E8 NB NB SD LANES 1 -- 2 1 ti G . p L j • 1 t:. Y• ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (It) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 1.80 91 21 N WESTBOUND --- «- - • t ' NORTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N SOUTHBOUND 8.08 91 28 N 0 44F.' 4 # ' 1, ' VEHICLE COMPOSITION I Z SU TRUCKS Z COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES Z MOTORCYCLES • EASTBOUND 1 1 1 WESTBOUND --- --- • NORTHBOUND 1 8 + Y . - SOUTHBOUND 1 1 1 r CRITICAL GAPS r. TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED BIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL SAP =') MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.58 1.18 5.51 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.88 5.80 8.88 5.88 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.58 6.51 8.11 6.51 j 1 . . , . . „„ , . . . • I , w • • d s I,• '4 A i 11111/ CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOM- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ' ;; RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY HOVEMEENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c m c - v LOS p N SH R SH 5 MINOR STREET ED LEFT 11 328 312 > 312 ) 381 > 8 �� ' ) 582 > S37 >A f RIGHT 34 887 817 > 0O7 ) 772 > A MAJOR STREET ,A R . . " ND LEFT 34 981 911 981 066 A A : .d: :t 1 • �, . 1 - 1 • 1 '. L f .. fh .. vi j .. M • yr. ,�', . 1985 RCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ' ttttt+t++t+tt+ttt+t++t+*tt++tt+ttttttt+t+ttttftttimittt++f9tii4vcitaitt++ 0 IHTERSECTION KRUSE VAY/CARMEN DRIVE !� .. AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DV DATE 10/11/91 TIME PH PEAK `" COMMENT M/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY ES YB NB SD : ED ' 1111 NB SD , LT 131 215 145 112 : L 12.0 L 12.1 LT 12.1 LT 12.1 . TN 1341 74/ 234 119 : T 12.1 T 12.8 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 75 16 165 57 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.8 12.1 RR 75 75 111 45 : R 12.1 R 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.0 12.8 12.1 12.1 \ , V : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ti •• � .� �� w ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (1) (%) Y/1 Ns Nb YIN sin T EB 0.18 2.81 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 19.0 3 `.' VD 1.11 2.81 N / 0 1.91 5 N 19.8 3 NB /.11 2.11 N 1 8 1.91 5 H 31.0 3 • SD 1.81 2.80 N 0 0 0.91 5 H 31.0 --« 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 119.0 0 \ 't PH-1 PH-2' PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 r ED LT X ND LT X TN X TN X RT X RT X y PD PD NB LT X SD LT I ' TN X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD GREEN 15.1 5.1 45.1 2.1 GREEN 35.1 1.8 1.1 1.1 . • YELLO113.1 1+1 3.1 1.1 YELLOU 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.8 4 Iji LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.621 1.138 37.2 D 51.3 E T 1.062 1.413 52.6 E 5 • . R 1.881 0.413 12.1 B ' : OD L 1.978 1.138 74.9 F 26.4 D T 8.52E 0.459 13.8 B Is R 1.110 1.459 11.4 B . NB LT 1.415 8.321 f f t t R 1.149 1.321 17.1 C SD LT 3.128 1.321 t + + 1 R 0.127 1.321 16.4 C INTERSECTION: Delay = + (sec/veh) V/C = 1.417 LOS = + 0 ' 4. :. �..' 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUPOTARY REPORT U ( INTERSECTION KRUSE WAY/CARMEN DRIVE • AREA TYPE OTHER •:; ANALYST ' OW ..;,, .:.. DATE 18/11/91 TIRE.- PM PEAK COMMENT W/DVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB MB NB SD : EB MB ND SB LT 131 215 145 112 : 1 12.0 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 •4 TN 1341 740 234 109 : T 12.1 T 12.8 TR 12.1 TR 12.0 RT 75 86 165 57 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.1 12.1 RR 75 75 188 45 : R 12.8 R 12.1 12.0 12.1 : 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 e , : 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.1 ` , \ ii ADJUSTMENT FACTORS N• GRADE HV ADJ PK6 BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (Y) (2) 1/N Na Nb Y/N oin I EB 0.10 2.08 N 8 1 1.91 5 N 19.8 3 ',`:'•' NB 1.11 2.01 N 1 1 1.98 5 M 19.8 3 • NB 1.11 2.11 N 1 0 1.91 5 N 31.8 3 • N' :I SB 0.01 2.10 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH ■ 109.1 ".;� PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 & I EB LT I NB LT X TH X TH X PT I RT X Z PD PD MB LT I SB LT X TN I I TH I RT X X RT X PD PD GREEN 15.1 5.1 45.1 1.1 GREEN 35.1 0.8 1.1 1.8 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.8 1.1 YELLOW 3.0 1.8 0.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 6RP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. I;ELAY APP. LOS 1 EB L 0.621 I.lp 37.2 D 51.3 E ,I T 1.862 1.413 52.6 E •I. R 1.111 0.413 12.1 D '... .: 11 WB L 0.978 1.138 74.9 F 26.4 D T 1.528 1.459 13.8 B R 1.118 1.459 11.4 D NB L 0.414 1.321 22.3 C 28.9 C TR 1.618 1.321 21.2 C S8 L 1.514 1.321 24.4 C 28.6 C TR 1.239 1.321 17.6 C " • IHTERSECTIOh: Delay = 36.0 (set/vehl V/C = 1.567 LOS = D w • + ,,-If 1905 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT fffffffffffff4fffffffff44fff44f$f4444ff444f44fffff4ffff4ifffff4HffffffOCHI !NTERSECTION KRUSE WAY/WESTLAKE 0 ' AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DA DATE 88/18/91 • TIME PH PEAK • COMMENT N/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY . ED WB NB SB : ED NB NB S8 LT 215 25 91 141 : L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 TN 1331 832 125 1B1 : T 12.0 T 12.1 T 12.1 TR 12.1 RT 21 115 82 121 : T 12.1 TR 12.1 R i2.1 12.1 • RR 15 6I 35 60 : R 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.1 12.6 12.1 12.0 7 ..,......,_ „j ADJUSTHENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PK6 BUSES PNF PEDS PED. BUT.. ARR. TYPE (1:) (X) Y/N Na Nb Y/N ein 7 ED 6.88 2.11 N 1 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 ' OD 1.81 2.81 N I 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 NB 8.81 2.81 N I 5 1.91 5 N 23.5 3 + SD 8.88 2.11--- N I. 5 0.90 5 N 23.5 3AA -- h o' SIGNAL SETTIMS CYCLE LENGTH o 97.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X • TH X X TN X . s RT X X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X .{u TR X TN X `'\ ' e RT X RT X PD PD , GREEN 15.1 11.6 31.1 0.8 GREEN 16.1 21.0 1.1 1.8 • YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C B/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.548 1.258 24.8 C 45.1 E T 1.157 1.412 40.4 E R 8.889 1.412 18.9 B W8 L 1.116 8.155 26.8 D 32.3 D TR 0.957 1.319 32.5 D NB L 1.573 8.113 34.8 D 26.1 D 1 T 1.370 8.286 21.7 C R 1.171 6.216 21.5 C SB L 1.891 1.183 59.7 E 48.5 E • TR 0.768 8.286 29.3 D 1NTER5ECTION: Delay = 39.2 fsecivchl V/C = 1.002 LOS = D 4 1905 HCM: UNSIGNALIIED INTERSECTIONS Page-I tef1KEnilfffaf4rr+fe:tftcfsclemaat+eteaerocum+tffatiliafuo- efetoa. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 31 + • PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 AREA POPULATION I11111 M-y x NAM OF THE EAST/REST STREET CARMEN DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG NAME OF THE ANALYST DU DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (er/dd/yy) »1/1191 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PH PEAK' -� OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC ;`; INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ,a SJ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG s,, .: a ti MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN ^` CONTP4, TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED NB MB SB ' . LEFT 1 116 65 43 .. THRU 1 1 274 135 �. . RIGHT 35 19 155 5 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE • J EB NB NB SD LANES 1 1 1 I I LANE USAGE LTR LTR r �. . ■, , 1 • 0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ______ .________,.r____..___________________ ,r_ ____. „, , . PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (itl ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS w EASTBOUND 1.08 93 21 N '. • u . WESTBOUND 1.81 98 21 N NORTHBOUND 1,11 91 21 II / u SOUTHBOUND 8.18 98 28 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION \\ Z SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES i MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 1 " I" (' , WESTBOUND 1 8 1 NORTHBOUND 1 1 1 01„, : SOUTHBOJNO 1 0 1 F . S CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11.2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS • WO 5.55 5.58 1.18 5.58 EB 5.50 5.58 8.11 5.51 } MAJOR LEFTS Yf , i,' SO 4.11 5.88 8.88 5.18 • ' NB 5.01 5.80 1.88 5.11 MINOR THROUGHS WO 6.88 6.18 1.18 6.18 LB 6.88 6.18 0.88 6.18 +• MINOR LEFTS • I NB 6.58 6.58 1.18 6.58 EB 6.58 6.51 1.81 6.58• !'. • • . i t ' CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE -N- Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOG- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ;:u- RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ` `' ;6 MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph.‘ c (pcph) c • c v LOS p N SH R SH ,... %. MINOR STREET US LEFT 123 386 345 > 345 > 222 ) C THROUGH 8 462 424 > 375 424 > 238 424 )C A RIGHT 22 727 727 ) 727 > 785 ) A MINOR STREET • ED LEFT 1 358 315 ) 315 > 314 > B THROUGH I 417 382 ) 898 382 ) 856 302 >A B RIGHT 41 940 948 ) 948 ) 910 ) A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 75 993 993 993 918 A SD LEFT 51 752 752 752 763 A t ,; e i[ y i w • i i iP, 1 » . v: ,,, 0 . Y , , , . 1 y. i P by - • .+: 1905 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMNARY REPORT eaasee**********c****************aa***cart**********************s********* INTERSECTION KRUSE BAY/CARMAN AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DV DATE 18/11/91 TINE NOON x.. 12111ENT N/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED 18 NB SB : EB BB NB 88 LT 255 153 188 271 : L 12.1 L 12.1 LT 12.1 LT 12.1 TN 1111 553 212 132 : T 12.1 T 12.1 R 12.1 R 12.1 � d RT 56 196 123 275 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.1 12.8 • RR 56 158 120 250 : R 12.1 R 12.0 12.0 12.1 ; i : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12,1 __ _rr ---r ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N Ns Nb YIN sin T EB 1.18 2.18 N I I 8.90 II N 19.8 3 BB 0.11 2.81 N B I 1.91 II N 19.8 3 • NB 1.18 2.88 N I 1 1.98 II M 31.0 3 S8 0.11 2.II N I 1 0.91 18 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH . 114.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PN-4 EB LT I NB LT X TH I I TN `• RT I RT I PD PD 4. ... C¢ 48 LT I X SB LT I TH X I TH X RT I X RT X • PD PD 4' GREEN 21.0 5.1 41.8 8.8 GREEN 41.1 8.8 0.1 1.8 ` ' YELLOB 3.1 P.O 3.1 1.0 YEL .1 1.1 /.1 1.1 ' LOB 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP, LOS I EB L 8,954 8.175 64.5 F 37.5 D T 8.934 8.351 31.0 D R I.I88 8.351 15.5 C NB L 8.458 0.219 31.8 D 19.1 C T 8.459 8.395 16.6 C 'a R 1.885 1.395 14.1 8 NB LT 3.71E 8.351 * * * I ; R 8.807 1.351 15.6 C SB LT 2.119 1.351 * * * * R 1.852 8.351 15.8 C INTERSECTION: Delay = I (set/veh) V/C = 1.801 LOS = I NI • I 1 • Ja J4-: S/ f,• ✓_ .. b n • • AM '� t , • . S 0� �� TED . .. . . .„ .• i�t, % s;•. Ø- /gyp , . . . ..,, •.. . :., ..,. , ... . . r ..,...,. AN SP 0. . , . riiiill G & . e ,.. . . ...,.., ....„ : ./..,� �. :. ANNING . . , lr 'None/ (ATEp) • p . 1 • • ',. ,_ ..:. , ,,,.• ] ! ''.,. APPENDIX D . . j • YEAR 2005 LEVELS OF SER VI C CAL CULA TION, • ..r a a e • 1 ' •s 0 /i : .r 1985 NCH: UNSIGNALIIED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 N ir, ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttetttttttttttttttitttttttttttttttttttt IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 't AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 31 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 AREA POPULATION 110111 NAB OF THE EAST/NEST STREET CARMEN DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERB NAME OF THE ANALYST DM i` - DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (oa/dd/yy) 4/1191 TINE PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: YEAR 2105 1 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG . • MAJOR STREET DIRECTIONS NORTH/SOUTN • K., CONTRDI. TYPE EASTBOUND: STDP SIGH t,, CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED NB ND SB LEFT 1 145 65 90 , to i THRU 8 5 385 225 ' «" RIGHT 35 125 185 5 ,., sw c WUNDER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE .,-.:' •••••• , 0 ED OD NB SD r ------ ` LANES� a 1 1 ` g 1 ri 1 ": LANE USAGE LTR LTR J. u, • • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOM- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE • • RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY �l MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c s c - v LOS p M SH R SN MINOR STREET 110 LEFT 168 286 238 > 23B > 70 ) E THROUGH 6 354 383 > 341 303 > 22 290 )E C RIGHT 145 687 687 > 607 ) 542 > A MINOR STREET ED LEFT 1 213 154 ) 154 ) 153 > D THROUG,I 1 389 265 > 756 265 ) 714 265 >A C RIGHT 41 051 851 ) 051 > 018 ) A • MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 75 945 945 945 871 A SR LEFT 114 699 699 699 595 A , . 1 4• i, 1 • • + 1 • 4 1 • ,, \ .h • i 1 4 Y q{. • i � f . 4 • • • r 4. • STAFF REPORT ^I', , . . . . CITY OF . .LAKE oswEG0 . , . . . -PIANO DIVISION r. APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Thomas H. Nelson SD 56-89(Mod. 7-92)[AP 93-01] PROPERTY OWNER STAFF: William and Debra Larsson Michael R.Wheeler x • '- 1' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 3400 of March 24, 1993 Tax Map 2 1E 3CC DATE OF HEARING: LOCAMId: April 5, 1993 SW Corner of intersection of Chandler and Iron Mountain Boulevard(1210 Chandler NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: *` 4 Road) Forest Hills COMP.PLAN DESIGNA 1TON: ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 R-10 • I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST wl c;, The applicant is seeking to modify an earlier partition approval (SD 56-89; Exhibit 7) which enabled the creation of two parcels from an 86,058 square foot lot. The parcels } created are 20,078 and 65,980 square feet in size. The applicant seeks the elimination of 4 two conditions of approval (Conditions Number 3 and 11) as they regard Tax Lot 3400 ' • .. , (Parcel 1), • IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Cily of Lake Oswego omprehensive Play: • • ` Urban Service Boundary Policies ' General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 Impact Management Policies . General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 • ID General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 Residential Site Design Policies • SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] • i Page 1 of 13 ,� , 1 0 I +. l u General Policy N,Specific Policy 2,3 General Policy V,Specific Policy 1 • °r Bikeway Policies General Policy I,Specific Policy 2,3,6 Pedestrian Pathways Policies v General Policy II,Specific Policy 1 Transportation Policies M' ° General Policy II, Specific`Policy 1 General Policy IV,Specific Policy 7 ;; General Policy VI,Specific Policy 3 ,;? B. of Lake OSwegts Z' e: LOC 48.015 Definitions ,, • LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (set-backs,lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535(3) Special Street Setbacks LOC 48.820 Restrictions and Conditions C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.015(36) Definition; Public Facilities LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.125 Authority to Approve Changes in Development 0 Permits • LOC 49.140 Minor Development '• • • LOC 49.200-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.225 Appeals LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals LOC 49.630 Appeals of City Manager Action D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: • 14.005- 14.040 Utility Standard E. City of Lake Oswego Pathways LOC 42.900-42.920 LOC 44.374 III. FINDINGS • A. Background: The owners of the site requested approval of a minor partition in 1989, The City , granted approval, with conditions, on April 16, 1990(Exhibit 7), The final plan was 0 , . ' authorized by City staff on May 2, 1990. The original dwelling was remodeled and a • new dwelling was built on Parcel 2 during the summer of 1990. • "e SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] • Page 2 of 13 ' J. ,te • • The applicant subsequently requested that the minor partition be modified mto eliminate two conditions of approval (Conditions number 3 and 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). This request was considered by staff as prescribed by LOC 49.125,and the requested modification was denied on January 15, 1993. The applicant submitted an appeal of this denial [AP 93-01] on February 4, 1993. As required by ORS 227.175(10)(a),the applicant's appeal is required to be considered "de novo", as if no decision had been made regarding the matter. Appeals of City • Manager decisions are required by LOC 49.225 and LOC 49.630 to be considered by the Development Review Board. This report has been prepared in that manner. • B. Existing Conditions: 1. The site is composed of one of two parcels created following approval of SD 56-89,totaling 65,980 square feet in an irregular configuration. 2. The site is bounded on the north by Chandler Road, an 11-foot-wide paved • street with no shoulders; and Iron Mountain Boulevard on the east and °r , southeast,also an 18-foot--wide paved street with no shoulders,curbs,gutters, sidewalks or pathways. The rights-of-way for each an(0 feet wide,and 80 feet wide,respectively. 3. An existing six inch water line is located in Chandler Road. An exisiing eight inch line is located in Iron Mountain Boulevard. 4. An existing six inch concrete sanitary sewer line is located in Chandler Road in front of Tax Lot 3600 (to the west). , 5. There are no storm drainage improvements in either Iron Mountain Boulevard • or Chandler Road. 6. Street lights are located opposite the intersection of Iron Mountain Boulevard and Berwick Road,on the south side of Iron Mountain Boulevard. There are no street lights along Chandler Road. The applicant installed a cobra-head lamp on an existing utility pole along or near the frontage of the site or. Chandler n Road to satisfy a condition of approval of the earlier minor partition (SD 56- 89;Exhibit 7). 4 Y' 7. A dwelling, guest house, greenhouse and detached accessory structure are located on the Tax Lot 3400. • C. Proim i • The applicant is seeking approval to eliminate two conditions imposed upon a minor partition approved on April 16, 1990, specifically Condition Numbers 3 (regarding nonremonstrance agreements) and 11 (regarding a pathway deposit) as they regard ` • Tax Lot 3400 (Parcel 1). While the minor partition and required conditions of approval enabled the creation of • Parcels 1 and 2 of SD 56-89, the applicant's current modification seeks the ; • elimination of Conditions Number 3 and 11 only as they regard Tax Lot 3400(Parcel • • 1). This report does not include consideration of such a modification for Tax Lot t. 3401 (Parcel 2),based upon the application submitted. D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: .• SD 56-89(Mod.7--92)[AP 93-01] Page 3 of 13 • • As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor tJ development. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. 0 • ' . The applicant hr'i;s submitted many of the documents marked as exhibits, • . accompanying this report. The remainder of the exhibits were provided by staff to assist in the review of this application. 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The description of the applicable Plan policies has been provided below. Because ,. they regard only the two issues raised by the applicant,each has been addressed,in a summary,located at the end of this section. The policies are as follows: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban , Service Boundary,with a logical planned extension of basic services. p, The policies are as follows: General Policy III—'The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban , Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services." . L . � � � Specific Policy 4—"New development shall be served by an urban level of service of ID • the following: "c. adequate streets, including collectors" "e. Open space and trails as per Open Space Element" "Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development,or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds," Though Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Boulevard are paved streets, they are . inadequate in that they are narrower than the City standard of 20 feet in width, lack curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and/or pathways. Compliance with this Plan policy was achieved through Condition Number 3 of SD 56-89 (Exhibit 7), which required that the applicant sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements to both streets,for use in the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID), The applicant complied with the condition by providing the ' agreement on June 25, 1990(Exhibit 8), • Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals,and payment of an equitable share ® . . , . . of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several code chapters, and the Development Standards, addressed further below, Compliance with SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93411 Page 4 of 13 Ii• y the applicable Development Standards assures conformance to these Plan policies. v f� Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. General Policy I-'The City will protect natural resources and processes from ,a " ' adverse impacts of development, within reasonable cost limitations." ' Specific Policy 1 --'The City will assure that each development seeks to preserve and maintain natural features and processes. Each development shall seek to provide,in accordance with the applicable plan element:" 7. Provision of pedestrian and bicycle circulation" General Policy II-'The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community,requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted." Specific Policy 1 -'The City will place principal responsibility on the developer for demonstrating how a proposed development complies with Comprehensive Plan t policies and standards contained in regulations or requirements." A Specific Policy 2-'The City will prepare and carry out regulations requiring development proposals to identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts, ` including particularly:" , "a. traffic or safety improvements needed for access, circulation,parking of autos, bicycles and/or pedestrians;separation of auto and other circulation a or to reduce or eliminate traffic impacts on adjacent areas, or to facilitate use of public transportation." 'u "f. public cost impacts, assuring that development: 1)pays for costs of facilities r '. required to serve it or,2)ameliorates the public cost impacts of the development." • Specific Policy 3-'The City will review developments for compliance with the Development Standards and other applicable City Codes. . ." General Policy III-'The City will require new development to pay an equitable . "' share of the costs of public facilities,particularly sewer, water, drainage,parks, open , space and streets or traffic improvements." Specific Policy 1 -'The City will require new buildings and development to pay for an equitable share of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of ,. • . the development, including but not limited to:" "a. street and traffic safety improvements, including off-site improvements," -' In its review of SD 56-89, the City comprehensively evaluated the proposal. The , City considered the location of trees on the site and required a tree survey prior to issuance of any building permits for the site(Condition Number 6, SD 56-89;Exhibit 7). The City determined that the proposal did not fully comply with the applicable ; Plan policies, specifically those regarding the provision of pathways and adequate streets. The City required Conditions Number 3 and 11 to ensure compliance with • . those criteria. Satisfaction of these conditions was deemed by the City to be the , ` applicant's ".,,,equitable share of the costs..." associated With the development. The , , 410 applicant satisfied both conditions by June 25, 1990(Exhibits 3 and 9). The staff found that the additional impact on City facilities caused by the additional need for SD 56-59(Mod.7-92)[A.P 93-01] Page 5 of 13 • ` 2 ' h. `4 • pathways and improved streets created,a basis for requiring compliance with the J conditions. RcsidontiaLSitr,flesigniolides. These policies are intended to guide the appearance and function of development, resulting in more livable neighborhoods. r The relevant policies are as follows: General Policy IV—"Provide for residential streets which enhance residential livability." Specific Policy 2—"For new development, the City will:" "a. require residential streets in new developments to be designed to provide for pedestrian and bic,wle safety;landscaping,especially street trees,and for controlling the.cpeed of automobile traffic. ' • "Priority will be given in street design to amenities which improve livability over vehicle speed and convenience, and to reduce disruption of residential areas caused by traffic." • Specific Policy 3—"For all residential areas, the City will:" ,. "c. encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation in residential areas." • • General Policy V—"Provide for innovation in residential building types and site planning." Specific Policy 1 —'The City will encourage and assist the design and development of innovative residential dwellings, related facilities and site planning in new developments. "Examples of such flexibility include:" ' • . < "1. street design to slow traffic cand protect pedestrianslcyclists." ,'•, . k The applicant was required to comply with these policies (and the Code provisions r. which implement them) by either constructing the required improvements to City standards,or paying a pathway deposit(Condition Number 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). • { The applicant paid the deposit on June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). The staff found that the additional impact on City facilities caused by the additional need for pathways and improved streets created a basis for requiring compliance with the conditions. "�• Bikeway Policia, •hI , These policies require development of pathway segments identified in the Conceptual ,�• ', Pathway Master Plan. These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation— Bikeways and Walkways Development Standard and portions of LOC Chapters,42 and 44. The latter is reviewed on page n of this report; the former is not t\plicable to ' • ' minor development. • The relevant policies are as follows; • • y 1 , +` SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)(AP 93-01] Page 6 of 13 • __ r ,`p, +.� a«_ tie ,. . r. 1 ._ ,•. ;, » '' :Yi.. ♦ P ., , 1. General Policy I-'The City will establish and implement a Bikeways Plan,which provides for safe intra-community, human-powered travel, with connections to adjacent cities and counties." J 1 ,,, .. • • Specific Policy 2-'The City will develop bikeway standards which:" "e. require bikeway route planning for new developments at the preliminary design stage, to connect with routes in[the]Bikeway Plan" .. Specific Policy 3-'The City will designate Fublic Works Department as • administrator of the Bikeways Plan" Specific Policy 6-"The City will provide for a variety of funding sources to 17 implement the Bikeway Plan, including both public and private sources" The Pathways Master Plan and Ordinance(Exhibits 4,5, and 6)enable the Public t Works Department to require a pathways deposit when the actual location of the pathway along a planned route has not been determined but will be constructed in the furie. The location of the future pathway on this segment of Iron Mountain • `' Boulevard has not been determined. The applicant was required to pay the deposit as • a condition of the minor partition approval(Condition Number 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). The deposit was paid by the applicant on June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). ade"stri n Path_w.ayc l o ick These policies require that pathways be planned for and developed to connect n , ' • facilities throughout the City. ' 0The relevant policies are as follows: "°• General Policy II-'The City will assist in the development of the Pedestrian Paths • systems to connect parks, schools,public open spacr3, residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas." Specific Policy 1 -"The City will develop flexible standards which require individual developers to provide segments of the community's pedestrian pathways. These standards should assure: "d. footpath extensions of existing sidewalks" "e. protection from vehicle traffic" i, The discussion of these policies is the same as for Eilr sway Policies,reviewed earlier. nanortation Policies ` These policies require that streets be improved as planned(including required width, , • curbs, gatters,drainage improvements, sidewalks, and pathways) when demand - • requires. The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional • right of way as necessary to provide for widening. These policies are implemented in • a , part through LOC 48.535(4), Special Streets Setbacks. While no additional right-of ' • or to sign a nonremon,trance agreement for future right-of-way�to construct improvements,in way dedication was required,the applicant was requ r ' improvements,m �, { 40 Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. .r,.•' i •4 SD 56-89(Mod.7--g2)(AP 93-01] Y Page 7 of 13 , " 1 General Policy II- 'The City will plan the use of street rights-of-way to serve human powered modes,such as bicycles and pedestrians,in addition to serving motor : ' :-• vehicles." • The relevant policies are as follows: Specific Policy 1 -'The City will manage public rights-of-way in a manner which best meets community and neighborhood needs,as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses of the rights-of-way will be varied,in accord with the particular needs, expected vehicle traffic,available funds,physical conditions or desires reflected in each situation. Uses include: • ti q. ,'r,' "d. bikeways "h. pedestrian paths" L,, General Policy IV-'The City will develop a residential neighborhood streets system :'r adequate to handle expected volumes,but at a minimum necessary scale to preserve the quiet,privacy and safety of neighborhood living." a•' 's Specific Policy 7-"Plan with neighborhood representatives for the use of public rights of way in the neighborhood. Such uses could include:" "a. bikeways" "b• pedestrian paths" General Policy VI-"The City will develop and implement a,system of bikeways and pedestrian paths, which provide an energy efficient alternate means of circulation k throughput the community." • ` ` i Specific Policy 3-'The City will plan for Pedestrian Paths, to enable residents to travel safely on foot or bicycle throughout the camntundty. These pathways should:" "d. Be developed as part of development and landscape approval" A discussion of these policies is the same as for Impact Management Policies and Bikeway Policies,reviewed above. Summary: r The City determined during the review of SD 56-89 that Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road did not meet minimum City standards ,particularly in the areas of pavement width,curbs,drainage, sidewalks, bikeways and pathways. The proposed • development created an additional need for these improvements, and were required in r the conditions of approval. Alternatives available in order to comply with the relevant Plan policies were to construct required improvements or provide a signed .. ` nonremonstrance agreement and pathway deposit for future improvements. The applicant provided the deposit on June 15, 1990 and the ag reement on June 25, 1990. 14 r b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. ZoningCode ` Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 4 • ..;.` The following requirements were in effect on the date this application was received: 40 .. , 4 .!' The site is zoned R-10 Residential which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is 65 feet; required minimum lot depth is 100 feet [LOC 48,210(1)], r • SD 56-89(Mod,7-92)[AP 93-01] Cr, Page 8 of 13 " • V Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 25%for new construction [LOC . Y 48.225(1)]. w • The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for new construction [IOC 48,215(1)(a)]: Front yard: 25 f. Rear yard: 30 ft. Side yard: 15 ft. The maximum height for new construction in the zone is 30 feet on a flat lot or 43 feet on a sloped lot[LOC 48.220(3)]. /.1 Maximum lot coverage ahowed for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction in the zone is 30% [LOC 48.225(1)]. A. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction [LOC 48.215(1)(b)]:• • . N Front yard: 25 ft. Rear yard: 25 ft. Side yard: 10 ft. The maximum height allowed in the zone for an alteration that does ^"t qualify as new construction is 35 feet on a flat lot or 45 feet on,a slopedlotO], • „[LOC 4F,,220 3 z The applicant propNes no change in the configuration of the approved parcels, which are the following sizes: Arm Width Depth ' '' Parcel 1 65,980 square feet 250 feet 250 feet Parcel 2 20,078 square feet 170 feet 150 feet • The applicant applied for the modification with regard only to Tax Lot 3400 (Parcel 1). This parcel meets all Zoning g Code requirements. The existing right-of-way widths of Iron Mountain Boulevard and.Chandler Road meet the Special Street Setbacks [LOC 48.535(4)]. • Development Code Requirements and Analysja( .O Chapter 4j1 In order to determine the level of review required, the staff must examine LOC 49.125, Authority to Approve Changes in Development Permits. As prescribed by that section, "Any change not meeting the criteria set forth [in this section]shall be processed as a new application. A change meeting the criteria shall be processed as a minor development," • 'The City Manager may approve changes in any development permit,provided that • such change: "(1) Does not increase the intensity of any use,or the density of residential use; 4 r and... The proposal concerns two conditions of approval affecting future street and • SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] r Page 9 of 13 • • r , pathway improvements, and does not propose to increase the residential density . of the project. . r "(2) Meets all requirements of the development standards and other legal • requirements;and..." - 1 U x The approved minor partition meets all such requirements,as described in the staff report and decision (Exhibit 7). The applicant proposes to eliminate two conditions of approval affecting the Utility Development Standard. The f, applicant has not proposed alternate methods of complying with the Plan policies and the Utility Development Standard,which requires adequate streets or the construction of a pathway. Absent a proposed alternative,this , requirement is not met by the applicant's proposal. "(3) Does not significantly affect other proprty or uses,will not cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature,process,or open space; nor significantly affect any public facility; and..." The proposal does not affect other property because the subject conditions "" affect only future street and pathway improvements; it does not affect any natural feature or open space; the proposal does affect a public facility which includes public rights-of-way, as defined by LOC 49.015(36). "(4) Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by a hearing body or City Council." The proposal does not affect a condition placed by such hearing bodies since the two subject conditions were imposed by staff in an administrative decision, 0 , , as provided by the Development Code. The applicant's request is required by LOC 49.125 to be processed as a new •'� application to modify the approved minor partition. The applicant was required to submit a new application for this modification to the original minor partition approval. Other than applicable Development Standards, there are no other .. Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Pathways (LOC 42.990-42.920.LOC 44.374) The City has adopted a procedure for the public review of pathways design and routing (Ord.No. 1981, Exhibit 5). To implement this where major development is , ' not proposed, the Public Works Director requires a deposit of a cash amount to be • reserved for future bikeway construction. This applicant was required to pay this . deposit for the 300 foot of the site's frontage along Iron Mountain Boulevard ' • • (Condition Number 11, SD 56 39; Exhibit 7). The applicant paid this deposit on ' ^ June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). c. The applicable Development Standards • • . Udlit ztand d(14.005 14.040) • Before approval of a minor development can be granted, it is required that all utilities be provided to City standards [LODS 14,020(1)1. This includes streets [LODS ''i, • 14.020(1)(h)j,bikeways and pedestrian pathways [See Comprehensive Plan Policies, • ... ` ',4 • discussed earlier]. � Though paved, neither street abutting this site meets current City standards involving ' quiled width,curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and pathways. A pathway is ,,, '.' !) . SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-011 re • Page 10 of 13 Lp • proposed along Iron Mountain Boulevard as identified in the Pathways Master Plan, but has not yet been constructed. A pathway deposit was required as a condition of ` • approval (Condition Number 11, SD 56-89)and was paid by the applicant on June 1 ; 15, 1990(Exhibit 8). Though the Standard inquires the provision of adequate streets, the anticipated impact ` of the partition upon the street system did not merit its improvement at the time of approval of SD 56-89,due to practical considerations. The applicant was required to r sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements (including bikeways and r pathways)to both streets. This agreement would be exercised in the event of the • potential formation of a Local Improvement District, which would improve a larger :' :• area of the street. The agreement will allow participation in hearings necessary for the CityCouncil to form the district, but D %° wouldpreclude a remonstrance bythe applicant with regard to the district's actual formation. Additionally, as required by the Pathways Ordinance, the applicant was required to ,° "•:, provide a pathway deposit for the planned route along Iron Mountain Boulevard, as , discussed earlier. o d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. . E. C mlusiim The Comprehensive Plan,Development Code,Development Standards, and Pathways • Ordinance (Exhibit 5)require improvement of streets and pathways as a part of any • development. Th development has been shown to create the need for additional • , improvements. The applicant provided a signed nonremonstrance agreement in lieu '' • of constructing those improvements, as required. The applicant has not proposed to improve Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road to city standards. Instead, the applicant has requested that the nonremonstrance requirement, Condition Number 3, be deleted from the earlier approval. The applicant has not demonstrated that this would achieve compliance with the Code. It is therefore necessary for the City to require that the nonremonstrance agreement for those future improvements remain in effect for SD 56--89. • . The improvements mentioned above include a pathway along Iron Mountain Boulevard. The applicant provided a cash deposit for future pathway improvements 1, in lieu of constructing the pathway in 1990. The applicant has not proposed to improve a pathway in Iron Mountain Boulevard to City standards. The applicant has • requested that Condition Number 11 be deleted from the earlier approval. The Pathways Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan charge the Public Works Director with administering the construction of the Pathways Master Plan, The Public Works -, Director secured a deposit for the pathway in lieu of its actual improvement as a ' • condition of approval of approval of SD 56-89. Based upon the provisions of the '�: Pathways Ordinance, it is reasonable for the City to require that the applicant's cash deposit for a pathway along Iron Mountain Boulevard be retained to satisfy SD 56- . • IV, RECOMMENDATION 14 The staff recommends denial of the proposed modification to the minor partition approved previously (SD 56--89), and that the following conditions remain in effect as originally • numbered and approved: „, SD 56-89(hlod;7-92)[AP 93-01] Page 11 of 13 • y 1 y I • ' • 3. The applicant shall provide the City a signed agreement of no!iremonstrance and petition for future improvements anticipated in Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved, and be binding • on subsequent owners. • d 1' ,� 11. The applicant shall provide the City a cash deposit for the purpose of constructing a bikeway along Iron Mountain Boulevard prior to the issuance of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. The amount of the deposit shall-be determined • by the Public Works Director. .1 a Y Q. eP , 1 4 • • • • • SD 56-89(Mod47-92)XAP 93-01] Page 12 of 13 • • :r • . • , I/ EXHIBIT S 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative 3. Site Plan 4. Pathways Master Plan(Map);dated December, 1988 5. Pathways Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1981);dated February 7, 1989 6. Pathways Master Plan(Text);dated December 20, 1988 7. Staff Report,SD 56.39;dated April 16, 1990 8. Nonremonstrance comment;dated June 25, 1990 9. Pathways(L.-posit(Receipt Number 158827);dated June 15, 1990 10. Memorandum from Jeff Condit,City Attorney;dated October 23, 1992 11. Notice of Appeal;dated February 3, 1993 12. Letter from D.Pogue; dated March 16, 1993 i• 1 .r • • 1 r ♦ r ° • .� ` I • ♦ •, SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] Page 13 of 13 200 T.; 480 Cil 2100 - 4.DI Z •• v er�fr�le-w .. , 0 \.. �O 4°• ,4,. 300 - ♦Ail II' - V 0 7 ,,i.,. w 41 . , COURT ,,,.,P.,.,, . a.= V t ' • • Op ' o Q� '� �.pNo OD D .� e •�-�y° ♦1,' ter./ 15 P 0 30. eii?1 " g' • , A 11 i'. //6 a 4v..12 0 Ogii, nr•.iiii•i•Ti,.. . �' 1290 .'.rrast.°a•snow. as 400 2 0 444 [� ,,« �!� M P 1500 1400 Y v ,,,�• A �p0 1.034Ac. '. 4.0.2IAc. ..M a� ���� ,0.29 Ac' �1235 1225 y ! �� , w • 0,6 c' 124b o �J• r+ t1.55 V. \ is.). Ts.a, H *4 N ro•re'.4.".' t 1,• R „ A"' 10 Te. .0 JOSI�.H 5. • RANKLIN �- , �``' ` Ac' URM °�' ,O. 1 70' 0� io' tyV.44 �� r. R� »�® ill. 5. N . oOD \ ••,, / ✓1T -'•• 41 J+,t, /;+ .6 3401 .. 14 3400 ��� w R96tCEL 2 �'. 410 3 Sze N.E N S/i LS IO R i \ (' C) 5 C6 V y, \ a 90 � 5 A • CCC a a ,4 I • po s' ^� h,1 ,1 'ti 0 r1 as, ba A, ip00. • • 5, y :, `/�-. \ `y N 4 Off' _ , .. `.r 1") `• Epp - 1R h°1 A� y i'''', \ \\ /Cr 1,61 • \ 1�Y1 to A. y `]� 4, 9 \ 6t nQ ...., N?S' 63 ,4 ' , fa l 0 K �i + "' n ft4t/ ,. o w 0. r 4 # mkt r:N \ `• ,1 1 b6 (d /' °\ a • F,.. - . • . R i it STATEM ELACC�OMPANXTN 'LIcA ION FOR MINOR CI$LGES_Ta D VELA': ;NT PERMIT Introduction u By a plesding dated May 1, 1992, William and ' Debra Larsson moved to reopen a prior land use decision in File ' No. 56-89. A copy of that motion is attached hereto as - '','.• 1 Exhibit 1. In response, by letter dated May 27, 1992, Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, informed the Larssons that the appropriate procedure to reopen the referenced „ , decision and to address the merits of the issue would be by application for minor changes to development permits. A copy of Mr. Wheeler's letter is attached hereto as Appendix 2. r. Mr. Wheeler also informed the Larssons that the fiAing fee for ". , such an application was $400. On July 24, 1992 the Larssons, through their attorney, submitted a document titled "Application for Minor Changes to Development Permit," together with the $400 filing fee. On August 13, 1992, Mr. Wheeler wrote to Mr. Nelson stating that the City required • • "a completed application form, site plan, supporting graphics, and narrative. The . narrative must include a description of how :•;� • the proposed modification complies with LOC 49.124 (1-4) , applicable provisions of the • Development Code, Development Standards, and other development-related ordinances. ;: , ; : The Application must be signed by the property owner or written evidence of your authority to act as agent must be provided." • a This revised application and narrative summary accompanies the � . '. 1 one-sheet "Application for Administrative Review for Minor � •. Changes to Development Permits. " Written authorization for Mr. .,, Nelson to represent the Larssons in this matter is attached to the one-sheet application form submitted herewith. A site plan and supporting graphics are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. '' Narrative First, addressing LOC 49.125(1-4) , the Larssons contend: • (1) The change requested herein will not increase - the intensity of any use, or the density of residential use, of land, and 1. r .4 . 4 . EXHIBIT ® 2 (3 eaXy-244o.1 19612 0001 i1.�y, , , i r • (2) The change requested herein meets all requirements of all legal development standards and other requirements legally imposed; in fact, the reason that • this application is submitted is to determine the legality of two existing requirements that Applicants believe to be ,• • illegal; and ' (3) The change requested herein will not f` significantly affect other property or uses, will not is 4 cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space, and will not significantly affect • any public facility; and - . t (4) The change requested herein does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing body or City Council. (The prior action was administrative in nature. ) The application does not seek to change any existing use of land. Rather, it seeks a determination of the legality of two conditions it attached to its approval of their application to create two parcels from one parcel of land, viz. , (1) the legality of the exaction of over $5000 to fund a bikepath along Iron Mountain Boulevard (condition 11) , and (2) the legality of a "nonremonstrance agreement" (condition 3) . Applicants contend that both of these . conditions are illegal. 0 : `• (1) The Bikenath Exaction. Applicants contend that the bikepath exaction was illegal and unconstitutional. Specifically, the exaction appears to be a violation of ORS 0 223.389 (imposition of special assessments by resolution or ordinance) , Section 38 of the Lake Oswego City Code (imposition of special assessments by ordinance) , Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution (taking of property without just compensation) , and the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the &institution of the United States (taking of property without due process of law) . The Larssons seek a refund of all " • bikepath funds paid to the City, plus statutory interest. (2) The Nonremonstrance Agreement:.. Applicants contend that the nonremonstrance agreement was illegally obtained and is both illegal and unconstitutional. In essence, ' ' �» the nonremonctrance agreement requires that Applicants forfeit civil and political rights in return for development • authorizations. It is a longstanding principle of law that governmental benefits may not be conditioned upon the surrender of constitutional rights. More specifically, the agreement deprived Applicants' right to, and chilled their exercise of, free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under Oregon Constitution Article I, , ` i 0 PDX'l-2440.i 19642 o0r01 � �a h 1 „ 1 • + . \ • •. •.. - • section 8 and Article I, Section 26 and underthe first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; it deprived them of their right to free elections as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution and under 42 USC § 1973i(a) ; it is preempted by 5 Usc § 1502(a) (1) (the '. Hatch Act) , and it is in violation of the Oregon Corrupt Practices Act, ORS 260.665. Applicants intend to provide full legal analyses backing these claims once this application is processed and this proceeding moves forward. W . Applicants William and Debra Larsson look forward to • working with the City on this matter. DATED: September 3, 1992 Respectfully submitted, m<A67440,0 /1644—%. °"" Thomas H. Nelson • STOEL RIVES HOLEY JONES & GREY 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2700 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 294-9281 Of Attorneys for Applicants ;u. y 't. PDX3-2440,1 19642 0001 .�i ry • � 1 0 0 . • ` I PRELIMINARY MAP FOR L B E LL'9 �' / g � , • _,t'(1'�� �t10'120 —`t,=Gl.ta' O./1� �'•..,_ 1 BEING: LOTS 71-73 & A YN�v �'j PT LOT 74 C ,>,,a'� ,r, 1nnP' 'p�� „FOREST HILLS„ tam'\0`.1%'S 7oes.>� $ • p. a-wAart w[r[ns I��in y'�7°a`Ya I,�r/P, IN THE: CLACiV KA 4 SEC. 3, T'2 S. R.1 E., W.M. .' " COUNTY, OREGONi. :4.,.,' i ' `o• PARCEL 2 • r I'''1/ r ')t Z4a�0 SQ. FT.t 1 laucN T.L, 3100 MAP 2 1E 3CC i ! :, oust e. m,eo' I • 75 .heard., • b•\ is",yobd / / PROftESS gNAf. N � �.. vamp LANTI &11rvCY IN • Hoot • '[ ^ I Nitro, �/ oARCEL 1 '`' ` u N'nll'is r I •ttJ ( 1 ci )i 6l,.701]SQ. FT'3 �_ ...::�s I • 11 be Di AI •a . / �' f 71 A.. iwou' i M c CFI ■N 2134'3I'C LEGEND: 1 SCALE i"•• 50, • MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED 70 a 1' ���4y Cr+ oWNuLtAPPucANR DEUDIE LARSN I :. I.P. IRON PIPE ilu tAM[NEW tiw. CC �� p / • LAKE OSkCOo'o tcoN 07035 U G h H I Q I T ," LR. IRON ROD t R[CORO DATA �� (, l 55- • RECORRI SE'AER b Mw'7-'9� :II / PREPARED 19Y: ANDY PARIS k ASSOCIATES C I;YI P. 1/YIP 5 1/'!y' I6877 S.W. CANYON MOT. 636-3341 iERO TEL, ELEC., k C-34E n1]' PH. 05WECo, OITECON o`Ofi • �� • , A 2so.00'. L . 0./2'�' it1 • al • H s6nrsb' r APr� 4 .t 1 oil ' 1 2 1090 • K \S t . •;,.,,6'. :b. , I�N • V 1', 1 IJ' it �. 1et�`- itie . ..VJ. n-� ti t•• A~'► 1 I, frl �•1 1�� .t -`` ra1111O \,3 ��a;4c„J 1 �� i. oi:iih dlnoea'" 7 • 4 "••,` F � • , �� 1' • ( ..�-> ..� _.•� • , .1,Me•.. .. r• /J(( `�\`\Ll / r, South IYPrY + jr or : � ' t �' I;*" ) I t 1�. d :_.•' k , ., ;. PuynntN;;ee 1.:.'Y -I. 11 \ _'�•ti c( /•h ] , 1 1,, NpA/ YJrY, 41► �..._.. 1 � _ :1/ l Yt,�. r-... ►^'o.r. of elyo ^Iv r, 4 _.n 1^ I -, .a _ 11. J•:-n YYrY L nt. J ,Y1 r r 7�--• / I0r+ . (' ,A, _ No n IIeIA p it 1. ,- ,.1�. , •.. 12,(If '. ' %Il+t _.: ' •-� - -1 / ( ` 1/,1. I 111 M, • `O 1 ♦� •`�-1 y •�' I ",-a..-. . (IaiW- _ fitly,r aaY1J 7.R{>' �'I ., . n •OlO l l/ ,(• . 1, r � ._ �1 +, i �.-.•� 1//% 1>. 14fYbA llferl k,_ . er1 \_ • S1 , T' t.fi R,- 'l' T 1 .. _ ''� . 7 Vln•,%,-...ram w �� [ry+��, rfY-1 I iiL�' U N• 'v. ......1 ✓ C47.14.. arwt jii '. ( � �!' _ - �..' \ 1 r 17 c.rn.n arlre rl1 : / il� '4 Iflir 1 \ y/ '41 %7ttt ) 4f?r.f C2 e Y .» I/ i. u °unit 2+ �y _ ts. ,r,t) .S p ) :)1 ' ���� 1 ,' ' e0 p 2o, e:rr Po.d 1 21 � .nit 1 I •' -.. t p yid n. eott2peu J.�f �.Slit. •�_ I ,_tlltl. �^ »� �� . errant Pe•d IUMI 11 Y �' • J ! .� , A 1�, n / 21. Jun e•.dlunit}I /11 `r ^r 21 re•Wr Mud `�.�^ I' r �' C l (� '+� _r1� .�� �� �� Y �� 2>. Nutrlia lunll! 11 1 ( r ,i �'�•.//� r 21, Overlook Drive i.rJl Ii \ I of.,� 'S CD I (4 f �'"Z.., J,;I I !" �IIJ. u'1 , r t ill r 117� 27, ole 111u•f ee.e • ,>•2:�,„ �+ '� 1 ' ,f .Pw4'1" aml .1 ') `�;- �r 4� ./ir ` 'it i�ee°ut�»�no.d t ,,y 1 }1kil 1 �jT� rvY,.eY Moot r r �i:�: )♦ • r. i!r 11 'I '6.6 J 11. cmrq tom r Ywr R• r `r .1" ••• .' �r a I' I' .. r In Ile.d 1 I �, 1, , ,. ( 1 21, erY.nt Nop y: 1 /I `� ✓ '� •�' r�r /lam 1 • Ifs r 117 `•', � ,^i.� `�t� wrr�1 2,. :r.a. •. .t. �Yi,, � �., �.�.• 1'- vJ ��• 1 [_d fi. Uourlu°elrele .rz , \ r , t T ♦'�' i1 "" o,�, ., Iuv p7fooholde 11. garish. a orlu b . 1 rr.7..p.,1C y •-••�r, kit 0,, ���� ,S4 7(W. •1 i.%1 / \ I. /�// I /0, IIOYOIP Mold + Jc►. i'T��r.:�"�'T► .uralr ry Y�i r.1 i ' li, eee•eaten - ,_ r �2` I /,,�. , e rt..N• 'i / 1 Tleb•r 11n•Anr• ---1^ n•� -J �cl' 4� ie OAICQO r / f1 egli1 U. 000d.li Snood eeeed k V �• V I 1.�. _ _. y.� Ci L _ A.11 a 41, oHentroe eb.' �. 1� ' �W '�.'11,.y , 12,41, CI, lY do h Shod �. /� 12. ci.n.or Nord It 4111 NM ®j' - . ♦ >e clenrn.nn nnrn ood I"""� r A �-- ni', M^y iL IWIUru IIurU PI'1 • .:D ��ec .00 „1 ; i ��'�_1•�I i jJ`,` ..'' ilt, i�r' II NLYUo IlU,llonnl N,wll /� .1 I __ `. . J osI00 Le V P+J Z,__ d "f 111". 1/ I ���. t ��'�}♦f�c�7,�`. / 1 4.,-,- l i- l•.4 C �!_i Y •f1�`/./ �lUi 1'`�: �.. J. � (I1i t ,.4•: ' ,;,i~ - -.. . vi' 1,,,.F1L�l (4 '/ 44**4 .1' 2`-"'?' -' / �L Y" ` f�. /w>/.� -'+' fir' r 7e" "iGfli ,M,p� `� .r o ,4•- �' i.Y /, I .Y� ,ff'V/ s .,fR,,l�.' _..71)1•.� O 0 a/, -•'W@' ' nr- "-70,( i •-./OW ----, r 3. . ,,,,,,,,,,, r ` '` � ' r _,. y ll ,,a , a I ) e 1e e. .� I.e•ee .Zr:... i.-r . . �,EXIS, NG , . `%� I ,:litis4r" r ,, 1 101.14La " , i itrflo ,.1 ' it_ 1 l ,IM I • -4 '1 '() 1 �`e�), - y/ 'etl , • ' ftr,Wrst E 9 II WE •P'-•-• :I ' . iiik ''' . . * '...111 ' 1 Aii4V,/ "1-';',4 441R19.),...i " ' ' 1 ' 13iv i .... kill , . • - ( •_ , p� • •12:ry�••N``` FOR IDO IVIHYt + ;0. - � > Ww� 2UAIAMI I ' �'� Clt ,. ' r...rn1 (--y ( it en S �` A 0 4 EXHIBIT 1 ���= �~� .� `1�� b S W M� '�' III, 1 E X H 19 ♦� ...IAA ° 1 it • \ ;2:7 AND VICINITY % R A f r44- �14. ' �' J l� � C)ECEM[3EFi 190F1 ` . t .,�, 4� -st ::, / i I / ) 4 ,��� r1e f� I / �e 11 L n f r .r+ t `a fit- . '.� M EXIiIBiT J5 (4 ) , ORDINANCE NO. 1981 " :� A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTERS 42 AND 44 TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR PATHWAY ROUTE DECISION MAKING °;1?, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1 . LOC Chapter 42 is amended by the addition of the following sections: "42.900 Purpose . a, It is the purpose of LOC 42.905-42. 920 to en tablish a { process that will provide an opportunity for early and meaningful input into the decision making process concerning the route and design of City pathways identified on the Pathway Corridor Map. 42.905 Definitions. For the purpose of LOC 42.900 to 42.920, the following terms shall mean: :, 1 . Corridor map - The city-wide map adopted as, a part of •/ the Pathway Master Plan , that depicts all corridors within the .. k' City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors, ' . ,•.` ISO potential corridors and those corridors designated for use as part of the regional pathway system. .� ' 2. Hearing body - the three person group appointed by the ,, Mayor, with the consent of the Council, to act as the decision maker in the process established by LOC 42.900 to 42.920. The group shall be composed of one member each from the Planning Commission, Development Review Board and Parks, Recreation and '� Open Space Committee. 3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee - The ad hoc committee, appointed by the City Council, to oversee activities and facility development• of .parks, : recreation and open space • I . facilities . . 4. Pathway -.A public improvement to be located within a corridor identified:on,.the corridor map and designed for the purpose of providing- bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian access ti, t and use. A pathway may be. designed_ for a single or a combination of uses. . 5, Pathway Master Plan - A document that provides for definition of terms, - policies. guidelines, pathway types , corridor list and map, public review and plan administration. 6. Pathway route - The actual location of a pathway within ''R' • a corridor. 'JAt Ordinance No. 1981 `. + Page l 7 i • 'p Z , •: u 7 . Preliminary engineering - The study of the design, route , location and cost estimate of a pathway within a corridor. ' `: 42.91.0 First Informational Public Meeting. ' 1. When it has been proposed by City Council or the city staff that a pathway or pathways should be constructed within the City an informational public meeting shall be held. The meeting shall be held prior to the preliminary engineering of a specific \.: pathway route. The meeting shall be conducted by City staff . �, ; The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of the t' . „" intention of the City to designate a pathway route or routes and : ' , ' to design and construct a pathway. At the informational meeting concepts for pathway route and design shall be prosented by City staff and an opportunity presented for discussion of the issue ''* " and presentation of recommendation by the public. More than one .; .. � . proposed pathway c• ,n be described during any meeting. • 2. Notice of the informational meeting shall be posted in <` ° three places along the proposed pathway corridor as shown on the • corridor map, mailed to the affected neighborhood association and ` mailed to the owners and residents of property bordering the pathway corridor or corridors. The notices shall be mailed and?). :.' t, r '' posted at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. 'µ c:: 42.915 Second Informational Public Meeting. 0 . • , . Upon completion of preliminary engineering of the route and • r ;a. design of a pathway or pathways, a second informational public meeting shall be held. The notice for the meeting shall be the same as that provided for by LOC 42.910 (2) . The meeting shall be conducted by City staff. The purpose of the meeting is to N ` present for public information the proposed pathway route or routes and design and to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions concerning the proposed route and design and to offer , „ alternative routes and designs for City staff consideration. If public recommendations or suggestions were made at the first yinformational meeting and were not incorporated into the proposed "' routes and design the staff shall explain the reasons for. not •" '�~ incorporating the recommendations or: suggestions. More than one . � , pathway' can be discussed during any meeting. ' ' 42.920 . Public Hearing, Review► Appear: • 1. No sooner than 14 days after the meeting held pursuant to LOC 42.915, the hearing body shall conduct a public hearing concerning the proposed pathway route and design. The hearing body may adopt rules to govern the hearing process. More than oiie pathway can be considered . during a public hearing. The notice for the hearing shall be the same as that provided for by : " `.. LOC 42 .910(2) . The purpose of the hearing is to allow for public comment on the issue of whether the proposed pathway route and Ordinance No. 1981 .` + Page 2 • design is in substantial compliance with the guidelines t established in sIV of the Pathway Master Plan and City Standards , ` Plans and Specifications. The hearing body decision shall be the ' d plans for the approved route and design. The date of the decision is the date the chair of the hearing body certifies the r' accuracy of the documents comprising the decision . i V7 4 . A person who participat•2d in the hearing before the hearing body and who is dissatisfied by the decision may appeal that decision to the City Council by filing a notice of their appeal with the City Recorder within 10 days of the date of the decision. The City Council shall give notice and conduct its hearing in the same manner as that set forth in Subsection 1 of this section. The Ci Council may affirm, revise, modify, reject or remand the decision of the hearing body . The decision of the City Council is final. A person dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may challenge that decision only by Writ of Review , pursuant to ORS Ch . 34. " Section 2. LOC Chapter 44 .374 is amended to read as follows: , "44.374 Application. All street improvements within the jurisdiction of the City '` of Lake Oswego shall be g governed by. the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of Chapter 49. Decisions concerning the route and design of pathways identified on the City Pathway Master Plan Corridor Map shall be made pursuant to LOC 42.900 -- : k 4a subject 42.920 and are not to the•tprovisions of this chapter. The City Engineer shall recommend to the City Council, Planning ti Commission or Development Review Board, as the case may be , design and construction standards for any street construction or '' reconstruction. The City Council, Planning Commission, and ; . Development Review Board may condition approval of any development activity upon the dedication and improvement of any v street or highway in accordance with provisions of this Code. " ' w•i Read for the first time by title only at the regular meeting of A + the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 17th day of January , 1989 . . .{• :. AYES: ' CHURCHILL, HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHN,, FAWCErr, HOLSTEIN, a•"� ANDRSON NOES : NON . ABSTAIN: NONE , EXCUSED: NONE ' • `• Read for the second time by title only and enacted at the regular • ''' meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on 0 , the 7th day of February , 1989. Ordinance No. 1981 Page 3 D• + t = AYES: HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHAM, FAWCETT► HOLSTEIN, ANDERSON, CHURCHILL • NOES: NONE • . x • ABSTAIN : NONE :. EXCUSED: NONE �, / •►,,:_Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor • ATTEST . 2(2z.i.) r' � / N Kr i Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: / if47,04----- , ,. ,-. , 44110 s M. Coleman • y Attorney • n r fil , J e rp• • A:, ;` Ordinance too. 1981 y. Page 4 • 'R • .\ `, t anti 1' ,' .' n +. ' i C^ • Adop ci by City Council. Decemb( 20, 1988 • PAThWAYS MASTER PLAN .�• It �� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON ' y INTRODUCTION " :. The Pathways Master Plan is a synthesis of research, testimony ; • and analysis contributed by the Pathways Advisory Subcommitte , Parks and Recreation Commission, Commission, individual citizens; neighborhood associations ,School District and City staff. It represents •' of communityinvolvement. hundreds of hours This Plan i:s intended to establish a flexible framework within which this community can develop a functional, safe and cost effective t community needs. pathway system to meet The adoption or this document by the City Council fulfills the requirement for a Pathways Master Plan found in the Comprehensive Plan. It establishes guidelines for locating guidelines for their development, funding sources, and hearingpublic, '. process to insure continuing community involvement and a ` r process for revision and updating the Plan and map. The M-ster Plan also contains a corridor location map based on existing community need. Pathways located on arterial or collector rights-of-way and/or ^ P with a high rate of usage are considered to be major pathways . Minor pathways' serve to enhance neighborhood circulation and/o provide a linkage with publicly owned lands or facilities . r � rt I. PLAN OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE 1 - The principal objective of the Pat Plan is to direct development of a pleasant and safe spathway r system for the enjoyment of Lak pathwa e Oswego citizene and users . y OBJECTIVE 2 -- A second objective of the Plan is the ^• f encouragement of continued citizen participation in the • development of specific pathway routes and pathways. The key to this continued involvement of the public is the • public review process specified in the Plan as it may take many years to accomplish during which time the participants may change. • OBJECTIVE 3 - The third objective of the Plan is to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhoods through which the pathway passes by ensuring that the design, � • location, width and type of material used in the • • construction of each pathway is safety) in keeping with the existingsneighboistent rhoodpublic 4 ra environment and character. ^ ® iii EXHIBIT CIS ) J • e, Substantial effort will be made during the planning and construction process to keep any adverse environmental • impact regarding trees, landscaping and other amenities to an absolute minimum. OBJECTIVE 4 - The final objective of the Plan is the provision of a plan document that can be published for wide '* .- provision to citizens , special interest and service groups, neighborhood associations, development industry , , City staff, and City officials. II. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Pathways Master Plan, the following definitions shall apply: City - The City of Lake Oswego. In reference to rights-of- way, City includes all rights-of-way within the City ' s jurisdictional boundaries, including those that are not the responsibility of the City. ( Interstates, State Highways , and County Roads/Bridges) . Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lake Oswego. Corridor -. An existing or potential public right-of-way or easement that is designated for pathway use. A corridor ,a includes the entire width of the right-of-way or easement and indicates a general alignment linking activity centers . Corridor Map - The city-wide map that depicts all corridors within the City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors, potential corridors , and those corridors designated for use as part of the regional pathway system. Final Engineering - The final pathway route locations , design, and cost estimate of a pathway as approved by the public review body. . v - • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee - The ad hoc committee, appointed by City Council to oversee activities and facility development for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Open Space . Pathways Advisory Committee - The subcommittee of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee established to develop u and oversee the city-wide Pathways Master Plan. : . Pathway - A public improvement to be located within a ,~ corridor identified on the corridor map purpose of providingbicycle, and designed for the y pedestrian, or equestrian . . access and use. A pathway may be designed for a single or a ", , '. . combination of uses . Pathways Master Plan R: Page 2 4' Y y 1,. W .r i ' .1 0 •A F.' 4 • .• • Pathways Master P., In - A document that provides for ,• definition of terms, policies, guidelines, pathway types , corridor list and map, public review , 'and plan administration. Pathway Route - The actual location of a pathway within a corridor. a .01. Preliminary Engineering - The study of the design, route location, and cost estimate of a pathway within a corridor. III. MASTER PLAN POLICIES 1 1 . The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee, in 'ir ; concert with the Pathways Advisory Committee and City staff , shall select pathway types for given pathway routes to meet community needs at reasonable public expense. 2. Pathway route planning shall be required for new private developments at the preliminary design stage in accordance with z` . the corridors, policies, pathway guidelines, and types contained in the Pathways Master Plan. . 3. The developer of a new development located along a corridor and/or route shall be required to provide sufficient `:. right-of-way or easement for the pathway adjacent to the new development. The developer may deposit funds, sufficient to cover pathway development costs as determined by City staff , into a City pathway fund or construct the pathway. A pathway to be u' •` constructed in concert with a new development shall be in accordance with Sections IV of the Pathways Master Plan and be reviewed and approved under the procedures specified for Minor :: , and Major Developments in the Development Code . 4 . The City will use a variety of funding measures and sources, involving both the private and public sectors, to implement the Pathways Master Plan. 5. On-street parking shall be required to be removed , restricted and/or prohibited, where necessary , along pathway routes to reduce conflicts between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes and to provide adequate safety to pathway users by Traffic Control Board action. The prohibition or removal of on-street parking shall be a consideration of the preliminary engineering study of a pathway route . 6 . Street trees and/or landscaping that occurs in and adjacent to pathway routes shall be either removed or modified to „' . provide adequate width for pathways and the safety of pathway users. The removal and/or modification of str-et trees or landscaping shall he a consideration of the preliminary engineering study of a pathway route . , , Pathways Master Plan .. Page 3 . ,V, • 7. Provide for separate bicycle and pedestrian pathways wherever feasible. . 8. Assist interested residents to maintain equestrian+ easements and pathways, develop suitable new equestrian pathways , compatible with neighborhoods and residential areas , and develop an equestrian pathway connecting facilities like the Hunt Club with existing equestrian pathways (i .e . Tryon State Park ) . 9. Encourage expansion of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian safety, recreation and edu,ation "° children, teenagers, and adults . programs for 10. Direct the Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Police Departments to work with the School District to develop pedestrian/bicycle safety programs, and pathway events including bicycle and running events, fieldotrips ntours pathway improvement projects and safety classes. 11. The Metropolitan Service District Regional Bicycle Plan policies shall be considered in any map amendment or any implementation actions of the Pathways Master Plan. a: All routes shown on the regional network shall be identified in the master plan map. b. ORS 366.514 requires local jurisdictions to establish footpaths and bicycle trails, with certain exceptions, wherever a street is being constructed, reconstructed or relocated using State Highway Fund revenues. Footpaths and bicycle trails are not required to be established under this law: ( 1 ) "where the establishment of such paths and trails would be contrary to public safety; " (2) "if the cost of establishing such paths and - trails would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use: " or • ( 3) "where sparsity of population or other available ways or other factors indicate an absence of any need for such paths and trails . " 12. Encourage participation by citizens, neighborhood associations, school groups, service clubs, and military "'' Y organizations in pathway or " costs and fostering communitye athe nd se of reducing fellowship pride . • 13. Hold public hearings on preliminary engineering studies r• . . of pathway routes . 41) ' , t . i.., , .. . Pathways Master Plan0 Page 4 • • • 14. Utilize as necessary an ad hoc citizens ' Pathway j� i y, . : Advisory Committee to assist City staff (Public Works, Planning , • Parks and Recreation) at all levels including planning, grant application, education programs, volunteer activities, and annual evaluation of pathway implementation and prioritization. • IV. PK ,{WAY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES • The following guidelines are factors to be considered by those involved in the selection of pathway corridors and routes . The list is not exclusive and other relevant factors may be `~ considered as necessary. Corridor and routing decisions should be in substantial compliance with these guidelines. • Pathway Corridors 1. Safety - Will the corridor provide a pathway route that is physically safe for cyclists, pedestrians, and/or equestrians , • . regarding personal security and conflicts with motorized vehicles . 2. Feasibility - Is the corridor feasible for pathway construction, and is it a cost effective way in making pathway connections. 3. Connectivity - Does the corridor provide optimal connection of neighborhoods, schools, parks, open space, public facilities, and/or commercial areas. 4. Pleasant - wherever possible, have landscaping scenic corridors and viewpoints included. Pathway Routes 1 . As conditions allow , pedestrian pathways m3y be separate -" from streets, utilizing: a . alleys b. 'side/back lot lines c. dedicated but not constructed street rights-of-ways r' d. overpasses and protected crosswalks e . pathway easements f. public utility easements g. railroad rights-of-way • • h. sidewalks located in ; treet rights-of-way • • i . areas adjacent to stream corridors j . Willamette Greenway 2 . Where pathways are in street rights-of-way , provide for pedestrian pathways separate from bicycle pathways when possible . Combined bicycle and pedestrian pathways only when physical Pathways Master Plan Page 5 y separation of cyclists and pedestrians along street right-of-way 410 ,. . . has been determined by a preliminary engineering study to be impractical. • 3. Provide signs to establish safe right-of-way along I routes where bicycle and pedestrian pathways must share the roadside. 4. Where equestrian pathways are constructed on steep , ' and/or poorly drained areas, the pathway should be designed to assure the safety of horse and rider and minimal impact on the , k surrounding environment. *o; 5. Where located in street rights-of-way , equestrian pathways should have adequate signs . } 6. Where equestrian and pedestrian pathway use is combined, `' . the pathway shall have adequate width to assure the safety of both horseback rider and pedestrian. The design should provide for- the preservation of the pedestrian portion of the pathway j; from damage due to horses. 7. The location of a pathway route in a corridor will be determined by an analysis of the following and other relevant . factors: r a. right-of-way width b. general topography •and terrain limitations c. major barriers - lake , canal, railroad tracks, arterial streets, etc. • d. location of existing pathways e. land development projects along the route f . land ownership g. vertical and horizontal street, alignment conditions h. parking and landscape elements i . cost effectiveness j. safety k . neighborhood environment and character Pathway Types The following pathway types apply to the design and _• construction of pathways until appropriate standards are adopted and included in the City' s Standards , Plans and Specifications. The standards have been endorsed by the City 's Engineering department, incorporate minimum standards for the safety of the users, and are based on the Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities , 1981 published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . l`" . - 0 . .. . , . Pathways Master Plan , I Pace 6 1 ' A pathway type for a given pathway route will be selected on an analysis of: .. , is Ci a . projected users: cyclists, walkers, runners, horseback riders and/or combinations thereof . b. general topography and terrain limitation c: citizen desires d. funding Typical Pathway Types: A. Arterial Street - four to five lanes , B. Collector or Arterial - paths off roadway C . Collector or Neighborhood Street - with 50 feet r.o.w. D. Improvised Pathway Atypical Pathway Types: E . Arterial or Collector Street - one-way bike pathway adjacent to parking lane F . Off-Street Equestrian (secondarily pedestrian) G. Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian V. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Pathways Master Plan corridor map shows the general alignment for existing and potential corridors for pathway routes that link activity centers such as schools , residential areas, • . public facilities, parks and open space, view corridors and commercial areas. The depicted corridors are the result of extensive participation with the Pathways Committee, Parks and Recreation Committee and the Planning Commission. Participants • have been individual citizens, neighborhood associations, special interest groups, City staff and City officials . To assure continued citizen involvement in the development of pathways within the City , a public review process with the following characteristics should be adopted as a part of the City Code and followed in making a routing decision. Prior to preliminary engineering an informational public meeting is held during which the proposed routing and type is discussed and public concerns aired. A preliminary engineering design is then prepared and discussed with the public at a second informational public meeting. A proposed design is then the aubject of a public hearing. The hearing will be conducted by a • 3 member group consisting of one member each from the Planning .,, F. Commission, Development Review Board, and the Parks, Recreation 1 . and Open Space Committee to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the Council . The hearing body after considering public input will then approve, modify or reject the proposed route and design. A person who does not like the decision may appeal the decision to the City Council . r+' Pathways Master Plan , Page 7 i • . , 4. • VI. ADMINISTRATION , The administration of the Pathways Master Plan will be the responsibility of the City staff . * Staff will provide ongoing assistance and information s regarding the Plan to interested citizens, neighborhood groups , N school organizations and service groups. The staff 'will provide , briefings to other City employees, appointed City bodies and elected officials to further understanding of the Plan. 1y In carrying out this responsibility staff should: • s ,, + ' 1 . Provide staff support to the Pathway Advisory j. ¢`. Committee/Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee. 2. Be responsible for holding informal public meetings ` regarding preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes in accordance with City Code. 3. Provide an annual review and report 6n pathway route construction and improvement p priorities to the Pathway Advisory Committee, Parks Recreation and Open Space Committee, Planning • ; Commission, and City Council. The report will be made available •,, to the public. .4. Assure that pathway routes are included in the design of e: st, eets, subdivisions, and site planning of lot developments located in or adjacent to pathway corridors shown on the Pathway Crridor Map contained in the Plan. 5. Initiate and carry out preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes. 6 . Be responsible for assuring that pathway route priorities are coordinated with capital improvement projects, and where feasible, pathway routes are integrated in capital "... improvement projects. , r , 7. Develop and maintain a current inventory of existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian pathways and all rights-of- way and easements created or desi na;.ad as;• ...' g pathway corridors. 8. Provide ongoing maintenance of existing and future ". pathway routes. VII. FUNDING MEASURES AND SOURCES i The ,implementation of the Pathways Master Plan will generate a continuous need for funding until the Plan is completed. Funds , will be needed to publish the Plan, provide staff support , undertake preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes, ; construction, provide for ongoing maintenance, and produce 410 . .' : related publications and carry out related programs. 1,• Pathways Master Plan �. Page 8 . • The City will need to use a variety of funding measures and sources, that involve• both the public and private sectors, which will include but may not be limited to the following: 1. The use of at least 1% of State Highway Fund monies, as required by state statute. •y • 2. City Fund monies to provide staff support : 3. Establishment of a Capital Improvement Program, based on an annually evaluated pathway route construction priority list . 4 . Construction of pathways in conjunction with other public facility construction projects, i. e. streets, sewer, water or stormwater lines. ' .' 5. Use existing City Fund accounts and financial practices to allow deposition of funds, sufficient to cover proportionate pathway. development cost, by developers of projects located adjacent to pathway routes in lieu of constructing an isolated pathway segment. 6. Establishment of Local Improvement Districts. 7. Bond measures ', 8. In-kind contributions by interested citizens performing ► volunteer maintenance and related programs . , 9 . Grants. ;., VIII. PRIORITIES r As a part of the development of this plan the Committee, ° after extensive public participation, has identified the following corridors as those which are currently of the greatest public need: 1 . Upper Drive 2. Quarry Road ' 3 . Iron Mt. Blvd. 4. Kerr. Road • 5 . Sundeleaf Drive 6. Stafford Road 7 . South Shore f 8. Bryant Road 9 . Royce Way 10. Riverfront Path 11 . Jean Road 12. Reese Road • Pathways Master Plan ' �:4 ° • Page 9 • • • The City Council is urged to consider this listing during its budgetary decision making process. The omission of a corridor from this list is not intended to preclude the City frome • , taking advantage of an• opportunity to develop a pathway in �'•� conjunction with another public improvement project or a new • development. This listing will be reviewed and updated on a A` regular basis to reflect the best judgment of the committee as to • current public need. ;. . .;. IBC. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee will at least annually hold a public hearing on this master plan. The purpose i is to receive public input on suggested changes and improvements to the plan, to discuss the priorities listed in $VIII of this plan, and to consider requests for addition of new corridors. . After a public hearing is held on any proposed amendments the Committee, by motion, may amend this plan. Any person ' dissatisfied with such a decision may appeal that decision to the • City Council or the Council may review a decision on its own motion. • b • it , a • (masterplan•)rm •, III • • . • . . , . • • . • 411 • Pathways Master Plan Page 10 / I • STAFF REPORT . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , . 4 t �' -- LAND •�r DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • APPLICANT: FILE NO. : Debra Larsson SD 56-89 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Debra Larsson Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE: Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 lE 3CC April 16, 1990 ,. ' , LOCATION: ' ' NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: SW Corner of intersection of None Chandler and Iron Mountain Blvd. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DESIGNATION; w R-10 ''t I. APPLICANT'S RE VEST • The applicant is seeking approval to create two From an 86, 058 square foot lot. The Parcels r proposed to be 20, 078 and 65, 980 square foot inesize. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • A. Cit of Lake Oswe o Comprehensive Plan: •,, ., Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III Impact Management Policies General Policy I • General Policy II General Policy III a E X H f B I T:. Wildlife Habitat Policies Gam) ' General Policy I General Policy II 7-1 SD 56-89 • Page 1 of 12 • 4 . - ' 1%. • Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II 0 , ,, : Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II u Pedestrian Pathways Policies General Policy II , ,:'` Bikeway Policies General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies ' General Policy I B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: , LOC 48. 195-48. 225 R-10 Zone Description (set- backs, lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535 (3) Special Street Setbacks ' ,• C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: • LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development L , Standards • LOC 49. 140 Minor Development LOC 49.200-49. 210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49 . 215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5.005 - 5. 040 Street Lights a i `'• , 7.005 - 7. 040 Parking & Loading Standard 12. 005 - 12. 040 Drainage Standard for Minor r. Development 14. 005 - 14. 040 Utility Standard 18 .005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19. 005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation - Private •,1 Streets/Driveways E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: . LOC 57.005 - 57. 135 '' F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55 . 010 - 5 . 130 0 •. ilk . .' SD 56-89 4 , • Page 2 of 12 .. • • .. t/ • • y . 9 it . :•r .. ' *` • G. City of Lake Oswego Pathways • LOC 42. 900 - 42.920, LOC 44. 374 III. FINDINGS A. Existing conditions: 1. The site is composed of 86,058 square foot in an irregular configuration. 2. The site is bounded on the north by Chandler Road, an 11 foot wide paved street with no shoulders; and Iron Mountain Boulevard on the east and southeast, also an 18 foot wide paved street with no shoulders. The rights of way for each are 60 foot wide, and 80 foot wide, respectively. .' 6. 3. An existing six inch water line is located in Chandler Road. An existing ... i.ght inch line is , located in Iron Mountain Boulevard. 4 . An existing six inch concrete sanitary sewer • line is located in Chandler Road in front of Tax Lot 3600 (to the west) . ` 5. There are no storm drainage improvements in ,; either Iron Mountain Boulevard or Chandler Road. • + 6. Street lights are located opposite the intersection of Iron Mountain Blvd. and Berwick ' v ' Road, on the south side of Iron Mountain Blvd. between Chandler Road. There are no street lights along Chandler Road. 7. A dwelling, guest house, greenhouse and detached • accessory structure are located on the site . which are of historic significance as determined ; '4 by the City Council (Exhibit 6) . B. Proposal: The applicant proposes to create two parcels from an ,,r 86, 058 square foot lot. The parcels are proposed to be 20, 078 and 65,980 square foot (Exhibit 3) •p 4 • • C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval : As per LOC 49. 615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. SD 56-89 Page 3 of 12 • •• • • • t • - i• is 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. 0 The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, • accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: i a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as + follows: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. • Specific Policy 5 , which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including ,schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 7 (the City Council memorandum of December 5, 1989) demonstrates that the current levy of school planning and coordination between the ' City and School District satisfy this General ''` Policy. The recent passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. ` Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural. resources from development, comprehensive review of ``; development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development "•' Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees be protected from removal, streams be preserved and that density be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. " a SD 56-89 Page 4 of 12 , ' `: , Wildlife Habitat Policies •4 These policies require protection of upland huthitat in the form of preserved tree stands or open space, X, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards and ordinances are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. This ordinance is reviewed in this report following an analysis of the ' applicable Plan policies. Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into • account the site' s natural features. These policies ••^ are now implemented through the City's Solar Access ' ' Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. Social Resources Policies •4 V J. These policies require the City to support historic preservation. This is implemented through the. • Historic Resource Preservation Standard and recently adopted resolution (Exhibit 6) . This site is ` ' protected from alteration and demolition by the ,a ' resolution for a period of 120 days. None of the structures may be altered or removed from the site during that period, ending April 19, 1990. An ordinance has been be adopted to address the City' s concerns regarding historic preservation, which will become effective April 14, 1990 at which time the • • resolution will terminate. Protection Open Space Policies These policies further protect the natural resources .° identified in the Natural Re3ources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of "•'^> . applicable Development Standards and Ordinances. b b4 • These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. ,,,4 SD 56-89 Page 5 of 12 • 6. + w 11 Y "V • • Bikeway Policies/Pedestrian Pathways Policies These policies require development of pathwa segments identified in the Conceptual Pathway Master ' 7''' Plan. These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways Development �' Standard and portions of LOC Chapters 42 and 44. ii. This is reviewed on page 7 of this report. p r Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right of way as necessary to provide for ' widening. These policies are implemented in part through LOC 48.535 (4) , Special Streets Setbacks. . . . " The applicant will be required to sign agreements of nonremonstrance for right of way improvements along Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. ' b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 48) The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot ` ' area of 1^,000 square foot per dwelling unit; required mit,imum lot width at the building line is 65 foot; required minimum lot depth is 100 foot Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% [LOC 48. 210(1) , LOC 48. 225 ( 1) J . The zone requires the following minimum setbacks • Front yard: 20 foot minimum Rear yard: 15 foot minimum Side yard: 5 foot minimum (15 foot total) The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area Width Depth Parcel 1 65,980 square foot 250 foot 250 foot Parcel 2 20, 078 square foot 170 foot 150 foot Both parcels meet all zoning code requirements. The existing rights of way of Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road meet the Special Street Setbacks •:, [LOC 48 .535 (4 ) j . SD 56-89 • Page 6 of 12 ,to 4 '••`-..4' Development. Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) ; The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as minor development. Other than the • • applicable Development Standards, there are no other j . . ; Development Code requirements applicable to this •„" .. request. t. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis • (LOC Chapter 57) The provisions of LOC 57.005 - 57. 135 require that 80% of newly created parcels be designed with solar orientation and size as defined by the ordinance. Both parcels have portions of their front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and a lot depth in excess of 90 foot Both are solar lots, providing compliance in excess of the requirement. Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) There are numerous large Douglas Fir trees on both proposed parcels. A less forested area exists in the middle of Parcel 2. This area would be well suited for construction of a new dwelling and 4i. accessory structures. Careful siting of the improvements will involve the preparation of a tree survey in compliance with the Tree Cutting Ordinance. Trees in excess of 5 inches in diameter 4 must be located and the necessity of their removal • .., carefully reviewed against applicable criteria. This will be a condition of approval of subsequent { building permits. : > . `� Pathways (LOC 42.990 - 42. 920, LOC 44 . 374 ) ,• . The City has adopted a procedure for the public • review of pathways design and routing (Ord. No. 1981) . To implement this where major development is not proposed, the Public Works Director has required , .' deposit of a cash amount reserved for future bikeway construction. This deposit will be required for the 300 foot of the site' s frontage along Iron Mountain Boulevard. Historic Preservation (Resolution R-89-43) ' By this resolution, the City Council enacted a W moratorium regarding a list of 102 sites recommended 11110 . SD 56-89 . • Page 7 of 12 • • o It landmark status. This si':r.+ is included in the list. As a result, no alterat;,.on or demolition of +� structures may occur on the site for 120 days. See Exhibit 6 for specific technical details. This resolution has been terminated by the adoption of a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ord. Y. No. 2000) , which will take effect on April 14, 1990. v ..-( c. The applicable Development Standards • Street Lights (5.005 - 5. 040) Street lights exist in adequate numbers and location along Iron Mountain Blvd. No street lights exist along Chandler Road where Parcel 2 is proposed. The applicant will be required to install a cobra-headlamp on an existing utility pole along or near the ' frontage of the site on Chandler Road. This will be required as a condition of approval. Parking and Loading (7. 005 - 7.040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage parcels are lageenough ctop provide ort. ofor th pcompliance with this requirement. Y Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12. 005 - °' 12. 040) This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. No grading is part of this application. Compliance will as a . required upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action. Utility Standard (14 . 005 - 14 .040) This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. The electrical service for the existing ', '. dwelling as well as that for new construction must comply with this standard. In addition, neither / street abutting this site meets current City.r standards. A pathway is proposed along Iron Mountain Boulevard as identified in the Pathways Master Plan, but has not yet been constructed. The anticipated impact of the proposed partition upon the street system does not merit its improvement at this time. As an alternative, the SD 56-89 Page 8 of 12 .hI 4 applicant will be required to sign a nonremonstrance agreement and petition for future improvements • • (including bikeways and pathways) to both streets. The applicant will be required to provide a pathway deposit for the planned route along Iron Mountain Blvd. as discussed earlier. Access Standard (18. 005 - 18. 040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Both parcels exceed this requirement (Exhibit 3) . Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways (19. 005 - 19.040) • . • This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The site is flat to gently sloping and can easily comply with this standard. Driveway `• approaches within the public right of way must meet . • City Standards, which will be a condition of approval of this action. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. '' ' C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria. IV. ACTION TAKEN • . .i, The staff approves the proposed minor partition, subject to the following conditions: .' ; '.- 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and modified by condition number 4) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within ` one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year • period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be `` requested in writing and must be submitted to the . . City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the • SD 56-89 ' Page 9 of 12 project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 0 .,'.:. ' ':: The final plan shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 56-89. 2. The final plan shall be registered with the • • ,': v, Clackamas County Surveyor ' s office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks ' s office. • . 3 . The applicant shall provide the City a signed agreement of nonremonstrance and petition for future street improvements anticipated in Iron Mountain . f • Boulevard and Chandler Road. This agreement shall apply to 11 parcels approved, and be binding on . subsequen owners. ` • 4. The fins plan shall be modified to note that Parcels /1 and 2 are solar lots and are subject to compliance with LOC 57.035. The following note shall appear on the final plan: -. "Development of structures and planting of non- exempt vegetation on parcels 1 and 2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57. 050 - 57. 090) . This requirement shall be binding upon the appllcanc and ' subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1 and 2. " 5. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public 1 ' Works and Development Services Department prior to R '' the issuance of building permits requested * subsequent to the date of this approval, I . 6. The applicant shall provide a survey of those trees tl • on Parcel 2 which exceed 5 inches in diameter prior . to issuance of building permits requested subsequent • , to this approval. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or ,, accessory structure on Parcels 1 and 2. This removal shall comply with LOC 55. 050 55 , 080 (Tree • Cutting Ordinance) . y 0. 7. All utility services necessary to serve Parcel 1 b shall be installed underground prior to occupancy of the existing dwelling currently being remodeled. , •• All utility services necessary to serve Parcel 2 shall be installed underground as a condition of building permit approval requested subsequent to ' . `' this action. 0. ° SD 56-89 ` Page 10 of 12 �' . • r t . - i . . - •0 y , 0. The existing dwelling and other, habitable structures shall be connected to sanitary sewer prior to occupancy of the existing dwelling currently being remodeled. 9. The applicant shall pP provide an engineered design for a positive method of storm water disposal (drywells) for Parcels 1 and 2. The design shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a building permifi, for Parcel 2, or occupancy for • Parcel 1. -, 10. The applicant shall construct any proposed driveway • ti within the public right of way with a minimum of six inches of crushed rock covered with two inches of • . asphalt or concrete. • 11, The applicant shall provide the City a cash deposit _` ' for the purpose of constructing a bikeway along Iron Mountain Boulevard prior to the issuance of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. The amount of the deposit shall be determined by the Public Works Director. . 12. The applicant shall install a street light on an existing utility pole along the sites frontage of �•. , ; Chandler Road or as near as paus�ble to the frontage prior to the issuance of any building permit tl' . requested subsequent to this action. r '� M % y i i ,.. ,., • ;,. ..� I x A SD 56-89 ,t Page 11 of 12 • . .. fro , , 1 , / + », • 4 . 1 V .i' v Prepared by: • . . • , 0)(hfir-4.424-es- 12. ck-iz.4.4.- I , - ( 41e, . , . . . .. .. . MICHAEL R. WHEELER ate associate Planner , Approved by: a,ti£. t..I - ....1 9//67 7 ram ROBERT GALANTE Date ' '• Acting Planning Director Reviewed by: (7- 1i1 VA/PO CINDY PHILLI S Late �•1• µ. Deputy City Attorney EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant' s Narrative 3 . Site Plan ' 4 . Water Line, Plan and Profile 5 . Sanitary Sewer Line, Plan and Profile • 6 . Resolution R-89-43 regarding Historic Preservation; r memo from Jane Heisler, dated December 28 , 1989 7 . Council' s Memorandum regarding schools, dated a December 5 , 1989 , 410 . - . If SD 56-89 Page 12 of 12 . r .. 1 ) ' RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ` �' WAIVING RIGHT OF REMONSTRANCE J U N 2 G :I 'J ::'., FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS The undersigned, being the legal owners of the real property described below, do hereby consent to the improvement of the public streets bordering said property. In consideration of not being required to improve the said streets at this time, we hereby expressly waive any and all right to remonstrate against the improvement of said streets in accordance with the City of Lake Oswegc's applicable street improvement standards in effect at the time of such improvement. We irrevocably consent to the formation of a Local Improvement District by the City of Lake Oswego or the inclusion of said property into a zone of benefit, for the purpose of assessing the cost of such improvement to the said property and to any other property benefited by the improvement, such assessment to be made in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances as the same may exist at the time of the improvement. It is understood that "improvement of streets" , as the term is used herein also a �', includes construction of curbssidewj tos alleys, and and gutters,sidewalks, storm , drains, illumination, traffic control devices, and all other work and improvements deemed necessary by the City of Lake Oswego to ' bring the streets into conformance with applicable improvement standards. ' Also, in the event that the property described below is approved or becomes approved for subdivision, the undersigned waives any • • and all right to remonstrate against a method of assessment which distributes the assessment equally among the subdivided parcels . The signatures appearing on this document are to be construed as equivalent to signatures appearing on a petition to form a Local Improvement District for the aforesaid purposes . The covenants herein contained shall be binding upon the undersigned and upon all subsequent owners of said property as N..-" ,C covenants running with the land and effective for twenty years from the date hereof; provid d, however that the City of Lake Oswego shall have the right eo extend the covenants for an additional twenty years by recording a notice of such extension ' in the deed records of the County in which said property is situated prior to the expiration of the first twenty year period. The property subjected to these covenants is: ii EXHIBIT ue. - g oryo .,, . . . , , . ; • ....coot �.. . . . The following information is for reference purposes only: aft Tax Map : I 2 C.C. Tax Lot(s) Site address City of Lake Oswego Public Works and Land Development Service file 4 .Ih £& . , • , n • SIGNATURE(S) , OWNER(S) OF RECORD '&24q 1-2Df 7.-- /.9,-,f,se,..1 Signature Print Name Date L- i�ELS )V`� �..sL.. ..•_ ��� x la-o? to-9 a Sign ture Print Name Date • OEI • at • STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. COUNTY OF R-J\Wq.o vN\0./3 ) BE IT REMEMBERED THAT on this `S-.) day of , 191W, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public 'n and for the said County .,nd State, personally appeared the within named LQ.r CSc (\ who are known to me to be • the identical individuals described in and who executed the same freely and voluntarily. • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET BY HAND AND SEAL THIS \� days of _.__., 19WQ• O No ary Pu lic fo Oregon • , Commission Expires: ,.4``Q. 2,\ STATE OF OREGON ) )ss COUNTY OF C.I CIAk.O MDA ) ' BE IT REMEMBERED THAT on this a-- day of , , 19 qj, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public�n and for the said County and State, personally appeared the within named k01042A-Y 0S0 who are known • to me to be the identical indi'>iduals described in and who executed • the same freely and voluntarily, • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET BY HAND AND SEAL THIS day of , , 19Qv, i N ary Pub is for 0 ego •• ', Commission Expires: 5 �1�-Aq w ,., E.Xti ` e, IT' A -' ReSa'R.IC."i' 1`J e cO11EIVAA!'T" A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T2S, R1E, WM, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON, BEING LOTS 71-73 AND PT. LOT 74, "FOREST • HILLS", BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT IN NE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHANDLER ROAD THAT IS N 70'48'26" E 13.81 FEET FROM A 1/2" IRON PIPE AT THE NO ITTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 74, "FOREST HILLS"; THENCE N 70°48'26" E ALONG SAt}b SOUTH- ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHANDLER ROAD, 83.28 FEET THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TLINE O A 1 ON A IRON PIPE; THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 249.43 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE UOF 38' 42'04" (LONQ CHORD BEARS S, 89'50'32" E 165.30 'FEET) AN MC LENGTH OF � 168,48 FEET TO •A POINT; THENCE S 70'29'00" E 101.66 FEET TO A 1 2" IRON * i • PIPE: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 117.68 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 70'30'35" (LONG CHORD BEARS S 3513'43" E 135;85 FEET) AN. ARC LENGTH OF 144.82 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND .CURVE IN THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN BOU -- • EVARD; THENCE* ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN L BOULEVARD ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 250,00 FEET TH ROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56'09'32" (LONG CHORD BEARS S 27'56'51" W 235.35 AN ARC LENGTH OF 245.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 71, " FEET) FOREST HILLS"; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD, N 44'55'21" W (PLAT N 45'00'00" W) ALONG THE N EASTERLY, LINE OF LOT 70, FOREST HILLS" 257.24 FEET (PLAT 256.gg FEET) TO 1/2" IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 70; THENCE A • 191.29 FEET TO ME PLACE OF BEGINNING. • 41 6'24 E i • I,, • • • t. • • 1 H. • Order No. 855229 C Legal Description ,. EXHIBIT "A" ;, A tract of land situated in the Southwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette r w Meridian, in the County of Clackamas and State of Oregon, J being a part of Lots 73 and 74, according to the duly filed plat of "FOREST HILLS", being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1/2 inch iron pipe at the Northeast corner of Lot 70, "FOREST HILLS", which 1/2 inch iron pipe is in the Southwest line of Lot 74, "FOREST HILLS"; thence leaving said Southwest line of Lot 74, North 41°16 '24" West 25.00 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod and the true place of beginning; thence North 65°11 '20" East 84.52 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod; thence North 00°56 ' 57" West 129. 66 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod in the Southerly right of way line of Chandler Road; • thence Westerly along said Southerly right of way line on a curve to the left having a radius of 249.43 feet through a central angle of 24°37'27" ( long chord bears South 83°07'10" West 106.38 feet) an arc distance of 107.20 feet to a 1/2 inch iron pipe, thence South 70°48 '26" West 83.28 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod, said 5/8 inch iron rod bears North 70°48 '26" East 13.81 feet from a 1/2 inch pipe at the Northwest corner of said Lot 74; thence leaving said Southerly right of way line of Chandler Road, South 41°16 '24" East 166.29 feet to the true place of beginning. . • • . • • • o; 0703 LARSSON & COMPANY 1210 CHANDLER RD. 636-2887 24-22 21a1230 ' ... LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 C ORDER OF . x .,..,/,'"---A % :" ,e'.&:14:2,- /i•••"' ,f,l'A ----DOLTARg I ' . . ,, ,,., Iiii[BIANK KRUBQ WAY BRANCH' P.O.SOK 1775 LAKE?OSWEGO,OR 97035 UNITE:O STA7®5 NATIONAL BANK OR OPBOON r FO 0000 70 311' •1: L 23000 2 201: 2 L ti 0009 9 ?Loa f :..r w 1 8V 252 IL y 0/ c,ea he auie90 aide.:.1, a .. . . LAKE OSW O, OREGON ,J.4141/ /L.7�i �� '. ' RECEIVED OF � { �)do 0��i� ..•..' . . . „ . ADDRESS /c /0 (W'(,�/,4,v)u::2 I) ACCOUNT .. ` 1211 TI40/f(f 7)/1/)d•S/T' A 4. 7 Zti• • Lx � 4: 3 �� . ?• Tbis Receipt to be delivered to the person making payment. City of Laic ' swag°, Oregon �' . —...... —.-*•—.,. _._...__...-- ..-- . ... _...-. ,,r• 1 A • t- , . .. .... . . ..... EXHI IT M 9w-efi 4co7-`ia r . � .- u . +n. ,,,. • x•c •I.- ••- r'C.r 'j:'"-• ••,4•4 tia"y w,fi rY' D {Y : a d. .r44:4/' Y 4.4 , r `4.' [•eat' b 11 �;, Y ti, 'M �L•'•• .. ':l u.•;� nl � .i,' /O �• r Ta . V 4. . • '; yw-• ., • 4.6 ryt1 1 t '4 ' • •.•' • _L • VV •Y• tt .MBA a Z' tro!L..1„' `. ^ r1 yiyrY' �''�';V,. �aar ;,.. '1.4••ska •:r'.r" i 1 . .Le•:, 4 • .11 .�`,..•�` .�?�'(�•M �� rt '� $4r•�, mir .f3►:».g+aettl�6' It `'•` k;7''' „ly .... • t a n "'tip a•%:•r 4.1 "...i.• 'r ...11'7 J..U `.'J,+^",,ii et a ��44, i,,� ,1' ` � b 1- aara �+ • �a `t.l'` r ~ � ` . r•�S e« b.- • -�1 r`?�y.i:m , 1bL•t a• , lb�, • �° • `�ct`. F.t4'' y iq:,'. •--m— .^.k.wr'g �,,044, s'1t•.••.�.• M,•!:. • , ,: LS 44) �• "Ai^'It., J' 1 G a .st t . 7.1 , •�!•• 4!, 4••: } • ' • `Te "Y C, L!,.1(. :• i• .,,I ...a� I • • .0'1i� '.1.•• .. 4• i• x v f A '+•• t •I-, ` •,• 'larAY� 7YI 4 '• Y --r• ''•w• a ' .`Iro. CI't, ., .Fw,.tib, .'.Y,, ▪'t•.a'{r • • .. yL�•, gtaf•^I. ^�,,• Avo. •• "�f .{.,},. . •t' ,".• I�,�^ .yA., •:a, y .4 � 't I `� _ `7`.. •� y°t. ,.' , r •r•, •� ,. ;l' . i.� :ca.,.•, wf t.•., ••*. • y•; r a,- ' ` ` • . Vb. . ..k... • 44 . ,( ' !1 a• ?It'?- • � ''1}^' lei a *' Y6 / :' Atk. .'4Pjlaic. t• .! .a.,'Y •N J:ti wr .....x . ...•.I ►'• :'4 . ,:?.:i4., I' ! _IY•�.� L M • ,lam �i r,...,. ., !M, i...v..•4r ,.411", d.• I •7C t~• .). a• .. /•f1mlld�'I�•! - '� •�; � Y �r.• .r„.-�.�Erg. n.,lr ! ••�e! ,+ d,�� '� �t ,.a . ., ,1 I r... 4 P,.�f " `A//y�.]�. + • I• •• �,. • "�`• �`/�' ,, , .'-ya d -Tj.•}` ' , '�''� 1 FBI\/V ,'J • • **44 y•. • �t .,•���+,,, , • K-:-•Y , �1"t ��5�0p�0 1 t. ,.4 ,.. _.•..,! .,,�y •r.47. • +l+T'�� '?• , i.�♦ ., ,l' L11••..Y .r`•; .4.. `r l • tt r 14�, O,$)Ac 'g•: 7 .• .. t�• , • .,r... * , ,.* �} sy1`•M' • a : • . -,., 12tb '• .13 e y y + �. 1,,y r Gl ` its •' ,jr�:,t i' afir-.•••t4✓r'I. •`F ,'.1 r ive. P ' ''t�4 of S « r 4 '.t 1t .'d • •2.1 tiLtlV /\ d� ' 7t, I ti��,. ••.'J I • • , 1�'P W��1(_1s , , \ ` T jfVh' , =`]ti•.ta ,�0 N•^a.. •`,"''iT '.•��'Yf. ' ; •«,• •'�' •rte. ',Wn • 1A' sue• • t',,3 Y'y • • •,I `lttddt� \ • j^ J, uCh '4' 1i-Y` . 1 V...y 1. •Ynr1 �A. • • • • 0*...;1.*..••*,e'...• . ...r t.:r'''. 1,04,,s, Igir / r x \ .. ,,,. \a '..:\ 4,11 .X „ „.1; .,1 4. **.X„. 4) 21 F I r,:1 1. 1 ' ' * • _in:3 ..,. , , Il•••t V ,, r...., , , ' • : s. ... 6e,081:)...,.. . - . ., .., . ....... • sik • .... i k 10••6h.1/4 P 'I 'a,1 •2. • i t .a, • •.• .,y d• ‘..• q, arm *� O` �- •'ems, I.t� • / ` 4. ,6 ,.... ' "'411 ' 140/ .. b 4'• .\Zst,N . la bi 1 3 % f� . � •l1 f f"Y j • .. i j1 1 •a Y' -�-' • '. ,, • , ' ▪ , , ram. 0 _ • $•IX 1. i d ' •n ., gfir •'I ,+'' T. y' • i''.• ` :.a • 1'`' d�, c".,:'..4.;'; s�0 . d ` ` . •1 0 : :•1: )• N • ,▪ 71 $S i ,J i .‘ ,,,fj " 1 , ',. r . r ''':1 'l 4:/..•!1 ' '..4•••; • 4141111111/a r •es1/441;:4:1.4••••••:.*44.4.sotf.',4,:V47:4 a'::.; .k.....", a 1 ... . , e •• a�1 / \ �' .•- 4 r.Ira.. a a. ♦ r • -. , : 1. L v y, .ti u , To: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Plans -r ,.... :- . . '; 0 From: Jeffrey G. Condit, City Attorn- -� -...7 EXHIBIT Re: Legal opinion regarding SD 56-89 (Mod. 7-92) to (30) t Date: 10/23/92 p 'a�) Question Presented: Thomas H. Nelson has applied for a permit to amend William and Debbie Larson's 1990 minor partition by deleting two conditions of approval . Specifically, Mr. Nelson desires refund of the Pathway exaction (Condition 11) and ,; ' termination of the non-remonstrance agreement (Condition 3) . For various reasons, he alleges that these conditions are either illegal or unconstitutional . You ask my opinion. • Anaweg: These conditions of approval are lawful for the V . following reasons . 1 . The Pathway Exaction: The pathway exaction is required of all development along designated pathway corridors by LOC 49 . 620 (3) (H) and the Pathways Master Plan. LOC 49 , 620 &llows the .. City to impose conditions or restrictions as a part of any approval in order to protect the public, implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter, or to Fulfill the need for public services created or increased by the proposal . LOC 49 . 620 (3) (H) authorizes the City to require ' ' dedication and construction of a pathwayin a where thepathway pathway corridor route is clear or reasonably clear, or require a deposit of sufficient funds to construct the Pathway when a route within a pathway corridor is not reasonably clear. At the 1, : time the Larson partition was approved, the Iron Mountain Boulevard pathway route was not reasonably clear, and so the Larsons were required to pay the fee in lieu of dedication and construction of the pathway, Mr. Nelson first argues that the pathway exaction violates ORS 223 ,389 and Section 38 of the Lake Oswego Charter (Mr, Nelson incorrectly cites Section 38 of the Code) . Both of these 4: sections authorize construction of public improvements by ` formation of a local improvement district and assessing the costs to benefited properties within that district. Neither of these sections apply to the pathway exaction, which is a condition of development approvalr P and not an assessment pursuant to the formation of a local improvement district . Mr. Nelson also alleges that the exaction is an unconstitutional property"taking" of p y without compensation in violation of Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and ` Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I disagree, The Oregon Court of Appeals recently held that. . • pathway and stream corridor/open space exactions imposed by the City of Tigard as a condition of development did not violate either the Oregon or the U.S. Constitution. Bolan v. the City of_ Tigard, 113 Or App 162 • • •. 5 .. - i 0 + a 1i. (1992) . The Court of Appeals ' decision was based in turn on a recent decision of the Oregon Supreme Court upholding exactions . required by the City of Portland for street right-of--way and sidewalks . Department of Transportation v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568 (1992) . Although these two cases involved conditions requiring the dedication of land, the holdings are equally applicable to a fee in lieu of such dedication because the constitutional u provisions at issue do not distinguish between real property (land) and personal property (money) . Based upon these recent, • , unanimous, decisions of the two highest courts in the state, I am confident that the City's y' pathway exaction would survive constitutional scrutiny. ' 2. The Non-remonstrance Agreement: If the City street improvement for which the City intends to assess sthe es a abutting property owners, it is required to form a local .. E improvemont district pursuant to a complex process involving two public octrings . See generally LOC Chapter 40 (Improvement ProceduT ) , The first hearing is to determine whether the public improvement should go forward, and the second is to hear objections to the amount of the assessment. LOC 40 . 050 and 40.090 . Property owners that would be subject to the assessment are empowered to file a written remonstrance to the the time of the first hearing. If written remonstrances arefiled by property owners owning more than two-thirds of the property to be assessed, the project is delayed for six months . At the end of the six-month delay, the City may proceed with the development regardless of the remonstrance. If insufficient written remonstrances are filed, the Cit with the Y ma Y proceed immediately project . A non-remonstrance agreement waives the ` ►. file a remonstrance and delaya property ywror s righty to project . The City routinely . requires the signing of a non-remonstrance agreement as condition •, . of allowing development on substandard City streets . Such non- • • remonstrance agreements are in lieu of the standard requirement imposed upon developers to install all necessary public improvements as a condition of development, as is otherwise required by the Impact Management Policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Citytypicallyrequires q wires the signing of a non-remonstrance agreement instead of requiring a developer of individual lots to improve the street frontage as a condition of development . While requiring construction of the improvement works well for ' subdivisions and planned developments, it is not as useful for ' • infill or lot by lot development because it is neither cost effective nor good eng ineering to construct a half street section abutting just one or two lots , The non-remonstrance agreement • enables the City to develop the entire street and assess the { ' §' abutting properties at such time as incremental development r+ f. ' creates the need to improve the street . 0 If the City did not require the non-remonstrance agreements, the City would either have to require each property owner to l i OC 1Y' , r.. . •x construct that portion of the street abutting his or her property, or deny all development until the entire street is improved. This is not beneficial to the City or the property owner, because incremental development ma'j not create the need to improve a street for many years . Because each new parcel or development incrementally contributes to future transportation/utility needs at build-out, however, the City is u justified in imposing a non-remonstrance agreement as a condition of such development in anticipation of that future need pursuant } to LOC 49 . 620 (1) (B) . The straw that would break the camel 's back ,, should not be required to shore up the camel all by itself . Mr. Nelson argues that the agreement deprives the applicants of their rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances . Mr. Nelson is wrong. All the non- remonstrance agreement does is to prevent the property owner from • delaying the project for six months . LOC 40 . 040 (1) (e) and 40 .050 (2) expressly allow all persons to appear and testify at the public hearing, regardless of whether they can or have filed a formal written remonstrance. Further, LOC 40 . 060 (2) requires • the Council to consider any testimony relating to the formation of the assessment district, in addition to formal remonstrances, prior to determining whether to proceed with the project . This � •:.::., section also allows the Council to amend or reject the proposed ,.' improvement based upon the testimony regardless of the remonstrances . The non-remonstrance agreement therefore does not ` limit either the property owner' s freedom of speech or right to _1- . address the Council in objection to the project . Mr. Nelson also argues that the non-remonstrance agreement violates the applicants ' rights to free elections under the Oregon Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act, the Hatch Act and the Oregon Corrupt Practices Act . The local improvement j^ district formation and assessment process is not an "election" within the meaning of any of these provisions, and so these . provisions do not apply to non-remonstrance agreements , .R Non-remonstrance agreements are common tools used by cities throughout Oregon and throughout the United States , For this reason, the League of Oregon Cities has filed to appear amicus curie in support of the City of Lake Oswego regarding Mr, Nelson's lawsuit objecting to the non-remonstrance agreement . • imposed as a condition on his development . Although non- remonstrance agreements have not been tested in Oregon, they have been upheld in Washington as a valid exercise of a city's planning power, Five Mile Prarie v. City of Spokane, 755 P2nd 836 (Wash.App, 1988) . Given Oregon' s much stronger planning program, including Goal 11, which requires cities and counties to • plan for and ensure adequate public facilities to handle development during the planning period, 1 am confident such • agreements would be upheld in Oregon. In addition, as noted above, the alternative under the ,. Comprehensive Plan to the non-remonstrance agreement is to require the Larsons to construct the half street improvement , J . � , )' u� t a u 3 • STOEL RIVES QOLEY • , 5 p .o 1 •t cc: Doug Schmitz JONES &GREY `' • �03� 1 z 3 q s�, Tom Coffee ATTOtiNEY5 AY LAW .`.: •"• SUITE 2300 Jeff Condit STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER ti� ✓iv.ke Wheeler 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE ,�� Fla r9 per• Planning File PORTLAND,OREGON97204.1268 ccc��V S,i Telephone(503)224.3380 tN r.&,�, ./� �1 Teleeopter(503)220.2480 `r! /� • s Cable Lawport 6 �Q IA., Telex 703455 c`•1re) 4t Writer's Direct Dial Number d (503)2944211 February 3, 1993 ,,//M DALERE1;D,. in.......- ,1,-. . .-. -� TIME„ ,,,,,,. d. r ' _�,,,,���� R • � 4. // CITY RECORDER CLRTIF1i?D—RF'i'URN RECI 'T REQUESTED City Recorder CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 380 "Att Avenue P.O. Box 369 • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL: SD 56-89 (Mod. 7-92) d EXHIBIT "• Modification to Minor Partition Application C " Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 3CC I I 2'Pi / William and Debra Larsson Our File No. 19642-1 SG-®q +�°`I-ti • Dear Recorder: t , •- • . By lr,tter dated January 20 to Mr. and Mrs. Larsson, Ms. DeBartola, - ` Planning Secretary for the City of Lake Oswego, transmitted the above-referenced decision rejecting the Larssons' requests that a prior land use decision be modified ' - in two particulars, viz, that a bikepath exaction be refunded as illegal and that the ' requirement of a nonremonstrance agreement and its effect be voided as illegal. • • Mr. Michael Wheeler transmitted that decision to me by letter dated January 22, 1993. The Larssons hereby formally inform the City that they disagree with the • • ..,• City's legal analyses and conclusions regarding both issues, and thus hereby formally inform the City that they are appealing both issues. The Larsson's specific arguments are that the exaction for a bikepath violates the City charter ' and state and federal law, and that the requirement of a nonremonstrance agreement violates state and federal civil rights and voting rights laws. • y I am enclosing Specifically, Mr, fee of is enclosed, together in order ' Wheeler specified must be to perfect the appeal. p y, filing g $100ogether with two sets of mailing labels identifying owners and tenants within 300 feet of the PDX31(679,119642 0001 I'UptLANt) 1[AtTLt IICILLrLL I Odin 11ll IMI9L WAAIIINt,It1N UNCGUN VAASIIINUt(1N IYAAIIINbtO. WAKIIINl,104 MAIM tt14IKitI ill Lott:A11IWA STOEL RIVES BOLEY )ONES&GREY • ° City Recorder February 3, 1993 Page 2 • site. Because no address for the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association is provided, I am unable to serve them with a copy of this notice of appeal. • Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, ' Thomas H. Nelson THN:mjh Enclosure t` cc: Jeffrey G. Condit, Esq. Mr. & Mrs. William Larsson • • t r , •y ,t� M1 1 PO X3+11677.1 19641 030 i ' t. • , . Mr. Michael Wheeler City of Lake Oswego 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 BAR .< S 4993 . Re: Case File No. SD 56-89 ( • Mod 7-92) [AP 93-01] . t Dear Sir: r We object to the proposed action by Mr. Thomas H. Nelson. The applicants (. knew the condition by which the parcels of land were bound when the parcel > , was purchased. Since they agreed to the conditions as part of the purchase, we don't believe the City Council should agree to amend these conditions. These conditions were negotiated in good faith and should ,�. ., , remain in effect. Respectfully, ,_ G/�� David C. Pogue 1200 Lake Garden Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 a I - .,.. • . a, kb • _.• . , .. . . .. . . . . ,• . • . • , , .. . , . . . • .. a, , • .. ,.., , .EXHIBIT R. I121.. A .tic y_41 • • • • - / r • •ky • • • 1.. a • • • • d • • • • • • t ,l' . - • -1/ - �r STAFF REPORT CITE EAKE OSWE ..,, - _ .. , , ,, . PLANNING DIVISION . ' APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Roger Edwards PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 PROPERTY OWNER: ETAEE: Morton and Joanne Bonime Hamid Pishvaie LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT; Tax Lots 3300&3400 of Tax Map 2 1E March 26, 1993 18AB,and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 18AC D OF ARING: LOCATION: April 5, 1993 East of Pilkington Ruad,on the north and ZONING DESIGNATION i• . south sides of Rosewood Street R-5 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Rosewood Action Group(Clackamas County) 4 R-5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST `r ' , 1• r The applicant is requesting approval of a 16—lot single family residential planned development, and a Class I variance to the Access Standard [CODS 18.020(1)]. II. APPLI ABLE EGiJL TIONS A, City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Services Boundary Policies Impact Management Policies r Social Resources Policies "' Residential Density and Site Design Policies s 4 Transportation Policies .., . 0 ti 1., 4 PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 1 of 12 ‘: 4 \.° /. p ' B. Cila of?ake Ogwtgo Zimitag : LOC 48.120-48.155 Residential High Density (R-5 Zone Description) _ LOC 48.470-48.490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance u v'� C. City of Lake Qswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures . LOC 49.500-49.510 Variances LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals D. City of Lake Osweg J/} • . 5.005-5.040 Street Lights Y ` 6.005-6.040 Transit System 7.005-7.040 Parking and Loading • Y. 8.005-8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005-9.040 Landscaping, Screening and buffering z 10.005-10.040 Fences 11.005-11.040 Drainage for Major Development ° 14.005-14.040 Utilities ". 15.005-15.040 Erosion Control 18.005-18.040 Access • 19.005-19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 20.005-20.040 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: Criteria for Issuance of Permits LOC 55.080 Af F. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: ' £' LOC 57.015 Applicability D gn Standard • ' t ' LOC 57.020 LOC 57.030 Adjustments to Design Standard LOC 57.035 Protection from Future Shade 2 M. FINDINGS Y _`` A. ckg ii in* I4 1. The site is 2.85 acres in size and is relatively flat. As F hibits 2 and 3 illustrate, • y there is an existing dwelling on the northern portion of the site which will be • • removed by this development. The site contains a large grove of fir trees on the 'tn south side of Rosewood Street,Exhibit 2. The area on the north side of the street also contains several large fir trees. 2, The surrounding land uses include: . 1, I fp . PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 • . Page 2 of 12 North: Single—family residences Single—family residences i ` • South: East: Single—family residences West: Light Industrial 3. Public services including water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer are or can become available to serve the site. Access to the site will be provided through Rosewood ;' Street. B. Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval of a 16—lot single family residential planned development with lots ranging from 4,300 to 5,760 square feet in size (average lot size of approximately 4,980 square feet),Exhibits 3 and 4. applicant also is The for asking,f � approval of a Class I variance to the Access Standard[LODS 18,020(1)] which requires every lot have a minimum of 25' frontage on a public street Access. As Exhibit 3 illustrates,Lots 10-12 are proposed to be accessed via a private street,Tract "B". C. CQmpliance With Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the followin cri ' when evaluating a major development: g tena 1. The burden of proof,in all cases,is upon the applicant seeking approval. • The applicant has submitted the information required by LOC 49.315 1 1�documents are listed as exhibits which accompany this report. ( x 1). These 2. For any application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to : a. The City's Comprehensive Plan,and, ' ' Applicable policy groups are listed on page 1 of this report. The applicant's narrative(Exhibit 10)provides an analysis of these policies, —Urban Services Boundary Polices These policies require that new development be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. They also require that these services be available or committed prior to approval of development. The ongoing school planning and coordination between the City and the School District satisfy these policies. The passage of the $17 million dollar levy in 1989 and the subsequent construction of a new school and additional school facilities further assures an adequate level of service. —Impact Management Policies These policies protection require of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities, As Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate, the majority of existing trees on the site will be preserved • • in the proposed open space Tract "C". This area contains a large number of mature trees, " . PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 3 of 12 • . j including several large fir trees ranging from 28" to 36"in size. This tract adjoins an • existing open space tract(Tract "A")in Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south, . .; Exhibit 1. 0 The Impact Management Policies are implemented through several Development Standards. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure full compliance. -•Social Resources Policies These policies require protraction of features valuable to community identity and preservation of the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of residents. These policies also encourage citizen participation in the development review process. Regarding the preservation of natural resources,please refer to staff analysis of the preceding Pin policies. The applicant has a neighborhood meeting with representatives of the Rosewood Action Group (a Clackamas County Community Planning Organization) and neighbors who live within 300' of the site. The neighborhood views are presented in Exhibit 16. • ; • • Other policies are implemented through application of specific development standards ` such as Open Space/Park Suuidard. Compliance with the applicable development ' ' i ' standards reviewed below will assure conformance to this Plan policy, -.Residential Density & Site Design Policies The applicant has adequately addressed these policies in his narrative (Exhibit 10). To 0 ..1"1 assure compliance with minimum criteria for overall site design,all the applicable development standards (Chapter 49) will be addressed later in this report. • -Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The f' policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right-of-way as necessary to provide for widening. The site plan (Exhibit 3) illustrates 10' of right-of way dedication along the north and south sides of Rosewood Street. As Exhibits 5,7 and 8 illustrate, the applicant will be providing required improvements as determined to be ' . ' necessary by the traffic report(Exhibit 13) and by the City Engineer. This issue will be addressed in more detail later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations including: •• 1. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: a a, Residential High Density R-5 • LOC 48.130-Maximum Density •_ The applicant provides a detailed analysis of development density in his narrative, Exhibit 10. The density was determined after ubtracting the public right-of-ways 4 '' (approximate) .43 acres) from the acreage (2,85 acres). The resulting net ' r4 • PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 4 of 12 • ,�ur ' developablee acres (2.42 acres)is then divided by the minimum lot area in the R-5 zone ' (5,000 square feet)to determine the number of allowable lots in the development. The ,• ' sin 16 lots,or about 76%of the allowable density. ..,,..:,. , lei applicant is proposing ;,. LOC 48..1.35—Lot Size,Density Transfer The minimum lot size requirement in the R-5 zone is 5,000 square feet,and there are no minimum requirements for lot width or lot depth in the zone. As Exhibits 4 and 11 illustrate,the majority of the lots (12 out of 16)are below the minimum roper lot sizes ment which can be allowed through the planned development process. range from a minimum of 4,300 square feet(Lot 10)to 5,760 square feet(Lot 8). LOC 48.150—Setbacks,Buffers As Exhibits 4, 10 and 11 illustrate, several modifications to the standard R-5 setbacks ., _� (for detached dwellings) are requested, as follows: " Besl1tnhmsi •t Front Yard 20' 23' (for Lots 1-3 and 13- 15) t 20' (for others) 10' 5' minimum, with total r '. Side Yard combined minimum of F... 15' (for Lots 1.7,9, a 10, 13 and 14) • 10' (for others) + a \ Street Side Yard 10' 10' 20' 20' t �r t �\' Rear Yard . •,, The applicant's justifications in support of his request is provided in Exhibits 10 and 11. After reviewing the above evidence, staff finds that the applicant's request cannot be supported for the following reasons: • — The applicant has failed to provide more open space land than the minimum amount (20%)required ; ' by the Park and Open Space Standard. [LOC 48.476(2)(a)] P — The proposed lot configuration does not provide an access to the proposed common open space Tract"C" from within or outside the project. [LOC 48,476(2)(b)] : applicant has not demonstrated whether the proposed modifications will maintain f ` .�. = The ,• •. . or improve privacy for Lots 9--12, [LOC 48.476(2)(b)] , — Sin^e sidewalks are shown in 5' easements on the lots, the 23' front yard setback on Lots 1-3 and 13-15 will result in an 18' distance between the house and back edge of sidewalks, The Public Works Department recommends a minimum setback of 20' , measured from the back edge of sidewalks(for a total setback o`.25' from the property „ line). This will prevent cars that are parked in front of the garages from obstructing w ! • the future sidewalks. PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 5 of 12 . \i,, - - , • .. � Y i ` '' •''' Staff finds that the side yard setbacks for Lots 1-3 could be reduced to a minimum of 5', if an adequate access (minimum of 10' in width)were provided to the proposed open ` ' space Tract "C" 0 . . ' LOC 48.140—Lot Coverage LOC 48.155—Height of Structures • As required by the Code, the maximum height of structures and the maximum lot coverage in this development will be 28' and 30% (excluding paricing),respectively. The applicant has not requested any modifications to the lot coverage requirement; therefore, ;; it will be applied on a lot—by—lot basis. b. Planned Development Overlay \ LOC 48.470—Purpose LOC 48.470(2)requires that a project that contains an area of 4 acres or greater,or r+ . consists of 20 units or more be processed as a planned development. Even though the project is not required to comply with the planned development requirements, the ^ applicant has requested that it be reviewed under the provisions of the planned development overlay district. • LOC 48.475—Procedures Since the development contains only one phase,no Overall Development Plan and , Schedule (ODPS)is required. The ..one requirements to be applied to PD 1-93/VAR 2— 93 are the R-5 standards described in LOC 48.120-48.155,with exception as noted on ;1, pages 5 and 6 of this report. [LOC 48.475(1) and (2)] ^• • °''‘. , 1 '.e. . LOC 48.480—Special Requirements ` The applicant is proposing a common private open space tract(Tract "C")on the south e portion of the site, Exhibit 3. This area will adjoin an existing open space tract (Tract w '. "A")in the Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south. The covenants, codes and restriction (CC& Rs)and bylaws outlining ownership, use, maintenance and liability of the epen space Tract "C" have not been provided by the '" applicant. To insure the continuing preservation and maintenance of this area, the e' • �' .' homeowners association's bylaws and CC&Rs will have to be submitted for review and approval of the City Attorney. These documents should also provide the City an enforcement authority in order to assure reasonable maintenance of open space tracts at the owners' expense. . . ''•• c. Supplementary Provisions I A LOC 48.530—Vision Clearance F ' • •`` Exhibit 2 illustrates vision clearance triangle areas on Lots 4 and 15. It appears that the applicant has measured the vision areas from the edge of the proposed 20' street, Y Rosewood Street could be ti iproved to a minimum width of 28' in the future, with ) ' parking allowed on one side. The vision areas should be measured from the future curb • location or edge of the asphalt so as not to cause a vision clearance problem at the intertection in the future when Rosewood is widened, As a result, toff recommends that 0 ' is. I. �►J' .` PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 '\ Page 6 of 12 ' :,, I pp w • \ access to Lots 4 and 15 be provided from Rosewood Street, as access to Rebecca would obstruct the vision triangle areas with cars parked in the driveways. it 2. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.330-Major Development Procedures This development review application is appropriately being processed as a major development. The development review procedure for major development is found in k' LOC 49.300-49.315. The applicant has submitted a complete application as illustrated in the exhibit section of this report. The applicant also has held a neighborhood meeting with Rosewood Action Group and the property owners who live within 300' of the site [LOC 49.301],Exhibits 16-19. l' . LOC 49.330(1)requires that the final plat be submitted within one year of the date of the "`' Order reflecting the Board's decision. 3. City QLe Oswego Tree Cuffing Ordinanm: LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits } Exhibit 2 illustrates existing trees on the site (8" or greater in diameter) and identifies trees which will be removed as part of the project development and/or housing construction. The applicant addresses the tree cutting criteria (LOC 55.080) in his ' narrative,Exhibit 10. Removal of any trees over 5" in diameter, measured at 4' above ground, will be subject to the requirements of LOC 57.080. 4. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: , i • , , r , '•\•• The Solar Access Ordinance requires that all development in the R-5 zone be designed so that at least 80% of the lots would be solar lots,as per LOC 57.020(1)-(3). If however, due to physical constraints and/or tree coverage this objective cannot be achieved, the applicant can request exemptions or adjustments to LOC 57.025 and LOC 57.030, respectively. Exhibits 3 and 10 identify 10 solar lots in the development, including Lots 1-4,9-12, 15 • and 16, for a 63% compliance ratio. The applicant is requesting a partial adjustment in ' the percentage of solar lots form 80% to 63% based on several constraints imposed by existing road patterns and impacts on the development density [LOC 57.030(1)(c)]. . Exhibit 10 provides a detailed discussion of these issues. Staff finds that Lots 1-3, 9, 10 and 16 meet the Basic Design Technique [LOC 57.020(1)], while Lots 4, 11, 12 and 15 meet the Protected Solar Building Line Option [LOC 57.020(2)], The applicant will be required to illustrate the protected solar building • • >, i \ line either on the final plat or on a legal document that can be recorded along with the ' plat. This requirement can be satisfied prior to approval of the final plat. , :. The solar lots will have to be identified on the final plat. The applicant will also have to provide a note on the plat,or on a document recorded with the plat, binding the applicant 1 and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade protection standards in LOC 57.035. The cityshall be made ato party to any covenant or restriction created enforce „- any provision of the Solar Access Ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be , amended without written City approval. i Y PD 1••93/VAR 2-93 Page 7 of 12 • • ,.' c. The applicable Development Standards; • The Building Design Standard does not apply to major development involving single family detached houses as proposed. The site does not contain any Historic Resources, Stream Conidor,Wetland,Weak Foundation Soils,Hillsides or Floodplain; therefore, these standards are not applicable. The applicant's narratives and plans illustrate substantial compliance with the applicable • standards. This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposal are recommended. .•'r Street Lights—(5.005—5.040) The proposed preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 5)does not illustrate the required street lights on Rosewood Street or the internal street. The applicant will be required to submit final lighting plans and photometric data for review and approval of the City Engineer • prior to approval of final construction plans. The street lights should be 100 watt fixtures on the internal streets and 150 watt along Rosewood Street. • Transit—(6.005—6.040) • Based on an analysis of Section 6.020(1)(a) and(b), the applicant is providing 5' • sidewalks on the east side of Rebecca Lane and south side of Rosewood Street,Exhibit 5. R.. Staff recommends that the sidewalk on Rosewood Street be relocated to the north side of the right—of-way for the following reasons: •„'; — The site has a greater frontage along that side. • — It will provide continuity by connecting to the proposed sidewalk on Rebecca Lane, and future sidewalks from Tualata to Pil dngton. • Parking and'Loading—(7.005—7.040) This standard inquires that each single family dwelling unit provide two off—street parking• spaces in addition to a garage or, pg� g carport. Each of proposed lots are of sufficient • size to accommodate two off—street parking spaces,Exhibits 3 and 4. For additional staff comments regarding potential conflicts between parking and setbacks, please see page 5 of this report. Compliance with this standard will be assured upon application for each building permit. • Park and Open Space-(8.005—8.040) All major residential development shall provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of their gross land area: • Exhibit 3 illustrates the proposed open space system in the development, The open space • Tract "C` measures .57 acres or 20% of the gross land area in size and contains a large number of mature trees, including several large fir trees ranging from 28" to 36" in size. This area will adjoin an existing open space tract(Tract "A") in Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south,Exhibit 1. • The proposed site plan does not provide an access to open space Tract "C", As defined •• by LODS 8.015(1),open space land ",...shall be permanently reserved by common i• ownership among the owners of a development..,", Staff finds that the current design will PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 • Page 8 of 12 • • • ti 1 • II only benefit the owners of Lots 1-3, and not all residents in this development. To meet the intent of this standard, staff recommends that an adequate access (a minimum of 10' • in width) be provided to Tract "C". Staff also recognizes that since this requirement may result in a significant change in the proposed site plan, that the hearing be continued so that the applicant can submit a revised site plan for review and approval of the Board. Staff recommends that the open space Tract"C" be labeled as "Private Open Space Tract "A" on the finalplat. The followingnote should be • provided on the final plat and ' individual deeds: "Private open space Tracts "C" shall remain in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic,aesthetic appearance,protecting natural processes,providing passive recreational uses and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a certified arborist, and after • a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in this area, A including landscaping,which are in keeping with the above purpose, must be approved .. by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings,except play structures or other similar landscape features, shall be allowed in this area." Landscaping,Screening and Buffering—(9.005—9.040) • Exhibit 2 illustrates the typical type, location and size of the proposed street trees. The proposed type,Prunus Subhirtella "Autumnalis" (Autumn Flowering Cherry) is a "solar h' friendly tree", as determined by the Solar Friendly Tree Report(City Solar Access `' Ordinance), Staff recommends that at minimum one additional tree be provided on Lots 4 and 15 along Rebecca Lane in order to provide a continuous planting along that street, • There is an existing commercial use to the west of the development site. LODS 9.020(6) {' " requires that adequate screening and buffering be provided as a separation between /`' dissimilar uses. The applicant asserts that the existing vegetation on the commercial site, which is located above the applicant's property by 4' to 6', provides an adequate buffer, ,• • Exhibit 10. The applicant also states that future fences along the rear propertylines of ; �" Lots 4-7 (to be constructed by property owners) will provide additionl buffering., Staff finds that the applicant should be required to construct the fence at the time of proect development in order to provide the necessary buffer prior to marketing of any lots. �' ,; Fences—(10.005—10.040) '• As stated in the applicant's narrative will �. ••, pp (Exhibit 10) all fences w have to comply with the provisions of LODS 10,005-10.040 and LOC 48.530 (Vision Clearance Area). For • additional comments on vision triangle area, please see page 6 of this report, • Drainage for Major Development— (11.005— 11.040) . Exhibits 5-8, 10 and 15 address the proposed storm water system for this project, After reviewing this information, staff makes the following observations: �. ' — Storm Water Quality Facilities: The proposed design and calculations have been f reviewed by staff and are found to meet the City water quality requirements. A system of roof drain and road side swale infiltration trenches are proposed, Exhibits 5 and 6. The final design calculations and configuration of these facilities will be required with the final construction plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 ' Page 9 of 12 ` - Storm Water Detention: A storm water detention facility is not required for this site, because detention is provided downstream in a City regional facility at Tualatin ` Street to the east. - Drainage Easements: No public drainage easements are required. All private drainage easen*.enis should be shown on the final plat. The proposed drainage system is adequate in concept. The final design of the drainage system may require r odifications to meet the City's design requirements. Utilities-(14.005-14.040) . The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 10) and the preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 5)indicate r that adequate water and sanitary sewer facilities are available and can be extended to t: service the development. • • Water: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with a 4" water line,Exhibit 5. This design does not provide the required fire flow at 1,500 gallon per minute. The nearest fire hydrant is located approximately 450' from the future home on Lot 8,Exhibit 3. In order to provide an adequate fire protection, the applicant should be required to • provide an 8" line in Rebecca Lane and install a hydrant in the area of the proposed • private street,Exhibits 3 and 5. Sanitary ewer. The site will be served by an existing sanitary sewer line in Rosewood • " Street, and lines along the north and west property lines,Exhibit 5, '. Streets: As Exhibit 3 illustrates, access to the site will be provided from Rosewood • ' Street and Rebecca Lane, a new street with rural-street design. Lots 10-12 are proposed 40 • - Y < to gain access from a private street(Tract "B" on Exhibit 3), with a public access easement over the front end to serve as the required public turnaround, Exhibit 4. Staff recommends that the proposed 25' x 34' public easement area be dedicated to the public ' in order to protect the City from potential encroachments and violations in the future. • Staff also recommends that this portion of the private street be constructed to public street • standard as it will be used as a turnaround. To properly delineate the boundary between the public street (Rebecca Lane) and private street(Tract"B"), staff recommends that the applicant install a concrete strip at the boundary line,Exhibit 3. To assure the continuing maintenance of the proposed private street in the future, the applicant will be required to • provide adequate restrictions on the final plat and the deeds for Lots 10-12, to the • ': ;satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of the final plant. • As Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate, sidewalks are proposed to be located outside of public _ • right-of-way on both Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane. The Public Works • Department recommends that sidewalks be located within the proposed right-of-way in • • order to avoid potential conflicts in the future. However, staff could support the ' applicant's proposal if no variation to the 20' front yard setback is allowed and if the • setback is measured from the back edge of the new sidewalks, Staff recommends against measuring the setback from property line, since cars parked in front of garages would ' obstruct the sidewalk. Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate the proposed improvements on Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane, Both streets are 20' wide and are designed with rural-sections, in accordance with " '" the recent City Council direction that grass-lined smiles be considered as an alternate to curbs: Due to the narrowness of the proposed street improvements, the new streets will 40 not provide the ability for any on-street parking, The streets will be required to be - • PD 1-93/\VAR 2-93 • ' Page 10 of 12 " d r ,. constructed and designed for a 20 year minimum life. Design calculations for a 20 year design life are to be submitted at the time construction plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. •-‘ •....,/ 410 The applicant will be required to provide an acceptable barricade at the end of the Rebecca Lane. The final plat should also illustrate a one foot control strip at the end of r this avid. i r • The applicant presents two alternative circulation patterns to serve the properties to the . • north,Exhibits 9 and 10. Staff finds that Option "B" is not feasible due to recent minor land partition approvals. Option "A" is not a desirable pattern, because Lower Drive, from Tualatin Street to the west,is approximately 1,000' long, very narrow (12' to 14' in width) and is without an outlet. This situation was created when Boones Ferry Road was improved,eliminating the Lower Drive intersection. Staff recommends that any future r • extension of Rebecca Lane should provide a connection to Lower Drive; therefore, a cul— de--sac at the end of Rebecca Lane (as in Option "A") should not be considered as a final ' , • design. The City Tra Engineer has reviewed the applicant's traffic reports (Exhibits 13 and " ffic f:' 14) and concurs with its findings and conclusions,Exhibit 20. Staff review of the utility plans only verified the location and capacity of public utilities to serve the development. Final determinations regarding the exact location and size of public services will be made prior to approval of the final construction plans. Erosion Control—(15.005-15.040) Exhibit 6 illustrates the proposed preliminary erosion control plan for this development. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed erosion control plan for review and • • ' approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of final construction plans. This plan should comply with the new State mandated erosion control requirements outlined in the "Erosion Control Technical Guidance Handbook" adopted by the City, Access—(18.005—18.040) • All proposed lots,except Lots 10-12, meet or exceed the minimum 25' frontage requirement to a public street [LODS 18.020(1)],Exhibit 3, Lots 10-12 are designed with no frontage to a public street and they will gain access through a private street(Tract "B")off Rebecca Lane,Exhibits 3 and 4. • • The applicant has requested approval of a Class 1 variance to LODS 18.020(1). Exhibit , 12 provides adequate justification in support of the variance request. Site Circulation Driveways and Private Streets—(19.005— 19.040) ., Access to Lots 10-12 is proposed to be provided through a private street,Exhibit 3. This street shall be designed to comply with the requirements of,'LODS 19.020-19.025, to the • satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of the final construction plans, All • individual driveways will be reviewed under LODS 19.025 at the time the building permits are issued. • Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways-(20.005-20.040) .°. Please see staff comments under Transit and Utilities Standards on pages 8 and 10 of this • report. • PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 , Pagel 1 of 12 h •i ' d, Any applicable future stre( 4 plan or ODPS $ There are no such plans which affect this site, IV. CONCLUSION Based on the information submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this repurt,staff finds that the application does not comply with the applicable criteria for approval,including the Park and Open Space Standard,LOC 48.150(Setbacks,Buffers)and LOC 48.476(Planned Development Authorization). V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends PD 1-93/VAR.2-93 be continued to a date certain in on ier to allow the • ' ' applicant to address the issues identified in this report. EXHIBITS . " 1. Fax Map • 2 Site Boundary/Tree Survey/Landscape Plan 3. Preliminary Plat/Vicinity Map 4. Reciprocal Access Easement Plan for Lots 11.and 12 5, Preliminary Utility Plan 6. Preliminary Grading Plan • 7. Preliminary Street Profiles 8. Revised Street Profiles 9. Preliminary Future Streets and Circulation Plan 10. Applicant's Narrative 11. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative Addressing LOC 48.476(4) 12. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative for a Class 1 Variance to LODS 18.020(1) 13. Traffic Analysis Report by Charbonneau Engineering, dated January 27, 1993 • 14. Addendum Traffic Report by Charbonneau Engineering, dated February 16, 1993 • 15. Preliminary Storm Drainage Analysis,dated February 12, 1992 16. Minutes of January 20, 1993 Neighborhood Meeting with Attachments 17, Affidavit of Posting Notice 18. Affidavit of Mailing • 19. Receipt for Certified Mail to Rosewood Action Group 20. Memorandum by Wayne Halverson (City Public Works Department),dated March 15, 1993 • • (b(boaad 92"4FcRepons>PD 1-93/VAR 2-93/3-26-93 • PD +• � � Page 23�12 2-93AR H I�,y". • C. 1 E 1 ,.) , „ ZIE. 1T.) A �00 „ � D• / P xOa ;,r .,�j %� i , R , yp�kP\L �.' . iP .20 1' • / 0(J S A .0\ R0;„ Ax 2ztlo IA lc / / ` •,.,Al i s AA . !, A ` y1 / / , .o s� zoo \\ xsp0 ! sot ,00 ,•••,.... A:\ , • v • . "' �" �',1 1sp0 rft !9 q /O •A. t 1.1, \ ,, t / I I ;,It 9Q P H r . sp01 ti A. 1 llt 1 ',It: 1t1 .9't°+ !,. >� rt",�itl 1� • 1,1 1 MS ' '' �` •.20A r1 ' ..'•�1 °• i•° ,*61 ?$!.i..t.ti fit` •• ",J! A' x rl, !,,,, p\ A101 \\ ,'{ , '. '4!.14.0 • + $%00 0, V«4 '1 ,ii ,mod' •r •1 10 i. ./} gyp • '� a 2,1' ; ^, W` 't .:. .44 c'''(A �� A102 .!•1'�. N!' .•y0� , ��` o l.•�=Ott A • ` ,u' �}.�U�G• r 61 A ti:.IP '\' `3 !!..l,•°- Y fQ •.4 .14 tw,11 ' .,.n0 .t....I 11.. 66 Af0 tv .t P p . t to / {'. ' IIIM Q` V .„ ✓ '\A'.., '••,Cif i r �11 M , 1�i11�� \\� ,' �ppD,':`�°t ,r6tl2 3e��2• , b .`\ r l'n�B61 .�'' •� o/ Y — 01. .\ pUl►SY ''.. ?O °' . 't:: •..`tot_ 1+�1 o lift .6 Z.;{ \ �,,.• ✓ ° •�„O •'2 ,s 01 y►l, "i 1 \66 !'\\°'�" 61 h / t l0 , •• l '! ,01 + J�� I \ r / �• �;j'i 6 '' li,�.� _• •,,,.,�r� 4 t.N !, 1+,J �` rb 1 _I .1 1,1;.!..s.,19-1%;',(-).., 00 " cp... 411kaggellffill00- \ I ..." '''•:'..t 4e• .7.4\l'' .1* 10 Lf0 6 U°i /� '�'I' �i, Q `ti+t ~l •yr rJl. t. 1 ``p `Q���j " 0 1 I q0 !!'1 ! ( ,y'�y a j: OS` ', 41 A i1 ,6900MI • 6900MI !!.; 1 tit,1 06 ,,Off, '/'10ti`�.6 i/t" 0° `-:a ` �'�. `_>,�! 4.,... •+1 yyJ , '17 ' ' aol. /,> it i 1 60z 6':g. `, -:.• M01 •c'J ,/ : 0' , V� 4 ( 1,- ,,, ._ e •6900M1 t�ei1° ;1 \ , 'f ,1•6 �• `.. �t'}�(,�y' I : 6 \ , . 1 //J'd :, .. yov ' • •• �, ' ,«. -.. , 96 ry•` �,ONi , 'CA' 0% q1, 4 f<...�' •aa •°•\ y.,. 1{ • S , /' T00 ,,..pp ' :, r•! 6470M1 ' t '�,, 6R•tt„ _ ;, r• yf�ta •°, a•,' •A • i,( IIIf I >; fit''!!'' - 1 , 4 ,`iV• •••••- :An I • •'1n4u ,\t6 N'401 t-a• .•J4,lJ'.A \ k.•\ ,, t, , • . t • �11 .r:121Itl3 �.• . •.,.. i .4 EXHIBIT - . tip , pD{ ' r 41. A. i •a • 4 4 . , . I • e Y 7!,. •' �' 0 _, , , , .. XI rkr '1\ 4 . , \ 0. \---- 31o2 - 4: ow Lea • 11 111 . , .......„,5\14„4„.spo � Jil is �`'%, g \\ .41 t . ,r r 10 " t»• 1 li [1 i 10 .•• N -••• • t 12 tt ;p^ sty j �_°I �_I 1 I'~ .� \ t '-�\t COf11�ER0US TREE M1TH CIRCUMFERENCE fT11UYAi'-i MI VI ti i 1 a ' �` ► 0 U t LP 0 DECIDOUS TREE WITH CIRCUMFERENCE SHOWN t t e► \ t ssY�YCR° r�'� Q ►+I • st le ---- Q PROPOSED SIREET TREE: 2` CALIPER - 32 b1 s� ■ "` V,. 0 T t �� M'�.. t / Je PRUNUS SUBNIRTEILA AUTUMNALIS' 1 15 1 11 l tt\......... t .�' *�11LL i ' \li ` •I� if OR Ilti PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL I'' +5 � 'd's -'-sT' -.-----. ....i...-ecret.!..r... .. .. ,,ii." , . lAr' Ro T s {L ft PK * ._ O1. f' ......ii to. 7.-- xi t / " A 1 F.� `J� r U 1 2311r t'vL4!t �P I_ Q' 'Y t\r4 t BA1Cp Q Q v) yX 11 'Seri WI b"' Q .ccr$$it{{t It tS{V .. • 4 y' g it •• w el t,rip. . GE i'' 1I�1 t Q 0 r � �r ,` err �'� r'r�✓�' 0 CO • r , PROJECT. ROSEWOOD ' _ NO. 2117-005 TYPE PREIAT,PLAT ,, •�v r aU ,.y ,. , I C ( rr...a� .f d � ,moo.• �. -- 4 1.---: I ► Y -:.. .,M ) e5t• 1:, . "...,..-•....4-,,..'.,... .... ', : ' t'l L � __I+:.I .4—, .4L I l • +� W +t/(B) ✓ vs SCALE: 1' r I a.r. .. 50 •1, 1— A '' ESb sr 5,634 sr C 1190 (A) tit • 7 0 r 11 a+ ad °'� S7.�sr 1 St., • r4 ++ b 1A VICINITY MAP 2 J 0 ( Illk *p p1 --. Iv (S) \ � N.T.S. w . . . �+ 4 73� \ 1, 6,,15,506 Sr A 'r+; a a a �1 91 o. (A+ t,`, `+'` VII �-\� n 1+ �� Q L j + h,e sr `�' Oa+ neio -(H) \ 7it 1 OWNER A , S P +001 SW HUMPHREY PAR(mgt. P • / Maw*CONINE �E) ,��, ���s(5) ,�,a3x sr POWILAND.OR 07221 4 lir- ,961 sr 15 sr X, +r 11 `,+t t o. , APPUCANT /DEVELOPER - - "- , ,-�- --- ROOI SE WAY PIJ2A ON?,/100 -./ / 4500 S,W.kRUSE WAY v e -4,1151 sr 1 ,/ 1�' ypt a LAME 0rd3e id,. -� S'0y5E'1 S 1A p 11 ENGINEER / SURVEYOR dos A ALMA[NaussRola MI0. •• �0,i, TV"1S3P,� ,�'�, &.. '�+dD sy `4 PPflO C1 u1�afEE 9 RANDY rMj4( .• s � �yJ .o t�� UTILITIES /SERVICES ',�+ '�' , # \+ m N �,.-=" WATER-a TY Or LAks OSWEGO i VP \l\ 10. + p �N1, sENER-UNITTED SEw[RAO;ACEIICY • ++ ) 2 POWER-PORn1J10 OEIIERAL =CTMO R •. 0 Sr OAS -N.W,NATURAL oA2 ►- A .)! "10p.G \• 1 .r 5,000 S • 9A PHONE-U.S.MAST Q W n •' Z� 1. 1 .... 31� CAN -COLUYOIA CARL6 .J Z p "` . -;�► NOTES • Lu,o,111-5 a • Yp + CROSS SITE AREA! 2-05 AC sW� '- ' ,- STREET ARUM 16,014 St Z g7 • - I - >E a OPEN SPACE AREAL 24,1153 St (LI N CONTOURS! ALPHA EJ10NITERINO P\ TRACT`C` + SOLAR ACCESS COAIPUANCE C+i.l (/') P/8 61 .• + OPEN CE A\ 6-(o) carats YAn1 SotM oRONIANcE. �� gl 24,8 3 :r p + �, O 4»(S) COMPLIES Mlnl sP[aAL salaams 0Y APPLYING TIC SOLAR BUILDING I , LINE Tonto, ,\ � •' S»(E) fictionfictional,(ECN, .`NIFP PROJECT 601(WVo6 KM267-005� ���,,,,,,JJJJJJ . r. • • , 4 `• r 0 • • / : 't•v n"4f V r : ,' ,.PICK t T, », • •.1 ,i .. 1 1'.,411, ......,•. ,.fn, .,1,111" .,.nn III 1 1 r�i I! i�i kOiddF'j '�Ibin�+" 1, sulrvrinrall 1 1l1 llrll.I.I • TI Iiiii f4^.JI i n inr.j 1 11 r 1't E. (PpAkn I I I I Oc un 1.1II,IIInu4wlp if 1 44. MH+�I. �T1 1 �"�.1Pd1'twV I 1I � , i; • • Anil tji,'il 1, 4 1 9fi f , 11 t '�1`11 4.Kif, .,,r� � l:. ,,, 1 ''t1'I 1 • •1 +t1�gHtit t � i�;ry' 'n,Ill; �\ ♦ uIz. •I"fir', 11 I'. .�i11KHii.i rii!.4., Gla: i;.P:T'MitiO, Ii ' '1!,:' I, .. .�.O r111,i; -I .1H : III -• ' ''� ,n��:S. N� �.I�f�� ��'^.�i�l� o1) U • ' ,.:1 v .1r y,,► v 1t2 <''�.,e?' ill; • 11 & ? ¢ ji "a' `' 1;1�� '"' • lii11yt{�,'��I} �oo a i :,,. • oi .�C? .1,1,����� �va-Ir3�1�NN11::.'M[.i«...r �1� •'�I� 14 •A, '14,r1 AIP`� , ., • i �a'!.' �' � I I I 1 • 1 �jf iintll 'EXIS Ns. ' 20 scMTA�R, ° STORM , i .,•: . .-A : • 53' , d . ! ; tit Phi ,. I 101J1, N I e.. tWi... l..:a.-... 1...,...:.r ..•s.... 1+� ........... .3...,,.n. .......— .......,47;r.+ »..1 i i, `, .,,:i0„ it-1(1,-. 1 „,,,ir.j , , ,, ...i v I9 I „' i1'"M/{ i t0 1 ' 4J- I I ' I,jll�'tll 11; 1 *0 ?"'" I 1: 1 *,, . ,,..•:. ..• 14,1i , (4 . ,„, • 5. r' 144 :Ill, 11'4!Y'i ' f• ijii; I 1,1 33., . ..„,.. ..4 i . 0 .(0 , „ , , ,,• ;,,,,,., ., ,,..•. II a GI r Ili J , 11 • oi� ' • ,� I',I, I {, i ' j� I �i� ���1��.��,� v i!{�iC�1 I �i 11 i 1 11i' !� I, tidl}1P 1 1 , ., 161'R CPi� 1i.1CI lr ( ll; if II':ii +4i11M11� 'Mb'u .n�' m . t��11�` 1a1,lli�h� ,is..r�Iso` 1I,I,'1, r , 11111'II r. I ( 179, I l 1 I,i III I,I nD �' 1 ?. ;�,C Ili,i � • r'i!�('jl , Il �11 j 11{ i f• i, , l lit 1 �' 1 ,I, 1I1. 1 1 'y11 C4{C 'd� ,•1111• 01,1,1,r J�f 1. I I i I1 s Ln k 1 1 11 !QD. ; .J 7(!(ltl.!!!i,nr.�"11��if, 11,1 fI II;.14' M to 1 it'N:n1• C I .1 1� . ill 11. 1 ' , , 1 . . bi, Ii . ,, , „ ., '� r H t I1�: I f ,,r, •11 . ! 1, 1,-,r 1),, . , 1 .i.+.,'i k:1' ,++++1.r, (s fir, �1 ,;, %IC 1 'I t.ii III I^ , I ! ri,—..4..-.-.;4.41.+, .•--..ia.i .47 I. Z5'i '...4,1 J! A' o� l 7„`111ii' GII 1 i .444, 1 (5).. , 1 0. el ,0 rm. . , Illi, I / or) g., ,• ,• , .,,. . ,..„, ,• ., 1 ,,. „., .i 41h,n 1 i•O ' 1 1:1 , S Iiiii:i 1: WI ti I .Illin 1, 3 t:,..5', (• 41,,O, ri,j;j(16 iStp+t1/4 I :, ! 1 evie) 't • . ' 11,141;i I' .1 l• I • 4 • ',,�N+li ,> 1,,;..1* .l 11'1.1, 'N .i __ C+d.i4l:fu-...wi4 lL�.. ..... . / ,.u11 1...1 J I { 1, 4; OBI i , .. ., ;�{ir...If ......0'44,...••••••1 1 ......... .., L: ,. . , • -61 -t,▪ EXNIBI . t II il 1 I 11 II I �� 1:',1 1 ,.. tO:,.r ,pow 0 i A a/v,�0.L 9 y o 4 r� , 'is: *.A. ,,, . e. E . II ' 1 • \ oil ��Tz.r _...\ . ON r s ,`l7'tl+t P'" ` ,SIODA WATER DEIA& W ' p� •f Citel"tglW �VI 1 li \ . 1M+ .!i•,, /ii- l j \ '1 N w,• ,.rSNid ��1 R Y.. 1 n.' ' : .' tit'' l'c ''..... 1 • ""'' 11 .1$ ,-' I "ovtontor a „4,, 1, tor' . ,• �' \ "` nT"illi'�1111 q 1�$idbAyJJ7 F t ►eglRAnoN Tillie I ,� r' a 4 'A\t• t ` •rtAVOl,n�,Nwx • \\, s C . • ,%,�t • i 0 14 nnvo now o,6 a urewnf-aAIA 1 �P d 1 12 I y €ANt1RAnol oloi Is \ 7 r4) t,.. .1, , 00. UM►PACncu, n \.. .\\S �r , �'1��i1 r- ...• WA Ktl ttaN A ® yj :�, ' li N ib ri rrctuM[cnaN AI 91 �I n 1 "J n cry„ t 3 1 \ FlI1ste 1 \ PAV[uW/ l DRAM 11t toot 1' P . \ ./'(E1l \I1` 16 , ,,. IN*IP I10N 61 i 8�tj f 17 i\\\ 'y '"\\n,' l f" e :'� / :1..::,..::70,4_,Trci,08 t �11 •}r� 16. r--___11/4 rge \ .\ '..- 1]ISr - '� / • iPAlgN nKlrol 4i•..f. �t Y• tr15 1 \ S , �� � - r[ = :1� 100,1irk.tj� • ,•\\��,� ��L' G+� / '.v/' V ✓ � N 66c6 f r' t.� yHrol-M 1 \ /�! .r V'- Pk t�,1Y . � Iy`rA ` lY+'• sM j� / ,'.rlc�11�.' • may.` -Or 11 �Y, .17:1 ---rU1r011A1N'I' '�.11:• 1�(,w 1fe -\ \ � r� --1 / DITCH •` - �, :,,,- �� 5EGThal, DITCH SECTION :; •r' '' pOQ,� j '��''l r^�� a s+�l 1 t10 ; //' �/ \ o ,\ AT DRIVEWAY 41.ROSE •' ---�,,-�;l'� «.v'. 1 • l._ �� �\ • \ UTILITY LEGEND v '011 1 I ' / f' �� ,/, s `tlr,1` , b ,' . ,. . .,,,..-\lifxi TM�� At% •. 1 \/I 2® ;.-, ♦ \ 6.,\ \ m---tut— Iwo uAtlfMslalC1ARY SEMI uuc M 'tSgt/s,10 \�'1' / \../✓,V \ pA \ —cw-.q EktsTlNo slonu DN N 1INt AHD ai ,Z otq i //� /..,✓' • Cnll'fl BAStN J 0 Q W b - /\ r / ®` "n''v— tx,serTO WAtGt LINE AND VALVE n' CL eg31.1 •\41., y. '/ A • m • •t"•R ��~ PROPOSED r0 IOINAI SANITARY SEWEII LIfIE >. 3 ,.' e 2 0 � 11 t • • �•�' C►-p PANG,RtSOUT DRAIN tiNC Z L(C '—.` A F, • `. . ' •.I. T.41 Ii '�,•'�`� b•-1'oi PRGrOSEo WAitn LINE,mow- 2 I' --J 9� 07• +�` `/ � •��\ I rn',AND IntE fionANt �j O F ', •'_° r. /• •, • . '� 3.5.t. SAMATIt SEVER EASEMENT 1A- y��� y • • �• r� 5;D.E. Sirnu GRAIN EAsELiENT w NOTES ' •• \ • t • j,•/ pha \ / ✓ AN EgCSIDN CONIRDI PIAn tNA1 N:ZTs �� ��b�h� S `�}}}���,,,• 'EROSION CONTROL rtAN THE PEOLPITDIENIS or sEnoti ,:AL ' t os \ r'r� y' \ CUIOANCE NAINUCT1 1Mtl DE PRE. Or �� \ AT THE CONsoNcooN PLAN STAGE Or . J DEVELOPUENT "PROJECT ROSEWOOD _ NO. • i •‘. . illo...___________ . , , T1T E M . . . EPIAT , - .i^�. *. * 1 W •- PrI K er r lilt) , '7, ''.1 I ';.'.i:'..„:.'', ': \ \ I ...: l'.:I IR! ,:;';',.7. ro• rq� 0. .• . .. ...\ 37,6) `*, . `.'. ' , ., .., j1� ti '. �P�p,�UnT�� �05";.+ ►'N huuaA'I OY9Nl4 ejG io .isi *It .% r '!, vt 1 f._. ,•/ \ 'V +11✓j , 12 `T is k't '� y ' . \ �.r1 x I37,31 T aIti 111 ...."...\:;..1,, 11% r 141 TT ( I 0 7 r,.yM1 us a • 4• `1 , .............-woe 1 k iJd7.7D •i I�`�M� -'y "�! 11 1 T: 6'�� 'tit , • 15 TO .. T i /I'l ,r.✓ LEGENR TWa"9A,\ , r 'a•"'e''- -. "'.- -•.+-•-`- \ 1 , 'l,l. 3. s T`T a„ oA 1 p1 p1 `. !J- ai°,��p 2\E N�P sotto. MIDI GRADE ROPE(Ms •' \c. \5''�,.--- `•\. Y t •' "10 \ �..— PROPOSED DRAINAGE PAt1ERN r�1' PP .� \ :.•. 41 u 1 L 3 \ \\ Itiet,Ig EttsnNo mom(rep) T '4 0 �Y' a 3 T. - vir14•DAAITT I \ •,•'2 TD 1.•• , �..1 \ I EROSION CONTROL.SEEDING AREA '� . • - \SAG +Iri o . 1 r� , ,.x I.�.......J ot� ` s\ \ NOTE1 MEMO MULd11N0 ANO REVECATATIDNSHALL �• • • • • • ,N'r p��I'-s AREAS,DC PCRfDgNfl!ON ALL WOMBED Q '^ �8 .' t -c /q y. RECOMMENDED EROSION CONTROL Lx; 2 ZZ W `T , ` O • -••' LOW MAWTENANCE)hOw HE1O1T, O 91$ • Elia PERLMAN.RYECRASS AO% 1 >.* CREEPItO RED FESCUE 20x • s \ cE• •l\ .'- a L. Ct 9 • T �. A. qe•� ! • .4 q*p/ ,,,....,.„‘FP /��� ` PRMCO, ROSEWOOD r NO, 2e7-ooe - \ 1111 PREPIAt ,1 C' . 1 • • Fb • h" ..,4, _ .. 4 .. 1, 711 ".•. AI I l I; : / i Yi . ':- . ' 11., .........._ .........-.1---.... I ..........-.-,.. _...... . .. —"%"""" -L-------.."-*;11—i b a� ..way X or II ii r t•M ar2+tN ianmr«wMt l•..ir il C F la e e e -► e e e a e •y 11► -1400 -1100 ^0400 0000 0400 1400 1100 0000 *400 3400 3100 4100 4400 J1 . AAA a � + - ' REBECCA LANE I�' I Si t PTMl1C Sinai � d� 66 i M00 0400 Inc 1.70 :100 1400 3/00 1400 4400 4400 (0400 10..000000:0) 0. i PRIVATE STREET �,�„� J — F • •,I' M00 MIO 1/00 1/10 } te.olvuru>1�[r► A/W tl' M/W p/W VW 4- a. 1 g • 0' e' to. } He tl' a 12' It2, re eh. PALL ` f w ;1 ONAINAGE Mat ,snAINACE Dint swALL SSRWALE • •, •' 1 L)fT 3'SIDEWAU< O1tAINACE DITCH, CtUuNACE otTtxl 'RAVEL SNoULIX l , Y S /`-0. SHED Moat C,pvut.c Asj�'c•-2 LfftS :hDd'.A4L..gASL'C=2.1d33 . r S.I,-07 alUStHlt Rodt 7•t7h'-oboe o ROCK 2'.4 4.. No float .c, 10g2•-0•)atv»1ED ROCK t0•p•-Ir)a1UstE0 Moat • 'I �(_ ERIVATE STREET SECTION. M P� t_,SZF_F_T SEC71bN S. . ______ _ SIREET SE IQN (jn15 tD ,.,..! • mutt t1o%Moao ' j Ito.. .2e2-005 PML-PLAT .h. . • • :. Y ,1 T ¢ a •.b 4r \4 • • • • • • 4.• - < { • 3 tl• • . • • F. p.'` •• t • • • • *r . y , 4 • • y • • ' ` 4y f { • tk • ALPHA. ENGINEERING INC. • ,` `' ENGINEERING A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • SUR"EYING March 12, 1993 Mr Hamill E'ashvaie, Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego F1' 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Hamid: • Please note the attached corrections for taheet 5 of the 'Rosewood ' ;..: pre-plat application. a) The new public street section, Rebecca Lane, should have 6" o • f (2"-0" ) crushed rock not 10" as shown on the plans. b) Rosewood Street section should have 8" of (2"-0" ) crushed rock not 10" as shown on the plans. • ,p Further copies of the revised sheet 5 will be submitted upon r request. If you have any questions do nct hesitate to call, sincerely, x ALPHA ENGINEERING INC. ♦.r A glia."'"" ".••••••••., ark Dame Junior Planner 267-005d.md • • •O• EXHIBIT , J 11 1 • Pr ci7A U1r4°r A Ct trrg in A oA?n 1/ ("AV A pnP1-t AKtn npf;r~r,.l 07711 A kni.ac7.gn11* . t;Ab• c „ .an4.1 • • • • . • .. . r a .4 ^ • , r b Iri R. l '. •: a. 1! ... • g• ; 1.*Ir;'/ itt't, • • : . 1IP . .; • : [4..3 . . l'• • f-../i . • . .• ' 0 F•-• • •!: 8 % 41.1, • • E d• 4.4; /1. 0 •.- • ' ,-,'1:1* ttsio", II "'''''• ......... 1 cu 1 -...... ''.'".. 44.4.... ....••.... t .•1 ;1i 1.' ......1.1 ; .../ • • • = 4:••• "FF. lit.—q- --] . ...... . . .;• ,v 5 • .) c . . it.,• 2+80 31-a0 34-80 4+00 4+60 . - • •. .. 'I'N • ‘. .1 . \I) . • .. . , . 11--- W ,.......1 1.0 co '$ • E Rtag . a... 0 • . • Riw < w 50 4t R/vi R/v,i Rtiv ix . 0 . • I ' Z (I) a o a ; • • , ln. M _ , 0 1.--. • , t— - 8' a% ,104 _f_• to* . 0' te ,....1 LEJ RVE3 ; P,U.E. 1.1.1 —f 3' 31 4/1 3.--If ri ,-.11.- 3. yt frJ*1—. 46,* ' * \ 44./M. • ,m1,11 4. v •' , (/) ?i I • • I .ORAINAI;E Drittl DRAIMADE bird-I DRAINAGE DITCH . .. 0 PAM4,...LH9MLOgR___ VEt, SHOULDER" ZtVittrA_CIA211V.:=2....LIE15 N. . \. 4-;.frItstliSIIE0 REIN • 4'. a ,, '' .• .'..• ** "--a' " "*""(1 ID --0-) GRUSHEP 1100A . 4. 40" _.,.. 4 io -137) CItIJSRELI RoCk . ' . .t•,, • - : ,....) --- ----I.= NtW PUI3LIC STREET SECTION, __•-•-- S.W. ROSEWOQD STREET SECTION . fi u') co 1 • , . . • • • . , PROJECT ROSEtioG011 'NO, , ..u......:-.4:...:-..0.414..,•.::;;;.;:-2‘.-' . - • :....-1.:.....:.: _ _ .. . .... ... . . .•' .* I * i * 1 ' . " • .. - . V rr+yy 1 *y. '�' .,w,q4 ; JNr +Ih � lr^ \ \ I. • 1 t 1; '\ C 1 /; , •,.pr: ...` e i• j •.t r .:L f•�,I. �•,' r .'.. Ili 1) 1. , • / 11(1 1t r /, �\ N ,,/',t a `itZ' :w } JiJ;•fit, / \`r,p, • jr '9 0 ` % 0 ,, ' .•. !..1,, ..1: ‘. .4 s' ):.,1%-1 , . , .6 ,‘ s,,:‘^1..'..Li '..,.T ., c. . ...., 0 a ti ". c I , • ••••;71,,, .: yk, .. , . ,k..., i ,4. .v.:, 4„,., , ' Pk ... P.4`.' 'Pi .s-'-'*•e ir;;' • ' ,,t ) % i t; It' ''''."----"--7.i..... \ ,, , 11 , ,, '1i 1 ` N,•� ,• a .„r,27 t1V' ; . ' ,' .' ... '• •0 ' .....-710' ' fil,• '":14 • 444 "/7fOr 4;,."-. ''.'. . /. A,.,..-wm. / ,0 r 11 106.1 , ,:. ..,,* 4t'.1,,C,, . . ry. I.tr. r .1. * '''. I-le-f! yam,\•` i „hc.!,..t.'; .y- t�+ •� t ('�• . ' I m 1 , 1 ,3.fi,"'Y % Ol• 0 `' `S'�"re'� , .' , r'r �' • $ 0Is' N . ' 5u1'4• , •,,4 ., e . . c --.-e.' s .......(14,c; 4i. -1-' ,..-4. ,‘. -.,\i' 39 •''.4.,,C7;•!',Ii," .• .. .•: ). "M .iy' r 0. •�. r:•. ;, .,;, y, ,' �, • ; a • ; ," a > "`"1 9 • "41 3 11 , 40.1 •'•-''.c.;'e", t'111‘4. ' : . . i ." 'kt '' ' 't-.f-.1.' ''''.. .44,4.. ;-'-., 1. c6.: ,,,,,,..:0 4114'1.. .4°' t. .' ,6'''IF 41 ► .1rR • a r ,: • �RJ ', 1 r',� ;31W • M ` A yy" �•3' ,,�. w , 11 •V/. ' 7,,,;,,,,,, 7.,..e: ' • • r. , t..4 CNit i' ' t'i . 1 Al o•6,411,A,o• ,A i k • •t,Jr 1 `,."i�Y', C4 R',�o},i ' 1 , a'Sf.•f_t imi,,• � ,•1 ,,, ' \ A, �K..'.•, • ,,v. 1 ;Ili, \•i.�. • :.: �, '.yF ',y�,.'h q`�n. ['� 1/' A•;" 1 olt t y ,' J' .,-e '1 • '�, _ • \ 7 �`.' 4i • f14� l'` �yy+4 , `-1�i � • J " T. � ? ‘J;. / Q N' ,, ! • .( •4t` '� �S `t. ;• Jr °I f,J f• 1H 5,,:. • t ..J,_ 1,• '1,a tip ,.J-C.' , \• ltrr �": a' uy'' f� r rG t / ,+ •1 `2; 'r• t ' r 1� �' ... •7,�'� .•,•'; •A,. :• 1•\'' 1 , \`� f r r 1 1 Q. '1 2' .•h •At _ c .. to 'o. • J! f ♦ ,5..1 !¢•1, ',Farti • ... r✓ y . ; ' 'r /1• y" • �7.W' ' d r . A. , �y�)y 4!L j1�5; t i q' 1, '•.t •.i „r 1 yi',r[• ,:.�,a \•,,r \` 1'W i' •V 1 L .144• ' ' 10'1' u' 1h- • ,y : •{, ; 4 41' .,kle'4,T{b 1 i„• , •• • • '`' y ' j, ` 1• +` i 7• k ,V� p !aL L , •1- 7 / r \� Q,"" P . � ? y♦ ! ,I % G _ ' \,ttt •, 1� �,. , .$:1.'41 4. 6•. . t[i 1. I' g, '. nfi' ', , ,.t• i'�1• r (",/, ' • 1 r„'A . 1 \h St,lk \ +M , •1 .n`. ++ 7 , ... r"b-' •+ .Ay, .� ':,�. > - ,' " ,, / ,. j .:41. .. r v A w / 11 S 'Y. E .. 1 7 , 1r 011 'l. ' 4 'II `. r tli:i 1 ..,..:i •• , • - i EXHIBIT • • ""c' f E�I 3`t•'! :non 0r t10,DAt�.... y Ib Flo W1EEt C t l, p ARC PLAT runic ,Tn[t.i rO4404 Ur,uD, DAtrt1,ino9s ' ODt 'y1"Ali �,,,''i 1 IM _ ._._ r.. ytp„ ...� 9f 1E'ALD BW.��..D 1F,lts4� pp,, A J Nil DF' •'�; +=y "��'" 'C�. OG ornyw w Wr«!."t NL,r6''-9P5 Jl3'}tA iLfiOIN&SftINO t}T ' 1 • �_ly i f�C'v 1 1„e" �`.�•+ W r, 1 �LvtftD la1.ii• illana It1N0•Dm70FYWT R1 na*.nmRulb a►' f i " A FAR.a D omci em-Jei•iooi•YAx eor-w,45o�' f LOTS SS b k SWC,NAP 21 E 10 AO SH*5:MC DWIt FUtI rrn•tURc tw•woo to oil•rorfLsu dM'htttT ~j 1"'� AI,D •AX;.J! G0.14AP DE 10 AC ,.__.. 1 1 f c• Y, is it • I- 1 �.c +np .•i�•r r.. mot+Y q . Yw . • • sk • • • \' q 1 • ' \ YI Y f• aY• � Y . \ . Y t ti • APPLICATION FOR ?jo LOT SUBDIVISION 4 • • CONTENTS • • 1. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2. PROJECT SUMMARY ' 3. NARRATIVE ` • • o Introduction " o Compliance with Comprehensive Plan o Summary o Appendix • 4. TRAFFIC REPORT m ,� r`!' 5. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT DOCUMENTATION o A copy of letter sent and accompanying documentation. o Corresponding Affidavit of mailing, mailing list and returned envelopes. o Affidavit of Posting for sign. ; ► o Minutes of neighborhood meeting. o List of attendance for neighborhood meeting. o Resident comments. • 6. BLUEPRINTS OF PRE-PLAT a Sheets 1-6 .p • ® ' + EXHIBIT ® 10 Pal•'t i/va • t •,. ,,',•. '•;-!..• . . •,'„.•. ....- ,. '•:• :;'.,• ..' :••,':',. .'•,i'7 c.. ..... , '.... ..-: : '• ..' .''.•':..,.''.' ''''' . •....... .,-,„ .,,, .,, I•' '. ...,...'... n . . .1*.•,, ., . . . .. . . , • , . .. , .. . ,,, '', •n.'. ,, .. • * *:. .,... ..,, ..• '.'*:,'•',7' '',...`,.^ . . . , ., .. •'... ,,... ' . c•'.:.'4-‘'.''' .;.' .<, '. ,• :... ,'.... . ' . • . .' .-. .., , . ' ,.., • . . .., .. .• .'.•, .. . • ., . ...... ., n .. . ... . • ''' ,. ,'. . .;.' . • ••.— ,' ,..:4:.:. .,•,.. . jr,n' ;,,3-•,.'... • ,. .. . ,..„., . , • , . . ., ., .,. , ., • . 1 .. ...,• • .„ .. .• 4., , ...„ ,... . ,.., ...,_ ' .k..- • . ,.. ., ' , ,..• . .., „ _. , . . .. . . . . . ..,..,, . , . .. .,. . . . . .. . . . • . ...., . .. ..• . . _ , . . . } 1 1 •! Y• Ai w I 1 • } APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ROSEWOOD — A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION TAX LOTS 3300 & 3400, MAP 21 E 18 AB, AND TAX LOT 100. MAP 21 E 18 AC. •• OWNERS MORTON BONIME • 4901 SW HUMPHREY PARK CREST PORTLAND, OR 97221 4� ,10 APPLICANT +\ ROGER EDWARDS KRUSE WAY PLAZA ONE, SUITE 180 a 4500 S.W. KRUSE WAY yj LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ':r PREPARED BY R I, ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. 9600 S.W. OAK, SUITE 230 • PORTLAND, OR 97223 • (503) 452-8003 PROJECT MANAGER: RANDY CLARNO PROJECT ENGINEER: JERRY PALMER , • 1 j U A n a aa. o a ' Yd •�' DIY �.. Y s + \ 4 . a ,- r •�M1 e • La F R, 4 1. i� •1 V.. . . p • ua P • • a' r.: I r r JECT SUMMARY ,': •..the proposed development is a sixteen lot subdivision that will be built on three parcels, two of which are vacant. The existing residence on the third parcel will be removed. The site lies adjacent to S.W. Rosewood Avenue, with two parcels to the north, and one to the south. The attached narrative identifies supporting • factual information and reasoning which demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, and applicable State goala. • A Planned development Overlay is applied,, no variances have been requested, however under the Planned Development Overlay a request • has been made to reduce the sideyard setbacks. 20% of the site will be dedicated to open space and will lie on the southern end of the southerly tax lot adjacent to an existing private open space. • Materials used on the project are identified and described on the • accompanying plans. All sixteen lots will be created in a single phase. Construction will take place in early summer and house construction is expected • to begin in early fall. t, • • i dG ♦ it 1 • u �•. r r • INTRODUCTION This application represents a request for a 16 lot subdivision. • The applicant plans to offer lots to site quality, single family residential homes comparable to those currently available in the community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . r. LAND USE DESIGNATION The subject property: tax lots 100, tax map 21E 18AC; and tax lots 3300 & 3400, tax map 21 E18 AB,consists of three parcels of land that lie to the north and south of S.W. Rosewood Avenue. The total area of the development is 2.85 acres. The site . s located in a medium density residential neighborhood, and is zo ed R-•5. These properties are undeveloped except for an existing residence and outbuildings on tax lot 3300 which will be removed. Older single le " family homes lie to the north of the site, with newer residences • the south and east. The property to the west is zoned commercial • and is occupied. The land falls gently in a northwesterly direction across tax lot 100 with the low point on the southerly site and S.W. Rosewood being the northwest corner of the property. A number , `. . of sizeable deciduous and coniferous trees exist on the south half of said tax lot 100. There are a dozen or so trees on the north half of the lot, most of which will be retained. • There are far fewer trees on tax lots 3300 and 3400, again however these will be preserved when possible. The land again falls to the northeast although the east quarter of the property is almost flat. ,.. A localized depression exists in the northwest corner of the site. TYPE OF APPLICATION / ACTION This application is for a sixteen lot preliminary plat subdivision. A Planned Development Overlay (PDO) is being requested to allow the . . applicant more flexibility in lot design and potential house placement on said lots. The request is related to the 20% open ` space being created in conjunction with this development. The public street is being designed per 'rural' guidelines with no curb comparable with the surrounding streets. • 410 • • :r. 1 ' '.d 9" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIOti GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ELEMENT i Urban Service Boundary Policy • ;�.. General Policy 3 ° Specific Policy 4 These policies require the City to manage the phase urban growth within the Urban Service boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, 4. which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of � • the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. This specific policy also status that these r� services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development.PP p Exhibit 4 (Tha City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990) demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The recent passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. Basic services and facilities are available and other applicable growth management policies are complied with. ii Impact Management Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy-6 ? ; k The applicant will try to preserve and maintain all ` ur; natural features and processes where possible by providing a private open space at the south end of tax lot 100, and by reducing the possible building envelope 1; to the northern portion of lots 1-3. General Policy 2 Specific Policy 1-3 'r The developer will comply with comprehensive plan policies and standards contained in regulations or requirements to mitigate adverse impacts, such as traffic, utility safety and utility service needs. See t attached traffic report and utility plans for details. General Policy • 2 �.. Specific Policy 3 • Development of R-5 density can occur within requirements • set forth in the development standards and other ; , applicable code provisions, because it meets those said q' . standards and provisions • 3 • F1Y COMMUNITY RESOURCE POLICY ELEMENT Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy 1 . . Specific Policy 1 These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable �t plan policies. The developer will maintain all existing trees outside of the building setbacks, easements, public streets, private , ,; roads, and street dedications required by the City of . Lake Oswego. A request for flexible setbacks is being made to aid in the retention of a number of trees. ' 20% of the site containing the most heavily wooded area ,{ with more than 2/3rds of the property's trees is being designated as private open space arid will remain , •.— undisturbed. Energy Conservation Policies • y General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1-4 These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are 0 ,. now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) . Street and utility line footage are "•` also minimized with this design. General Policy 5 4 4 w Specific Policy 3 i,,« The proposed development allows efficiency of access comparable to neighboring developments with similar private streets. Only four of sixteen lots will directly access S.W. Rosewood. ': rs Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 3 The private open space in tax lot 100 will contribute to the existing network of Greenway corridors. • 0 4 R, • 4 . .Y i. X'LANDUSE ACTIVITIES POLICY ELEMENT Residential Density Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1 The proposed density of housing is far less than zoning ' 4 allows and the local existing infrastructure is more than sufficient to cope with the licensed vehicle trips, and demand on existing utilities. The site can adequately handle the proposed density. t , Residential Site Design Policies General Policy 4 Specific Policy 2-3 These policies require the design for pedestrian and cyclist safety. A sidewalk has been provided to ensure { r • ease of access for pedestrians and has been separated from the road by an 8' swale providing additional safety for pedestrians. A 3' hard shoulder has been provided for cyclist access. General Policy 5 Specific Policy 1 • The developer requests a waiver of setback provisions to • compensate for the open space required by the City of Lake Oswego. This is requested via the PUD to allow the builder to develop houses of an adequate size on the lots. The request is for a combined 15 ' sideyard setback • between two lots, with no less than 5 ' on either lot. Transportation Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1-4 These policies require that streets be improved when demand requires. These policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for widening, these policies are implemented in part through 48.535 (3) , Special Street Setbacks. The existing right-of-way of Rosewood street fronting the ` site is thirty feet wide. Therefore an additional ten feet street dedication on both the north and south right- ! r of-waylines is required. public q The proposed public street will provide adequate vehicle capacity while minimizing the scale of necessary improvements. • The proposed private street provides ?dequate vehicle capacity while minimizing the scale of necessary improvements. It is compatible with d;imilar private " ' '� streets and shared driveways on neighboring parcels. See attached transportation report for further details. k" 5 • r + f e. ,Y • .-,• Protection of Open Space Policy General Policy 2,3 These policies include the preservation of essential natural features. To this end, a private open tract on the southerly property will be conveyed to the local Home • Owners Association These policies are implemented by a variety of applicable development standards which are addressed later in this report. • ZONING Zoning District The subject property is zoned R-5 by the City of Lake Oswego. Zoning Standards t ; - The site is zoned R-5 which requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 ., square feet per dwelling unit [LOC 48. 135( 1) ] maximum lot coverage allowed in zone is 50% [LOC 48.140] . , The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: [LOC 48. 150] • Front Yard: 20FT Rear Yard: 2OFT0 , 4e Street Side Yard: 10FT Side Yard: LOFT There are no minimum lot width and depth requirements in an R-5 '. ' zone. The maximum height in R-5 zone is 28 ft. [LOC 48. 155(2) ] The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate typical housing styles within the standard setbacks However the city's requirement for a sidewalk has entailed a further setback • restriction on the affected lots. Under the moral and conduct codes there is a requirement that the sidewalk not be blocked. For this reason an additional setback is required between the garage and the rear line of the sidewalk. The applicant requests an 18' setback from the garage to the rear of the sidewalk. This would mean a 23' setback from the front property line to the front of the building envelope. The 18' request is consistent with previously approved developments, and should provide adequate minimal depth ` . for offstreet parking requirements. Density Calculation The gross site area is 124,218 square feet. The public street, private street and the 10 foot dedication to Rosewood Street, take up 18,614 square feet. Therefore when the remaining 105,604 square feet is divided by the minimum lot area for R-5 zone of 5,000 square foet. The allowable density equals 21 units. 0 . • This application requests a combined total of 15 lots. and ,' , therefore complies with the ctty's density requirements. 6 w e J . y v - a . ♦ . _•. J. x • • 1, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.005 Historic Resource Preservation: There are no designated or significant historic resources on this site. g . 2.005 Building Design: This standard applies to major developments involving ,' structures. This application is for lot development only, no , i structures are involved, so this standard does not apply. 3.005 Stream Corridors: • There are no stream corridors on this site. 4.005 Wetlands: •' This site does not contain any wetlands. ' 5.005 Street Lights: it i., Street lights will be provided consistent with City standards • for residential streets with public sidewalks. There are no accessways or parking lots associated with this development. 6.005 Transit System: The proposed development is for a single family residential development and only a small increase in demand for transit facilities is proposed. The nearest bus route is on Boones Ferry Road. School buses are not required for this street as A the nearest school is in close proximity - see minutes. A pedestrian path will be provided along west right-of-way of " ; the proposed public street. A sidewalk shall be constructed on , the south right-of-way of Rosewood adjacent to Tax Lot 100. 7 .005 Parking and Loading: Each of the proposed sixteen lots has the necessary parking capacity for two additional spaces. 8.005 Park and Open Space: 20% of the site containing the most heavily wooded area .• • , with more than 2/3rds of the property's trees is being designated as private open space and will remain undisturbed. The open space will be adjacent to an existing open area in the 'Lindsay Park' subdivision. The open space may be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, 7 v. tl f . C ' Y` ► P. • 9.005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: G •'. There is a commercially zoned property to the west of the site. The adjacent property is situated some four to six feet above the applicants site and the slope on the commercial q property is fully planted with bushes shrubs and come trees providing an adequate buffer. • However as noted in section 10, six foot fences will be constructed along all rear and side lot lines which in the • , case of lots 4 through 7 will provide additional buffering • against the neighboring commercial use. 10.005 Fences: All fencing will be installed by lot pLirchasers in conjunction • with construction of homes. Such fencing will be designed consistent with the code standards. Street side fencing will comply with LOC 48.530 11.005 Drainage Standards for Major Developments: h;' ... This standard applies to all major developments, therefore this section is applicable. Adequate storm water drainage will ° be provided consistent with the standards set forth in Section 11.025. Development will be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns do not adversely affect other property. Drainage from the roof drains will discharge to infiltration . trenches via connection pipes to a perforated pipe either along beneath the roadside swales or constructed systems . . t (lots 4 through 8) . Surface Drainage from the streets, •+ driveways and yards will drain to the roadside Swale and ''E infiltration trench. On lots 4 through 8 surface will drain to a swale along the rear of the lots. The i,nfiltration trench will include perforated pipe with pick-ups at Driveways and ultimately a connection to the ;. . Ni 36" pipe. the constructed infiltration system for lots ' 4 through 8 will have an "overflow" connection to the 15" pipe. e roadside ditches along the Rebecca Lane and Rosewood will terminate in trap catchbasins with sumps • Y , prior to connecting the exis•:.,ing pipe system. No detention of storm flows is required since this site is provided for in a downstream regional facility. Calculations for water quality treatment are attached x>: (see addendum #2) . The detail of the proof drain system is also attached 12.005 Drainage Standards for Minor Developments: This standard applies to all minor developments therefore thisII . ' section is not applicable. 8 e 1 . 13.005 Weak Foundation Soils According to the City of Lake Oswego Public Works department • there is no indication of potentially weak foundation soils. Therefore at this time no soils report has been provided, this standard does not apply. 14.005 Utilities: 1, Utilities Required: This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. This will be required upon application for a building permit for each parcel. Water line laterals will feed into a new 4" line in the new public street which will connect to the existing line in S.W. Rosewood Avenue. A new 8" sewer line in the proposed public street will serve lots 4-15 ` and will feed into an existing line along the north line of the property. Sewer laterals for lots 1-3 and 16 will hook-up with an existing line in S.W. Rosewood. See se�,'tion 11.005 for details regarding storm water improvements. • The existing 30-40 foot wide right-of-way of Rosewood Street is inadequate to comply with the applicable Plan olicies and ' Special Street Setbacks [LOC 48.535(4) ] , in addition existing width of the pavement does not meet the minimum 20 foot City • standard. The applicant will be required to improve Rosewood Street to provide a minimum 20 foot of pavement and 3 foot hard shoulders, and widen the right-of-way to 50 feet along • the sites S.W. Rosewood frontage. This will be required as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this • action. • Street lights will be provided consistent with City standards and served by underground power as will T.V. cable. r , ^' 2. Required Easements: All required utility easements will be provided. All utilities will be designed by a registered engineer. They will be designed consistent with City standards and in - consideration of subsections L.O.C. 14.020 3-8. 16.005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: There is only a minimal slope over site (max. 5%) . However, street and lot development will be managed so as to provide f adequate erosion and drainage control measures. 17.005 Flood Plains: ,M ., : There are no flood plains on this site. Therefore this • section does not apply. 9 J. . 4 . 18.005 Access: ' 1. The subject site fronts S.W. Rosewood Street. Lots 1 - 8 and 13 - 16 all have more than 25 feet of public street frontage. Lots 9 - 12 access a private street which in turn accesses a 25 foot strip on a public street. Because this application does not directly meet the standards for approval, in this section a variance has been requested to permit development. See the attached addendum #1 for details. 2. Access design conforms to all of the following criteria: ` . a. Topography - The topography along Rosewood Street allows for adequate and safe access and egress from the local street to each lot. b. Traffic volumes from this development are identified in the attached traffic report. c. Rosewood Street is designated a local street on the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. This development will provide safe and convenient access. The traffic impacts will not exceed projected volumes. r 3. There will be no direct access to an arterial from this 4 development. 4. Each lot will have 25 feet of access to a local residential street, through either a private street or direct access. 5. The adjacent property to north of the site currently has adequate access to Lower Drive so access to the new public street is not required. �. 6. Satisfactory s'ccess is available from a public street so this section does not apply. • See the attached traffic study for further details. 19.005 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways & Private Streets The proposed private street will meet the minimum 20 foot width requirement. It will be a 25 foot wide easement with 20 feet of paved travel lanes. The 20 foot wide pavement of the private streets will consist of 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of crushed rock with a 2 1/2 foot wide gravel edge on either side of the street. • • The proposed lots will be similar to those that exist in the neighborhood. Visual impacts would be related to the number of lots and/or the number of driveways accessing Rosewood • Street. Noise impacts will not be substantially effected by the lot pattern. 10 _ •j • . \.. \,,. The reaction of neighbors was in general favorable towards the project - see minutes. The lot and access pattern proposed meets the intent of the . code relative to providing safe and convenient access. ' ` The c.pplicant is served by an economically viable development with quality lots. The neighborhood is served by quality lots k�. and reduced access points on Rosewood Street. The lot and access pattern proposed meets the functional intent of the code relative to providing safe and convenient access. It also ensures that each lot has some public street frontage, even if less than 25 feet. • The applicant is served by an economically viable development with quality lots. The neighborhood is served by quality lots and reduced access points on Rosewood Street. 48.440 Planned Development Overlay The purpose of the Planned development Overlay is to "provide greater flexibility in development of land, encourage a variety in the development pattern of the community. . . encourage a creative approach in land development, and • conserve natural land features" . ,,..:; The applicant is requesting a PDO even though this project less than 4 acres and has less than 20 units. This project �' will be developed in a single phase. The PDO is being ' YJ requested to increase the flexibility of setbacks to reduce the sideyard setbacks to a combined two yard setback of 15 ' Z with no yard having less than a 5 ' setback and to create some lots smaller than 5,000 SF. All other zoning requirements will be met on an individual lot level. The City in making its determination the following points should be considered. a) The applicant is exceeding the 20% open space requirement. b) The exceptions allows the lots to be designed in a manner 0 that offers better solar access (lots 9 & 10) ,improves privacy ' Y' sy in that it offers a more flexible lot design. 4 c) A more attractive streetscape is created with the private • road, created by flexible lot sizes. " d)The requested exceptions allow the developer to place an adequately sized house on narrow lots ( 1-3) reducing the need • for a private street, increased runoff, and allowing a larger open space while still maintaining economically viable lots. e) The construction of path along the new public street will `" enhance future linkage to the north. The Private open space, is adjacent to an existing private open space to the south ' thereby complementing it. . 11 lit, .. V. f) There are few physical limitations on the site. However. the . the preservation of a substantial stand of trees could be , ' seen as 'compatible design. Thus the requirements of 48.476 are met, and the applicant is requesting lesser setbacks to provide additional tree ' preservation, and maintain an economically viable building ` , envelope. The open space shall probably be private, and the required maintenance responsibilities adhered to. 48.490-The PDO will not increase the overall intensity or density of residential use. All legal and development standards will be met. It will not significantly affect other property or uses and will not cause the deterioration or loss of any natural features. The PDO will not affect any condition specifically placed on the development. 49.120 Future Streets Plan r. The future streets plan attached shows two alternative layouts. The first proposes a public street beginning at S.W. • Rosewood Street and heading north, meandering east and then continuing its path to Lower Drive. This route would create a connection between Lower Drive and Rosewood Avenue, while also providing a fuller utilization of vacant land that currently lies between the two streets. The second alternative is a Cul-de Sac. This option takes into account the possible limitations of the new minor partitions to the • northeast of the site, while opening up the potential of minor t ' ,':} partitions for tax lots 1800 through 2100. 0 ... 55.080 Tree Cutting: In order to construct proposed improvements some of the J existing trees will have to be removed. The removal of trees ,4 will be based upon the following criteria per LOC 55.080: 1. Only trees that are identified as interfering with "' utility services will be removed unless an satisfactory alternative location can be found for service 2. Only trees that fall within areas requiring either public or private improvements will be removed as necessary: this includes building envelopes, driveways, private streets and required public street dedication. 3. The flat nature of the lots, the underlying stability of a the soil and the mitigating efforts of the developer should minimize the potential for erosion. The existence of a large number of trees on the southern site and surrounding area, are adequate to offset any loss of trees as a windbreak, and provide an adequate balance between shade and open space. • 4. For a residential neighborhood, this area is heavily wooded. At a recent meeting the neighbors did not voice any `. .'-�: :• • ' concerns over the proposal to remove those trees necessary for 0 development. The proposed improvements required by the city , . ' should more than offset any potential loss in local property values. 12 ` d 5 30 street trees will be planted (see attached tree plan) •',. •, I :,. 0 throughout the project, roughly twice as many trees as are being removed. • to 57.0200 Solar Access: • This application is for a 16 lot subdivision. Therefore 80% or • 13 lots must comply with solar requirements. 6 lots ( 1-3, 9-10, S,. 16) meet basic solar requirements: N/S dimension of 90 '; ,.� �.• and a front line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west access. ;a• 4 lots (4, 11,12 & 15) are able to comply with the solar • building line requirements • Therefore 10 out of 16, or 63% of the lots in the development comply with 57.010(1a-c) as well as LOC 57.035. Therefore this •'' application is 17% short of compliance with this section. There are a number of other factors pertinent to this • ; 4 application. By definition the intention of the underlying zoning R-5 is to create smaller 5,000 SF lots. The• along with the 10' sideyard setback requirements places osevere design constraints on the house design. To attempt to make ", said house design to comply with additional solar performance requirements comes close to making the lot unbuildable. In , addition the average width of R-5 lots rules out the solar building line option. With these points stated the requirement by the city for a / ' • north/south through street creates a condition where it is • impossible for the developer to design for solar lots of " appropriate R-5 density. The direction of the street dictates • lots that have an east-west orientation. The design options normally available to overcome this problem (the building line option and performance option) do not work with such small lots. Therefore the applicant requests an adjustment to the design standard because of the road pattern enforced by the City of Lake Oswego. A denial of this adjustment would force the developer to increase the size of the lots so that the building line option could be used to comply with solar standards. This would result in a loss oi0 at least two lots and a reduction in the density by some 13%. • •. 1 t ur A' 13 4w1 r i.Y c U, R • • • • • • • • • • ;1rr / 1 it P' 1 1 �• .to f9 • h Y r . , - • 'l. • to �� - •�, 1• �. • ALPHA. ENGINEERING INC. ENGINEERING . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . SURVEYING ADDENDUM - 3.1.93 This addendum is presented in answer to comments offered by staff per their response to the applicants revised submittal of the Rosewood Planned Development Application on February 16, 1993. • Five issues were raised and will be addressed below and on the amended site plan herein attached. 1) Under section LOC 48.467 (4) a reduction in side yard setbacks is requested for the following lots: The proposed sizes for lots 1-7, 9-10, and 14 are less than the minimum required by the underlying R-5 zoning and therefore a setback exception is requested. Per discussions with staff and subsequent amendments to building envelope location, a setback exception for lot 13 is also requested. Additionally certain building envelopes, for example, on lot ' 3 have been moved to one side to preserve existing trees. ° It is hoped that the citywill with the re grant these exceptions. Along 'requirements of LOC 48.476 being met( see application under 48.440 / page 11 for detail of compliance) the intent of • the underlying zoning to provide buildable small lots is severely restricted by the existing setback requirements. 2) specific building envelopes for lots 10-12, utilizing the w'.. flexibility allowed in the planned development provisions are shown on the attached site plan - la. 3) The public turnaround required has been designed over the proposed private street in the form of a public access easement, and is shown on the attached site plan - la. • ' A 4) A ten foot ( 10' ) wide reciprocal access easement required on lots 11 and 12 is identified on the attached site plan - la, and the net lot areas (minus the access easement) are •. shown in brackets. 5) The Sight Distance Triangles (SDTs) on lots 4 and 15 are shown on the attached site plan - la. Thir ac has been lessened due to a combination ofe the prequired otential front- yard setbacks and the location of the edge of pavement. The result being. that the two lots should remain buildable despite a '' these further constraints on their use. ' . EXHIBIT • •r PD rh'R z..ti z. 0 11.\/.•A \VF T A `1 111. 210 A 01,00 ` \\ L 4\h A Vol(f I \,,..1i , III'( it 9\ ,r7»2 t A -3C 3 •,4`+.' +t',41 A 1 \' 4 , 41 • r . I - Ni ..—N-0(1. -"--. • • 0 , ., ., _....._,..._ ................ .... ..... )\ B s' 411.' v • . '/ 1 a a 10P. {'D ' 444 6 p �,uU'\ lJ i ono 0a,,... ISO )441/&W LOW UOF:,, I� . rt ti Opp a \y 1 rto I 7 7 e 'il _ eli s_1_ 51• : I ' �" �' r ,qpp\„p 1a 5 ,!�1 Jt • •t000 0I Jo hf , y i i ��.. y a .tea 1{ , 1 , �n. SCALE: 1 50' .� A U ru ¢.. O'\ + ,R �.✓� f•S1 a, �B)6\��:1,�i, 11,,1EL '"' I + v i b /, ` \ \6 0' ��,• r \ ••>a A41.rrr\'6,Td 1 ,634 SF t°. �0� M \ �1�`NfN III_Tt+� ST < +( 72 � 'p0\ �.,t"f, ( 1 t•'•+1 300 Sr, <'3.159 SI+� _ .�.,"'"" 4.1 1 ` S� 5 , ,� B �j\` 1,' t� ,,��3;-U ...� 31p5�11 SW A�k"Ht. 1 �Q� ~/ i=1'�;' 1 + s'�•\ 8 I \' V a1.' 1d ,,.'.'3104Lopf1cW4oly` ` —. rr� I00 ,,i _,, NV\ 770 tL:+�I id it, ' \ •rh0t Zsass •ti f / 5550 �'G 5,7 o sr;,.: \ Y:.�, y1 ��'• ,-. ,r.;h o IA VICINITY MAP N, N; .�f'1d+ •ti' •1 q. ��q�1�' !.' r' (S }++ r^'N' •- II.T.S. - u r' ,,.} , ,5306 Sr,�1 c c , �` N (� ,� ��� .S"'r^' f+� t;'I�j ,a34,s��,�1 �'Al' u Jt\� 'AA 1,06T SV,I'1\� \ 'Q• 1,6 \, 5,0 5 SF,� 1"'r N 1. !' 9, t ry. v t.\........ '9%.Q1 1 \ ' `'G,(B)'1.1 r .%+v� .y�,��.,. ' �I m > o' ,_ r• • 'ON \�rA g �\`` %., \\`` \ ~f� �''0£) Y.`+ $.f�� ,y,�i*` 1 u �1t OWNER �rA e < i., 1 1,0 Sr, p ( , ,$, P L 1 \ �� 1� ?':1,92 SF +} �)lg b" MORTON 0014 E \�"� JA1 • ,$' ^ $!\5,/S2 SF+ �Py. M AOtlt SW NUAIPIllitf PAN( ()It'll'. \� a VY..y �As, { t `1, ,• ,�.• hORtLANO, ON 87771 \R,,+•gyp '\��,',, , ;�1 •%Td oSy•PH, , \ + 1 .+fl f. t� 5 �, ., \ � `. eT.•yi `S),15 + b,, -''" ,�^ .@' APPLICANT / DEVELOPER ,, 1 Vti, (, 1 sr% `\\ t\ \ I•:'i 5,29 sr'i '6'''• -- d r ROGER EOWAROS • • ' KRUSE WAY PLAZA 011t', #100 • �, • ,yCi.A�\ 'AS ' j7, / ,r -�N 4500 S.W. KRUSE NA'f, • '1 4f .-""�,/ , LAKE OSt1EG0, Olt SOUS'. P �X(S�4 5}, $ '. 2 ' T 36p1 (503)635-2660 • 1T • \k* .' ~" _` + ! �. ' g•1 510'OW 7,\t ENGINEER / SUf2Vr'rt7tt jc r 0 S; lik r , ALPHA ENCINEEnolo IIIC, „A �f,� r• , , 5 • 1 '\("/' B600 S,W. OAK, #210`. \....\,........• „ ..••" 4„ ✓"`• 1 Q% S 7itt PORTLAND, ORB 773 r •"`'0+ VI, i. (503)152-6003 \gnt;1 •� '. x0\�. ydlp0 ., PROJECT MANAGER RAIINY 'AU.IEO . • i, .-': S,j .0- ,,i sy,t,f PROJECT EIJGINEEfb J(Illhf rALMER b 1l' ~ ,i • T1-Aa •'Ve \ t UTILITIES / SERVIGC, ` +6 ' .v .- + dJ yo rya'r.\4M+ W:1"6+�, ,erN WATER - CITY or\I AY$ Os14GO . . A • rQ 1T W , , (B) + 1 t u SETTER A wilco .tvA't1AGr AGCNCY r'`. fob 00 , to 1$�\. + 1 \to W PON£R - POR1lAl11J CirNENAL ELECTRIC x a Q 1 \i`\ B ''1 ' 1 tp ;450 .1- A < ..s e��W \(c1.5 , ( �. ` •W c7 �Y` CAS - N W IJAlU11A4 OAS PQ V' (a' A\$, +,! 2 1L.. PHONE - U.S KIT \p,pa 7 I. ) , t,,1,750`5,)j 01 co 00 CAW - COLUTAl11A GAII'C •�! Z ' ',, , P •t\i. r L\ 1,956 1 L• - 1 • 3� c; [Z 41 'T A :\ \ IN t:A to t,�,, -,.^r�'od \°�. NOTES 0 T • •" {, r LI- J , `FP. �. ' CROSS SITE AREA: 7,65 AC .t1 Lrl a'V U' / rl 1 STREET AREA: 10,61/ sr ' m� \ OPEN SPACE AIIEA 7'5,003 Sr " (i` ly t {h CONTOURS ALPHA CNGINEC.flllld 1.— y T 1 , A lv) .. C. \ ' \ PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE 1w `, \ SOLAR ACCESS COMPLIANCE rt tt t , t5t '\\ • OPEN}W CE �l\ I 50' 1 6 .. (B) COMPLIES 'Mill SOLAR ORbINANCE ."' ;r g �y •�-� {1 1 I 4 (5) OOIArLICS vAT1+ SPCCUL CON01110N5 �� 25.6h11sr I:J J> , .go" I t. er AraL'fluti n,E souR eulLbu,o tiNE ortlON • • ( if `y ` a��\ `y..//y �0e a I I 3 •• (E) ExEtArtloll .� n .4 ,% + N d' 3 - (A) ADJUSTMENT .-- \>,.t......‘qt• * ' ' 1(13 • a n-----7'—•W 5l+ • �t tiye 70. 1 • A { ' A f ADDS!DUF1:#1 • CLASS I VARIANCE FOR PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH APPLICATION FOR A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION ON TAX LOTS 3300 & 3400, MAP 21E 18 AB, AND TAX LOT 100, MAP 21E 18 AC. u This This request pertains to a public street frontage variance for lots 9,10, 11,and 12 (see attached site plan) . • Under LODS 18 .020( 1) it states: " Every lot shall abut a street for " a width of at least 25 feet" . The term 'street' is defined under 49.015 as 'The entire width between the right-of-way lines of a • public way capable of providing the principal means of access to an abutting property' . Therefore the lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 do not comply with these sections of the code. 1. A variance from development standards is requested for the following reasons: • % a. For lots 9, 10, 11,& 12, to comply either the proposed private road would have to become public, or two other 25 'wide 'flagpoles' would have to be constructed so each lot would have access to its own frontage. This would create an unnecessary hardship on the • developer through both the increased construction costs, and elimination of several thousand square feet of lot area. ' The removal of the private street would also create unnecessary` hardship by preventing the developer from fully utilizing the • potential development possibilities under current the R-5 zoning ' b. The variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located. It would reduce the points of direct access onto a public street, improve the street-scrape and is in sympathy with a number of other developments in the area using private streets / shared driveways. •• c. To access the eastern portion of the property a private street is required to most fully utilize the land under the current zoning code. d. This request is not in conflict with any part of the comprehensive plan, and does not negatively effect any of policy elements discussed in the original application. .. .. .. EXHIBIT 1 ) Z 41/ Po I..1%/y0 z-'1/ y i r �.` C ' 2. In evaluating this request a number of relevant factors need to be considered to determine the justification of hardship: 2a. 1) The shape and size of the property in conjunction with the request by the city for a north/south public street limit the number of lots that can effectively be designed for the site ' • without some form of shared access. • • r' 2a.2)The tax maps in the initial submittal show a number of cases - • 1700s, 3100s, 3200s, 3700s, 3800s, where private streets / shared driveways have been required for the owners to make reasonable use ••1;�. ' ' • of their properties. 2a.3) The applicant previously requested a number of minor land partitions for each tax lot. The requirement by the city for a • public street has created the hardship for the applicant. • 2a.4) The economic impact on the applicant if the request is denied • • • would at the very minimum be the loss of a lot, the increased cost of more construction, the further burden of new design costs and additional burden of further time delays before construction can begin. • 2b.1) The proposed variance would reduce - the number of lots directly accessing a public streets decrease the quantity of runoff and related mitigation problems. 2b.2) The use of a variance to enable the property owner to design single family homes as opposed to having to build multifamily dwellings is much preferred by the local neighborhood - see the letter at the end of the original submittal. This granting of this variance would be beneficial to all concerned. It would allow the City to fully utilize the zoning of • .,: : the land while minimizing its impact. It would allow the developer to afford some return on his investment, and it would offer the neighborhood affordable single family housing. p .. . . • 1 .. . . , . _____rire-v gl II ..' . , , . . • . ___A \ i\ti . \ \, \,. 1 1 .. „..„--. ,.. .. . .... ‘ till :. . to . . , $1.0., \ a .m... .. ...:2., • . 1 1 i . . \ \ , . ,.,. • . . . , 0:0 . . 1.•:, t,.t 1 :. , \ ._ .sio• , \ lilt 1 . .eito .,41 , 4 li 11 • . • ,‘ ,. . ... VP B) t0 ��,.y.' SCALEt 1' . 50' e1��'.�5�1' U ii � �� . ,..,, \ 5I u� \ '1q'0 � t D .,6a1 sr �1W S ,06 ' ,et \ $ (Sra ' 4,200 sf b oA ' 31 / C ,1, 70 S Id tt 4 1, 6 sr , 'k TY �' '- VICINITY IdAP �� " �aC N.T,S, i i _iI � � ( ) ° tt t,tt� 'b l¢ I• �ti, Soot; sr "�i� p l I �t ��, ao sr w o �t q^II , Sbl lN) a, t 0 Al .1 11 '• � " r't 0 1• 1.a ro . ZEE OWNER i 1 i Y 5 `• •• O•�' 4 6 Sri I,9e• S iuAAy r•(e) MPP taonro1 oo+nt7E a JoANtir notate +.N' ttA el 15 • KI' I901 SW HUNFIIREY PARK dl[41, (N) Ott \ ��/(S) ,ISx Sr PORTLAND,OR e7221 3 \ 14 IRt y� e`" , APPLICANT /bEVEIOPrfi 1\--- 'J,I20 sr ' t J,291 sr - flOGER EbWARDS • 11 ,� ,,. 5 t '_ ','.:i'',....""I..-_,..- if , 1000E WAY 5W.K USE PLAZA1L.111W e � ` / ------•w .�'"" LANE OswECO,OR W070a . • s' t .dot (503)a35-2ee0 1 1: �g SItCR M1,P 1 v IN ENGINEER SNGVEc,m ' ,�{ ,. t0oa))IS2-eOlt `',♦jP �• `�/'~ Tf (503)PROJECT IIANACEAt RANDY fAAn110 1 '� / 5 t PROJECT WdNEER1 JEnflY PAPER pP 6 ! � �c_ '. `, \ f tt�, UTILITIES /SERVICES A.� 'b t 7�1 C t>• WRIER�-d1Y or yv.E GOWrfir) t / (b) tl1 t 0 SEWER-an'o SE m of Ao NCY °� • • 1 W t \ /. +, 2 aJ' t�p�tj a"`�� POW[n-PORTLAND OCNENAr,tuterni0 p�. OS t b) y' t ra OAS -KW. WES1 1 OAb • bPG !r 2 bxso s t A OAS - W. toot WQ .O rt�E, 1.4 (8)v'( 6.250 sr\1 `�1.�.1 521- cloy - CoLUNDu CANTS; z Ti g • '1b�'�M '�ie.ersr ie\`, t 0.. \a'' LU.b.NOTEs. n-s , �'� t r GRoss SLUE MEN Zee Au g$ . •t 1>� STREET MEAL 10,e11 SP \ yt OPEN SPACE MEAT 20,701 At � $ f•v' - CONTOURS( ALPHA OtptHYtStIH0 • It , , \ SOLAR ACCESS COAIPUANCE (I.) �^ Ig fi TIT C 9 9� \ �[ a ifs al t e-(a) COOKIES MAI ELM OADINAIIM ' ' 'rl{_ ,10 e- (S) CA°Y'APPl1Y,oIl It SHOW SUILm10ORIC ~ \�n WE oPlal. .� t1 � O% I {10 j-(N) DOES NOV couPLY. ,�/4 0" ...e Jl y •J`'ritt � /',IFA �'�'� Pnoarct RI7sEwoao ^, N0. 201-O0S 1E111,1,PUt �, t.t6 H., a• . • 0 . ., 11 0 .. . ` .M1" I • • • • • 0 • . • .. 1' . � : CHARRONNEA ENGINEERING January 27 , 1993 •.y MEMORANDUM TO: Mr . Randy blarno a Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 t Portland, OR 97223 ` •• • FROM: Frank Charbonneau, P .E. 6., • ' Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Report FL9314 f Rosewood Street �'> , ° Lake Oswego • This technical memorandum will serve as the project traffic: '• report for the proposed Rosewood Street residential development being planned in the City of Lake Oswego. The project will consist of residential development for 15 single family homes to be constructed along both . � • sides of Rosewood Street. As shown on the attached Area Development Plan (Figure No. 1 ) , the site is to be located . . �• southerly of the Boones Ferry Road corridor , between Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street. The development will be located on vacant land within a zoned residential area. There is a mixture of older and new homes within the area. Plans call for the project to place 12 homes on the northerly side of Rosewood Street and three on the southerly .• ` side. A new public street that will dead end into the site :,�; will provide access to the northerly side of the develop- , ment. Ultimately this street may be extended northerly and ,; connect to Lower Drive. This would eliminate the dead end and provide a desirable second access to the neighborhood that can be use by emergency vehicles . The three units ,•� located on the southerly side of Rosewood Street will have driveways directly onto Rosewood Street, which is common for the present situation along this street . . , ' The posted speed on Rosewood Street is set at 25 miles per hour . At this speed the required intersection and access sight distance is 250 feet. This requirement will be met for the street and access locations proposed on the project . ��� •, Although there is a slight crest in the vertical alignmen of Rosewood Street just westerly of the proposed intersec A EXHIBIT SO tion location which partially obstructs sight distance,sufficient visibility exists to meet the standards , ' `^.� 1.7 r-'t 3 a 'IA- One S.W.Columbia,Suite 520,Portland,OR 97258 (503)228-9507 4 _ . - • Page 2 • Based on the existing street conditions and traffic circulation patterns, the primary existing streets to be used by the site generated traffic will be Rosewood Street, Pilkington Road, and Tualatin Street. Most of the site traffic will eventually access either Boones Ferry Road or • Lakeview Blvd. Both of these streets are classified as • major collectors . In performing the study, the following information was applied in the analysis . • o Capacity analyses for the critical intertiections on Rosewood Street at Pilkington Road and Tualatin '.,,'. :•' Street were determined to evaluate the intersection capacity and service levels for the peak hours . • o The new north/south street constructed to serve the north sector will provide direct access to Rosewood Street . Traffic will then be able to travel either east or west on Rosewood Street to access • Pilkington Road or Tualatin Street. This new Q street will be constructed to a width of 20 feet, • matching the existing Rosewood Street paved section. It will be controlled by stop signing for the southbound approach. o The existing intersection sight distance for the Tualatin and Rosewood Street intersection is partially obstructed by vegetation in the southwest • corner . Existing traffic and site traffic • ,; generated by this project Will be affected by this condition until it is improved by the City or local ;d property owner . • • Vehicular trip generation for the development was determined using the I .T. E. trip rates from the 1991 , fifth edition manual . The facility will generate a total of 180 trip ends in a 24 hour weekday period. Listed below are the total number of trips expected to occur during the AM and PM peak hours by the project . • , Inbound outbound Total AM Trips 5 10 15 . 10 PM Trips 15 5 20 • • i' • Page 3 Attached to this report are a series of traffic flow maps (see Figures No. 2 through 7) which depict the traffic flow patterns during the AM and PM peak .hour for various scenarios. Figures No. 2 and 3 depict the existing traffic, Figures No. 4 and 5 depict the site generated traffic to and • from the site, and Figures No. 6 .and 7 illustrate the total site traffic (existing and generated traffic) . °• The volumes shown on these maps were then used in '. X` .' calculating the peak hour intersection capacities for the critical intersections . A computer progran for non-signalized intersections based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual and vehicular delay method was used. Printouts for the analyses are attached to this report. After analyzing the two intersections on Rosewood Street at 4. ' Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street, it was found that both intersections will continue to operate at level of service Ii '' • "A" during all traffic conditions . Due to the current low volumes (that will remain approximately the same after the project site traffic is added) there will be little traffic delay at these intersections . From a traffic engineering standpoint the development can adequately function based on the data analyzed. The existing traffic conditions will not be adversely impacted - by the new facility. For traffic operational and safety reasons, the following elements should be implemented in conjunction with the , project. o Maintenance of the existing sight distance along all streets and the project site frontage is • essential . Obstruction by landscaping, parking, buildings , signs , or other objects would be unsafe . • o It will be necessary to implement standard trr .`fic - control devices , including ,,,.tvement markings NA signing according to city standards and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices , ~ ' o No parking should be allowed near the new street intersection with Rosewood Street for visibility clearance . • . . i _ .N!A• l;- • • • 'vP ni • . • j• • • • • . • • 0 . i 0 y Figure No. 1 Area Development Plan a: North IG. ,, i 1 'roject Site 0 a i Rosewood St. . • . ' ti—r----,--1 . , 0 •1J ' a)u .•1.0 4) / otcl al 1-1 ftS • , , .ea 111 r' • 04 E-1 W • I.. jai • 51-,.1 7- 1 • • • Y + d. f..1 S I• N • Figure No. 2 r io. Existing Traffic AM Peak Hour • v' North SS' I1O Cl/ t i'" ji, t3 , , Project i Site 41450 to I i I /S fpD1 �..o Q o 3 t)' 4-- �� 4— 1 Rosewood St. 4--- --)1 v --A> 3 ) II ----p --�D, s i (07 r x /00 It:V 4 3 I5 /os' r0 ti . 0 0 ab 4-1 a i •EMI ro $4 .54 o .-+ +-$ ,a b U p, E-+ l. '1 t 0 40 41101 k a •I, • • • , ',,,,,, ,4-0 0 0 • • ,• '.,r• ':.'• Figure No. 3 Existing Traffic PM Peak Hour • 4 t North f` , /SO 11 i ci i z Project Site ti• IN I / / O� 4 4— �l —0 • l — 4--� y` Cf �`� tr-- o Rosewood St. q /0 - It --t> s� 0 75 It b II..s- 17 115. li Cn 0 4i 0V (11 .., .1 41 44 �'.i a .-1It 44 ,� aUl cL Ea j .4 •� 1 .. . .._ .. .. ... fib. - • , � ., .. ':� s -'+` s. U.s �• , Figure No. 4 1 Site Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour North 2 i 4' 9 1 I t Site v •., Project r ) L4' , • 2. 1 Rosewood Ste --p -p `�3 --I> Q t • . 4 c 0 4-1 01 .4CO 4-4W IJ a N n, r-+ u + „ niU] m + 111111 .. • 0 410 0 r a .. . «. •. �� c a:' _ N _ .. _ '; a� gip ' . • . • • r c ti .m' .i, :••. .' 'n k ih • • a ie •• y e 0 . , ' , •` : i Figure No. 5 Site Generated Traffic PM Peak Hour • North • , , . \/ tr.5-* —... • J7 f , . Project i Site 9 e ^p ) L C .:._,..5.- <1----- Ci— I S. d,1 11 .. . <1...__ .. . - ..:. : be-- Rosewood St. , • . ,. —,,ell )I 10$7 —L> ----C> —51 ) I t S Q 't 2, f. 1^ , O c 'Cy Y-b Gb �x1 Np �11 +�' °' J W 1_ 1 dui •. .._, .. .. .. ' I Nv .• -. _ �'• 1•p ° Figure No. 6 Total Site Traffic AM Peak Hour • North f• s.9 • • '. t. S!, t 118 ..".., • Project I Site •V 3 /� ci a.._._0 1itCj s!'ll . , �'v S Rosewood St. <�--- --3077 t p --� ----p (,' `-0 s- ---> Z) Q • ` : $ u 45",t /obt . .5' 0 -.-1al .li al •a �d � n, .-a u ro (I) • H L, 411) • 0 • , • F le, , .. . . • . 0. . . .. *. ... . , . • . . ,. , ... . . .. • , . . ., ..... ., . wti i, " Figure No. 7 ` '` Total Site Trair_ .,,, : ... ti PM Peak Hour North • • • { ; 403 , ... . 4, ?is. ^- 2. /8 Project o f Site1 o �a �7 Q_ + 1;1) d.._._0 fz 0 / a-- I I° ,5"TI Rosewood St. 4"" r �� -_p a S� � '.�I /�zo �Z 9 1 t • / • •t• { Ii.• ? 7? ' /0 1 . . . . . . .. . , .,.., „ ,. 0, . . . 0 .0, . • . ,, ,, •,.... . .. . . .s4 0 Ili 4JN W /.a .--I IJ 1.1 ai � E.,i • • • • • • • • . y �l • • • r. f t S: F . L. 0 . . I • 1 . . r •' -. , . ' 0 , e t• ''' 19B5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS rac,JP-1 ****************%K**gC************************%C********************** 1: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION "``': •' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION 1000000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET rosewood Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET , Pilkington Road ,:, NAME OF THE ANALYST FRC ` DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 1-27-93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour '''. OTHER INFORMATION: Total Site Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL F INTERSECTION TYPE : 4-LEG D MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB , ', , LEFT 5 2 0 18 THRU 0 0 75 140 ,: - RIGHT 5 10 2 0 N a, • NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE tip. EB WQ NB --�58 LANES 1 1 1 1 LANE USAGE LTR LTR , M c 9 ', r•: - • tl , ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page { PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE m GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - ,�, EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 • • WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 , CRITICAL GAPS • TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL ',AP MINOR RIGHTS WB 5 .70 5 .20 0 .00 5 ,20 : . ED 5 .70 5 ,20 0 .00 5 .20 MAJOR LEFTS • a SB 5 . 10 4 .60 0 .00 4 .60 NB 5 .10 4 ,60 0 .00 4 ,60 MINOR THROUGHS WB 6 .30 5 .80 0 .00 5 .80 • EB 6 .30 5 .80 0 .00 5 .80 MINOR LEFTS WB 6 .80 6 .30 0 .00 6 .'10 EB 6 .80 6 .30 0 .00 6 .30 410 I • J , I. !h ,• �.. - CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page • • POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE • RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LO "., P M SH R SH MINOR STREET • WB LEFT 2 687 676 > 676 > 674 > A THROUGH 0 766 757 > 926 757 > 913 757 >A A RIGHT 11 1000 1000 ) 1000 ) 989 ) A MINOR STREET EB LEFT 6 682 669 > 669 > 664 > A • THROUGH 0 765 756 > 800 756 > 789 756 >A A ` RIGHT 6 994 994 > 994 > 989 > A MAJOR STREET410 . NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A SB LEFT 20 1000 1000 1000 9e,0 A A • • r o rr, 1• ' • t ' • 10 8 • • • • 9 ,„ Y+ • I, d L }` d s.+p • • , •.VI, y +.t, y1 1 r • , FEB-16-93 TUE 15 : t2 CHARBONNEAU Ensr . 2289809 P. 02 • • 1' A. CB ONNEAU ENGINEERING o February 16, 1993 Mr. Randy Clarno Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Oak • Suite 230 • Portland, OR 97223 ,{ • Subject: Addendum To Traffic Report FL9330 Rosewood Street Lake Oswego • Dear Randy : It was brought to our attention that the proposed Rosewood Street project will now consist of 16 single family housing units instead of the 15 units studied in the traffic analysis report dated January 27 , 1993. We have reviewed the trip generation volumes analyzed in the original report •and the information is still valid for this small change. Therefore, there will not be any additional traffic impacts associated by increasing the number of units from 15 to 16. x y` If you should have any more questions, please give us a call . Sincerely, • Ya Frank Charbonneau, P .E. hx Traffic Engineer • EXHIBIT :r .. • I1NA /'411x,N1.ik 6,1h3 dr71 ttAri444rt (10 f1""':: IseN ti htiq nen-, rkv ,ter hn n n:1fi • • . I t 1 Y 6. • • r♦ If , ` • i�P wr • 1 'Iy W . •` • f'' • • • T r �Rrw ADDENDUM #2 , Jfrie i .. ,. 0 ': reteet-4.4210 ' ` - -G k,�Qt - ,184-•\ LA A-71. e.. `A cts l . !is. % I. , ti USN s; / ç- : off , . a}s o,- 71.\--ts 1%'x90 ' - w hi 4440 e-3-6 kse = 14 etc GLo �'`t lb. 1 U711 s� Ktrraio-4,-4 20[a \ k,Ge. 1 t.51- A ' e e v S/-- 2(00011 Aa. 41- tAtc-w ., e I�W o ld kr,„te .� O ISO�F- /' Prr-t sr-4-i abr9M-,d • Wros ar-- I (e'• 1E-1 .- ?'‘i ` 44PIs At,arp .NA'', +1'710 fit- 'C"n''Cio k �- '!b ' o• /a I'� ` T O S'1h m ••Sti4g(-IDt4'.- I ''k>7115r;+i US I redF 94-trt ak_�►a___ t4 = \ FT. ( -1d c�sty,. `t ,S f LiF, aF 'T . - 7 Fee4-rj-od - /2-, �a IroD �cl�L arc � G'� /' 6 r 1/4 . .. M �� - ' 2ic1' 's 1 Sao Iwr f5y i81k C24 ,& 1 - e1664 r ~'' g k4 : 'a5 oav� <• wlal 1 64, ST4 7 161 41-2‘, 1 =.* I 86.04 i ,.... '› , .:.-. A` co i�; N •a.rar�Nil t't Auu ,i I, rr.. �iilal c .h rkt4t- I-t6 . II ,,t,' i•I �') I It v 1, ' - tt„Z m�1Tl�.�\-c c S tom- ?tie a rc , d .a Y"1v2eo Ust/ - 6 .9S IrtC tVT1-PnaNCt- &a S I t1-i t' * i4 Aitost-- alzik ... y d • r` _._._Pa- ac WJ . C\t° 2L_1 ) _ _._�<, . a0 6fl.[v) '1�1�3� = ICI 4 6 St t(1� 4 artU61.- (_ SZ _2d Dl t,-2) *v• ' k 151-ci r 41. E LT; Th4 / a B / oa �•°' 3a, - wt,t,* •:: :•.. .•.`" HJ4.1 d H St-1T Z 4.• . .. . Rile- Lrs 4 .. s 6"1 C k._. c r .1 lb 15'4 Eolair, eithie- -.:' 1.2)14-.1 tit tit . i \-t- CA tit lei t .i:.: .. . 11 is 1 2 iF t-"-err- . S jqr IC 1l 1'2-f13 (Vet _ o� i ,i,t ZUJ a , i a t C , ROOF DRAINS • INFILTRATION FACILITIES • > ;• .' ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS Trench , %t .catch ba.tre 4 I catch basin Roof dealer?' Pc.A!bla alinements PLAN VIEW NO t',CAU: • . Moot pbsarvatton wall , , . .: : LL .6.42 . .._., .... Infiltration trench et/solid Ili Roof d.atn PROFILE VIEW t1. NO bCAL S re • obsrsvattore wail t twat town(' Mat'1 splash block • < -111,A I 1 mire. 11 Levei - /� 1'Mkt' , '� I'min.1'mkt. �� n^a ,` � ne.h 6 'nl -�Ab' perforated pipe �/. catch basin stnrp with solid Ild • t vvl _ ` observation well •" • (valeta! cap 4 lock) ti v ... ccnpact backftit 4..6.Lw0 pips i;r. "„ b•perforated pips dpertarated) ; - -,•• v' 4° acceptable for downspout diversion souses I. crap trench •. i, washed rock 3/4•-I Ifl' entlralg with ',10 ;'z 1� ;I/ Pater fab Ic �, t�" ` SECTION r4-4. . 2' ;J Noe At.L �. y 0 ' Figure 11.16: Typical Infiltration Roof Drain. ' ft, 8/91 . GUIDANCE HANDBOOK II-40 • • Vr'• • •Y is Q� 4 `a .R. A• _S �w '� t • MEETING WITH ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD COMM/TEE + ' / 4 TO DISCUSS 15 LOT SUBDIVISION: 1/20/92 PRESENT: RANDY CLARNO - ALPHA ENGINEERING MARK DANE - ALPHA ENGINEERING ROGER EDWARDS - EQUITY REALTY NIKOL & HEIDI KRYPILO - 5142 SW ROSEWOOD ST. STEVE RUDINSKY - 16151 SW LINDSAY CT. JOSE' & CHRISTEL SARAIVA - 5229 SW ROSEWOOD ST. • JIM & CHARLENE SUIE - 5222 SW ROSEWOOD ST. WENDY & JEFF BAKER - 5384 SW ROSEWOOD ST. TOM & LORRAINE JOHNS - 5207 SW ROSEWOOD ST. STEVE MURRAY - 5213 SW ROSEWOOD ST. •1 ,'� SUSAN ADKISON - 1600 SW LINDSAY CT. MARK & SUE NELSON-ANDERSON - 5200 SW ROSEWOOD ST. • JIM TWEEDS - 16131 SW LINDSAY CT. 14, MINUTES: Randy Clarno opened the meeting with introductions and a brief explanation of the proposed subdivision. He included descriptions of the proposed improvements, lot and house sizes and the city's requirements. He noted the previous attempt at partitioning the property and cited the cities encouragement through regulation, and comments by planning staff to encourage attached housing development. Mr Clarno also noted the cities requirements for a • public street to run through the site with the intention of • • • connecting to Lower Drive (north of the site) . That 20% of the project would be given up to open space as required, and that the improved streets would probably have ditches rather than curb & gutter. The meeting was then open to the floor for a question and answer session between the neighbors and Randy Clarno, along with Roger • Edwards & Mark Dane. Q LORRAINE JOHNS: Have you talked to the neighbors north of your development? A: Yes but they have no interest in developing their property at: the present and the new public street is unlikely to push through to Lower Drive in the near future. • Q: NIKOL KRYPILO: Will the Commercial site west of the property +� access Rosewood? c� .. N A: With the proposed location of the new street, no they will have • no new direct access. We do not intend to move the proposed roa• C to the west boundary to provide it. There is currently an 4 '- 6' ��. height differential between the two properties providing a ru 4 natural barrier for residential development and making the • l ,o..wnrorDNu .• F r 1! 1 • ,k• location of a street there impractical at best. If we were made to build it we would probably have to dedicate 1/2 the required right-of-way but construct 2/3rds of the street. Q: TOM JOHNS: How will the new development affect traffic levels? A: We will be doing a traffic analysis for Rosewood. the city • accepts traffic levels up to level 'D' . From our initial calculation of increaseing traffic by 150 trips per day we will probably not get beyond a 'C' level of congestion. Q: JIM SAWYER: Will alignment of Pilkington/Rosewood intersection • have to be changed? A: Unlikely. However if required, the developer will bear the cost not the residents Q: JEFF BAKER: Are you widening road? A: We are dedicating 10 ' on each side and improving the current AC to a 20 ' width plus 3 ' shoulders, so some widening will likely occur. • Q: JIM TWEEDS: The lots seem small and densely packed. A: The zoning is for 5,000 SF lots and we are also dedicating at least 20% of the site as space which is included in density f requirements. • :r Q: JIM TWEEDS: How big will the homes be? • A: If I build them probably between 1450 SF & 2000 SF f" Q: STEVE MURRAY: Would the house footprints entail removal of trees? A: Getting flexible sideyard setbacks would enable us to preserve ' more trees on these sites. • Q: SUSAN ADKISON: Who will own open space? A: We may dedicate area to the city or form homeowners association. • . r Q: WENDY BAKER: Where will the children go to school? A: They will walk to the Bryant School. • Q: WENDY BAKER: Will you be building a play area for cildren in the • open space? A: No, firstly because the city requires the area to remain untouched, and secondly the parks fees I will be paying for this site will be between $10,000 and $15,000. The city could divert some of those funds to build a play area if they wish. • Q: STEVE RUDINSKY When is the Public Hearing? A: Sometime in March, we will make sure that you are all informed. • Q: JIM TWEEDS: When do you intend to start house construction? A: Sometime in July, we will be building 2-3 at a time. Q: JOSE' SARAIVA: Have you done market survey for selling price of these homes? A: We believe that they should sell for around $145-175,000 y Q: STEVE RUDINSKY: Will lots 4 & 14 face towards the new street? • A: Yes. Q: SUSAN ADKINSON: will the existing house be removed? A: Yes, it has no foundation and is not worth saving. There were no more questions so the meeting was adjourned. e , e . .. ,1 • • S•i ;• '1 1 . , • ,. • • • I- - , 0 • 1 _ • • • • • • • Y.- •y Y• • • • • -.1°1\ . *. • • 1 F E C J v j MHO'/ 19„9 " 5142 S.W. Rosewood Street Lake Oswego, OR 97035 a}. November 5, 1992 Mr. Robert Galante, Planning Director Planning Departntent • Lake Oswego City Hall 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • • RE: Proposed develop ment pment of tax lots 3300, 3400/Map 21✓, 18AB and tax lot 100/Map 18AC • Dear Mr. Galante: Enclosed please find a petition by the residents of ROSEWOOD STREET in support • � .: of the development of single family housing as per the current proposal of,.the aforementioned tax lots by Roger Edwards and John Neimeyer, heretofore known " as the Developer, and this petition is a formal declaration by the residents/ property owners of ROSEWOOD STREET vehemently opposing any plan which favors or suggests the development of multi-unit/joint housing in any form, i.e. row r houses, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums or apartments on this street. • Let it be known that not only are the residents/property owners of ROSEWOOD STREET opposed to multi-family development, the residents of the adjacent areas of LOWER and TUPLATIN STREETS are also opposed to such an endeavor. It is the community's contention that the current proposal for the development of single family homes would be in keeping with the existing homogeneity of the area, especially with regard to the newly developed units on ROSEWOOD STREET which has spurred the refurbishment of the older homes. Therefore it is In the best o.: interests of our community and ultimately of the city of Lake Oswego that we maintain some continuity and encourage the desired existing plan for single family development, which in itself shows expert planning and should ba en- couraged rather than impeded as is the case by short-sightedness and lack of economic prowess/understanding as ha's been evidenced by Mr. 'Wheeler to date. With all due respect, Mr. Wheeler's actions show quite clearly that he is out of touch with the needs of our community. Perhaps the issue should be placed in another person's hands who may be more objective and open-minded and look at the project with a new perspective. Mike Wheeler is only creating "grid- • � . lock". Bear in mind, this is not his community; it is ours and we resent his stonewalling the current project with his questionable and absurd demands. 11 • In addition, this street cannot safely accommodate the traffic constraints caused by the concentrated population of a multi-family development. There are numerous other sights in the area far more suitable for this type of ' ill/ development. • + I \J Ni u w (111 In closing, we re-iterate that as a community, we are in full support of the proposed development by Mssrs. Roger Edwards and John Neimeyer. Their plan is a one; it is what this community good y needs and wants. We do hereby • respectfully request that all efforts be made to cooperate with the Developer • for the benefit of our community as well as for the common goad of Lake OsWttgo. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. cerely, 6i Nikol J. o fors the Residents/Property Owner:. of ROSEWOOD STREET cc: Mr. Randy S. Clamor Alpha Engineering Mr. Roger Edwards, Equity Group Builders ' Samantha Haney, Lake Oswego Review Mr. Mike Wheeler; Planning Office • • Enclosure • • • • + _ • • • • • • • i.I • d ,, , • , ».- 11 ..v. ,; (lb October 18, 1992 A We, tho undersigned, are the current residents of ROSEWOOD STREET and do hereby petition again2t multi-family development in any form, specifically the tax lots of 3300, 3400/Map 21E, 18AB and tax lot 100 of Map 18AC. We are vehemently opposed to this proposal and as this is currently a single family unit street, we require that it remain so with any future developments. (-_-; .;4.-----4:(29.. 444 .6tvc.4g24/y1-(/7-4-\, , . . • . ..... . ,, . _ . A. •• . • Ce .4 14. C.% l' . _2i:el,— i k ,101)>I. ,--. * ., - 0 . .. . t e. v i .._._. . .. . . •, c.J. ` , . ... . lg.', L,L.C.2-e.,/ r , %...„,,:fet,c.1 1),L,“4.4.47 „ .„ , . : .. , ., 7/ i./ /aGle-e- # .aci,,,- , /1 ;' 24/te/P2R:71 . . .. ... &;!(,,,t_________, .. , • . '20 <T" :),atie;:? (h*-64( ;.'4"-- . • l__ 6 u � .,, • - • UCUHL ckiv1/4-401111 . , , w- lia-t------n ibni ,,o a OWA ..,...._./ (i1(011/1\61t, /6 , AcpA0AG k. ... ( ..:::: ..7A...111 . , !�� . L/ GLC P� J N�. V tame i'�._.. »�. I. , , . \ . 3,.yol ik 1, /?apt. ' � . • M • r•' • • • • -r 4 1 Px' ✓ !t 1 ti .h t- r V � r M ' . 4 fie, • ., ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ., ' 1 •.F. ' . , • > r'',.• '' Fur ;• a rl STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS .� County of Clackamas ) I, '1 %Att-ate( o , being duly sworn,depose and say that on ; 1 or- � q_� —t tg � ,-, I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the +.+ attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at s, , �-r� -�-. E rwC t•1 PtL44In.N rOla i 'R)nc.,,441..1 's-r , a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and ,. ., . 0 made a.part of hereof. ` may, • I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the•United States Post Office at Lake Oswego,Oregon with 9* ' postage prepaid thereon. • • V 'a. i • '1 G , e i . t. r Srgn `/(/ . '✓ a ti Subscribed and sworn to me betore this 151-E. day of. ESfc', -soP-('--t 1 19'i. OFFICIAL SEAL �'cu NOTARY PUBLIC.OREGON � COMMISSION N0,011872 °D MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC,22,1995 /,/ No Public X .- r — , . Ili My commission expires: 1 - z2- d15 W k i N parlBll y, Pre—App,No,: 5 e --a 2 . r • ,, 4 J. • Name of aY-,licant OnK0 NISI `taR Pre—App. No. 55—9'Z ' r. , I Ql IIrG I..c 'r too, Subject Property: Tax Lot(s) ,�a,,r-�,,1 Tax Map(s)—Z.)E 10A ` • Address or General Location:�Z,�'s �,.� m6 l 6 le,A.C. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE ,do swear or affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed affecting the land located at rt 5 LA). cy �T Pe� p�5C2l n ABOVE and that pursuant to LOC 48.801/49.301, did on the la► . day of ;T' uP.`R:1 , 1915 ,personally post the notice indicating that the • .'.�., site may be proposed for a 50 ttJ051o1r1 application. The sign was posted at iNEAg.. 5255 S.wY grt..5&4,..3er—ta 6.rr P.�.t#.1 11:,6s of -rlls• poe L • (state location on property) • • This 15 tt'L day of 3i�-iuAf4-rf, , 19 61\.\Sign tore • • Subscribed and sworn to,or affirmed, before me this t t4 day of 5 u/rR•-1 , 19")3 OFFICIAL SEAL MARK S.IC•OR DANE NOTARY PUBLEGON —62%4/ ,.11;# COMMISSION NO.011872 Notary Public for the State of Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC.2k, 1995 s, My Commission Expires: 12-ZZ- 41 5 t , • • • , WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING,RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Lake Oswego , Land Development Services Division r P.O. Box 369 •.. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT • .; , r7ai-7s/vo. • w ' • . * . ,S ... ,• .. ,•F: ., is 1 '^"i SENDER: , • Complete hems 1 and/or 2 for additional services, 1 also wish to receive the L. • t • comT:ets Items 3,end eo&b. following services (for an extra • .r. .. 1 • Print your name end eddnse on the reverts of this form so 0 can ioo)t return this card to you, , r t > •• Attach this form to the front of tta maNplew,or on the beck If specs 1. 0 Addressee's Address a ,, E does not permit, ,. ,,•r, l ,. , . Write"Return Receipt Requested"on tile meloplece below the article number. 2. ❑ RestrIcted Delivery' i . . The Return Receipt will Dhow to whorn the article wee delivered end the date $1 0. C delivered, r o Consult postmaster for feel o' f 3. Article Addressed to: 4e. Article Number CC U 1 ' ' 9N0,A,\l' 1,,2,t^ 1 Ica e k-1711 - to ' - ' E .. r; f R ',. ii s\L1I•:':7 0`/ai t ,,N°61K-, 4b, Serv•ae Type ` ❑ istored , ❑ Insured :•:•• � an ' ¢p,cy; Ott `1"1D35 a Certified tst u) t i. ,1 t o , ❑ GOD 4 ` r n; ' i �.'•• • 0 Express i 'all 0 Return'Receipt Icr ' ...':. 71: � t • Merchen• :Y , a0 �. �4 1,+,• r 71 Onto of olive `_ cc 6. Signature IA roeao 8. Addr sl®a's Addeos Only If requested ti ;'4 I';I 1 ;:'1 +{ "U a; , and too la paid) 8, Signature (Agent) I 1 , , • • , I. PS Form 3811, Disco b e ..1/ m or 1991 * us,a.a,o.t7992•a(t7.699 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT . ' • i • PS Form 3 00,Jun 991 ,Iqk ug' 1 ZS ,G a 'Al ' 1;, �,oznm ti 6 rJ, u o n m•� in3 ty i b ngO rt, o -t , d? (� c ID f:t N r• f:� b t0 • C ~� < GI M 4 t. CO .• .ate :' W r • • • ' . yy • / !!: .. l • t, •.'./ E t of r f' 0 11 t,' • 0 ..,,,. ... . 1 • f1 if t • f + f • . i •• • • • r j�F �1 g • , . . AI • t 0REGO r DEP.\RTNIENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner FROM: Wayne Halverson,Engineering Development Coordinator RE: Engineering Staff Report for Rosewood,PD 1-93 • DATE: March 15, 1993 ' Hillside Pmtection/Erosion Control • The proposed development is located on the north and south sides of Rosewood Street. • The proposal is for 16 lots on relatively flat ground. Even with relatively flat ground, erosion control requirements and plan are required of the developer. The applicant • should be required to provide an erosion control plan along with the final construction plans. • �, ; Positive roof and foundation drains should also be required. The applicant has said Lots 4-8 will drain to a swale along their back lines. In the past, drainage swales have not worked as they are filled in during the home construction. Either a private storm system should be constructed to these lots or direct connection made to the existing t, storm system after the surface water flows through a pollution control box, Staff will work with the developer's engineer to revise his utility format prior to designing the • final construction plans. ,Access/Site Circulation M Access to the site is proposed to be from Rosewood Street with a new public street with i-- i , • • • a rural street design. Lots 10-12 are proposed as being served from a private street with•' m a Staff _ ' •g a public access easement over a portion of it to serve as the public turn around. M prefers that the 25 x 34 foot easement be dedicated to the public to protect the City, The ' X ' ` Q i . applicant has not informed staff who will maintain the private street and mentions i �' o. •1•N.6uui/ipar9H11 . • Page 1 of 5 ' , I .1 el.: I',, 't 6 t t - .',11,1'1'•I i ,10 i;It v; « .{��ti • 1 t ,,It., 2.,s 1 1 �} • ;f. r nothing about a home owners association in the narrative. The applicant is also ,. ,: • proposing on 2 inches of asphalt over 6"of rock for the private street. The public access easement should be built to public street standards as it will be used as a turn around. The new public street section, sheet 5 of 6 of the applicant's exhibits shows the proposed sidewalk outside of the right-of-way. This is against the new rural street design criteria developed by staff at the direction of the City Council. Sidewalks have been required to be within public right-of-ways even on the new rural street section , (see drawing). If the Board allows the sidewalk to remain outside of the public right- ` of-way,staff would like to see the following restrictions: 1) That deed or plat restrictions should be imposed on the sidewalk area that would provide the same protection as if the sidewalk was within the right-of-way and 2) the front yard setback of 20 feet be conditioned to be measured from the back edge of the new sidewalk. If this isn't done and the 20 foot distance is measured from the property line, cars parked in front of garages would obstruct the sidewalk. Engineering would also recommend a one foot control strip at the end of the new public street. The applicant is also proposing small drains at.each driveway crossing of the public • t 5•. . drainage swale. The new rural street design criteria requires a ribbon drain across all driveway entrances where the swale is less than 12 inches in depth,last of all, staff is requesting that a concrete strip be extended across the private street in order to delineate the public street portion from the private tract. This concrete strip and private street should be made the responsibility of one of the lots or a home owners 4 :. association. • As the new public street is only proposed to be twenty feet wide, the new street will not provide the ability for on-street parking. Rosewood Street at present is narrower than twenty feet. It will be required and the applicant has shown to provide a twenty foot section on Rosewood with three foot gravel shoulders and swales. Lighting .,. The applicant has not met the lighting standard as required. It will be required that al.l street lights on Rosewood and the new street will meet the rural street criteria prior to m approval of the final construction plans, Utilities • Water-The applicant has proposed to serve this project with a 4" line, This doe"not ' • provide the required fire flows, 1500 g,p,m, The closest hydrant is approximately 450 6 feet from the proposed home on Lot 8, Fire protection is required and an 8" line will be ' • required in Rebecca Lane to the end of the street and a hydrant required in the area of • • • Page2of5 L . P �� U'' • • 'I the private street. Staff will meet with the developer and engineer to resolve these issues prior to their beginning design on the construction plans. A u Sanitary Sewer- The site will be served by existing sanitary sewer lines in Rosewood and lines along the westerly and northerly sides of the development. Storm Drainage The applicant has proposed a drainage system for Rebecca Lane which consist of a perforated pipe and infiltration trench. Since we are dealing with a rural street section, the swale must drain and provide a performance equivalent to a minimum 2% curb grade. The system must be accessible to maintenance personnel (i.e.,pipe) and will require manholes which the exhibits do not show, Final construction plans should include specifications for water quality treatment facilities '''r' and drainage designs and all design calculations. .wee Cutting The applicant is apparently asking for setback reductions in order to save trees. Looking at the exhibits,it appears that only two trees will be Ieft standing on the north side of Rosewood (one on Lot 9, and one on Lot 16). On Lot 3, the applicant states the building envelope has been moved to save the trees. On a 1:50 scale, the trees along Lot 3 appear to be from four to five feet from the property line. Without knowing the diameters of the trees, it is hard to say whether these two trees can be saved or not. . Fenced In the applicant's narrative, Section 9.005,page 8, they state that six foot fences will be constructed along all rear and side lot lines with construction of the new homes on Lots 4-7, The City has a twenty foot existing sanitary and storm easement along the back lot o • lines of proposed Lots 4 to 11. Construction of fences cannot be allowed which will obstruct the City's easement rights, Vision Triangles on Lots 4 and 15 .40 `• The vision triangles on Lots 4 and 15 are not drawn correctly on sheet 1a. of 6. If • r '.' : Rosewood is ever improved in the future,it would probably be a 28 foot through street • that would allowparkingon one side. applicant's The applicant's engineer has measured the vision triangle from the edge of the 20 foot street section they are to construct, The vision clearance triangle should be measured from the future curb location or edge of �a asphalt on Rosewood so as not to cause a vision clearance problem at the intersection in the future when Rosewood is widened, Access will have to be from Rosewood Street for Lots 4 and 15 as access to Rebecca Lane would obstruct the vision triangle with cars a • parked in the driveways. Contrary to what the applicant shows on sheet la of 6, staff computes the 4' x 4' cut corner on Lot 4 to be 10' x 10' and 7' x 7' on Lot 15 not 1' x 1', Page 3of5 • r �� •-� •�). Future Street Plans to . . .i ‘ The applicant discusses their proposed future street plan on page 12 of the narrative and shows it on sheet 6 of 6. Staff has previously indicated that Option "B"is not attainable due to recent minor partition approvals and Option"A" portrays the wrong circulation plan staff has in mind. Lower Drive from Tualatin Street westerly is approximately 1,000 feet long,extremely narrow (12 to 14 feet wide) and a dead end. ., This was created when Boones Perry was improved and Lower Drive was cut off. Staff • envisions that Lower Drive could be connected in the future to Rebecca Lane and, therefore, a cul-de-sac at the end of Rebecca Lane as in Option A should not be taken as j. a final layout. .. ••�. 1'i •gyp.• As with all projects, this report is written to bring to the attention of the applicant and his engineer areas of concern that must be addressed prior to the approval of the final • �• ,; construction plans. Some comments specifically relate to utility lines. It should not be construed that staff agrees with the locations, type of materials,or sizes of utilities shown on the preliminary utility plan; additional relocations might be requested before final locations are agreed upon. Our review has mainly been limited to the ability to serve the site and not necessarily an approval of final location,materials,or sizes of lines. Recommendation, • 4' A. 1. That a complete erosion control plan be included with the final construction plans. ,4 2. Provide positive roof and foundation plans to all lots. 3. The private street section is to be constructed to public street standards and a home owners association be required with CC&Rs to establish maintenance responsibility of Tract"B" and that the public easement portion for a turn around be dedicated to the public 4. That if the proposed sidewalk is not located within the public right-of-way that two restrictions be required: a) That deed or plat restrictions be imposed on the sidewalk area that would ; provide the same protection as if it was within the right-of-way, " b) That the front yard setback of 20 feet be conditioned to be measured from the back edge of the new sidewalk, not from the property line. .c 5, A one foot control strip be required on the plat at the end of Rebecca Lane. 0 ;;„ . . . , . . .. ,. . . ., , Page 4of5 • • e n.' !1 v� :. . 6. That a delineation strip be constructed across Tract B. � 7. That the required street lighting be in accordance with the new rural street - criteria. . , Y.. 8. That the proposed rural street sections meet the new City rural street criteria. :.'; cs That fire protection be provided and waterlines be sized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. That the storm drainage system be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. - ' • 11. That fences be constructed with gates wide enough to provide the City x Maintenance Department room to drive down the existing twenty fltiot easement 4 if necessary in order to protect the City's easement rights. 12. That the vision clearance triangles on Lots 4 and 15 be measured from a point 14 feet north of centerline on Rosewood so as not to create a potential vision problem in the future. 13. That Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane be designed and constructed for a ' , 0minimum 20 year design life. • , WPi/kaa r C:PD1 93doC I - •1 . • 1. Page 5 of 5 r 1 F• ' • a .,, - ` 1 r 1 . r 1,: M. , r'MPlka7 a 9.c .1 't 1. • Aoki ' .. J AGENDA • ' ' • l CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,April 5, 1993 7:00 P.M. r... CALL TO ORDER ITTL ROLL CALL Agenda Book ' • 7, APPROVAL OF MINUTES • V. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING • { SD 19-921VAR 18-92(n-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, th,°:applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the • Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, which is a private street. 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 feet in length. The modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to '', terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required 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 i; located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 1E IODD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner. Continued from March 15, 1993. ' • ' • DR I5-89(Mod. 7-92), a request by FWL Architects for approval to develop the south parking lot of the Lake Baptist Church. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Carman Drive and Kruse Way intersection (Tax Lots 5500 and 5590 of Tax Map 2 1E 6DD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, • AP 93-01 D 5 I d 98/2 . 7-92)1, a request by Thomas H. Nelson for modification of an earlier approval which enabled the creation of two parcels from an 86,058 square foot lot The parcels are -. . 20,078 and 65,980 square feet in size, The applicant is seeking the elimination of two conditions of approval as they affect Tax Lot 3400(Parcel 1), The conditions require a nonremonstrance agreement • for future improvements to both Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Blvd. (Condition Number 3), and payment of a pathway deposit(Condition Number 11). The applicant has requested a hearing • I- • • r ., e, ,. • ',` . ` regarding the matter as provided by LOC 49.225 and LOC 49.630,and ORS located at 1210 Chandler Road(Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 3CC). Staff coordinator is 10). Michael . The site is II) . . PlD 9 1VA1R 2-23,a request by Kruse Way Plaza One (Roger Edwards)for approval of a 16 lot single family residential planned development, a Class I variance to LODS 18.020(1)to allow from a private street for Lots 10-12, and a future street plan to serve properties located no access �' • subject site. The site is located east of Pillcin on Road, pe north of the ` Street(Tax Lots 3300 3400 of Tax Ma 2 lE on the north and south sides of Rosewood P 18AB and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AC). Staff coordinator is�ntrwid .... iP iDavelontnent Res-i W�-�anne.. • 1,5 VL {" GENERAL PLANNING • A a' VIL OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Fe el free to ; come and go as you please. D.RB I cmins: Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Nrorman J.Sievert,Vice—Chair y i.. . INbrmm F.Homing Robert Galante,Senior Planner f William M.Magura Ron Bunch,Senior Planner ` Julie Morales Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner Julie a oF.r Stiven Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary Yvonne DeBartota,Senior Secretory a • • ilk, , . I. I 4 V' STAFF REPORT . . . . CITY OF LAKE • . . PLANNING DIVISION • APPLICANT: FILE NO.: FWL Architects 4 DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • • PRO— 'Ca: ,, sma: Lake Baptist Church s'. Michael R. Wheeler , FC� p.1nF � �r: RATE OF RPnrtT• Tax Lot 4900, 4990, 500,5100 of Tax Map 2 1E 6OD March 26, 1993 '1 LOCATION: DATE O— A rR rtvr,�: Northwest corner of the Carman Drive and • Apri15, 1993 Kruse Way intersection ASS_ 'OCIATinN• ; 4 C011�LP PLAN DE STr;�T A�'"'Nt e Westlake; Holly Orchard • R-5 and R-10 DCSi[�NA•rrnrr• °• R-5 and R-10 I. "S R nr 1F ;' ; . The applicant is Proposing to develop the south parking lot of the Lake Baptist Church, II, APPLICABLEszaamA • A. Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies ' General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 General Policy II,Specific Policies 1, 2, 3 °i General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • ' DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • Page 1 of 9 r, y , t. ,. , r • u Wildlife Habitat Policies + General PolicyIii , Specific Policy 1,2 Wetlands Policies :. General Policy I,Specific Policies 1,2 General Policy Er, Specific Policies 1, 3, 5 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy II General Policy III Bikeway Policies General Policy I,Specific Policy 2e Pedestrian Pathway Policies 1. . General Policy 1,Specific Policy 2 a General Policy II,Specific Policy 1 Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies lf, 2, 3 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1,2 B. Sna _rvtc• ' LOC 48.120—48.155 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot LOC 48.195—48.225 coverage) R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, r'I LOC48.575 lot coverage) "` Schools C. I.10.i!elapment Cody . LOC LOC 48.0 00 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.145 Criteria for Approval Major Development LOC 49.300—49,315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.610 Quasi—judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals s • LOC 49.125 Authorit y';)approve changes in Development Permits D. Development Standards - ,, • < d 4.005—4.040 Wetlands , 6.005—6.040 .005—7.040 Transit System ' ~ 7 05—8.040 Parking and Loading Standard 9a005—9.040 Park and Open Space 11.005— Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ` 18 — 11.040 040 Drainage Standard for Major Development n 19 • .005— 1a040 Access Standard � 005 19040 Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways Site Circulation —Bikeways and Walkways 0 . • • DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) , , , • Page 2 of 9 4 a ' , • • E. Pathways Ordinance LOC 42.900-42.920,LOC 44.374 • • F. Sim Billbnards. Ma w s anoniee t�tc iris�5 and Stet Ci ^ s LOC 47.005-47.200 'iu• G. City Cbartcr Section 46 A Height of Structures in Residential Areas • III• FINDINGS • The site was granted approval for church use in 1985 [CU 2-85]. That use was granted approval to be built in two phases hi 1987 [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87]. That decision subsequently modified in 1989 to allow the construction to occur in three phases,with conditions [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89)]. The design of the church, parking, wetland protection,and associated public improvements was approved in 1989 [DR 15- 89]. A building permit(BP 91--0905)was issued in 1991 for construction of the church. A construction permit for public improvements to Canttgn Drive and Parkview Drive was approved in September, 1991 [DR 15-89,Exhibit 22]. s`, The conditional use was modified and expanded in 1992 to allow the use of the church and high school use. The Overall Development Plan and Schedule was modified at the same time to enable the construction of additional parking(proosed south parking lot) as a part of the current Phase I construction [CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)/ODPS 4-87(Mod.4- 92);Exhibit 20]. This application is for approval of a proposed south parking lot+ B. E istiig,C uditions: 1. The site is c°;•,.,"sed of 9.23 acres located at the northwest corner of the • intersections of Kruse Way and Carman Drive. 2. Phase I improvements which have been completed include a church, associated a parking and public improvements. Phase I improvements which are underway, but not completed, are landscaping and wetland mitigation. C, Proposal; • • ,.• The applicant is seeking approval to construct the south parking lot whose inclusion in Phase I was approved in 1992 [CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)/ODPS 4-87(Mod 4-92)], • D. Compliance with Criteria;for Approval • q As per LOC 49,615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating major development: • • • DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) •• Page 3 of 9 ` � r r M ,. ♦ q i I. ‘ " / f 0 ` 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be the proposal conforms to: established that a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: These policies require protection of natural resources from development, • comprehensive review of development proposals,and a :r. • of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented ntedent othrouggh sevef an lral sharee Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that • distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that density be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. i11 Thesepolicies _ require protection of upland habitat in the form of .� space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are • reviewed in this report fallowing an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Wetlands Policies • r '': 1�� , These policies require identification and protection of essential wetlands. A wetland • mitigation plan was approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)in 1990. •: ;f:h+, Those wetland improvements required by the permit(Exhibit 17) have been installed and inspected. The applicant's current proposal intends to maintain and protect the earlier improvements. Compliance with the Wetland Development Standard will be reviewed later in this report. • These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable ,r :t Development Standards. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. ' Bikeway Polices/Pedestran Pathways Policies r j . Thesepolicies •' • ,'. '" require development of pathway segments identified in the,Conceptual Pathway Master Plan, These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation— Bikeways and Walkways Development Standard and the Pathways Ordinance and Master Plan: These will be reviewed later in this report. • • • DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) ; Page 4 of 9 .,, ' + •; • These policies require that streets be improved • These policies also as planned when demand requires. require that a developer be 't way as necessary to provide for widening. 1'Irese required to dedicate additional right of throughLOC 48.535(3),Special8 policies are implemented in part ( , Streets Setbacks and the Utility Development Standard. Compliance with these policies was reviewed in 1989 when the church's initial Construction was ° bythatpo The public dedication and improvements required approval have been made. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulation& The following regulations were in effect on the date of the application: I. A portion of the site is zoned R-5 Residential (Exhibit 21), The minimum lot area in the R-5 zone is 5,000 sq. ft. [LOC 48.135(1)]. Maximum lot coverage for buildings ' ' and required parking in the R-5 zone is 50% for attached buildings, 35% for detached buildings [LOC 48.140]. A unified siteplan is { setback from any property line is 10 feet or 4t 1LO The required this proposal and site [LOC 48.150(1)]. The maximum height may average 40 feet on this site, which is larger than 1/2 acre; not individual structure may exceed 50 feet[LOC 48,155(2)], The special conditions listed in LOC 48.565 modify the setback and height requirements of the zone. Because the building height is 30 feet, all yards must be at least 20 feet,or two-thirds of the height of the structure [LOC 48.565(4)]. A portion of the site is zoned R-10 Residential (Exhibit 21). The minimum lot area in the R-10 zone is 10,000 sq. ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]. Setbacks applicable to this request (alteration that does not qualify as new construction) are as follows: Yard Feet (minimum) A• Front 25 Side adjacent to street 20 (arterial or collector)or `" 10(local street) Other side 10 Rear 25 The maximum lot coverage in the R-10 zone for an alteration that does not qualify as R new construction is 30% [LOC 48.225(1)]. S • The approved church facility was demonstrated to comply with these requirements during review of all earlier applications [see background, earlier in this report], i The applicant's proposal to construct the south parking lot complies with the R-5 zone' setbacks, which are at the westerly ' property line of the site, and the R-10 zone ,, ; setbacks, which are at the easterly and southerly property lines of the site, The 20 foot height of the proposed light poles complies with the maximum height allowed in both the R-5 and R-10 zones. , • • DP. 15-89(Mod, 7-92) Page 5 of 9 • r t! { ent Cade ReolireT nts and AgaIc. .� R Development of the church,existing parking,landscaping,lighting and wetland 1989 (DR 1 was o side approved by the Development Review Board in proposed south parking lot is appropriately being proces I as major development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, them are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Pathways C�nclimm�c� . his c°ntliiiance requires construction of pathways alongmutes approved Pathways Master Plan. As a part of the a rmit(E in the sidewalk along Carman Drive was completed,�construction permit(Exhibit 22),a sidewalk on the north side of Kruse Way. •which connects to a formerly existing ,, 471 The Sign Code enables an institutional use such as a church or high school to erect an identification sign up to 24 square feet in area along each adjacent street frontage [LOC 47.115(1)). The applicant's proposed sign is 24 square feet, not includingthe base (Exhibit 9). The sign is proposed to be located at the entrance to the site on Parkview Drive (Exhibit 4). • itv Charter H i • • t O��tt'nrhTtt_� The City Charter limits any structure in a residential zone to a height of 50 feet exce for a single symbolic apputenance, which can extend up to 75 feet. pt . . The 20 foot height of the proposed light poles complies with the Charter limits40 • • . ' c. The ap plicable Development Standards Wtlauds (4 005 4 j, k ' These andands a require protection of essential wetlands. The applicant received approvalwetland mitigation plan from the Division of State Lands in 1990 (Exhibit 17) and a construction permit from the City for same in 1991 (Exhibit 22), The applicant's proposal complies with the requirements of those approvals. Continued compliance will be required as a condition of this action, if approved TranSi Svacein (6 005 •6(k1()1 • This standard requires that transit facilities or hard—surfaced pathways be provided to enable use of the existing transit system (Tri—Met). A sidewalk was installed along Carman Drive as part of the approval of DR 15-89. This standard was satisfied as a result. 1 Pdtcl. din_ (7 7 0401 . For a high school or a church, this standard requires one space per 60 square feet of gross floor area in the auditoriwn area, or ones aceno seatingixed , is proposed. The earlier review of DR 15-89 demonstrated that 250 existing pace support the 50,999 square feet which comprises Phase I. 9 R . a0 tc„. , f'• . DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) Page 6 of 9 , , The applicant indicates that 186 spaces which have already • of Phase I improvements will remain; some of these 186 saces will be recon constructed t a part as a pact of the proposal. The applicantr .. ' .. .: • ' • 0 in the south parking lot, which would increasethe to construct anp additional xhl 206spaces total to 392 spaces(Exhibit 13), A total of more than 500 spaces was approved 8S) upon demonstration that this total by the Planning Commission (CU 2-. upon completion of Phase III of construction. Ply the 102,880 square foot building y' The applicant indicates that an additional 37 spaces will be constructed i° and 163 spaces in Phase III, which will raise the total to 592 spaces. Phase II, J �,1 142Theapplicant's current proposal would exceed the Previously approved 250 spaces by The applicant's proposal to construct the proposed,206 spaces as a reviewed by the Planning Commission andpart of Phase I was 85(Mod.4- BPS 4-87(I�Iod. 4-92 approved on June Planning22, 1992Commission . ' encouraged velopment Review Board to conside The intensive landscaping alongCarman Drive due to the increase in daily' 1pg more P g Painting. `; This standard requires an open space dedication for major residential, off commercial and industrial development. The a office campus, school)provides landsca ier � Pproved institutional use (church/high P g egos.to 23%of the site following completion of Phase III. Though the standard doesn't appear , form of landscaping is provided by theproposalExhibr, adequate open space in the (Exhibit 7). Latac� This standard requires that semi—pubwc uses provide 15 or 20 buildable area in landscaping, percent of the net depending on the use. The approved school demonstrated compliance with this church/high , or II landscaping,and 23 percent upon completion of Phase III. Phase I with 71 percent . . The applicant PP proposes to limit plantings to the area immediately around the south parking lot(Exhibit 7). This plan differs from the landscaping plan approve •d F Phase I[Dl2 15-89;Exhibit 25], The plantings originallyPP for Drive and Parkview Drive have not been completed as aproved. Additionally,Cyan Exhibit 7 illustrates a more elaborate planting plan than the original, propose to install it at this time. The applicant must reconcile but does not • propose landscaping measures necessary this omfene sio and concerns about parking lot visibility. This willaddress requiPlred s ag condition Commission's action, if approved. At a minimum, the applicant will be required to of this q u:2 to install those plant materials required by the City's aproval of DR 15-89 (Exhibs�25), a This standard requires that drainage alterations not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant's proposal conforms to the drainage system which has already been approved as a part of the Phase I construction permit (Exhibit 22), o ' DR 15�-89(Mod, 7-92) Page 7 of 9 ' i k , 1 / iUtiliW'i3and 14 005 14 0411 This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be instralled underground, where possible. • Access Standard This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. The site abuts Kruse Way, Carman Drive, and Parkview Drive each for more than 25 feet (Exhibit 4). Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways (19a005-19.040) This standard requires that driveways for single familydwellings • � �• grade nor 5%cross slope. � not exceed 20% ,..• 8- percent The grades for the parking lot are approximately 4-to 8- grade (Exhibit 5). Site 'ricnlatinn _Bikewpys a d , yc,�20 (t nerit i As noted earlier in this report, sidewalks have been constructed along Carman Drive� � r and Parkview Drive which satisfy this standardp. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • . • The applicant's proposal is in compliance with an earlier ODPS approval [CU 2- 85(Mai.4-92/ODPS 4-87(Mod,4-92); Exhibit 20]. There are no future street plans which affect this site. E. CONCLUSION R• Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal J 1 4` ' • complies with all applicable criteria. • ti , I I RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed modification, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install landscaping east and north of the existing building as illustrated in Exhibit 24 and required by DR 15-89 (Exhibit 25). 2. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of development permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. • • Y . I .• 1 1•' DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92) Page 8 of 9• }1 f.. E'H S 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative; dated August 21, 1992 3. Boundary and Topographic Survey 4. Plan:Parking Expansion Limits; dated August 21, 1992 gGrading dated August 21, 1992 • . �. 5. South Parkin Lot Plan; 6. Irrigation Plan;dated August 21, 1992 :. 7. Planting Plan; dated September 10, 1992 8. Site Plan (portion of Sheet Al); dated September 5, 1992 9. Elevation: Proposed sign at Parkview Drive 10. Plan: Site Plan illustrating building phases,Sheet E-1;dated December 16, 1991 11. Perspective drawing; dated August 23, 1992 12. Typical weekly schedule;dated April 9, 1992 4'+ 13. Parking information;dated May 26, 1992 14. Striping plan-SW Cann,an Drive(portion) 15. Striping plan-SW Carman Drive(portion) 16. Striping Plan, P g by R.Woelik; dated April 21, 1992 • 17. Division of State Lands Permit No. 5566;dated November 28, 1990 18. Foundation Investigation Report; dated November 1, 1985 , , .' 19. Parking perimeter and interior lighting information ;<' 20. Findings, Conclusions and Order,CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)10DPS 4-87(Mod 4-92); dated June 22, 1992 21. Zoning Map(portion) , 22. Construction Permit(portion),DR 15-89E,dated September 12, 1991 23. Site Plan (Exhibit 7 from DR 15-59); not dated • 24. Planting Plan (Exhibit 13 from DR 15-89); not dated 25. Findings, Conclusions and Order,DR 15-89; dated December 18, 1989 26. Transportation Analysis by ATEP; dated August, 1991 ti • • • • • • 41) • o �•p. 4 • • re. DR 15-89(Mod, 7-92) • Page 9 of 9 • Z`.. %,.,. , ., .a`.B'�, , 1, it y r� t ♦ i 1 1 ti is 1` Y •J i. I' ••• .. • .. • . „ . . . t{ , , • •, . . 4 M °•• • • • S 1 - F b . • • r 4 3 51 ♦ 52 4r • • e w n..r a �a 5• ^� , 2400 c LF '.. a ww r • y' • S r7N � 4.,,4.,,, 21o0 � 5 • �z200 i ' �°'' 1000: • S N�o•. 2000 ': r • s5 �• �1900 •°' JI 23004•e • 1KJJ a, � " ... a^ p 0 a ./.; 900 +a\ � • �5 9a 53 S a / tr.; y �'�\0• 071 .5g . " 69 tr � 800 Ooa8e'• ¶% " 60 ; • A.sO tr ,0O •70 t:'"'•�-e1800 61' 'aWINTHROPs.a ; I11Go , CI • b• ~ '... ' at.°• • faea•' •S�,'r .■ ' .. . •'�}700','i��Zlf,71, 4 1w 79 a Ci"b 1700'e.M1600` 1500 1400. 1300 ,1200 ^ r" '. ''''.• r, i. <. Y e)J',' Ak 200 d aLaa:r�.72. ..a,r• ' fr.fafr'o = yet•"2F 6^c 63 64 65. • 66 • '�' ,, 600 76 PAi2KVIEW DRIVE : / 3 •4 c o a.' a „ A` tL73 0.0� ''� 500(a 400 OG ' •• •Y'o.74�Fy'v."�Iti d° 1.41 'Le L• .. .�..�.Li ., / 1� •ef a •W . ... yr` 75'�" tl360 ... . . • ,.. , . .. . . . ... . , . , . .. . .. .,, . , . ova N 777 :... ... , ` v, ,. • r.rp.7 6 PARTITION ' PLAT �a C'_L• • '�. �,,; , 1991^141 f�.. le.lai, •_ l , s twrn 1991 z 5s0o PARTITION PLA'r ' L _- �0 0 32AC 1991-141 1 .� 5400 1 1. o7iAe PARCEL 3 • I r 1 . . Op, a 2 •\ r 1 e r 5590 ° I C J• , 093Ac,> sr • • y * 3 if..1),. ,.,.....-ti .,.., . ,, • • • '1M Cad I;Q•• • • ; . a „45,...:1'. •. SL' ' '''.. ,;:, � EXMIBIi i I • • SEE NAP 2 rE G8C: tk,00, a, ° ._�•►.},l,.r- ••r a .r.., 4�, •a it c • Ciry .r .1i140 Rdt - • a..( ' '4/3r l': . 4 crMl°r 1111. LAKE 4y•, ♦t, • •• • • r f. • • . 1. r 'Y f ' 4. • P. ,a !� Y `., f 1' • A . • • • E I • • { It y v • f r RE-vlo .p 6-21 -1z. J ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH APPLICANT: FISHER, WALLIN & LONG Architects-Planners 5331 S.W. Macadam, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97201. ' PROP og: LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH P.O. Box 1465 } Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; > • Tex tvikr 2 le yap -- AA Lt9Th- 9Ub AND * Q LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Carman Drive • and Kruse Way. • NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ' • Westlake Neighborhood g Association (forming) ZONING DESIGTIYATIoN: R-5 and R-10 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: • R-5 and R-10 •r. I . REQUEST , Lake Baptist Church is requesting Development Review approval for development of the south parking lot. See attached plans. II. REGULATIONS A. qi..tv of Lake Oswe o Co prehensive Plan: Growth Management Policies - ` General Policy III 4 ' d EXHIBIT 0 Impact Management Policies �/� C13p�s� General Policy I . • General Policy II • bIS4,101Mo7.12. 1 V.' Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II 0 . . y.� Weak Foundation Soil Policies General Policy IV Quiet Environment Policies General Policy II Water Resource Policies (Ground Water) A General Policy i General Policy II • ;` Wetlands Policies General Policy I .. General Policy II ` Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy III General Policy vii Residential Land Use Policies General Policy i Protection Open Space Policies • General Policy T ° ` .V Bikeway Policies General Policy I Pedestrian Pathway Policies , General Policy I General Policy II B. ctv of Lake Oswego Coning Ordinance: LOC 48. 120-48. 155 R-5 Zone 0C 48 . 195-48 .220 R-10 Zone FLOC 48.535 Special Setbacks C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: LOC 49. 300-49. 335 Major Development Procedures J LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49. 620 Condit ,onal Approval I, • . • Ap 4 ' , M. 0 ' ' 1 r . t D. City of Lake Oswego Development,Standards: • `, 2. 005 - 2.040 Building Design 4.005 - 4.040 Wetlands 5 -%)05 - 5.040 Street Lights 6 ( 15 - 6.040 Transit System `Y 7.005 - 7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 8.005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space. 9. 005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and 4.4 . Buffering • 10.005 - 10.040 Fences • 11. 005 - 11. 040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 13 . 005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 16. 005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18. 005 - 18 . 040 Access Standard 19. 005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways 20. 005 - 20. 040 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways E. City of Lake Oswego Tree cutting Ordinate: LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits 1 ' i �' . n s h r . • ♦ .+` , • • • Y s t r • • • • • . r., • • • /f b t_ • kg •. • • • • ti » t 1 r ; Sy' •..�. ' r . • 4• , • • • r y s• 1 l 44 • I I X .A • 9 •44r, R. C:omp1 fiance with Cr;tAr; a fter, spars a1 • 1. . �.tv of Lace Oema u i Y Camr2laow . n,an '/ grban Ser vice Pows _ .�� c e These policies require that lands within the Urban Services Boundary be designated as suitable for immediate development and that the City's Capital Improvement Program give priority to scheduling facilities to serve these areas. This policy is implemented by ' requiring cdevelpment applicants to construct improvements as development is proposed when the current Capital Improvement Program does not provide for the needed Facilities within a reasonable amount of time. This policy has been previously addressed in CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87 (MOD 6-89) and DR 15-89-731 hr. regarding half-street improvements along Carman Drive. These improvements have been issued a permit and are under construction. ` Additional recommendations for the Carman/Kruse signal are incorporated into x traffic report and will be constructed. I1Aact Mana2emef,t oo1 icies r: These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and pp of an equitable share of the costs ofpublic facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, J • addressed further below. The policies 4 require assurance that distinctive areas 4i11 be preserved, soil will be '' erosion, trees be protected from ' protected from removal and that streams be preserved, Compliance with • the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan d policies. aI i • 4 . r .i' I/ Wild �ife Habitat :.nl ;ni es- 0 li ," These policies require o and waterfront habitat inthetform°ofupland preservation of open space, natural vegetation, or fragile slopes. This was met bypolicy possible on preserving site gand byas nmitiy gation of the wetlands on site. Related development • standards are reviewed in this application following analysis of the applicable Plan policies. By meeting the related Development Standards (which are under permit) , such as the Wetlands Standards, these policies are met. I Wea}c Foundation Sdil Policleg • These policies require the analysis of soils for development proposals on sites that are designated for having the soils. potential for weak This policy is met through previous , ,r conditions of approval for obtaining a Soils Report for this particular site. These policies are further implemented through the `, '• " V Weak Foundation Soils Development Standard which is reviewed in this application410 . following an analysis of the applicable Plan , . policies. See attached soils investigation report, "Dames ''t Moore", dated November 1, 1985. Wetland Policies (?",_These policies require identification of 11,,,,, wetlands and designation of wetlands as Protection Open Space. These policies state that the Wetland Development Standard be used to implement these policies, which also require preservation of essential wetlands. A review of the p pro osed Wetland Mitigation Plan by the Division of State Lands has previously been completed and a permit Under the previous conditions of approval hat; been „ granted. These policies are further implemented through the compliance with the Wetlands Development Standard which is analyzed in this application after the applicable Plan policies. No modification of existing wetlands are anticipated as a result of this request. b , • i , r . Protection of Open Space Policies ..,..e. These policies require that stream corridors, ' p wetlands, weak foundation soil areas and high ground water areas be designated as Protection Open Space where necessary to Y ' protect the natural systems while allowing " :'' - development compatible with those systems. •y' The church application meets these policies by mitigation of the wetlands areas on site and designated them as protected open spaces. .� ,- 4' . % and designated them as protected open spaces. . . .. e . No change of the open space is anticipated as -0' a result of this request. 4. . • ' kY policies , .� These policies require implementation of a bikeway plan. Such a plan has been a.dnpted +, in the December, 1988 Pathways Master Plan. These policies have been previously addressed and the conditions of approval in the • previous application and under permit and being constructed. This construction complies fully with the 1988 master plan. Pedestrian Pathway Policies , ti These policies require the City to plan a system of pedestrian footpaths to connect parks, schools, public open spaces and residential neighborhoods. These policies * . are mat through the adoption of the Pathways Master Plan discussed previously under the Bikeway Policies. This policy has also been , . previously addressed in previous conditions of approval for this site and designs for pedestrian pathways have been implemented. Pathway' are under construction from the northwest property boundary to the southeast intersection of Carman & Kruse providing all y required improvements. Transportation Policies ,.`.el -. These policies require development of a balanced transportation system which will provide safe and convenient access and which includes a system of bikeways and pedestrian paths. These policies are adequately I „ 4 addressed in the Associated Transportation . ,, . • Engineering and Planning Report previously completed for this site for the church. • ,} ,. s el_b. 4 fir. J y r • t `°. S. 2 . City of Laike Oswego Zoning Ordinance • . ' ' ' P: LOC 48. 120 - 48.155 R-5 Zone and LOC 48. 195 - 48.220 R-10 Zone. e Major public facilities, including schools, are listed as conditional uses in both the R- 5,: and R-10 zones and, as such, are allowed under conditional use approval criteria N>. following in this application. P LOC 48 .535, Special Setbacks Carman Drive north and east of Kruse Way has a special setback of 30-ft. This setback has been addressed and complied with in previous conditional uses. In addition, the building setbacks are: 600' Kruseway; { 300' Carman Drive; 150' Parkview Drive. .. • k 3 . City of Lake Oswego Development l pment Ordinance ,R; LOC 49.300 - 49.335 - Major Development Procedures • • • This Development ap plication Review application is being submitted as a major development and includes information required by subsection 1-12 of this section. LOC 49. 615 - Criteria for Approval and r. LOC 49. 620 - Conditional Approval We believe we have met all of the criteria for approval of conditional use in answering ° herein these development ordinances/standards and, through previous conditional approvals, all standards of 49 . 615 are met. r 4 . City of Lake Oswego geylopment Standards 1 , a. Building Design (2.005-2.040) The building design has previously been # ' reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board, and is 111 under Building Permit, and appropriate Conditions of approval have been addressed. No changes in the bui,tdinq `` design are pxonosed as part of the l • request. e. i. b �' - . 4 . gip. •�. ;YY b. Wetlands (4.005-4.040) • • The wetlands on this site have been mitigated and a permit has been granted by the Division of State Lands and the City. These plans have previously been submitted to the City but a copy has been provided in this application. No + development in wetlands is proposed as \•. part of this appliation. c. Street Lights (5.005-5.040) } This standard requires that street • lights be provided and that lighting of public pathways and accessways be nonobtrusive to surrounding uses. • The street lighting required by this standard has been addressed in previous `: applications and issued a Construction Permit. See attached lighting submittals. d. Transit System (6.005-6.040) ,: There is an existing transit stop on Kruse Way on Carman Drive at t d " The present design and Construction � Permit provides pathways to this transit , ' ;. stop for access to and from the site as indicated on the site plan. e• Parking and Loading (7. 005-7 . 040) Parking standards for churches require a minimum of one parking space per 60 sq• ft• of auditorium area (non -fixed seating) and standards for a private high school are the same. • 0 . . ' ' 410 . j +i• s, , • % , The original application clarification 0 . ,, letter of April 3 , 1985 indicated the • calculation method for the original building proposed. This letter stated • that the auditorium would be 10, 000 sq.ft. requiring 167 spaces, based upon 60 sq. ft. per person. The Building Permit Approved Plans has an auditorium of 7, 500 sq. ft. Dividing this by 60 sq.ft. per person, the required number of parking spaces is 125. The future requirements for Phases II and III of `' the church would require an additional 334 spaces, thus making a makimum requirement of 459 versus the 592 provided above. The parking provided for each phase can �' meet the minimum requirement for both • uses in the event that there is an overlap of hours, Section 7. 005, 8 . indicates that the standard for calculating parking for churches is based upon the size or capacity of the ` auditorium area and that the basis of computing parking requirements for a • high school is based upon the size or capacity of the auditorium. Therefore, �p�, ` since we have only one auditorium, the calculation is synonymous for both uses and an overlapping of uses cannot be assumed; i.e. , if the church is having a •I •k . 4, . Wednesday night meeting, the school cannot have a Wednesday night meeting • ;', because they both occupy the same space. See attached parking data,f. Park and Open Space (8.005-8,040) y . y` This standard does not prescribe a specific percentage of site area to be set aside as park or open space ror institutional Uses, but doss require that Protection Open Space as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and tree groves to be considered as high p'' g priority for reservation as open space. , , . .3 ' f a • - - + r •. The existing church development ? illustrated in the site plan and the ` wetlands mitigation with the wetlands features grovespreservation of of trees along Carman Drive a high priority in this design. In Phase One of the church development, 5.5% of the site will be .' developed as building, 23% will be developed as paving and 71.5% is developed as landscaping. After the :.'i'. . ,. final Phase Three of the church master plan is completed, 23 .3% of the site e . ' will be landscaping. g. Landscaping, Screening and buffering (9.005-9.040) This data provides flexibility in the amount of landscaping required for "public" uses. Due to this site's surrounding • residential character, the church has provided larger than required setbacks for the building and used landscaping :` and open space as a buffer fot the surrounding residential uses. We believe this is a complimentary solution " `.' to the surrounding neighborhood. , h. Fences (10.005-10.040) Because of our extensive use of ; landscaping and open space, we have elected not to use fences as a buffering device in this development. The • existing landscape berms at the perimeter of ' he property present a natural buffer to the anticipated residential use. The western property line consists of a 20-ft. wide landscape h area with a 4-ft. high berm with planting on top. i. Drainage Standard for Major Development (11.005-11. 040) The drainage standard has previously been addressed in CU 2-85\ODPS 4-87 (MOD 6-89) and DR 15-89-731. The existing a improvements were sized and designed based on the ap • proved master plan. • • • +,... _ . , . , a .« I• •„y i }• - , , t a f i4 jj'� . j . Weak Foundation Soils (13.005-13.040) • , , , , . , , . The site is designated as having the potential for weak soils. This standard has adequately been addressed in previous conditional use and design reviews of this site development. Construction Permits have been granted, ;m meeting all requirements. The south . • parking lot construction will meet requirements based on the submitted soils report.. k. Utilities Standard (14.005-14.040) This standard requires that the ,, , following utilities be provided to all �e ri ` development in the city: Sanitary sewer, Naater, sidewalks/bike paths, ' traffic control devices, street lights, :: underground utilities and adequate ' • streets. All utilities under this standard are • adequately provided to the site as part • of the church construction. This has also been illustrated under previous design and Planning Commission reviews. 1. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005-16.040) This standard requires that the development be designed to minimize disturbance to natural topography, ~ ` vegetation, and soils. The design of the south parking lot has 4 minimal impact on existing topography. See attached grading plan. 'a m. Access (18.005-18.040) This standard requi•. . that safe and • efficient ingress and egress be provided to the site. r • 4• • .y :r.' 0 o rJ.. . . . . , - . . . , . _ . • • • . . • , . , • ,• q With the development of the half-street improvement at Carman Drive, safe ingress and egress to the site is provided. This development standard has ,, also been addressed in previous development and Planning Commission reviews. The amended traffic report defines changes to the Kruse/Carman interchange proposed as a part of this request. These changes will be ' constructed prior to occupancy by the school. Other existing church site • access is adequate for school vehicles. n. 8ite Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways (19.005-19.040) The parking lot deign gracing and utility plans as shown on the site plan .e meet this development standard adequately for church and school use and complies with all regulations in this standard. This standard was also previously addressed in development and Planning Commission reviews. Y , ' o. Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways • --4. (20.005-20.040) • • This standard specifies that all ' required bikeways and walkways be ,• constructed to City standard. Careful design of the pathway under construction . ` :: '. . along Carman Drive has met this standard and, also, preserved the wetlands and '�.. tree groves. This standard was also t'. addressed in previous development and 4;. ' Planning Commission reviews. . : 5. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cuttino Ordinance - Criteria for issuance of permits, LOC 55. 080. This ordinance has also previously been addressed in development and Planning Commission reviews and conditional approval from DR 15-89-731, condition #4 . All work rttference this criteria is Under permit by the church. There are no proposed tree cutting permits for the south parking lot construction. ya, •, ® .... 4 ,, • } 0 . ry corNCX ?5xON This application meets or exceeds all applicable approval criteria as r:et forth in the City of Lake a Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Development Ordinance, and Development Standards. We respectfully request the approval of this • .,•, application based upon the evidence provided. We believe we have addressed all of the regulations pertaining to this development in this application and in previous applications to this site. • ,40 . • `1. • ) • J_ � 9. ILA i� •1/ 'n ', _q \ ' u '. .. ' a I, 1 ..71/5 flJdf7H9 .lS/.LdD'B.71/!�7 G.3SOdObrd t s r R! ! a .f3�1X17S /fldC�f190d01 &' .(d�D'ON/,1�A ��y� �� ` ' t • r ill l!11111 f 11 itili11111!! Ilrll(lllttt,lllll : l x :, '..11 7........„.....„........,„..,..‘4:........ • ' 41 II.1I .......„1„ ....•••••#.,11 I „ 1 1 , • ••••••••t.......,::‘,.... ••••••• , ..s...... . \ \.1 ' '''\ ''‘ .‘4‘4.4,:s's$,. I \ �\ _=:� r"��'.. "'ate s t , `� .,I.,MR .1� £.� j] • f /if 7 /z,... ' •0.1... • • ns.........4.........\ 1,, .."'•,..._ \ I ,„/,''',,... joi'/ ""••-"." 4 AMOMMIMIMEMSEMak • i•• ///://// :,;..V iiiiimr. • •-•4. ;1 \ t.-4---:-.....:-....-.4 1 \ il))." At' . , NJI:lill 4///14" '''''''...."' Pak! . 1 I .l! \ rit oi ins':- I �1 ;*� If. \ try \ 4 it , \ I, 0�> \.J f' /: =� I �1 rix". 11 ram•\.. _ �,i•4• � !II 5::•• PI/ I III II y ili 3- w .r r 1 t ` I 1 I 1 1 i• v e s; / . . . . 0 ' ,..:,... - ., i+ 1 P. 9 +'...'" i sv4 VT. � --�-�.- +-.�-s• -ire.e 1 _a Ip/ ry II 1 09eW i I F • ' ': „' I EIVT: —4 i ' I4t1t,T; 1 1 F1 y ..e I •......,1..f'k::,: • .MI a, ~ —la // • ........") ti -I- 1'•-. Ve/ l �/ l I � 1 /ii" A r C r /JIj. ii4r • / / • . . . ,.., . AfTia, .4 fir A Atsw :AC III n fin 11 9 1 1 ".„ i/IE1d ♦ ♦ ` • IYIir « / QI it ( ;1 T i`t' TiT �`�• r rARKI4e0 N o 4 ,� w.44 ?usT /Q? LIMITh Fv . l 6 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH '� •s .' —1..... PRQCIIM tivtr'mo PLAN T II y KEW B-ZI-qZ a'I.: �+ y f I ao INerg PI ► c i i._. } / I Y 1 1 • « y f iD215 1IMO7 9 i i+:�s rt:r•�•: /ill WL \ REPLACES SITE PLAN DATED 4/10/ 14,0�r / IU�IVIPE ASSOCIATE (NIL ENGIN N. I vA LAN© JRVE1 • 1A414 CO/ r'Mn11NAA1 t, • 0 0 • . • 11 , �. �...•.1`. a • r� �-Gt�APiIJG l-IMTh I ' IM•1•r�ia«i, w Le.•.��_. r. r w _.'ta"�'�.�•-•v U+ �_- -�-' ... •- tw�'-�---_.� —�.- -- - :'—t Ir.rw ♦40 r mar-- 6 P. II * VI 56P I 40 W. 1 4 11. 0 ..—.=. , „ . , ., •.- ,-..se..ssai o al° . IL. f .. l• I.4r 111 N err ...pm ✓a ,..rr yrr �� ».-....�«-..e___1...11 . ` ti rr . ,, I �► // ►, rd . ," .LI• ,�jO �•• •fit .0 .lW f' y.l I f/, p �• ,4 rp � 4 �� 1�• �' r\M • .err d'` r r'wr (Il7►7b �y� I 4. „Aw J r 14 ►n r• w•ijip llI • .e• . .00/ 1 : •:‘,„io ei ,./101 .if r ! 4. '• .' / ".:,,,.._ql ''41., *4 .4; 1 §i kL.,14, ,.• ,, , .. , .. ,,, • i Yeti:, , ,st---'0,:. - --.ft- — ... _ • ..._. /1- '11-1 .-\----A,.......a...f. l'" 4.1V \ it: .4 I. 4 g . ...,_ . . . .. ./ . ..._....„ ....._........„ ., \ .„. .., tla. / 1 B". liee-A-.94 ..'V II -....,, - \ ....,� n, , y rl /*A gal • Y „ ' ./� g" :0-47 : r-\w. a `\ 1 ; ♦at Ai41 l. Iop . * 0/ �f w 61:1.4.1 Ill f -4..1 ill"....".-..,:.,.„' '1'' ,. /0./9. 'r:',T'=''''='. 1.°4 4 0I0/IM1► % 1 y *..,...\ ,. TMMON 11011100 CATTAIL -z I-12.. .1 'N's 'N--‘...."N'"'NN.'.....N--•\'s-..'..'.'..'....''„\\\- \ . E".5..',."". p, , v/ q 11 r ....,..*:. � ' N —`"_ � XHI r \ , 1-\ ', ..r�rN.. N f war Mwl.A.* + .'. I il,ti,1.....a. i I , j� U IM�IYNIMIMMI /// ` Ate. s _ -> 1 El El FOR APPROVAL ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I, ti a y. ';N. • . - a. ..... . 1 _ it • • A ' IRKP.11c1N - .._... :, / / / _ .w�+...y:.1 . +ray...+ ....ty'1=.mQn >v� "::1��� 1 � . U0..9=oz1. ��` coiurn 6/0 .► !t! .r::". . . . / / •. /.1 . ' • 1• t M/M1pv1.. •�• M' • / / . .' ,'-i J. p, 1� t • 1 M %f...pt..... 1\ ..),,, , NOTES \ r ot 5 .�. ,,'Iti.'7:: '''i'l /,.�1h+W NMIIM./Y.1.1.1 rolwlrf '\>'+ } ``,�•"• \ J ( /`cVR I 1 +/',,,. YINMI NM w r RMM rN+M rwM Con..~mom Egilow i• `J'(� i\ .'/ rrt rwN.4149 • N.\ .. * 1.r ' • i ,S \ i f -n.t Er r. ,_.. _ _ / 'i I 1 1' i� • N 1'..� ( :) i / \ ' '/' ( 1�3- :',t7� 11 .✓a, / :k 1 lul.l�w, 1 / / i // / , , r 4111"; ,It- N . • •r,fi,,�t A ` \ �•.,J /r r HEAD KEY 1 f ; • ( / ^C r' • v rl� ,// O 1 r1�oINYNO M rI1N/111Iw1 .i ll `��`• 1. . S (.. ,�..� ! tfr E x H I I� 1 Y R_....M � Jl `y 111 \ • Ii 1 ZI s,f s / // r°O 11uCr./1111 IN Iltl H WHIP/111 ./+ / , ///''' 1 } ' '•r: "� r�`y'`,, ,°' ; r/ re "."'"'aggNit N IUIN cc Iu , r,, �� _ 1 �i t 4 1 / 4, m Nr.rrorNN,I.II N 11 MN IN rr �y,\ j J /'" I i rr a II..I rorNNllrl a 1/ nIr Ia11P ��i1, ��\ Y t! , ` 'Q „ r • 14wrorNIWM11 N 11 cc NN �• ',. / LEGEND Nolt& �� \ r /' (. (�J'� MEQb�w�i�. - J t /14({Wy. \\ ,,, jCHI WoMi WIC fYE 1M W NI N.,wW 16o.Ml ra rvc l wN b. akia:‘ 1'C II Vogl fC lr«rM ' I Ur CWIIr 1YC rr111N _ —yam IlrCrllMrK l"«YN ' '1/ r LCIM l 11 Irw"lW N//1vowed ♦ Li 1'CU/YIMCMA N/C•'wKCM < �. a. �\ ' ...GA-C ��ydLr �� t'M(r 11 q j d 410 / • ,. . , . r411.•,, ' _. . , - .. . , • . . . , . . „:,.,,, 7 . • • - . . ...) ,. .. . ., . _„:. . • , , • . . • . . A 'P V.1 y •$ • I J� 1''l�a'�.r 4 i • r f -a � I� r' , ' a` • 0 Y + l 0 ;� • ���1N''.—w,�.►' N� � l�/�I�iiiiiiii%•• :=�i�y �i o y..h �IM '' . ''. ' 0—. . ' . 1 �'` y' 14 %�%iiii iiiiriit.il7,�\ .. ;y4T• r . J.r, `Lf ly „4 ',- ,d R Mt3 •/4: r ±L'i' ,a Y� -,j� �� /� ll n# .1� ��' ~�~`�vr • le: l ,4 4 {� ..�,�,.�•,- d , 4�� or, i ft: l .0 l �� I �r jl r - / '______ 4 /^. (+� 1�•kt tr{ r• .+§t `I '11>/. �JISA•�C'� it, �1 I till. .. : `�t.44$ Ilk IN r- : �% VS 9 , �1.w • `h�. �i ''!'' a 6A►vN /,�•a. , 4.ilr « -- _ .,.,z4t74::tgr ye \N i.`. .,,� �;�, ri, , ,,;, .max E i :;: ,....\ �- r .. . : ... ., .....' . - , , ;., , ..:,. ' --2---- nn ���� /, .�, 1 i . + I I LAND N r. r :�/ ....:,:, ...., i,. .. ....:A.:•.,:t., ... . .. '', I. po ) ..:, . .,.... „. utis..tzi("acrpri a,,,, -.....'.„ ,,..:::::.:.,:t.•14,'„4,1,vc.„, 70.t 4 '• ; N ‘. 411N,1/41-ii, :''.1.:; .1.'".1!; :iifil r) ' I , . ' t, • s,/ • I , , ...L. ' \ . / . . . ...„ . . ,. 1...r.,..-:. ..4-4- I IP A \ ';te#4 /' ..17/ ;It' • ,, 4 . \ it /: u: . 'ice �S r I 3 x ••' ,...,4 ` 1 • iA. 4 /• '• E:'•..'"•••"=ter.•,• .1 r. „..„, \y� `� •�: �� �. V '• {.� M y, {, . •,•/ . . ... i.r.iGGr.r "" �,,, �' `11 v- �+ t.�f+ i nry'•.i SKI ✓ • • r // V ,� r..b "b ti M ill' rpy .:, ` r 1 '�t.! K+i..aw ✓ , •�•'� '�" k • A ..� \Q �, � ••�•4 h N N •/// ,lu +� ' • ►.e.•,1 ...,,...,..,'L. r, tt ' • / ///I *TA rain+ +�+••M �.V C`1 „+ ,1i��� , ..1+. , p+ ,/ •,tom...:`ti vim.. •" �•' :i� .•1, (• `//% /`�Cll Mdew.. , " Y. R] fL: -t •• 7;� ... Mttt G 1, ../� II I ,•�,,'• FYI , •.•. Er •.r•r ` ��i� ,, , / • • , •''• ,::*,. irds • s - s C`�. 1� gyp. .. - • r c C4 + .-+. - , Tyll' • r 1 _p e tl 1d. 4 /(/ \4" r Y A ;a' . • i.. .: ..:::. ,,. ..,...-7e..it. ' • 1,.. * — ur "-- --- --- y . 1 .. ....-, Ir dna 1. ,zi .:. t . , ' •,'• ,.. . , ,, . ; !............."4.-___....,„ Ail j • . , / i 2.1 Alif` ill lilikt b '•' I:?*• • . '.''.'.7. ..:. / !:'-''.. f•' .t F i / . / . • ., ,.,4 Arztz..tif .::1'4104 •ii - ' ' ' — .' '. '' . -* ` ' ,-*,,--„, --/ I • , ', A 14 1Prlif!'• . 'II", ,1 f I ,; . s:• :',' ' as il,,,..... / , e,,.:271, ' . ,,i. ‘'.1'.'.41 . . . ' . / ' ,••, It I / .;;:r,• .: , 1,Y,.',.'1.'..•, • T_ IIP4iI ., I 1 «<III 11,1"-. 1..„,,,....„..,,.... ,.. •. ...1 j4...... .1 : 'T.'. .. : "... ...4 ec 'I. . • • 1•'. 5 C, Ill ,/ r ,, SILJIe , SIbEWr4Lk.` � ft • ' Ilki► l �vl:�-Imol r..1- t..�}•,�.tizflttb'IC •'se• � w ... �� '":M'�"`� �;......./ • +. r I�I�. amr + ~ \ �� ,' ' 1 Y1,1' j.] 'ft ' del; ,, ' •• , ' (l IALL+.✓'• .,,,4 EXHIBIT 3r N.i •,' ,t�,• �.::: • •�. ','�•' `' � �� ,, � Y' •r • • g (2,05) - .. . • „.......,....,.,.,..„.,•......:..,c,,,,,,j,.. 4,,,,, , ,,,,,,, ..,, 4 ) , , . . • 111 •U4.YY 1 fir I Y 3 6,1. 3 I .1.1 rr.......... ... / .).1i/)ile. pile Alnl, I.fl / "an , P'• „1 I ► r Ys<t,�/;� 1 1 / ,_,.r«r/ c : / /f Ili♦ I / /II !Y.f,l ! '.1 f l»I#0. / � / I 1 qvS5� .!! 1 L ♦ L T q� a_ .�. `may �� f x Y,... ..._ ` L ti/► . /M us", b\+, ',� / . .• r• 1 /K ,I Y, l 2.t7., �� � f •1, - _^ -__._ r f, ` I � /rr�. /1 x,. i• -- / ►,t YH'•. (t �. • ,� a ,ti��_�r/.��♦� 1 K /, 1/. . • ! ' e I / I y/7�16 B=1`► 1e✓'•Jf}a+ T�/. .111. I i-• .... •�a/ d'.R^ i(t411= .-' .r• I jj��1{1 1 • ;;,y_�.. I / � fi' r.InR./ �IYwta+s !'!y tY• 1, .71 * �:'�• n.r...• ,n. .1_ t ), IAt • • r/e j�X;1 ¢ ! •• N IF/a�V ! 'IY/ 11.�IMw Twr L"lrtr�� s„ ..;: 1♦•�i� r- i r i Y 1t t ! n Mw IA . .1 `.-. .r-_R``i 1 - -Atli 1{. ( -n . 1 ' r/ Ii. » • • I 1,1 -._............ t t �ilh «, .tl y J" r.} n !. n me �- �" / tl 'W .NY•.•I M! 6// /Jpt.lete ,.\ / Jylv� s. .r• rz,�-� � :), �i1.v . •^, A rc.•I1ANT• S y,�•,IYeI IYtY.NiY•1 f 1 • t:.i,♦r: 1 V` ...•• * 1 it N7 , 1` .�.4- U M Q Y , sl 1 .1.', r \ ./ t. . ..1 �, »w ' `' .'ri`i w1 T.W M -fir. 1 ♦ ''". .. f , t ,. - .. r '� . - .«n 1. ............... e.1 r u M ' a.........-_..., i lj � / •. 1 i \ t. ./ /1 IlI�wi IaNu w`...uro F O d let '1 a \-+� 1 ♦ 1• / / �.1 . .. ._L'•s 1.1'»..,,.- . ' , rY. !I, i ,r-- . '\ i L`Iw t \ /�� 1 i I.1r► Q OO t. tt-.0 ...._' ,� �, , . .lei Z •['t ~ •*no.We r .. _ 1000.0I . Wa_•n 'N.•r.•„" �• \ \1 A. a.l l�� a""• +...w.. Z,1 2 M I I i n r 31 Iry. 111r4 1 Y kA tf 1'• .-.»..... 1 1,1.... iAt I . .� « Y �r�,.j y.r b' y 1 � ..� kl , .._... .. °j• ,I"T • EL-AN �, .-4 » IUYIMU a Fhl I'.Y•,p..OI �•- .r r•5 • 1 �11Y _. t CCTCIID \\ -.N %.. • , /i .-... .• .« .. .0..m .W/ •Inlet 11«rbiN !, ♦•ARAM kl. F...-..* o / i •..r _a. Ii 4 l W♦Yue r wu PAL IIY.♦1 1tiA..Wl \ (. tt..Il.. 1\I e....y • •. ' t 41.1.1.r 001 r l,,/111yyh y1•..1.1 rW•hie • 1 00 faY.ef l,A fie Y.. 11.'11 / ,• 1' 11M 0111Y1.1 r 1.F.1.00r WIN,J f1.410 _. y w 1 T a.•..- tt 8.+11.1•k N✓li I I:1u 144...Y hM . UIr1. .^�. 1..•.f 1• V W YN x l I J. 1 If kW t `.' 1 .• .. .J ;Li'tr.l 1 •1.I .«.a.... .. r . MIM.w rY14Mr4 41•M .. ..... . 1 Ma•l", WS r. ♦.r a 604144/ +1 na»Y r 14,1.4 .iY uu.1 .Wr41• ♦ uiw,tlt l:a/., CJ♦IIN:1 wr/ IH• /1•+Uf.•�1.11 Ma♦ u aa. y.Y:at 4,111.4. ó 1....1 w 1.rl•.1• 1rN1.N11 YI�� �1. IWwrN eY1.116 _..it, • W * �T1L �_` Al 1 ....a' ..•1 i /M M 14.+11 1♦�.+ 1�N.•1 _.- .•,.a ' ( 1,1^13E t 1, .... 5 r"I/ Ll'i a he L.. 1wu♦ UM6.14 N• ..a. WI « 1 e11 4041 Ih.lt .fR.aY + n • Ae 4 + 1 4 •. ' + r Y 1•1 f 1 . ,y . y� ` .. H' .. ♦ ` . -S . • 1 r• ;. a • _ x 1 • „ •r I• " ..d, 0 0 11 0 . . —f . ,,. ,,,.-" t .10 %..! Westsjde ChristjjjJ T. • Hito 0 .. .., . .. . ... �. c . . N- 1 , l . , ..... . . . •.. . .. .. ....... Lake Baptist, . . , .„ . ., . ,. . . . . ...... ., . . . . . . 0 _..1 .4, Church . : 1 .. ,. , . • n. .. .. .., ... • ,, ., . , .. .: • : .. r .. . . , . . . rcps.evp_p 616,[1, q:s. 1fI ~ Y I7V — EXHIBIT R ca54461ALTiottna is-$ « o1.iz • N r C.. . J , 'i / I , u I tI j •,��: rY NOTES THf8 SHEET e I +•- - �U Y 11 11/� uur+•• f _ I 1 • lr„„ •� • • I, ii r=MI rr I rr ur Ir rru cwut / r/�„ -•'"`-;1_ 1 w Iul1 uW1tU 1 r i� GYIUY -,-1-1'.�-y-`•' �•�.,�. '•YbTj.'-s�_.�.. 1 � , Q� 1•Ir 1 1..e fuwu re/ r.1ru /' Y 1 .'I. a I' r y�.�.' I r1,rlrr 1•A IUIH III;. l;rrun 1 1 I �` I'• {L•' • tll� I U Ill Ir1 ., IWIrI• r111a• {I. J a •� .1 ' Y! 1 •' ' } !1 ♦i '�• �f a. M,.lr1'. /1•In rr1 ui. A• ,�P r 4!f 11r1'11»II IWlllw w 111111u r•Hr / ' r 1i1 • �;• •+i•w R;u(1� •�ri. :" 'I)YI /,,•u.rJ •• )' ., �,.0 1 Cv , L1 VIrnMlnnc wwn la ruu.r• y1 'If ,s+r„' r, � • ' i. .�,il n'•• •'qt ! -'�:.V a ♦/111 •: au iw Mill nu, r•w nrun Y , ." • (}D �{ r Y u.1 i•u1.iw►;• u;•u,n rt. /� •� •IF { - } it„P. "` r! 'Y/UI" ' 4..M 1.•r nwuu Ii r•r,a III' w •. �r ! k i) n , ,1I1111USIN., 4. .0.4 . I/ -.,r Y. q p\J 1w pl Iw11 -uu• . tr/ .1r yl ' , �.3 YMI.1' 11 ' I•• 1 n•.•,.H ® i ' F I11'i1 i`,;'1 jou, Juw l un.•u u uHn, 11 ur „yl y -arlllr II tll•tr 11»III IWI r1;11 `il./ IiHl.l114114ul, rlr if11 - 1 .III••! I.h=•a' Y IK► 1'• ,'� ('• l�P 1 iyII; tIIlri4.1Iii/»Iii1•I 1 1'11 i/y'• (t�11C•1 ' ,� } ('��y,. (,1 ly.�' ` `� I �' 'INri!) f. Il+llr1WIII+w tllb••1 IU ,~.•\,rl„••:...-._L...`r,1i.A.:.�I- 1 L `�'li fr ;a ,W40•3•10 II, YYr Nh•1.N Iri f{ vu �+ rt rl••Irlsy • l �/ tM W11W Tu.W •i•ii n1 I ;•nl•I 1 ®�. r `/': u'� I IA .'tf r A � Ha1L. • �') iiil�l u 1 •1 1 w uu uwu++ • '�.'`•. 'k, 1 N~it C , r p -,` ,•,L it.:':."4.0 . '�� ♦t ' I r!y•"+'I• ,11•IAI•�the Yllul u.r 11 ru r»»Na1.;i1•uu t.•, `., V1�, kk++ ,+'1' IfON IM!al t\s r.11 • 4n,4 .\• roil 1..i.::) •i11'i} l,- I. ,f 4.1,,` IJ l/w11 � nH /l I Mwlll ' ' dl A �' ' I Hur1 . ur•+ +t , 1 rAC j4 •'- I �1I .. WYt1 a,Il 'u _, \ y _ •rft , r /•.r a=II�,,L(�f1J' ♦ - 1'�ti1 '12 ♦ `•� !_.. 1 �'-♦ + I, u .I . o Iiw I.wH Wr ;•1 u• r tulw; a 1�fY •\ '•f f`• ry�t'•N Il ra1 r•I .•w u / I v 'tll \`.• , .}.eV 1y,.Y, (r. y,f < �'� _ - ¢Zl=,i 1 u/HH.• 1:'�'t.: uI'11 \ \ t 4` t 1 g444 fIr i U %11 I,1 r 1 rlwn,r 1•u ru•Iu I,� \ 1•INrIr \\ 1• �R If , E■ i•H nllu 1111 {/IHr II {MI.1/ /���) 1•} •l�n.y / Y• }. • Ir1 IIr w N Iwrlfl IM,r INIIN ;.L 11 1j1 ' 1 �. rI•II'•W ♦♦ _ • � Nl� �••.I© 'v ; IIfu1111 IrlllWl M IIMIII wll . 311i •y /�`u M ,,.aaa J • ,1•I •1 ' �. •L 'I' . / •Il'!i 1. ur NnilltMll/1 fNn /w 1,H1 {N▪ , tl1 t Ia11 III IIr11111 I;ru 1 Ir ,1 `i 11.nHlu 1 u rr nw /u twHr I' j ...ova'. \ u{gl;p w/w1w7.11w11rina U rl tiin=1irm 1luu•n 1' Uri 1 ral :.g. I•H,w-Imp '•+ ,^y`• wi, . 1 /`FII q'• �' 1 �wl Nlw Y IMI MI 1�MII li. '� Q . t ' 11 •1111• Iflrl 111E/1,.•wH 111111 ,1•1 . A ,j :�l�i,,r�,, nn i Iwnu .1::„::'''nu{ .- •WA0•�4_. t�.. Y ! rrHt, fn"'i tj'il lu rr rl l;ltltln f ,• \ \ / I Q 1/ n,a11 II:):• 1, ulwutl 3 l!t.. . (( �• /YrN Iwl/11W1•, IM1wl) _ • :Linea. :�''•_' !/ ��,•'''�>� 4 M 1 to qi 1111•s HI•ulU r.;u 11 111bu 61 1�1.•.uu 11. ., • \� j N 44 11•Ir1Ifl111Wlllw Lr 11111164 1116 I./•u Y�7 uunu•mul • , `,\° ,y1`i ! Y W Y 0 Y.' • 0) Ir1111 141.11 11 111 ro11UH 1• �1 Il{�, ,1 LL ` , • /111 larw1 rWUHr1 r• IH1rU• (l l IYLItiH 1 IIIWI»I IM• Ilb/•Ulllw ! r uedtr DETAIL i '', �. .. III Ir IIIIIII IIIu III,U 1111111t i �,% I : 111+111•Irlllr a/f blll�••;nH. I • N. r vs. 111 L11 lr IW11• LI ,aids 1•ul • N J •�; 1y nlil r m I.r luxe/nu 11•r,•Illtl II IIWIIIr �'{'Fy� Lam{ AI / ' •�. -__ ,a ,1 ,I ',41 II 1 n ir,11 ,.., + wJl LF. 1 L>/'11I ILdI.1 • `' Qj .• � _e_ , rinn./ia u • 4 EXHIBIT /.••wIW•,m•,r +I..W wY IV La 1 ; II 1 , 011.15-61 04141103-1 t ;. E-1 , IIWI I1".11 6 M11 1.1.y 40 11 J., •I`. • /.•.r•.YII M+IMI ",, ' ♦ j •+ Y 1 a 410 1110 41) . • . . . r' y4,.. . . , u . . . . a r + ♦" 4 i /r0. . • 1.,., • 0 • 1: tip EXHIBIT r ' Y r Y 5:a,15-e 14.0 71iay) • / a r r �' t 1 a ; ! 1 ao, w �' o It •.•.S �7 ..1`N\i \\M. .d�,j y".,/1 A `"1 \"\6.41).NJ)fj//i4. •i',..- . . . , t01,4 .S' f door-ti r ii/k,A.),. ). . , , , • 4111.4( !� 1 2 .-1 1 .1. '•, . 1' ,t\ s P.y. L1/,1/�rj�! � u1 + •r�4 A J 1' 1�' 1,� J�,. -+' „__.. _ dill .' , vM.1 1 !M Iy,, ,t / , C+.i . ,s•<" i ' :w.t +, s". • . (}Y 1' y n •� '�" ` !, • "_.• y.,�lt',Ir•��-.i{I.`, r. �M I{J ,,.=.w 1, 1�j;T+ �•..- � y .y 1 . ,�. ._ti�/T��r1 -1�Ifirr.�:. .-..�..�.. '11 rfi�,.�� ; : '' i j 7Y' ,1. .(r,r �;'•r. 1 r .r 1 1►.Nw Towni ,,og 1 1,4 1 '1 nil SW 11...44. A 1 •:; .! ' �' ':.. ��„' •V .'1.� :: tj ;' '� ' ! 1 ,y/ 1 ''tl '� +l e.!+ert O 11f• .r. i .• fl �` �: 1 /.r"Y, L�,.,7/�'y�� 1 _ 1 Ir�! YI M.IUYNYW t 10 • .11 .....i.Ti` . in. a ?..t;1. j1 1 4 . ,�.1 !I It1w,Y-.- ,,,"tea. Lw« �'- �I � �:._I.+ _ +w !�Y��.��. I,�G,,I,�•.�� '1'.'��I _ ( t,: W W a , 'F �'I•,il, •�""��... -i! �'�, iF( �'�:it,,,,,,,=,. ! M.r1ru Mw • { . •+�y`� �" '�;, '�...--�_ .. ' ty 7�K"�'Z"'•^,"� '"�,M't., �''.T;1�� Hi . �,.tis...._ l .. �r,,,,.t,. x ) / A.).1V1*.° la II a • (i t I'K C.; In .. -f. a n o o u . [ �� [ C ['n`l a ; o ra r 0 II a . • • IiY...kiu._ Inv,Iru-oN v1e1ti,11r rl�r . (In trW Y �y�{1yy Ile,1! t'"+yy /\ly f�Kf!VIATID!!? P AWINtr IW11fJQ 1 * MYN r1. '1 r. INN,1�11,41w4 �..t.i ;A,N Fr.11, {V r 1q1 _ t. _ -. - _ y a 1iY, r .u,.r \4Ll8L'll!!i l rN .,yi.:'...- .1. ,tit + R ; ': ' 14 Y1uMMrr + 4 ,1 •• E. itrN' 1ti.i 1 l rl� ' :d. �! . n1 Yti...•ptw�y "" "rw.N d,»� yS p111Y , . }i1a' �.\,leyf t r: — ww.l�ry- j .l".111.1.. 11. , Mf. .w.►\Y. - I.'. tat!IL.m.1.t_ ,...+,•.W,:S 4 ��L''t' 1111r C r ri p _ r = t. = !i •1..Ii aJr r II. r1..W y • ; Il,a■ ixu NIYY1 rrw'w...wnY nl�i:I ri ta) ill a.'� ��,1. t4 i -_ p iiii . I,w 1 MI.11, 111 • % i 1Y, I1L/ (pt,Yv�� j,�„ H Y'� ■ rw _ = iwlr M11 w1 f4• F V : ! C,r! 11 C ..,,,,.. , 1 ..YI.11 ►y'nt 7I 11Nv\I I. :•.= ' r. 'ii ti '17..n" pH1• .., f.- MWI: , GIVel! N ��Ilwnrrr. r K, ri� 1�i11 ' • i,MlHn • ,,'j� _ 11MI ,rlll 1 r«t r i �' I ur .. .�.Y.` yyt} A1�IyR�Y _ hh,, w.M Iawi.� •�hY if.1/ t w .7:'IC,..I�. �' 1707! tl11NW l C 1 {:iwl:r� II" �y'Witi�r .rwrrl.o r.r ! n b _ — l 44'!'"". 1 _ .3-' _ —.., +�++.� ,Iw1 ..w..1A, ):::;..Iiit !'1 w C,� citi t ,vtAtt"1 - ; t fiylwlt.I«1+11.Irlr Si j,, Yw11 i„ t1" 1 1.N 11rr.1 _ w I..11'.r1 t111"11w r"."1., '•.., l�+11 r4.Jl,,(.`r��u 1/ ��w..M111 1 1/,/,Yr. y' ' .,... .�.. A� .'1.N;1.,.N +.1,111 1c�W ' t n "r ^ / 1'11r II�w 11'11w M.M1 ' 11 ,r.ti h.' 1 •1 1 t At 1 (Jt.fl,l11 l,'\ P 1A.,i[It frl Al! ! , wr s).At=i,' 2_._ W- .——.`.. _ {r6. ' /, 'mt.. Nw,.1:::......,,,, l 111 11 r.«.. �"' t, fWM. •1 •• �—„r i,+u,•7 ..i',�i�IMlV111A1111 4411,. IIr i.Y �!�!.Iy 111 11 �� j •M 11 M41.JIIYIM1.11 , �8 • ►41.4. 1.•fY1 _�.r1 MV,► i,i1 L.+: •,f' 11Y11,,,���y� £ rI,Lift."1,....tirv,„ Vt.W, I.H1_ r11lr,iu.'r• *mew. MIJ M r 11 +a..wool �d= Ywa Ywll k ♦. \IM, 1.1,. ..., • 1<.nrRIW ,,Y 14M, NW �'•Aro , M �i - •1 ti ± t' 11 "r..,l 1r Lwrlri'a 1"'� 4i IN Y. .1...I,.•+.I14.M.. ••+ ' .I.,u1•If,1`1,hr. l�`. III�N 4, l•CN-77141 !! A.,.w 1+,.,1"'NY\4 ,,. 1.r_ . L• ..ww..r._.. n ft.r s ...:.-., L ': r11�11 I «�..Tool«.-, ' a r, 11 H.w......awl / / is • ,. 1 1 TYPICAL. WEEKLY SCHEDULE 4 . LAKE BAPTIST Qy , i \ , SU?1DAY MaNDAY TUESDAY WMNISDAY TEiUI SDAY 4 FRIDAY SATIRE 0 8:00 li 4 _ 4 0 7 9:00 • o 0 o T o w ® r I0: gis M p�p� w'ro . ukw Ni: + nn c�v re- xr. v g :00 z. k^ aS w T , m �-oq "" ;; a. I:OU o P : o°O An4 � Z `` N �N -o 0 tLvb 2:00 N o �� r• .,CO .+ rrp Zia` '--A y v 3:00 M v'' N— U)= 4:00I 1. I I ,I 0 z . ., . . • 5:00 -a . EN TnUM N 6:00 a. Nv 7:00 , r 1 r r T � T L el o W.... l •w T Ltrf 40: Win . Jr: I A 8:00 t3� o Q 0 Ifs y r T nti yn m Mee m �" tlh Oh o Zr► a�+ • : N+ o F.o Fe in.... ,42p; • i^ 1 o y PI C ici a up oIn o •J^+ ~N Z1 RTz-rs 4Ns nN� b` -I- . 9:00 Cry 1 1 . ...01 0 1 o Io ®� VocWi°n "' V a 1 v 1 1 0 I 0, Io.0 1 , 1 I i _KEY: Activity Attendance—"'•"� XMIBIT Present/Phase I/Phase II i __II-- NOTES: W.15-Sq 7..qi%. T-Staff typically in office: Pastor 4-8 hrs., Secretary 8 hrs., Interns 2 hrs., Volunteers 3 hrs. Larger facilities will bring more concentration in Wednesday evening. �. During each weekday, there are deliveries, Y varying times during the day. There are lso appointments, w funeralsreach�yh are in & >.:� rc Other occasional functions are weddings, special year held in �.I<urch. 5 Fart of Phase One is a Multipurpose Gymnaspun/Meetcngfngs, etc. ,., g Room. , y_: _ •-W-LI 0.54' .4'4 r1 -1" .4 ' t ! , n1 ,,. Ar ,osi,Man Doe4ipo,!'L�eir.;ei 220 Tim Wear'bast 6331 W,Ri itawdem Aram PAatluid, 972O1•3887,rAX;S03/248-10',8,TEL d03124G104, �.c'.. •rt • DATE s .. CIS w Zd+ ,�..1.�.. 1992 roV//7 I T oF LAMS. Ow Y PROJE IN.srl . PII4IaI6, ..: ., . ., . .., . .. . AUIIT CT $ MIIEWNEELa ATTN T R A N S P4 1 T T A L • 0 DRAWINGS 0 SPECS 0 SHOP DRAWINGS OTHER COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION 11 INrOIcHA PW.:ffikti 5 I (McoMitnttlaTiot4) = IBco rr TOL 9 2 • 0 FOR APPROVAL 21.AS REQUESTED FOR YOUR USE • REMARKS 1 r, / "'(RE &VE.,. rANICk114exam.11.1T -1f t Me;, -r AccU „ To A . THE FRI-v1c91S l., ND- l Ke..v IM/4, lidk•is. rrI'oK .. P ItdGc •fi ' . I N C A.C.. NlJMteR a I! "moo+ CAR42 . ihl_ S. A4^T' Au N i uT of . RVIX J DRIVE' AND'LA44D 5.4 )4 k j.' G - RIIVT p It, ' rT4 VA+ 1 I,ILIMBE•es • `TAB A6o�/E.•-f?5"'Ja.L CcLUrP'*ME R4641. '+ EHIBIT 7 • Q i 0 HAND XMA1L 'i I7) ;$ FAX • • COPY TO , . „ FROM r 1, i • r, t h J ,. ... e. L # \J \ i 1 • v ,V a Y,. ..- \ yr-.iJ'- . • • &fRiP'INI� f'I-AN- �•�/ G,o,RfriAkg b • • • EXHIBIT .. 14 . . .. • • 4 1 I , 0 . ' I0 Aih filo, • rM a.`0 0 0 . .. / h• o .• \ 1\ i • 04. • 1 14 ., • 1 •hSJ. 0 ''PG _ � •din \ \ 0 \ \ )4' \ \ • \\.:1%,. , V ) * * .. • \ ,.-"7.--- 01-R I : . ' • o • 'A,s sue,,-"' ~`' *,,,,i. ' \ \ • . .4..t'.'''''''a '.4k's\\\\. \ \ \ \\\\ • ,# \ \ • El EXHIBIT • IS ..1.,.. :.) \ �;•� � �. .6. �.'t .� - - Sit ,. � .... .. .. .. :� _ . *1 Irk v et.4444a 4y 7 Ci� .—Lio :r* /. 1 \i, \ 00""" ' „e"-----: e ..............;...e._,_. . ..............:_ ______ 7 :,.. . . . . ,. i . , Vilid:. A 411. • ., . 1R t 4„,,,„/,.0.i v • Acu,--7-for ..J. . ,. t i . , • Lti.01,•Zr4•91 .*. Clif 414414,....., 4 4--->,........„.—cot. 1 1 * \ s i r --- �` •.. , /...----/ 4. ' ..--------- ...---- k*INA, gr • . . . I _ o , . . , Iii t XI 1 144 ': ...',. / ' S'� lSs►N et >1 16 ice, , 4' ll.l5 y N. WO _ ' 70-'4,471:00et,t4b 1 EXHIBIT , mad 11141 4. . 1.• *--....-..----".'"."4""*.L...1 1 67 ' ,• s.16.4g- Yb ° a . '' \''''. • • 0 Da i --1-4 ../ 4 1111 t - n • " Division of State Lands Permit No. 5566 4 775 Summer Street NE Permit Type Removal/1°1ff Salem, OR 97310 Waterway We ana aster reeK trio. Phone: 378-3059 4> County Clackamas County a 378-3805 •, io Expiratn ate ovemoer , ,' • ' 4110 A LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH �Irr�eAUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 196.800 TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS UG Ch.. IPLICAT ION SUBJECT-TO 1 HE- SvECTE-MM 1TONS L1sIEU`S rrAC 1 . This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The permit holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by another. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance with local zoning or other local , state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this permit. The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceeding under this permit. 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this project are set forth on Attachment A. ; 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit are subject to * administrative and/or legal action which may result in revocation of the permit IIIF or damages. The permit holder is responsible for the activities of all • contractors or other operators involved in work done at the site or under this ' . permit. - 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the work site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. ` • 6. Employees of the Division of State Lands and all duly authorized representatives •, ' of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the conditions of this permit may request a hearing from the Director, in writing, within 10 days of the date this permit was ' ,f. issued. ' NOTICE: If 'removal is from state-owned submerged and submersible land, the applicant • MR-amply with leasing and royalty provisions of ORS 274.530. If the project involves creation of new lands by filling on state-owned submerged or submersible lands, you must comply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Division of State '`'. • Lands, to conduct activities on state-owned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal liability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Division of State Lands, Waterway Leasing Office, 378-3805. •` . , , 0 • EXHIBIT R • , Martha 0. Pagel , Director �,0 . .% Oregon Division of State Lands 1 _ '. Imo.IS-1 woo 7..e b::-.1 November 280 1990 / ;" Authorized Signature Date Issued a ' a ` • b V 1} iry I- , . . I • . . ,1 . . 0 ATTACHMENT A r' Special Conditions for Material Removal/Fill Permit No. 5566 1 . This permit authorizes the removal of up to 50 cubic yards of material and the placement of up to 900 cubic yards of material in Section 6, T2S, • RJE (Carter Creek Drainage) for construction of parking facilities and storm water outfall structures as outlined fn the attached permit application, map and drawings. This permit also authorizes the removal of material necessary for wetland ` enhancement and/or creation, and subject to special condition 6 below. 2. Work in the waterway shall be done so as to minimize turbidity increases in the water that would degrade water quality and damage aquatic life. Turbidity shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities, except as allowed by OAR 340-41 . p 3. Care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals or ° other deleterious materials from entering the water. 4. Waste materials and spoils shall be placed above the bankline and not any wetland areas. in 5. Removal of existing woody vegetation shall be minimal . -° . 0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS • • d 6. The following conditions apply to the replacement wetland/ponds as described in the application and as depicted on sheets 5,6,&7 of 8: "' • a. The wetland shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the construction project. b. The wetland shall be excavated or maintained to a depth sufficient to insure 1-1/2 feet of standing water throughout the year with slopes of 5 to 1 . 0. c. The shoreline of the wetland shall be seeded or planted with grass and/or legumes, and native shrubs and trees. Trees and be or two year old stock planted on 10-foot centers withssomes shall clustering of vegetation. A total of 150 plants shall be planted of ' the following species: weed osier dogwood, chokecherry cascara, , Oregon ash, serviceberry, hawthorn, blue elderberry,►°y, and Indian plum. Following planting of the area, the vegetation shall be allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance. The criteria for success shall be 80% survival for a period of three years. d. A vegetated buffer of a minimum of 20 feet shall be established ... .• .. 41, bet►+ieen the wetland and adjacent development (road and parking areas). Following planting of the buffer area, the vegetation shall be allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance page one rT a r. .Y. ;.<• $ r u v , 0 .1: �r r J' Attachment A • RF 5566 Page two e. The pathway as required by the City of Lake Oswego shall follow Carman Drive as depicted on modified Sheets 4 and 5 of 8. The pathway may meander slightly to avoid larger trees. f. The objective of the mitigation plan is to create 0,36 acres of wetland to compensate for the loss of 0.29 acres of filled wetland. MONITORING COND • ITIONS ; ,. .; IM 7. To insure a successful habitat replacement the permittee shall , for ` ` period of three years, maintain the created wetlands integrity until • vegetation has become established. 8. The permittee shall establish fixed photo stations on the north and south « boundries of the wetland mitigation site. Photos shall be submitted annually, for three years, to the Division of State Lands for monitoring , purposes. CONTINGENCY CONDITIONS 0 '''. 9. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to require appropriate corrective actions to the mitigation site in the event the newly created wetlands are not functioning as designed within a period of three years. , 10. The Division of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of excessive turbidity or damage to natural resources. S COMMENT: We recommend the planted areas be watered extensively during the first growing season. Survival rate is greater when the plantings are heavily watered during this period. November 28, 1990 3449p .' r• 0�';7� a C t Jc,r hT "PPLICATXON FOR PERMIT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATE OF OREGON, D dISION OF STATE LANDS • SAS 0<parrnane of the Army permits for ;proposed nark is oeafgace! ng discharge of dredged or fill 'monde], into chomps wacars, and the transport of frdred edCere e rLof the rnaL for thed S Gtae, the Aumeias to into ocean vetoes Ara authorized by Section 10 of the River sad Herber A C of1899. Section 40purpose of the Sees Vaecr Act of 1977. and Session 109 of ohs Marine Protection Research end Ssaccuariee Ace of 197I, respectively. ---ithM.-•peewits for that pars of those project activities which includes the remove/ or fill in the vacazweys of Erman of rock. gravel, silt, AO der are authorized b- theraE 1?al.It:.lTIOtt ua.:. MEET T , State of Oregon seder O.R.S. $41,603 Co 341.6l3-« a Carp s of C- • .. . ra. R1 /,.l n f ai Engineers 1, .) i. !L� O 5LYL� _-_-._.�r,�..�.� Stets of Oregon v Ia y.•. • s .. � � . o :,tie received .4 4 ''�� ,� Data received • MOM o f Unnamed drainage to ti �.canr•vr River Loess/...._....a_., }tlLa w�/A Res• P7/1� • „manshlo 25 &loge 1 , s.t::a.cc.t SGarclna Estimated Completion h.!t• 4i °rules: February 1990 b Dace of Project SeDtetn �+r 1 gg_V . gAMrr or — — Amon:co wpPL:C;.�: Lake $ O ]sk Q �LLO11 ! .� ' A Fisher, W • Addreo• P_Q_ Spx 146S ti. : staca _ jj' Addreee 220 The Water i T. sues, cis Tower,, 5331 Macadam a O`iWegO, OR 97035 zi Are. p Code Portland, OR 97201 Moos.: Work r Araa .S_,.1,Q� WM-4R Z_ Rose f ) Phones Work Ale* 80W4Arne PRAM= sner? Wallin F Long Archs. 1: strrcnvlsoR Mane:Dave Fishe1 Ei Ade Ana 4y:`:. oosa Workf 5n'�) ?aA_l nag ttos. ► ' t F O .iR Tun i P RO•JLC=NWCorner of • '—_ i•, .,PPL:ci.NT Karen:flemavne Attu Carmen Drive and Krncp [lad a \ Aii2ru�aJJO SAC Brenne Stiff/, Count).. Chace �^ Zip Code ---.."".'-. 1.akP o. OR Q7035 ," � to ease ....for Portland, Oregon 97225 Aaaem oe'a 3ecarde-- 4900, 4990, 5100 i I shout' on Hap I 21 E5C)C - Tart Lac 15000, 5200 Mao": Cori: r 50.x »g'OJ Room, Area Name o! --� 29L fl , Subdivision Los block ".� .n ordrr to ex pedite the peocesalna of Ghtc eppLLeatioa; the follavi on,urisdi‘zion over the proposed project. has been concerted: • • airy end/or county deparnaent, which ku♦ local Nara of Department: City of Lake Oswego ' Addr•ae; 0.1..6 Avenue r Phone Number: j,3ke OSWe9Or OR 97034 r APPROVALS OR CERTIFICATIONS applied for or already obtained fro. outer agencies city, area) forsay of the proposed projects described to this •ppllutiont tlel.ral• iaceratate. date. touaCy, • leash ARencV s of ADPrvY<l City Of Lake Oswego Idaneiflcation I Dace of Application Date of Approvnk • R topnental, tU2-85/ODPS 4-87 6/23/89 Pending • • Procedut a (MD 6-89) t: . .. . tri fq r% 4. • + o • y a• V f.• 210 1 `r'Pone �30 Enclosure 1 ,��� ,, ,: zJ i r . 19Q0 `~ . 41-31-0440 t•i`. " . 1 , • Ras +tny agency denied approval far the activity described herein or for any other activity directly reLacod to Lt1 i ti "re al Na If yes. please explain Ln Remarks. ' _ , 41111- ' ' ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE WATERWAY: Give names, addressees and phone numbers of owners and/or occupants. See attached sheet. • �"� PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: your plans to restore the area to its natucaL condition. • • Refer to attached mitigation plan. • • INTCKSITION FOR FILL OR REMOVAL: PILL NTLI. INVOLVE 900 cubicyards annually. y. and 900 cubic yards for the total project. prep ❑ Rock Q Gravel 0 Sand CaSilt CE Clay ❑ Organic =VfAL WILL INVOLVE S� 0 cubic yards annually, and _ 4(_ cubic yards for the total project. • ❑ Rack 0 Gravel 0 Sand 0 Silt Ea Clay 4LSC3IIE IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY---Eta primsry purpose and secondary purpose, if any,---intended use (private public, eaaaarciaL)---type of structural and use---type of vessels using facility---facilities for handling wastes- type of Conveyance and manner of extraction of any fill or removal---the quantity and composition of, and the -carts ' tad diroosal sites for any fill or removal. (If•additional space is aerded, use plain cheat of paper.) d ` • The overall project purpose is construction of a church. That portion of the project . requiring a permit would be used for parking facilities. Currently the site contains .33 acres of wetlands located above the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to Carter Creek. Construction of the parking facilities would require tilling .29 acres. All fill material would be clean and the excavated material would be used ansite. ..:b compensate for the wetland losses, Lake Baptist Church `•y � • ant wetland from existingPleaseproposes to create .36 acre of upland. refer to the attached Mitigation Plan and Wetlands Delineation Report for full details. ipplicatian Li hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the acctvitiee described herein. I certify dice t u familiar with the information contained in this application, 'and that, to the best of my knovledge and belief, such 4 1 infors°ou le true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I posses. the authority co undertake the prnpos. ' m activities. :C- :; /A.......9 \- 25\:;:..P-A Signature of Applicant or Authorised Agent r IS WIC /001 provided in part: "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department , , , of the QeitaslStiletto knowingly and willfully falattias . . , a materiel tact or rakes any false . . , statement or . , a ua say fate . . . document . . . skull be clued not more than $10,000 or !myrisnnei not more than five years, or both, . • . N E .. ' : . . 0 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH +: ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE WATERWAY George Berry Dominion Development Company . 5911 Orchard Street, West Tacoma, WA 98467 Ruth Tustin Burke 14575 SW Fosberg Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Caravan Oil Services, Inc. a�. 9498 SW Barbur Blvd., #205 Portlana, OR 97219 Church of Latter Day Saints • • LDS Church Real Estate Division 50 E North Temple Salt Lake City, UT Charlotte Knox Larry L and Nina Lindstrom 3841 SE Belmont Portland, OR 97214 • Kruse Way Assoc No. 1 Ltd. , c/o 100 Tamal Plaza Building 170 200 Tamal Vista Blvd. Corte Madera, CA 94925 Alfred and Mary Y. Ventura . c/o William M. Bauce 4403 Sundew Court ' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 rpropertv.ownj ' J \ C,. • ' • rL.••�ArLe. 1 • ` !. l0 1 I1 ti' . 0 .,,(� r r 1 . •..i . 1 1 A •• •:.• /may i[rj,•,•.i �� �. . ..;• e. • /'�• • {I •- • _ , • ..ten ••[""i'4✓✓": f:.. '..t rig .tI •.. • •� • '�• , -.. .. . .. ty`*.• .7 T Z S. i�L ..* r;' ell ""'+sY+• 6: • :� " .; n• ' Z ''••••°11•••n, . . • . . .irlE• 0 ' • :1/1 ' ; ''..'•• p ' .."— ' '''i.ad , LZ1J11t • 1 (:3-.1•.,:4.. • • • '...".....'". :1 .1611.0 it611;,I, lqic,.... . *. .::,..APW li.IF ,, • ! fli•••.• 771- • 1 i ilti.FI 4, 1,. ....i...?:::: '.' .1 •:•11 :k •'• 7.4 ,aly:, L. - • '1'1 V°1 leZ • • r i'•7I' ply 3 _ __ •1� - �� •,E' •ns �-�}.!�� 1 {( �a1 ^� a , Nw••i t,rA.�.,' �• r .- 'F)4s. -r ` 1_;�••_• • .i� •�• ly • f10 R'44•r•4 -1t F • .o t 1 :11:•i 4•14• 0 /)• f r • • 'ter^ t�* i,1 • ' 1! SUBJECT •'\ " _ ,+, .: W�\\ �f^'t, ' 1 SITE J,.- „_.�;,-`'r"r' r• _ l ;: •": A 11•,o...w 1 • �`C. l •• HiRh&h 1 II C • • 1orsclo ` IN� b. • d a �.. .•� r«— • ws+�y�•d�• ;Om [eir*t 01 •.i 251�• r /�r �{. •• '.•:.�.e 7t9C`-`-' •1 ��l/+•.way1 1 `•',i' 1•yl 'i. Ir•`•1 . kw+� Ira . . 1 .t..11,1*.• s ont,rit . .... .. . . . ,.... :-... ... .....pre•-"*:. 3 • , 44.QZ.4",,en. ill --7."•••• ,.: 7. tv2••• x t.�Ln�l... r i 6� :�' •r, lYb 'p I • / . ' J• j ! • .1J * �`�p' I •/ • LAKraMVR �t'�i �w I y ' .ii ,AYe : 1 gyp. ► � iy s.4•i- L A K E L ... Pub Y ,Y,c GO :t1•.e.,,,,p�,'}tJ1 ' + 1.Y •�•� �..?• •„� -,. �r .n//✓ �...y - u.." yl� • • � • o •-+ L Via• SOURCE: USGS LAKE OSWEGO, ORE. 7.51 QUAD,RIW RIE PURPOSE: • VICINITY PROPOSED CHURCH CONSTRUCTION ' CHURCH CI7NSTRUCTION IN: UNNAMED DRAINAGE 0 2000 FT. ` DATUM: NGVD (1929) austmunimmunimmAT: LAKE OSWEGO . . ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY'OF: CLAC KAMAS STATE: OR SEE ATTACHED SFEEr APPLICATION BY: LAKE BAPTIST CZIURC 'i LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET 7 OF r DATE: DEC 1989 • f' • ( s WESTLAKE '89 - SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING (PROPOSED) o � ,�L 4� cc d�Vt. a E s m rod o • POINTE SOUTH LAKE BAPTIST APARTMENTS i''` (PROPOSED) CHURCH SITE v`y� O • • . i*i::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::: 0 : . '1 • TO INTERSTATE 5 kRUSE TO LAKE GROVE AND HWY. 217 Wq CITY CENTER • • , ., SUBJECT SITE AREA: 9.2 ACRES PURPOSE: • LOCATION PROPOSED CHURCH CONSTRUCTION • CHURCH CONSTRUCTION iN: UNDIAMED DRAINACZ 0 ' DATUM: DGVD (1929) 0 300 FT, eresmenammommummemi AT: LAKE OSWEGO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: APPROX. SCALE COUNTY OF: CLACICAMJ\E STATE: OR • SEE ATTACHED SHEET APPUCATTON BY: ST CHURCH BAPTIST • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET.Z or : DEC 1989 �' DATE: • PRFPAgrn nV.?Or to Wurra ..mee49ry wi.. • , • \A ., \\111'4.11,\ N ....„,,, . . . ....,...... . • . , . .0NN.\\ • , ................N. 04,4„ \ (r.,, , , • .re,\\ . , • ----,-- ZONE OF OLD W44 • 27s PIPE/TILE SYSTEM /►l \ , / \ / .St• . i. . \ \‘ \ \ 4 . , , . . .. \ I ' n \ `� TREE/SHRUB J CANOPY WETLAND _�t�� - ARTIFICIAL '' SUBSURFACE �4 ._ _....__ DRAINAGE .� . N. 0. W \�O ii m F' , : / .. • • `mow ` j ,' kAVSE r h ELEVATIONS IN FEET no WxIv • . PURPOSE: EXISTING PROPOSED C -IURC-I CONSTRUCTION . • CHURCH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS IN: UNNAMED DRAIIVACE :. . 0 DATUM: N("V, D (1929) era s ®a AT: LAKE OSWEGO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF; CLACICAMAS stir IE: OR 0 SO 100 150 FP, SEE ATTACHED SHEET APPLICATION SY: LAKE BAPTIST muuRC LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH SHEET 3 OF 7 DATE: DEC 1989 rfeaetrsncn ay Tale in 4UU0T4* .+n+$1...4t.i •.... 1 • ! ' ' TYPICAL.S CT CIVA _.; • lNt7Rdlno • reaeorarny I. j I •�!'alMa"�'i7� yY� • .1.1111,1401.11, r • ctecw. � ,Itl ...� / Ar.)y , wA asat 11414.1111.11 rarts hi1 ( P uaro I I ,y6 OQTO1f1011 d1601 011AM1401lMT I FS Ye ma a , 7""ammas I\ 7. IH .11°, , ei uA/11®T a11ROL71 .. ✓ or a AMM N ROCK O .1 ..pprOM � wtnMNEm MOM OIA11 ' } . • . . . PRIMOfv�. / 1�. u1 3:+ r ° oAOI►R8 n�r.11ne�e stew ®�• I Ien. %nem rw.,.. ran, 141 Mee / 1 s: .le... �'. ,.. , .r ASI�t OA11� J � rerllsn v 1 / '?w.,�wrlew 10 MEMO I rx;c' lotausees w•ra w.il•YIl M•4te'oR. t wP111 w .es VPAaVa or rrwa r6~4 /caw Dams ""v MD RVAIh o D�ww WV ass �.. . c�feon �w lino r Wan I maw i • IMMO let 1`Y awew Mnl.e. 1' •r ikauld , ` � N1Ya1 I y 4• • , moron mum demo a,s�c,l.. It Y; rAR1A1� ...�',�y Mq YI,p, a�V�, 1 ' staonlolrel oflSmoll \ '4r-;1' CI // 7 AMA • WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN 1, I u~7C1 Z. ia ! imam el «aeww.M.r wmi LBkO Baptist Cl,�;reh Site • '. _•. � = r••• oat wnLM,o Like Oswego, Oregon V t 1.1/`]^5117 y e. •44, \ oa.lI.e ILK • N . A:, e� ate AA • .., al M IBrr. y= NMI NO Oran 411 FM L2 , t Sw •' t . •; . 1$ a , r ` i • • • 4 F. '/r'.i;C• ,e it., 1•i..4lT i.+fl t.I' A.r 1, •�t ,. • ', t .. . q, A . ^ - .r r •rr.J. t,•1 'r• t t_^x 1 ,..;1 xy • "� • +. `. ,•.'.11 `.. ` •� ��1. •� ILL Ity �•J.��p•.�•.•c1�Y. . 'Ik• ..• _ ..,. ,z„,, , 1,,, .,,,, ,,., • ,):'..- gi , \ mov...s. 4 ZIP? r • I . .•.*—1/.4;7 tr..„,,..---1 ,v.,---„,, -.- 51 tt\A L Ar)tri,,,-/..,4. 0 . r s • REPORT • FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH • ',` LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FOR FISHER, LONG & ASSOCIATES JOB NO. 14665-001-04 November 1, 1985 OaMeS '1:." . Moore . EXiil�tiT 4,r) • .• ): . o t (s-el ...� �... ,. L. i. It • 4 , ' Dames & Moore 1220 S.W.Monson Street Portlrand,Oregon 97205 (503)228-7688 TWX:910-464.4790 Cable address:DAMEMORE ' November 1 , 1985 . . . 4, Fisher, Long & Associates ' 5331 S.W. Macadam Avenue ' Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97201 Attention: Mr. David Fisher . Gentlemen: • Four copies of our report entitled "Foundation Investigation, Proposed Lake Baptist Church, S.W. Kruse Way and Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, w. - Oregon", are herewith submitted. . We appreciate the opportunity of assisting you in this work. If you I. ., have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, . H DAMES & ,E '• • 024.4.1 ti ' I ving Olsen Partner • i • 1085-2 A22 (3) ,., IEO/SVM:cab (4) 6 ' 14665-001 n 1. J • ' •:.r 1 46) • , /. an • • . , ^ . * • • • • 1: II ` I r C INTRODUCTION '- This report presents the results of a foundation of investigation at the site of the proposed Lake Baptist Church located tatil of Fosberg Road, . northwest of Carman Drive and north of Kruse Way in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The location of the proposed structure, with respect to P general surface elevations and surface features, are shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The purpose of the investigation was to provide recommendations regarding site preparation and foundation support. To accomplish this, the _ scope of the investigation included (a) exploration of subsurface conditions by means of 9 drilled borings, (b) evaluation of pertinent h sical p y properties of the soils encountered in the borings by means of laboratory testing, (c) corre- ' r J lation of the field and laboratory data with information developed by Dames & Moore during previous investigations in the vicinity of the site, (d) engi- neering analyses and studies to serve as a basis for our recommendations, and (e) preparation of this report summarizing the results of the investigation. The ro p posed building development will ultimately occupy an area of about 260 by 260 ft. It will be constructed in two phases. The initial building phase will occupy the northwesterly one-third or so of the total area. Exterior walls of masonry construction will be about 24 ft high to accommodate two floors. One hundred foot ceiling spans are contemplated. Cutting and • filling of 2 to 4 ft will be required to accommodate a finish floor grade of about elevation 280. Parking areas surrounding the building development will be established at essentially existing site grade. / SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions , ' The surface of the site is relatively flat, sloping gently to the ( y M 1 1 .i,'• -2e _.I1 southwest. h est. Ground surface elevations vary from elevation 260 at the south e of the site to elevation 300 at the northeast end. y .. At the time of the investigation the site was being used as grazing land. Surface vegetation consisted of ankle high grass and weeds with dense brush and trees along the southeast margin of the site adjacent to Carman 1 `1 J Drive. JSubsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by means of nine borings at the locations shown on Plate 1. A discussion of the field explore- .' d tion program, together with detailed logs of the borin g are presented in Appendix A, Field Explorations. The surface materials, to p depths of 4 to 6 inches consist of a highly organic sod layer overlying up to 24 inches of soft dark brown silt. The upp Y soft silt contains frequent fine roots near the contact with the sod layer • : I decreasing with depth. The underlying soils are predominately tan and gray silt ti: with varying minor amounts of fine sand and clay. These soils are generall• � y stiff to very stiff and extend to depths of 19 ft (borings 3, 4, and 8) to greater than 21 1/2 ft (boring 6 and 7). At borings 3 and 4, the tan and brown silty soils are underlain by very stiff to hard brown silt which contains ere- - 1 quent angular basalt fragments. This material extended to the maximum depth 1 ' explored, 2l} and 21 ft at borings 3 and 4, respectively. Boring8 I penetrated purple and red highly weather basalt at 19 ft which extended to the maximum depth explored of 21 ft. The borings were allowed to remain open following drilling to permit ,'• � measurement of �• �. groundwater levels. Groundwater was measured at depths of bet . 'peen 9 and 15 ft below the ground surface. A perched groundwater table w• as . observed at boring 9, where groundwater was encountered at only 2 ft below 4. , , ground surface. W ' . �. a1rr t� Fi t r t - k d -3- LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pertinent physical proper- ties of the soils encountered in the borings. The testing included con- solidation and direct shear tests, and moisture-density determinations. A description of the tests, together with the results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.` The consolidation test results indicate that the stiff silty soils are of low to moderate compressibility and are of moderato Shear strength. The Jmoisture cantent of the near surface silty soils is generally in the range of 20 �' to 30 percent. . • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E General The site is underlain by predominatly silty soils of moderate compress- ibility and shear strength. Sup " :' ] port for the proposed structure can be provided by conventional spread footings. The silty soils are easily disturbed when wet. ` JIf possible, site grading should be scheduled for the normally dry summer months. Site preparation during wet weather will require installation of granu- lar haul roads and working blankets to provide support for construction equip- ment and minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Site Preparation and Grading The near surface soils are predominantly silt (ML) with varying amounts of clay and fine sand. The soils are moisture sensitive and are easily disturbed when wet. If these materials are to be used for engineered f•) , it is essential that the work be scheduled during the dry season, usually mid-June through September. Performance of the work during wet weather will require the 0 importing of granular fill material, together with the construction of granular pads (or working blankets) for support of construction activities. Bence, site 0 1 e 4- grading during wet weather is significantly more expensive than during d weather. �• Our recommendations and comments for both dry weather and wet weather , grading and earthwork are presented in the following paragraphs. 1 • . Dry Weather Grading: Within proposed building, fill, and pavement ,.: areas, the surface should be stripped to remove vegetation, topsoil and organic .d materials. We estimate that stripping to a depth of 6 to 10 in. will be required. The stripped materials would not be suitable for engineered fill. Subsequent to stripping, the resulting surface within fill areas should be proof rolled using heavy rubber-tired equipment, such as a one-half loaded dump truck. Soft or weaving areas observed during this operation should be scarified and recompacted, or overexcavated and backfilled with engineered fill. Except for the surface stripping, excavated on-site soils, free of .".:.- A ..1 • , . organic or other deleterious materials, would be suitable for engineered fill, Fills should be installed in a series of approximately horizontal lifts, not greater than 8 in. in thickness and each lift compacted to at least 92 percent • a of the maximum dry density obtainable by the Modified A.A.S.H.T.O. Method of Compaction (Designation T-180) . The contractor's procedures should provide for ~ ' a uniform coverage and compaction of the fill. We anticipate that sheepsfoot or '' segmented-pad-type compaction equipment would be suitable for compacting the silty fill soils. ". Due to the high groundwater conditions, the silty sot'.s below a depth » ► of a few feet will remain essentially saturated even during the summer months. . . A. ] As a result, .care should be exercised to prevent disturbance of the silty subgrade soils. Filling utilizing the on-site soils will be limited to periods ' , ' of extended warm, dry weather when adequate control of the fill soil moistu can be maintained. The laboratory test results reveal that the moisture content of the near Surface silty soils varies up to about 30 percent. We anticipate ' . 1 d t i Y 1 A !� -5- •0 that the optimum moisture content for compaction is in the range of 15 to 18 percent with the maximum moisture content for satisfactory compaction on the order of 23 percent. As a result, aeration and drying of this material will t probably be required to lower the moisture content and achieve satisfactory compaction. ,'. Wet Weather Grading: Site grading performed during the wet season will require the installation of granular working blankets in building and pavement p granular areas. On the basis of past experience with similar projects, the g material should have a minimum thickness of 1} to 2 ft to provide adequate sup- port for construction activities and heavy equipment. A greater thickness of granular fill may be required for haul roads. i When wet, the silty soils are sensitive and are easily softened and J disturbed by conventional stripping and excavation operations, Relatively free•- draining sand and gravel or pit run rock of up to nominal 4 in. maximum size and having less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve would be suitable for use , r4 as granular fill. The fill should be placed in 10 in. thick loose lifts ,+,nd compacted by at least 4 passes with a moderately heavy vibratory roller. . ' Foundation Support L' Satisfactory support for structures of the type contemplated for this site can be provided by spread foundations established on the undisturbed stiff silty in-situ soils or on engineered fill. It is recommended that spread footings be established at a minimum depth of 2 ft below lowest adjacent grade with column- and wall-type footings having a minimum width of 2 ft and 1 1/2 ft, , . ; respectively. Spread footings established in the in-situ silty soils or com- T plcced fill can be designed to impose an allowable bearing capacity of up to 1410 2,000 lb/sq ft. This design bearing value applies to the total of dead and fre- ,_ quently applied live loads and can be increased by 1/3 for the total of all uT • ` . n . - , •:� -6-- ..:,, . loads, dead, live and wind or seismic. Estimated settlements for typically loaded foundations are presented on page 7. The settlement of spread foundations can be reduced by the installation "r ' of engineered granular fill beneath the footing. The minimum grading require- menu for footings that bear on engineered granular' fill are shown by the following sketch. Well-graded crushed rock of 2 in. maximum size and having 1 less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve would be suitable for engineered _I granular fill beneath foot:nl 3. y y, . INTERIOR •.• EXTERIOR ,- FINISHED FLOOR 1 MIN. 2 MIN. Ii MIN. \ , i .FLoon sLAB -�•i.•b �,a, o•�`'`': ..?ip` { .`p4941?, BASE COURSE ' ` .. ,��° � .ate ' b p'Cs ;bo•o voles.,<<Oa :n.��J1.�•�i3�. 'w ,�..pp d lea .4i:i itY...,. -acf. n r UNDISTURBED IN-SITU SOIL 15 COMPACTED, WELL-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK - 2 INCH MINUS WITH , I- • NOT MORE THAN 5 PERCENT PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. * t - THICKNESS OF COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL BENEAT• SPREAD FOOTINGS. DEEPER EXCAVATIONS WILL BE NECESSARY IF THE IN-SITU MATERIALS ARE DISTURBED OR IF SOFT IN-SITU SOILS ARE REVEALED AT THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING EXCAVATIONS. , • .,4 , Soft or disturbed soils encountered during excavation for footings should be overexcavated so that footings bear on undisturbed firm soils or com- 4' pacted granular fill • . During the wet season, we recommend that a 3 in. layer of •w A 3/4 in. minus crushed rock or a thin concrete seal be installed in the bottom of• ..- footing excavations to prevent disturbance of the in situ silty soils. W r Studies utilizing the field and laboratory findings were performed t estimate settlement due to typically loaded column and wall type spread ' ,i ' '' footings. A summary of the findings are presented below. Due to varation in ;,,, , ', . .•: i subsurface conditions, it is estimated that the indicated settlement values may • vary by as much as plus or minus 25 percent. .4 L .. V Estimated* Width of Total Footing Settlement � ` (ft) (in) A, ..._ Column Type Footing 3/4 5 7/8 . , .I Wall Type Footing 2 3/4 *Based on dead plus frequently applied live loads of 2000 lb/sq ft. 'a • Approximatel: three-fourths of the indicated settlements for spread foundations are anticipated to occur within one month after application of the dead and real frequently applied loads with the remaining settlement occurring ;. over a period of three to four months. d Pavement Support Following excavation or filling to subgrade level, the resulting sur- ® ' . { ` face should be proof rolled using a one-half loaded dump truck. Soft or weavy '} N areas encountered should be overexcavated and replaced with compacted fill. Our recommendations for pavement design are summarized in the following tabulation. r 4^ Y- I I. '44 .o • L • 4. 1 d - - I a - - , 11 -8- J ;,;f Granular Base Asphaltic Course Thickness2 Concrete Thickness Pavement Usel In. In. Parking - automobil p 7 2 1/2 Access and delivery routes - 9 3 Automobile, light trucks and ,} `� occasional heavy trucks 1. The indicated minimum pavement sections apply to firm subgrade conditions. .I 2. The granular base course should consist of compacted crushed rock of 1 1/2 in. maximum size conforming to Section 703 of the Standard Specifications for State Highway Construction - Oregon 1974 having less than 5 percent M. passing the No. 200 sieve. The design recommendations assume the base course will be free draining with adequate drainage to prevent saturation. This can, in part, be accomp- lished by sloping the subgrade downward toward catch basins and providing weep holes in catch basins at the base course level. If irrigated landscaping are ip . ‘ . ;.-,0: - •' .1 will be located adjacent to, and within pavement areas, it is recommended that t Ithese features be designed so that irrigation water entering the base course is minimized. This could be accomplished by full depth curbs and impermeable barriers. a ' To prevent damage to automobile parking areas during construction, we suggest that these areas not be used by heavy equipment, dump trucks or concrete trucks, or be used for storage of heavy loads. . , ] s, , Limitations 1 We understand that development plans are preliminary at this time. We l recommend that Dames & Moore be permitted to review the design plans as they are ' J developed. • The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are base on the information obtained from 9 widely spaced borings. Generally similar subsurface conditions with some variation between boring locations were revealed -I m A I r,„ by the explorations. If different or unanticipated conditions are encountered during construction, they should be brought to our attention to determine if modification of design criteria is required. Also we wish to point out that it has been reported that springs may exist in or near the property, however, none 1 was encountered during our investigation. If springs are encountered during g Iconstruction they should. be called to our attention so that appropriate measures , w can be taken. p. -040= . of J 4 . . y • • fJ %. • • 1 • • 01 . t. • . . • • \ \ r` \ f 1 Y'r I: �(� 7 .�\ ',is... `� •••., \ Mk\ , ilia .10. ' it • -�. ,a` S00RIN0 A `,�• \ :fir. \ �1 'e ,."N ) • y ...�„r 1 PHASE 1 e Ma 0 •,f...t-._-H:1 y I , �V p • ') .i.a r r sooRlNa T \ ] -.� I. 'he r.� • ' 9 _''• / __J . ,' OORINO Oor4^ram I%I' ,� 'NV' Y, P• ..., . , / I • /- .......40,--..._,,.......,-- —74r— :iii •"seORlNa a RORINa 0 / ! 4(• • •+° 'r` • ..:7� =..-• •s.4 r."4 t . ‘�eoRlNa / '2 '.. • • • 44. • 1 W II o 1 111Iw1 ip::a rg N WI Ml.1 III r�"r `-•+ -w•�'+. -,L •� w rat r=i.rwn. uu , ue rrrrma arr .urla s 6 t;3.. �' '14 f . I w.lw rrWNw 111 F Ngy"`••`...'7'''.. \ ..,..,•....i '.: .W..•0.•. ,GroGw.N turn moan Iul mutt tn.n•tin,II `'' 7�. r• It r,,n rp r.•uatutt n.ni in, I ` i' • =1:.•• �� t4 r,l .„II Wirai• II.a. ,r.., ..w.•i,ai.,wiir PLOT PLAN •:.7r II.IMI , O Dainci 3 Moms t rq . 0 0 0 • • • , . ` • . - .0. ., . , . r4 ,:. . .: k . . . . • . . ., t APPENDIX A ,,. - m FIELD EXPLORATIONS ISubsurface soil conditions at the site were explored by means of 9 borings drilled at the locations shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The borings were drilled with trailer-mounted, continuous flight auger drilling equipment. The borings were about 6 in. in diameter and extended to depths of 5 to 21/ ft below present site grade. pie The field explorations were coordinated by a geDtechnical engineer from our office. Our engineer maintained a continuous detailed log of materials and • conditions encountered in each boring, obtained relatively undisturbed samples r at frequent intervals of depth, and recorded other pertinent data at the site. . Soil samples were extracted with Dames & Moore sampler of the type shown on page A-2. Graphical representations of the boring logs are presented on Plate A-1. The nomenclature used in clasr;ifying the soils appears on Plate A-2. J J ... r .. , - ,' ,. , :, 4.. . ').. . .:, ''.:.. I • " . . . . • ' • J •P . . . . , , , ' ' ' ' III ''' ' : - . • .•1 t r . iM1 ` c. ,/-17,\N....„.... . 0 •.• . ' , _ .. �0. N. SOIL SAMPLER TYPE U 'DRt FOR SOILS DIFFICULT TO RETAIN IN SAMPLER wela OR PUSHING , . �. MECHANISM " COUVLINO \ ,. f ~�• �, RATER @UTI.lTS • - ' 0, ei t. N ET►�CAES OS FOR ,NI, P FISlIINa TOOL 4' ( lt/ CHB=VALYn 0A. li al. NEOPRENE 04,SJ11T 1 HEAD 0. s. • -c• "O %.• % VALVE CAG t NOTE, IL •NIMI IKTINVCOO CAN '^ • el INTRODUCED 1ITRIIN J, •r,.•A•NIAO•ANO•s►LIT MRRIL" • ALTERNATE ATTACHMENTS0 . IlUll ,, SPLIT BARREL _+ (To 0/COIRI Arw REmovAL . 1 I ' 1,. CORE.RETAINIR (l•I. .... '.,•"h .."•.--].•.1I 1 RINGS •1 i0rFs,/.41.s.•i 11I2t I`In•ILO.IT I•LDNOI r • . . I4 ,i .. SPLIT OARp • LocKINa-» tm coaE.Ae7A1NINa • amaI60 . DEVICE • SPLIT T"�'� BIT I � 1• % FERRULE CORI.RETAINING d '# DEVICE i•r 4. - RITAINIR RING�/ RETAINER PLATES r._ �• rr .� ANTI OTHER TYPES)PITO r 14 ' SAYFPIINAInl0 , a IE �•� ,� (INTLIT�11ljA1L! ti o .....„,....: . • r . 0 „ 9' `$ to , BORING 2 ell BORING 1 BORING 3 • el 0 r11 - Illlillaw MI III G 6 (�i 1 IY.{Y U rut n• ri• I nnla n1• u1 q IIIII ML 1•+uu Yn.rl luul«btn tifnl �•HI ' MI u.n ...'. D 1 n.t« on•N ■ IP«tl raal..................... N WI11IIt.1L�;At erl•w 11a Ytn IPM11 llr WW1(WII e u eras Mlurta t1eu1 IIII rlln IIW 1a11 11■11 i Ie•MI l/MfWtn tlalr /N.IL • r1IN /N NO w1 MIMP Illlll nil N14 rlNlsw ,le 111'ft • Il II I ML u1 alrrl IIII 111Y hill 111n1«1e1 nte110W IIN Nan IN Ile ran 1111 111/1) ! PIr111{II It ta«U 1U I - 1 INN 111altln IN Ya'1u. 7e1 Ia1K uMlrib e1 WrN r 1 n 110•n•Iq a WIw1 am t J M1' r' We1N IIMIrt111t r11N e 1 n(1071eW a II ill III( r rMIlt • ca«a MU Ma.6 Wlu Hull/10414111 Hael III•II ■ / Aet Will tilt•'ti ItA MINK 1ae11P lull) I • III•« • 1I11.3-.3 110e lllryl 11a YIIY:N>.1WIYIK.lee—i,ra (IIMN 1►A1M«44:It1ae111 IrNI • ! IIIN,IMIMle a 0t1•e r,It II We11 111 ,q i, ' i I BORING 4 1 / N« BORING 5 In BORING 6 �,t tel �IIn'�1 111 N I«U111 !et II IIIIIYI Me UIID➢ WI nor IIII ate Ie0u1U(Ie IWII Ilrll C 1 11/IY.1a1 1e111 1 « 1 I • nt.N • mnl I° 1 wl IV II 1111+1t1t uIt11 IIII YIIN elnllae IIIII ML lIr Ilaw IIn rIM f11aNN list ism hell t 1I : iv 1p/1el Gall mn ftlltl $ 11t•ist • �IIIIII#MLJ 411111110111 IKe Helmet f1111f le elm 111111 ,q Il �I NNE M Sea.IIII YIIY lei}SI IrN well Itrtl• !11 11 retie le tee iN ttt qq Ill•;1 • I • ret11111N W wl IIII YIN live It11.14 Ills 1101I 111•IN • - �•l G MAIK IIWIWIIe 11 term V 111 Indldll III t11•II ♦ I I INN II IN W 111ea1 nm nine*Mir C 1u I in•el II 1 eltetl ream MI/le stilt trl Ar J p i } /N.1a �1 I IIII ie lama lee Na Oat me enact WON uul II .•. j WIII Inll If4tla1 {iL Illlf 71Y • r 3 Niotl Mil to tlU(IIn 1`I r•rills Ilrn In tl•nl 1 IM q I Welt le nfYllll tam till elte 1a Wla liar i1n11N r! = /11 M nine Kiln l'lll le IIII!7u ){ mi.(IIIII{11 rile IIIN lnlel.i,live Wnae11/a111iW111 Ill•a/ ■ APE. j 1._. r eK4N NW I,U:V,11 Iron IN•q ali 1 I Sallee IITIWIIe 11'Hie iv If If Ile II ill Ise 1111W 1II11 t1a11111 Ill WIK tlMleille el:Me le/It 11 11e•11 Ill I I f BORING 7 BORING 8 __ "' BORING 0 be Mnet1Y1 nn IN 1 q u 1 li rellee rli pp ' .. IIIIII®eel INY Wa 11N W111ea lire 1011 Well 111/11 q nu I ji 1«Yawl +.' ;• O INNIb Ili as HIWIIIIII Ib a4 11111 1 ®«Noon Iva':tin 1NlSIl it.,611411,Ie11 • �itr 0l lit•IW ■ .1111r Winn ea 1011111 win len 1WI11K I1I11 Illlll to IIIN tf It/ 111•B I,' Willy IN MO W1 IIII Yld IIII If11NK Ili 111 10 del /11 =t ((11� /MI Mser Iijtul t/llil IIII 110111 IP.q N ttoo �n(�t tree 1 WrW Wa•11•W IIIUIII "aI 1+IN ua WIti.lok N.oloa.t No.oN It ,1• t llt•n d tan Ib IN I.a IInnW 111/I Illlll • e In r 111 WIeIIIMIMIIIe`7111Nr • 'I e III•11 ■ Moll dbly{IIII !1 t 61111 Hill IW tI.111 1W Y'1 P t Wlll lnll WWbt11 *� h1 161"1{ • WtlII IIIWnt tUiU KEYS 111II $ We tUl WIII°lilt Ills lea 1111114 IM WNN11 111111 Y• • ` Ill 11 II llel IIIII) M71 1 revel IIn I lode e • S 4_,.*aM11 el Mai Pawnee II 1e1 ter le •' 1 ' 711 1 1 SIN IN/1W Nina Ie1iiK I:le ell ■ Ia1 11w1Y/Irr11 !W 1 6161 IRO tlIN111:1 On lice 11eI/1W IV rYN111{Illlll) 111Iwn I I S II Illlll® I«t/IIr1I 1i1r1INPa NIIII/WNI 1y1111/11t Ie+I/It11M111W M eUN11 Ilt II • 1 1€llllll� /✓ell W 116 Nllelt Yl1ie(IIb WYII'NMI 4ryalln INI!«IW litn111r1 IIII Wil WI.U • 1 lu e111fw lsilet.1 YI WII"IN' • IWIK Ilrelu'1;I NIN W hill li Ile ll taw Ni 1e H.--11 II IY MI rKlll,IIHY 11 1 lank t11nIUlU II NM r tl n Ilrtl-Itl LOG OF BORINGS borne'4 Moore? • • w. ' t e„ ri 6" �. A SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART • n•oe•11n1w 00~ INTI• Ire lNc�nY>,• GRADATION CHART IYY10l 1\YIOI yyyy \�,- �.11 f•i‘ ;PUM••Y.1••Y.••• /1CIKlf llif •. •• •.r w•11..1um•w•r 0001000 S faj}1��� � YIllM.11 slit lOP1�1w.1 1MIIII tw.I + •1wN\ Iiw11«'� MIT{I IOM1\ear/w•.•u 1'10.1r11111 1001141• wl1•l11.1 1NH YII• �7. 0. ..glut Ili 11,E wlYilllnnt /� •.iY I01 •11 •Iw• 0.1 •41• -a /' 1M• Y W.MYMO.1t\ •. M ••1 •N• 100 •0• • rwt ID.Y1 •u•INrM1w11 " Wr i •1"Y1 /p10SON11 f •N• •1. ••• .. •1 MMrIMC ' 1OYl 11011 :IOW .01F .1WY +, li .��•~ Iwl /N ..• NI 11•1 OC t1M r lime I0..11 __III I.. III 1•• 10.h11 N• "TT--_ N1• 4• t •, ••: .,•4.,.N•1.rN1••wal\ •P•N.l 111• I• M• N' n IIY 1.9• IN 1.w•.LIMO. .al •0 l 111•N11 .11/N/w1u/•NYwt1 k �� :•I:1 ••�1 •If111••.0 IMII I IOU \ 100.11•.tlf•Yr•0001 •.' CDomll NnNN% 1 r l•1Yo•.Uf11004.111 y - f v1191\`' ,'1I11 • •Y••r1Y11•11 ^D "'•" "000.0... ��IJ PLASTICITY CHART.•..iaF1F9 ��� K ,.:\Y1,1NL.1a,1r•h•\ 1 /j' I/OWO IIYII /I m to „ l t7. N 10 10 m 4.1 •now•.s W h.11 w\Ir• II II W 10,.OR•1•N•..111.1 • • h4N\IY t•.r01 h•\•1 M.11rMN W\1{MMf\ • 1 M10.1KtVN001..R 10 r. __.a._.•us. ,.\. 1 ;• rN Ilgn::•1i , n C.V.••.•.0,001wn1r CH t1•11.1101/11•12 • j,j,.1;t•, IK 100 M11P 1.A.1.1.00 V f{ettt,J wON•.•Wh rtK\M0M4 _.. •YI n11p1•t•P•/W MM•P A CL I -_ Y11\1011 II N1 •1MI M.•N• `1e `- nMT1M114 DIM 1,0.01w1 1wl..cn•11w �..• 1�9im M0 u:N w•nq\u.•N � :• cN rw11c1n INtuN t' YH 9 OH •. C •• {1(j`• i �a+.N nlNwlwP•rn • ��"'-••f). I11 .N n•10111v 0.•0.0 6411• S1•h I ML 0 01. .. sue. I, 1w1111014..4 1••03': IT N.i...AIt.ar ra•1rn _. ` i I+W OWnt R•11Wn MOTIF 1 4.Yrwd01M 0110 M.10cut1•Po11.M UOtWNIic•• SAMPLES I•M•YN0.Sr M 114M UN.t1N rotten.,1 w la NI11.11wI1 IM IO1M1111i1 VIta•11M/I►1 M/q 0t11i•/ N•I 100114.0.611 1n 1 S r n•ulll Wit1W00.0 , . 1II 1$5 •1••.ii 1 1ou t0111M IN/ toe N/Nw110 Una ••c11111Y•11111\11W son•llt10.ln 10MN.r111 1140.00 11«.1111Q111 M iw.•DD1 • 1 .111� 11Jlt1_ Yet= • VI•f\".' uN +N n N•/1011 IMny1I I.t YY+.10 K rImY00/OYt wnlbY W11.101M 1/YNII w • • 1�11.1 mn :11I�111 WNW111•N 1441145Ll�wti, I•ItN1011M INI Nwr.11 .1 Mf•I1.110 • • I100 11 N 1• 0111 NM I.l\N•I NM5• Silt 11►I II N•♦ HM Mid p ••t1 CI,0.101104 N•Y\•1 'P 1 Inta UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Demos&Moore 1 r 0 • 11i Ylrk t',1 • . _ •1 APPENDIX B • LABORATORY TESTS A series of laboratory tests were performed to provide information regarding pertinent physical characteristics of the soils encountered in the borings. Tests performed included a consolidation test, strength tests, and moisture and density determination. A consolidation test was performed on a representative sample of the .rr v upper silt to provide information to be utilized in settlement analyses. The • test was performed in the manner described on page B-2. The results of the test are presented on Plate B-1. Direct shear tests were performed to provide information regarding the shear strength of the undisturbed soils. The tests were performed in the manner described on page B-3. The results of the tests are summarized in the tabula- • r 1 tion on page B-4. 1. Field moisture content and dry density tests for correlation purposes were performed on a majority of the relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the borings. The results of the tests are presented to the left of the boring logs on Plate A-1. • • • • • :rJ • 1 . ' • to 1- B-2 METHOD OF PERFORMING CONSOLIDATION TESTS * . ''''. I. j CONSOLIDATION TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO EVALUATE THE VOLUME CHANGES OF SOILS SUBJECTED • TO L`CREASED LOADS. TItifE-CONSOLIDATION AND PRESSURE-CONSOLIDATION CURVES MAY BE PLOT- "I TED FROM THE DATA OBTAINED IN THE TESTS. ENGINEERING ANALYSES BASED ON THESE CURVES u JI , PERMIT ESTIMATES TO BE MADE OF THE PROBABLE MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF SETTLEMENT OF THE TESTED SOILS UNDER APPLIED LOADS. .. EACH SAMPLE IS TESTED WITHIN BRASS RINGS TWO AND ONE- .3' :. , 7 • -y HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE INCH IN LENGTH. UNDIS- ,.ds i TURBED SAMPLES OF IN-PLACE SOILS ARE TESTED IN RINGS ,, ' r1 .'f 1 N� ` Sr • TAKEN FROM THE SAMPLING DEVICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES ' WERE OBTAINED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOIL3 TO BE USED IN w},:: � ir,_ , , ►t� ' CONSTRUCTING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO ' PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED. 6. • 1 IN TESTING, THE SAMPLE IS RIGIDLY CONFINED LATERALLY r' J BY THE BRASS RING. AXIAL LOADS ARE TRANSMITTED TO THE DEAD LOAD-PNEUMATIC CODSOLIDOMETER a ' ENDS OF THE SAM:'LE BY POROUS DISKS. THE DISKS ALLOW DRAINAGE OF THE LOADED SAMPLE. THE AXIAL COMPRESSION OR EXPANSION OF THE SAMPLE IS Y 1 `,IEASIRED BY A MICROMETER DIAL INDICATOR AT APPROPRIATE TIME INTERVALS AFTER EACH ,' LOAD INCREMENT IS APPLIED. EACH LOAD IS ORDINARILY TWICE THE PRECEDING LOAD, THE IN- trl •F■ I CREMENTS ARE SELECTED TO OBTAIN CONSOLIDATION DATA REPRESENTING THE FIELD LOADING 'y y CONDITIONS FOR WHICH THE TEST 15 BEING PERFORMED, EACH LOAD INCREMENT IS ALLOWED TO c: ACT OVER AN INTERVAL OF TIME DEPENDENT ON THE TYPE AND EXTENT or THE SOIL IN THE Ask • „ r` • ^4 FIELD. z o • . y • • ti b I • j B-3 R V METHOD OF PERFORMING DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS rf. .. . f r DIRECT SHEAR TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE r '''•'• ` "" r' ' jrl tip„ . '., THE SHEARING STRENGTHS OF SOILS. FRICTION TESTS A t••44.,4• .• ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE FRICTIONAL RE• i.y... '�d 4� r SISTANCES BETWEEN SOILS AND VARIOUS OTHER MATE- • RIALS SUCH AS WOOD,STEEL, OR CONCRETE. THE TESTS . .•1 - �'; r �+ARE PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SIMULATE (, 1 ANTICIFATED FIELD CONDITIONS. • EACH SAMPLE IS TESTED IN A SPLIT SAMPLE HOLDER, I r � •' TWO AND ONE•HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE ,r, INCH HIGH. UNDISTURBED SAMPLES OF IN-PLACE SOILS ARE EXTRUDED FROM RINGS TAKEN FROM THE SAM- PLING DEVICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES WERE OB- DIREICT SHEAR APPARATUS WITH > ' ELECTRONIC RECORDER R ,' TAINED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOILS TO BE USED IN CON. STRUCTING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 1: A ONE-INCH LENGTH OF THE SAMPLE IS TESTED IN DIRECT SINGLE SHEAR. A CONSTANT PRESSURE, c.` ' APPROPRIATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE TEST IS BEING PERFORMED, .'.R �..+�.. ' V APPLIED NORMAL TO THE ENDS OF THE SAMPLE THROUGH POROUS STODf ES. A SHEARING FAILURE OF THE SAMPLE IS CAUSED BY MOVING THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER IN A DIRECTION PERPENDICL'- p'. LAR TO THE AXIS OF THE SAMPLE. TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT OF THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IS PREVENTED. • THE SHEARING FAILURE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING TO THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER A CON• �" • STANT RATE OF DEFLECTION. THE SHEARING LOAD AND THE DEFLECTIONS IN BOTH THE AXIAL AND -,., 1 I TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONS ARE RECORDED AND PLOTTED. THE SHEARING STRENGTH OF THE SOILS IS DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTING LOAD•DEFLECTION CURVES. FRICTION TESTS, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE :HE FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE BETWEEN SOIL AND THE SURFACES OF YAM. • ,p OUS MATERIALS, THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IN THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST IS REPLACED BY A DISK OF THE MATERIAL TO BE TESTED. THE TEST IS THEN PERFORMED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE tr1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST BY FORCING THE SOIL OVER THE FRICTION MATERIAL SURFACE. fal , I a ,, I ah B-4 1 SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS SAMPLE NORMAL SHEARING STRENGTH 1 . • SOIL DEPTH PRESSURE LB/SQ FT BORING TYPE* (ICI') LB/SQ FT PEAK ULTIMATE 1 3 ML 2} 500 860 340 4 ML 5 1,500 1,060 820 6 ML 2+ 1,000 1,180 420 • e 6 ML 5 1,000 660 520:.t ' ' A .. . , . , . 7 ML 2} 1,500 1,410 ' � .l 8 ML 5 500 420 280 • . * Unified Soil Classification System I . • •� ,l 1' • • .\` 41) ,.. . . iii • , 0 f i . �'a a. .�� .co$ Pf126SURg IN 164 /S0. FT 14 .. i ! III 1 i .o: I ,„: _ . _ . . p` a a • I f j ; i B 1• 1 I o�rsmr.,� I I I I I I ' i. 1I ' • • lj SAtvPL.E SOIL MOISTURE CON1 ENI' - '6 I DRY DENSITY -PCF- BORING ELEVATION SYMBOL BEFORE ( AFTER BEFORE AFTER -FT- TEST TEST , TEST TEST } j a 7 2104 ML 30 28 90 96 ; ' , % '. •••, • f• i I CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA, uawraar■ a racoons," , • • Form Ten H Arm Mount Form Ten H:Simoitciry of form is J combined with soonisticated design v • '` r corcatlts achieve great strength to , , wer;,r:t ratios resulting in a family of luminaires with aestnetic aooeai and 4 a - unusual durability.Luminaires are 4� N� ' d arm mounted and are available in v i`� one-way.two-way and tour-way y' u , configurations in three sizes with HID p ' lambs from 70 to 1000 watts. ti Configurations 1 2 4 ,: } Distribution Patterns Type I ii�` Type FM ja. Type III Type VS, r n • N , Type'VS is not available 1' ,, I( r ,c h •1 ,J.' !+l;n/•,t,•F '.albR t '.r re `,.. .40--"f���'y�.. r.',.� Type V0Ilair in 14"or 1000W HPS. • ^.,: Yp Supplied with sag lens. see product details Pg.t T, '• ., Ordering Information Example Pre Sias Configuration Reflecaor Volts I Lamp Finish Reflector , Printery Banas: . H 14" : 1 •• 1 120 Refer to BRP I Volta;e 19 r H " ' 2 3 208 Lamp 8LP Configuration! t.arro �', H 26" ? 4 0 240 Selector NA• ! r art!^ • l t VVSSS 480 9L BRA.A• I �...� Prefix 1 I Cottons 'Anodized finish available only in 26"housing. I I Lamp Selector H 19 2 3 120 490MH BAP rommoommet 14"housings 19"housings 26"housings Finish: + TOW HPS 1000W HPS•• NA am Natural Anodize (2n"only) 100W HPS 250W MV 1000W MV BRA••Bronze Anodize (26"only) 100W MV 250W MH 1000W MH BLA a Black Anodize(26"only) - t.; ' 150W HPS• 400W HPS BRP.Bronze Painted 175W MV 400W MV BLP a Black Painted 175W • MH 400W MH Lamp Abbreviations • `�. 'Supplied with lutist to operate 55 volt MV at Mercury Vapor tame unless specified otherwise, HPS m High Pressure Sodium i''". "Not available in VS. MH 24t Metal Halide • C • bSM'1."....OAd...n �. ; w1 -P 1 CFI .. . p y Ma00.."Y : 1 .. ri1144;Nary. AMP:::: L.� MYg •. Nf 1 1, ' 'at�� � , � l u far e �i htin �--- Design Temp o g 9 Scale. t3 . '.,. Use thin master to reproduce working templates ^ Watt w, ' ® , ® � ' Hlgh Pressure 3odiu • MINIM ,• ®' ®19H13 • a 819Fi4T3 / . * ', . a , ..: . \ . . , . , B19H13 b� ii- V I l ' IL, � • (� A TYPE ill • v.<,: ®sa NMI s® MIN IN sin mai lem INS no ow Ns nu ON 11111 INS S Pm" il `40® 1 if ,,,' U „. ,. ‘ I .• . , 1 ' I E319H23 t, 1 . B19H4T3 .� V. b J f ® 1 .,:,itiiit , / ; . • \, . i . . 444%4 . -. loof , ..' if i .1 . 4 I ll.h 2511„��. TYPE III 011 mg® sso cm r ima se bss ® MS — NS Ns MO • • • a Gardco Lighting ►' mCooynght i977,Gardco Lighting, Inc, 2661 Alvarado St., San Leandro. Calif 5,14577 • Form Ten Yoke Mount • JEH Style(Extruded) JH Style(Fabricated) ti r ;. Form Ten Yoke:A co-axial mounting ` , method(utilizes a uniaue yoke support y , v • r which appears as a floating reveal / ' , f i:�' ' r complementing the clean cut " T • • • J. . contemporary styling of the luminaire 1 ' .• • • i housing.Used in conjunction with : . `' w Garddo's array of optical systems. sizes. diffu.sets.luminaire anti lamp �.- 1 i it ., � / Distribution Patterns Type! ' 111p6 FM i • Type III Typo Va Fi t 1 • • Ordering Information . Example Pmfix Size Configuration Reflector Volts I.amo Small • JEH 14" 1 1 120 277 Bestir to NA Reflector Type Primary avast • 410 J'-J•i 19" 3 208 480 Lamp BRA Configuration' Voitaca ,�mo JH 0 240 Selector BLA 28 FM SIN— '—=nnn JH 14" 1 1 120 277 Pieter to BAP Prefix ! .;:-s 19" 3 208 480 Lamp BLP Dot os wa 26" 0 240 Selector FM JH 19 1 0 120 400MH 81:1P Lamp Selector Finish: • NA m+Natural Anodize ; " 14"hou,sings _ 19"housings 28"housings 8RA a Bronze Anodize . • 70W HPS 250W MPS 1000W HPS �.. BLA=Black Anodize 100W HPS 250W MV 1000W MV BRP a Bronze Painted . 100W MV 250W MH 1000 MIA BLP 213 Black Painted 150W MPS* 400W HPS Lamp Abbreviation= 175W MV 400W MV MV=Mercury Vapor • 175W Mlt 400W MI-1 HPS=High Pressure Sodium 'Su id with ballast to operate 55 volt lamp unless scaati5ad otherwise. MH"Metal Halide am sea..aseaseear 106 i FAI2 tit< Ir414 . . (-----________.. ,..._„, 1 N'aren forz, I "' III': .4' ' 'N Lt4TN Mti�»rMLJu.w INS f wo Nwa w 4..agai.i1.f.y 4°4 • • Gardco Lighting — Design Templates Scale. . 4 .. Use this master to reproduce working templates High Pressure Sodiur Oki : '4 .' ,.. A1GH2 T`fPE VQ , ® fir • • • � ' . :6 . * A19H1C r 1 . j . t"..".".'"" ,', a : � r . • i . 2iiH2Q ' • 1 b c i - — f . i ' . I ® .. ® ill ® 1fl ®a„g ,®,, ' .: • Ir®' i • • , N Nie „■, em, r. 64 • '.vn ....,... .. �... : �ardco L.;ntms. Inc, Col Gardcc Lighting !�. a: -w 411 .yy "�� war .: �i �v1^ �. ,� d10. ._ ..:..gin BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ( 'THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ti . • 3 . 4 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ) CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. ,' 5 A MODIFICATION TO A ) 4-92)-960 CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL ) (Lake Baptisr Church) 6 AND AN ODPS TO ALLOW AN ) FINDINGSt,CONCLUSIONS &ORDER. i' ., : 7 EXISTING CHURCH TO BE ) USED AS A HIGH SCHOOL ) '. ° 8 °. ' 9 10 NAITME OE AP LIC TION 11 The applicant is requesting modification of an ODPS approval and expansion of a 12 conditional use permit,previously given to allow a church (Lake Baptist). Approval of 13 these requests will allow a private high school (Westside Christian) to also occupy the 14 church structure now under construction. Also, the applicant is proposing to install a 15 portion of approved Phase II parking during completion of Phase I construction currently 16 underway [northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way, Tax Lots 5500 and 5590 17 of Tax Map 2 1E 6DD]. 18 • .• 0 19 f Eth 20 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its • 21 meeting of June 8, 1992. 22 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS '' E X H I:B I T , :. • 24 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: ( 25 i0215-; evio?14) v Impact Management Policies 2 6 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 27 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 . • .• General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 1'; Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 ' 31 Wetlands Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 32 • •• 33 Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I • ', 3 4 General Policy II PAGE I CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92)-960 1 ,:, 1 r. ` 1 Bikcway Policies 'y , 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2e • 3 Pedestrian Pathways Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 4 5 Transportation Policies rt General Policy I, Specific Policy 1f., 2, 3 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 3 t 7 B. C of Lake C7syyS$Si• 111g Ordi ante: v , 8 • 9 LOC 48.015(28) Definition of Institutional Use LOC 48.120-48,155 R-5 Zone Description 10 LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Descriptions 11 LOC 48.515(2) General Exception to Structure Height Limitations 12 LOC 48.565 Specific Standards for Churches 13 LOC 48.575 Specific Standards for Schools 14 LOC 48.810 Quasi-Judicial Evide,,nary Hearing Procedure 15 LOC 48.815 Criteria for Approval 16 LOC 48.820 Restrictions and Conditions 17 C. City of Lake Owego Development Code: 18 LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards 0 - . 19 LOC 49.110 ' Concurrent Review of Permits ,� LOC 49.125 Authority to Approve Changes in a; `'0 Development Permits 21 LOC 49.145 Major Development 22 LOC 49.300-49.325 Major Development Procedures 0 .� LOC 49.400-49.440 Overall Development Plan and Schedule 23 LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing • Procedures 2 A LOC 49,615 Criteria for Approval ' ` '' 25 LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals ` ? , •. 2 6 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 27 �. 2.005-2.040 Building Design 28 4,005 -4,040 Wetlands `9 5.005 -5,040 Street Lights , • p 6.005 -6.040 Transit System • 7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 31 8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space . 3 2 9,005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 0 11.005 - 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development • 33 14,005 - 14.040 Utility Standard `,. •, 3 4 18,005 - 18,040 Access Standard 19.005 - 19,040 Site Circulation -Private Streets and ' Driveways 20,005 -20,040 Site Circulation -Bikeways and40 , + ' PAGE Walkways ' 2 CU 2--85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92)-960 - e kii . F ti « . 1 alliCLUSLOE ., 2 The Planning Commission concludes that CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92) 3 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain 4 conditions. 5 6 FINDINGS AND REASONS 7 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report on CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 8 4-87(Mod. 4-92) as support for its decision, supplemented by the foil-Ong: 9 1. The following exhibits were received by the Board and entered into the record at 10 the public hearing on June 8, 1992: 11 12 Exhibit 36: Area of traffic generation impacting Carman Drive, north of Kruse 13 44 . r Way. 14 Exhibit 37: Photograph-Lack of Wetland Mitigation Plantings. 15 Exhibit 38: Photograph-Lack of Wetland Mitigation Plantings. • + 16 Exhibit 39: Photograph-Sign attached to tree. 17 Exhibit 40: Signs in public right-of-way 18 Exhibit 41:. Roadway Traffic purvey-,Kruse Way East of Westlake Drive ' 19 Exhibit 42: Traffic Generation Manual (portion)-High School 4,' 20 Exhibit 43: Summary,of Trip Generation Rates-High School (student) 21 Exhibit 44: Summary of Trip Generation Rates-High School (employee) 22 Exhibit 45: Newspaper Article, The Oregonian (undated) 23 24 ` 2. The Commission found that it was important to limit the number of students 25 ., attending the high school to 250 as suggested by the applicant (Exhibit 3). 26 Similarly, the Commission found that it was necessary to limit expansion of the . 27 physical facility or parking to only that which had been previously approved. • 28 ;• �' 29 3. The Commission found that the increase in parking lot usage associated with the 10 high school prompted the need to review the adequacy of approved landscaping. • ` I• 31 The Commission agreed to direct the Development Review Board to consider 3 2 requiring more intensive landscaping along Carman Drive to screen daily parking 3 3 uses from view, 34 • 40 PAGE ` 1 3 CU 2-85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4--92)-96C) t ' `• . . A _ _ 11 r i , r J' :( li • 4. The Commission found that it was necessary for the applicant to apply for an 1 administrative modification to the ODPS to satisfy an earlier condition of 2 approval [CU 2-85/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89); Exhibit 21]. 3 4 5. The Commission found that it was necessary for the applicant to seek ,. 5 development review approval for the parking lot expansion and modification to 6 the entry and exit on Carman Drive and Parkview Drive, as recommended by the 7 applicant's traffic consultant(Exhibit 12). 8 9 OMEN 10 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego 11 that: :' 12 A. CU 2-85(Mod. 4-92)\ODPS 4-87(Mod. 4-92) is approved subject to 13 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection B of this • 1 1,4 Order. . 15 B. The conditions for are as follows: 16 1. The applicant shall submit final parking lot plans for consideration by . 17 the Development Review Board. 'tk r 18 - 2. The high school shall be limited to a 250 student maximum enrollment 1' 19 cap. 20 3. The Commissionn encourages the Development Review Board to 21 consider more intensive landscaping along Carman Drive because of the 22 increase in daily parking. 23 4. The applicant shall comply with the condition of approval for its earlier 24 modification to the ODPS [CU 2-351/ODPS 4-87(Mod. 6-89)-706] by 25 applying for an administrative mo,�tification to the ODPS. • ,.` • 26 5. The applicant shall si.bmit final design of the entry and exits on Carrnan d. . . 27 Drive and Parkview Drive for consideration by the Development Review 28 Board, as recommended by the applicant's traffic consultant. 6. No expansions of the physical amenities (i.e., structure, parking, etc.) 10 shall be allowed for the site beyond the existing approvals. • 31 .• ` 32 33 y,4 34 • PACE Y 1 4 CU 2-85(Mod, 4-92)\ODPS 4-87.Mod• 4-92)-960 . y y 1! r ". • • u I CERTIFY'FIAT THIS ORDER was presen►ad to and APPROVED by the 1 Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. ', 2 3 DATED this 22nd day of June , 1992. xV 4 5 � • � At:z.1),6/.//,(:- `6.-'7 , 1 ( 7 Charles Oldham, Chair ' Planning Commission 8 ^ ' 9 ' zt 10 HçCMk 11 Secretary ` , • 12 13 ATTEST: • 14 : e,,,•. Substantive Decision Approving this Application at the Meeting of June 8. 1992. 15 16 AYES: • Beebe,DeLacy, Oldham, Colquitt,Garten 17 NOES: Finnigan, Rohrer 18 ABSTAIN: done N ABSENT: ., 19 None 20 Vote at t_he meeting of June 22 192 ving these Findings �ccurat,ely reflecting 21 the decision of the Planning Commission. . • 22 ' 23 AYES: Beebe, Finnigan, Oldham, Rohrer, Colquitt r 24 NOES: None 25 ABSTAIN: None • • 26 ABSENT: DeLacy, Garten 27 .; 28 • I 31 32 ' 33 34 41110 PACE L. 5 CU 2-85(Nlod, 4--92)\CDPS 4--87(Nlod, 11-92)-96O • U SIG ■•n.,�c^ :: Y EL ; N ETAENT , ' y �,y I I tSi 1* a10p1 e 1 1 i r c\k ! .4 1,) . f ` •1117• ■, WESTLAKE PARK . . a p �' 1✓ I I i CJ Iil ♦ 1. 1 i. a,,, it:r�, ,f 1 1 i .- .�.•w.•d �-„„ /1 ry,•..,1, •- ,r •.. 11 ../ � / •1 i., . so , ,,. y. ••..,.„, .. .a.;.,... 1!„� ...v.r�_• Y•----,.r y,'•��•',ry '^:114- li. a n� /. 1„.bi•,4•x •k • % "• i Q, { /� • ,i at .f, u. 1•re .�7 ! '+ 1 ' r l�f•I�Q r I. ` 1 4 r ,•, 1r, N,,• 4 y ''••., ,.Ia.,l a. �3l aye �I.�•,VI !�' �NI,.1.ifA1..11.•IV•1,.e • S. y •. ' ,, y. ..U. ,r,•'� fir, ►••4 4'11..< 1"•: ! —4 1 ' I I, / � +t + 1• ! • ^'! t 4 L,.In.. >r,t I- .1r1•••- `!R.,nr4 t� ,.` - +eao i I'�u_ yl hr't, • 11 ` ,: • ` f f�k. • • 77 ' ' •,` • I: ,a1Pa. K+. ,(. r I .0 '1i I.,' !1 J 64.0y :. . 1 41 I R.7 M � •••". ~ ; rr. r:• if 4' i. 'il :ji, �� { ...il:. : / Y /l,vh' Srdti, r.. `�' !__ ,•Ea�.�:�ta.y{I••`i.. •s•�• 1�./� � ("r�L►,1l 1 �1 bra . �) - -,/ 4/ I, .c. ' " , .. . o • 'L"MOWN, • • • • ��P • •`t• +- r0 �' l IV% •o 1�01 i� / .'',... .1. ''. Ir V CR&D • `, ttr . '..1 1 ti ,. ."• _� q�„�. .T.1' '.t.'=tii _`A,. t /0/,.. - .y.. ..`s�`.;_. a • , , 1', A - 1 L. C`' -v, . t l: , - ':1; It{t{ , V:' `7yj: ..11t F7 p' ,R-3 C `, 1r w / 1 ` • II • 4 "'' ' `• '•,.,. 1 ,III v ,- - . W„f illpitil I , Il,i`t :• I 1'~' .1 y 1,/ 1 •: 1 .•� • i •• , fp.:^) r . i .f. 'i. I. ` A ` r. N Mta� (' A EXHIBIT �., •at• r"'f /1 II' `'•� �,! WALWA I tauu:._�i:w, � i (t ' . F , �.�• IL r I 1 i it 11 1 d13e a i• 4 /.�` 1;' '. ` PARK :1/11W.. I .-. .'.yllah',' 1l - .•.-a; awkir imilit: • . e•y� , ►_ , . • � '✓ •• ` fir ' , ,.. .•., MyY374tW V y'InW us.u. �/G "•' a. I� �1�` '°' `� ,� , •+ •' .. • L n • '' ' ':i.44' 4;:‘IiH 14. t MI W 1 » • r 1 N. s•. v'1r ,' •. y• I, ,, br• ++. IY `, ••®.• if ` >t.,.."��� \.`.` ,. 1 "�. 6 � � / - , 3P I 1 �a , 1 1` 1 1 , 1 1, +aril 1 • J.•i `'• r A !_. .` .. _ �,.T'4, 1 1 • - , •,..wei ". ► - • 1410 Iyld • Y^, ° l Iwo Y r 4 ; ' l d ;'..., .1 si %.) . c . IIPPr \ .. . • \ � : -ap , � ®. , / { 1. r 1. . ���99Y31 . . 4' . Iffini II 1 kW' '. ' -- , I r {jp�f Tr 0 v cc tEl�■ .�EEEEE� .. .. ... O EL ri ..0 s VICINITY MAP Q M • UJ 4 e J n0[XCCPIION TAKEN �' KE MA CORREGTIOKf MOTTO Er. e REIEcTED 0 SUTAUT SPECIFIED ITEM 0 ` I h, REVISE ANC.RESUIMIT rj � CHECKING IS TO INSURE GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONCEPT' ..r OF THIS TRO1[CT,THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ANDIgR COMPLIANCE WITH ,IWEI CITY CODE. THIS REVIEW DOES NOT RELIEVE CONTRACTOR OF DUTIES ASSUMED IY CONTRACT OR OF COMPLIANCE WITH CITY COOE. CITY 0=' K; OSWEGO TY !, DATE 7-/2 4/ . 2 - 0 /46S IEa a /4/!;'..i.e-- i y • 2 BXHIB1T 1 al . torus-si .-- ): in 0 3 PRoFe�r�, �u . .• 10,538 +, �'�60NR6Ob . PRINTED 1Q V I3. 141 4P+ r. • . 10\02E ASSOC., INc. o ,, , • : 9 ti. . txt , r I } . 's .0 e .. ,. . , , . ,. ..ii, .. • l N •o{. • . , MI/LINO f ' / / I / I ' / / wfltrAm /, / / / / il tiw �/r of _ . a , i !S Ali) T ._. . ,; ..,• —'=,,,� ,• / 1 'P !// // /.r' a gal u11t li T oAMAa/• a"'�� % � r AZ i /' i 1 +I' 1 /fj11i11, r' 1.1/. 1 / • //% 1 rpnfni AN/IMOI/ ' .1, 1 - I f I1 111 ',f.11 :minim a �' l�; ? .•/ r,/� r;�/1• ,LA t �1 ( Ii r ,-/ u / • 1 n r M te�M 'I / / SJ_.;"r.+'j a �I 4n, � f :' • V 1 It / / �� 1.yI 1 vi 1'i � a_ oun tooth n .tj J 4n,I / /ILlitailli ` �' / "'-' / �' G TINOt►NNtl -b Its .• , ♦ / - '.• / f " I / YT.W.1«hN.K , �''•.,` 7-�r.` ..,,y+ et y C. A� } /' . ,I,A •\� I« , • '� f•'• ' 9000 rL20 M.cwL•m rN • •.bat 1•AlN �f/, ••�•`�� •-.,ti.. +{ 1 /�riJ. sill PUTUill NAOMI', igi I. I • ••:� / ��, FM14nd,Q/07201 C= 'A .\f., ,It 91 }}ry�jl �lll ' 'r:: / ... A(� �' /,''i�/� 150521/1M1 . .. • ,, �' • .� " —` I tNl`ruou (i" ,•1 ,('Ur1� l� ae w\ \'• j Ar1oN (i + ., orno ,la 1 J L'i Yr".1 ]T a\ 4 S, rt q 14� i o LEGEND ? r // V 1 / ' pp NAVE COMMAS �i {♦�I ) .. ,-- .a.. + / 1 t ) it11TINtl CONr \ k .'®,if �r^ pi a.. i ', PION ..-_a..� ..--_.• .- -� a �. FVTUq tA►AamaN ►OWIR►Olt TO II IIILOCATIO•-- �, .... t 1e . / + Y1 ell 0 v W t1111TINOWR AMA a.-. -. 4- - IAtlIM0iMt/ t y it • raeYlroArMbovte \� . '"� IJ.•�r( ��� /� /' f� �' O aunwrAhrcrn Y. // N e harmful?toCAltON1 1;uiii ,� a r 1 4♦ ; IANIIA/1 flat/ • 11f/ WATG `._ .r 6, 11 Y i -0 , pA►oi♦ol PIKE Mill, • \.1,\ `•• /'' q '� - - . ``\• �'\. A. 4.1 w/nNa knw a p `, » O • ',-..\\\\:', • • 0 >, 'PANKWG a • ..) N _ r7uu I, rNAtiI N. °e ' =LNG_ . _� o- :,�F0SBER(3 ROAD , • • .6. tail II/I CAM 40 S ' rbr CA 31tt CAM 1t1 . r\ _��.,......a....�.. • 8jA COY►Act CAA/ Ili COr.Am CAM yM AM IIAMgW i MAMTNCA' • • talk MI TOTAL ell 6. \ P,...I., /♦I♦ • l ems 0 IMP ' SITEPLAN ...., '+ . te A• i 1 i 1 • • • . - is ' : ♦ , • + Ltd.. )CL LIL ,I, s ,...,..... �L,,, r ,._ / !: . -.._ .._.__.. .. 'ram • .-.. ^-'. .•••..•.. r. YII y. j1 ... — ""`______ \�-'Y • r.Yt —�;�� AE�" 1y7., •("3 Ill • rs . • ,1 1 1 I ILL. fir r. s • ' •' 8..,-:.... I •, ��'�• ••}t =�,y1Y�y+''jIJMFs �Y �c�'�'"•�ly- 1��w'1•1t �'tia�wr r— Y• ,.......—I 8V} r 4�t L•h " I 1.1)/60:1.0,%4‘ ./•8,, v • �♦ J� I t( —lit.tf' }p�,if - T� t 1i •Y ` ; 1:`1.-� j; w Ili -2-I ■ ! tr_...... t, \ .9 . �7i .T1 I 1 • • , f u i,. ---., .0...., .... 1 . ce_g 61114- .•• \ 1N•3, I „, . .,,,,, ,,t. •W. ',i WW i 04 „t. d SZ...1,M rn r• `j ' rI(l4al ) •Ij(!/, �'')li. 1 Z, ' + z, . { R 1 ['�[ `'•1 -U y� IIYIf 1 rl l .. • < �� )Ill 1 -, ' , • • • '"' ►•.• .l r)Ed. Ise. / It! I. ♦ N11 11 l N + J'ff •� . r r ;�Y rt _. - .._-, «.- r r r {(�M- �� I eli;i -' I It, I ti • �• Wyf c (kt Ire 1S 1 0 ..,. -*,• 1I .. " "'T"• ' .a'H.r,�MCI y t`'` 1lt� 4 ..1 I�'9[. / Q j tl ; ;I ' 1 I. .YYl. kf �}'y1s` • t`1ri- o . ..!•rvN4.,/v lw. Ir.', mi.. lit DI a•• r.. _ 'e ._.-. } ri�►\ �,I,r+.Y....,, �IFk '4 1. �♦) 7�'' _ Y:x,w'1.1�,/..-n p r y k i•• • S. r• . rL.ANT N{ " 1•M1+w 1 �FYA'T ���W r I ; {1 �/�ti a/ . 6 711•f•f�\. 6.M •` �•tl ""II'� u• 1�•1 � •J ,.^^1 ♦Y ♦• WI.�r.1,•••Y0,..MNNrr* ri coo { I-- )/ ki ' 4.1 I lr h NUM•/rM W.I p.... I•Y. . 41 .* le Y hfY YN t••., •1,..'�«•.•I..Iw:/11wu•... 7Y4t ` �♦I • • / 1 r•hN r••.,•4n y,u•r•Yw•rr.eltrr•••. Y111, pp�� i .• rv. *+.+wwYnw/n•g1e'♦^l. It / Ilff i fl •� •l- ' � S{♦ /\•+.•"+Yt•Y••d4rY/4♦u..I nl,. {•.l ♦ I I 4. • • yy•,, .�:_!'ll/�yy��Lj�S��IlJ'.11H60-.. \,I, 1 '4 ))1• 1 'S _ . 1 1�Y1{,`.`P'tvdlt/�./C.P N4•!••.•M.♦Y iw ••••• �\f` v, !1-. _ (.('/'/ /. mod, 1 �•I • •IIY r0=1 l.• •♦••IJ"YW•.••NYIJ ♦N � ' K �� i. `ty1l �41 b 1 S ./ YIM Ilr 14 LI ,,• I0•Y4 }.•nrYr•MM.4..W. /1 1,/.r f.W/11 1144,44 II.M' !4 .tti, ,t\ - . '1111 - It + , •.7 y .r ..• M.••rh.d•u w.s.1r.+ �.N. ,4i tN"� V....1 �4 i !I ,1 , t r r•rh••♦nu•rII,w.. 1� („I ' ra r1 w.•...••.w.iw/IW• rw. 1.••r• \• •• P • r r pr...♦.•4w.lA/WO M••ttY♦WIN W.IN \ - j�.•• �! • r t..• r•,..0 wr.MMa•u.'•1M u•..../r11...,.."... IM•.e 'lI"' t`'•..,. i l w ,�� O./ �"/ (, i ' /•• el ..r..•t•q.1.4W••I.r•111W'I wt.•r.Mr.eU1 I,'•.N' ' ^ • •• 1 • • 4 rr ••••••♦•M• IiaiY.two oe♦•Na W Y' . I'�� ) .. rN.♦Y.MRN M-•Nr•K�vIY. w If 1 •..�.. ,..t. •lx. Y 14 Y.M..yr 1♦r.w(,N 11441MY1Y { I. ' 1 y 1a ^++yflal'Q!�_ r+ • '�• /• IIt♦N •+'..w•NY M`lllllw,.'/I41r.f.N•L YI.J♦r• »,r�, yr,el AYr. -. �•, .1t hH .. • • y .•.�.JWI '"` 1'ylywv(W I111• I' ly • .. ✓4, IJ.11 WW.r.Y MiM Yr '.\ lilt. !ht•� 1'.. y .............e.u.r.•'1♦..• 4Na'�' • 14.4 '1 ,. irii of ' 6AD•SI.WWII N•1 woiC B•y I ' •jIN_S I ti*t f''I..AI,}'rIh1L•1 �'I..A}J •/ •l�1 • y •t I C•h Ma+f tY '•I I tl•If N/M'O' •-xt '.f�i�.:lw 4 Y•IAl�` • . • •l• • ' • I,t .. Y + li • l ' ,, ' 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ' 3 , 4 . 5 A R^QU?",ST FOR APPROVAL OF) DR 15-89-731 U, 6 PHASE I OF A NEW CHURCH ) (Lake Baptist Church) FACILITY ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 7 8 ✓▪ EXHIBIT 9 C t> 10 11 011569 7.mm`. NATURE OF APPLICATION "' 12 The applicant is requesting approval of Phase I of a new church • 13 t .. facility (worship and educational structure for 750 people and 14 parking for 199 cars) . • 15 16 HEARINGS • 17 The Development Review Board held a public' hearing and considered 18 this application at its, meetings of October 2, October 25 and ; '`° 19 November 15, 1989. 20 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 4'. 22 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 23 • 24 Natural Resource Policy Element Residential Land Use Policy Element 25 Transportation Land Use Policy Element 26 27 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: 28 ��. l9 LOC 48.120-48. 155 R-5 Zone Description LOC 48. 195-48. 225 R-10 Zone Description • 10 (setbacks, lot area , lot 31 coverage) 32 C. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: 33 Chapter 47 Signs 34 g A^ ' PAGE 1 'R 15-89-731 . • • ` 1. 1 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: 2 3 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures • , ` • 4 LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals • v` 5 6 7 E. City of Lane Oswego Development Standards: . 8 2.020 Building Design 9 4.020 Wetlands 5.020 Street Lights �a'� 10 6.020 Transit �' 11 7.020 Parking 8.020 Park and Open Space 12 9.020 Landscaping, Screening and 13 Buffering 11.020 • Drainage for Major 14 Development 15 13.020 Weak Foundation Soils 14.020 Utilities 16 16.020 . Hillside Protection and 17 Erosion, Control 18.020 Access4 . 18 19.020 Site Circulation Private , I;; 19 • Streets ,. 20. 020 Site Circulation - Bikeways 20 and Walkways y 21 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: A'• 22 23 LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits 24 • : , 25 CONCLUSION • 26 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 15-89 can be made • 27 to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of rt 28 certain conditions. 19 ti 10 FINDINGS AND REASONS • • 31 The Development Review Board incorporates the September 22, 1989 • 32 staff report on DR 15-89 as support for its decision, 33 supplemented by the following: fT) 34 PAGE 2 OR 15-89-731 • • . vj 1 • 2. r, 4 tl 1,' 3 1. The applicant had provided a final wetlands delineation 4 report a wetland mitigation, and a revised street •• 5 • grading plans which illustrated that many trees would i y • ‘, 6 be preserved along Carman Drive, complying with the 7 Planning Commissions recommendations, and which 8 illustrated that the Wetland and Drainage Standards 9 would be met. A letter from the Division of State 10 Lands (DSL) indicated that they agreed with the 11 boundary determination of the wetland. These 12 conditions resolved the concerns listed in the staff •" '",.: 13 report of September 22, 1989 regarding these issues. 14 The Board found that some conflicts existed between the p'' ` 15 landscape plan and the mitigation plan, but That these 16 conflicts could be resolved provided the final plans 17 were submitted for, both DSL and .staff review. 18 2. The Board agreed that it was necessary to modify 19 condition number 4 to insure t'4 .e trees would be 20 protected during the construction .phase. 21 3 . The Board found that additional lighting may be 22 necessary for security, but that the 250 watt high 23 pressure sodium lamps should not be left on all night. 24 Condition number 6 was modified to reflect the Boards 25 concerns and to insure the staff had direction to 26 minimize the off-site efrIct of any security lighting 27 that might be proposed in the future. �'� 4. The Board found that the roof of the structure would be 28 visible from nearby residential areas and that a "' neutral color which was complementary to the building 10 • should be specified by the architect. The Board agreed 31 that the blue color of the canopies should be darkened -, ' 32 or modified to relate to the brick wall surface more 33 closely. They found that a finalized color board 34 should be returned for their review. PAGE / ` 3 DR 15-89-731 14. ,.: , :. • 1 . ` 2 „ ! 3 5. The applicant had not finalized the design of the i 4 mechanical system; however, the Board agreed that the • 5 location of mechanical equipment could be reviewed by A t.. 6 the staff. They found? that mechanical units should be 7 screened if roof-mounted. " { 8 6. The Board found that lighting of the roof-mounted cross ri • would in`.rm z on the residential neighborhood and that IM 9 10 it would create a commercial appearance for the church . 11 use. The Board agreed that the cross should not be rN 12 lighted after 10U0Ki p.m. since the church was located ': '' ` 13 in a residential zone and the restriction was 14 consistent with City Council action restricting 15 lighting on the nearby LDS Temple, also in a 16 residential area. ` '' 17 ORDER 18 ;�� IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of 19 0 ,. Lake Oswego that: 20 .;.'. d+. * .�.1 22 DR 15-89 is approved subject to compliance with the 7 conditions of approval as follows: 23 ,f 4 24 1. The applicant shall be comply with the conditions 4' . 25 of CU 2-85 ; 26 2. A final planting plan consistent with the Wetland 27 Mitigation Plan, and planned improvements, shall 28 be provided for the review and approval of the •+ Division of State Lands and the City. + 4 29 16 3 . An irrigation plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A final tree cutting and protection plan 32 y/ 4 n, illustrating measures to protect trees along the 1• ,4 33 Carman Drive frontage shall be provided including '} ` protection during the construction phase. Those a 34 measures shall describe grading, pruning and fertilization measures, as necessary to maximize _ 4' tree protection. PAG2: . , 4 DR 15-89-731 4 1 • t • uye'.1. . r 1 . i 0 2 • 4 >; B. An arborist shall recommend measures to maximize ` t' 5 the growth potential of the Large Oregon White Oak 6 on the property. Those measures shall be 4 implemented in accordance with a schedule 1 4. 7 recommended by the arborist. S I 7 •1,, 8 6. Final parking lot lighting plans utilizing the 250 9 Watt High Pressure Sodium Luminaires shall be f 10 provided for the review and approval of staff. Lighting shall be allowed from one hour before the 11 a.m. opening and one hour after the ,� of the facility, p mW closing � 12 r y, and shall be reviewed to minimize glare on adjacent residential properties. Any ' 13 additional security lighting shall be subject to .` the approval of the staff and shall be at a low 6 r , 14 level of intensity and preferably low in •' �`. ' 15 elevation. .:' 16 , , ' 1,... 7. Final drainage plans, providing pollution control 17 catch basins and adequate detention in conformance 18 with the Wetland Mitigation Plans, shall be , lg. submitted for, the review and approval of staff. 20 8. Final utility plans illustrating half street (Carman Drive) improvements in conformance with 21 the traffic analysis (Exhibit 18) shall be 22 provided for the review and approval of staff. 23 9. A final development schedule for Phase 1 shall be provided prior to the issuance of permits. � � 24 25 10. A color board including the color of the roof and 26 the color of the awning shall be submitted to the Development Review Board for review prior to the ': 27 issuance of building permits. • • 28 11. The applicant shall submit elevation drawings and 29 a plan showing that there will be no unscreened R mechanical systems on the roof. The plans shall 10 be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 31 , , �'r} „ 12. The cross shall not be lighted after 10: 00 p.m. at 32 night. 33 ,$, , 34 9, W . 411/, &i.• " PAGE 5 DR 15-89-731 ,.J -,2'•':.. ,.` . ' :,' l'' �,N . ,4 , -. a { .. �',• ♦ N.N �' yI, bin •Htv .� ,. -.W J L � 1 1 4 2 • ;J t . R` 3 4 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED • , . 5 by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. } E DATED this it-6, day of �•_____�________► 1989 7 — 8 ,. _._ 10 Robert D. Greaves, Chairman 11 Development Review board 12 �a. 13 3t1,/ biM � i.I ,ar, -C1� -14Secretary 15 i 16 ATTEST: iv 17 18 ORAL DECISION - November 15, 1989 , 1, 19 AYES: Mr. Foster, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Miller and Ms. Remy • 20 NOESA None f ,� 21 A.r3S 4iN: Non 22 ABSENT: Mr. Ingrim, Mr. Starr and Ms. Sybrowsky / 23 �'.. 24 WRITTEN FINDINGS December 18, 1989 v :% Y 25 x , 26 AYES: Mr. Foster, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Miller and MS. Remy ,. NOES: None 27 ABSTAIN: Mr. Starr 28 ABSENT: Mr. Ingrim and Ms. Sybrowsky , 29 a 10 31 32 `:,.;° 33 34 N • PAGE 6 DR 15-89-731 ♦fi , -:i ,'., • 22 • } TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH LAKE OSWEGO OREGON • PREPARED FOR • FWL ARCHITECTS _'. PORTLAND, OREGON • PROre F£ 1 N A, 13.• 41 r r 1g® EXHIBIT t07—la t , PREPARED BY .o. j ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) ° 4040 DOUGLAS WAX LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97035 91-454 AUGUST 1991 arr • 'th '1.•:\ } • •tr ., Y l.: 1 1 ,✓. t. n y�; 1/• • • A • / r.' ttl't 4 t, TABLE OF CONTENTS t,. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY " REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 INTRODUCTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE 3 7 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION 12 ` TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT . 12 14 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR 1992 WITH LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH 14 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 20 FUTURE GROWTH 23 ... . ..1:.: lb CONCLUSIONS 26 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX 26 . . . 27 APPENDIX A - Existing Levels Of Service C:Iculations APPENDIX B - Trip Generation For Lake Baptist Church t APPENDIX C - 1992 Levels Of Service Calculations With Lake Baptist Church APPENDIX D - 2005 Levels Of Service Calculations With Lake Baptist Church • , A • ` • g. 0. t 1 V ' + Ic, • ♦ .. .• •. 1. w . 1 , + ♦ •.. w.. , -.. • F - 1 , '♦ . ° + to ♦y t l t 1� et, t ; TABLES 1. Level of Service Definitions (Sigrialized Intersections) 8 2. Criteria for Signalized intersections 9 3. Level of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) 10 •" 4. Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 11 5. Levels of Service for 1992 without Lake Baptist Church Retail Center 12 6. Trip Generation for Buildout of Lake Baptist Church Retail Center 13 7. Levels of Service for 1992 with Lake Baptist Church Retail Center• '14 • + i • • • ff • a' i f r R1 • 1 k • f IY � ♦t • 4. -II- 4 +' D • 0 P i z dF" 1, r FIGURES 1. Site Plan & Vicinity Map 4 2. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 5 3. Existing Sunday Noon Hour Traffic Volumes 6 4. Trip Assignment Percentages 15 5. Site Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 16 r 6. Site Generated Sunday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 7. Total PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 18 S. Total Sunday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 19 9. Total 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 21 : z N . C. • 1 • O yyyyyy- j 1 t I a 1 0i A • -lll- 4, u 1 r t ;t a , „„ �7 , ,gp / r•••• .ypMkw L w•••• n.+n� w ," : avu ,VAtiht1 . Ltf� l of •.N•• � ("i%•,+..+c ..•r •�t.t'. ' V ':�.• 4 This report covers the construction of a 110,000 square foot community church with a 250 student church high school located on the northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way in Lake Osweg®e Oregon. This report is an update of the April 1985 study conducted by Associated Transportation Engineering& Planning (ATEP)for the church using current traffic volumes and road made during the past 6 years. improvements Traffic has grown considerably during the past six years and most of the Intersections along Kruse Way operate at or near capacity during the pm peak hour. The Intersection of Carman Drive and Kruse Way operates at level of service"E" during the pm peak hour and would operate at level of service "O" if separate left turns lanes are installed for Carman Drive traffic. • Field observation indicates that while the intersections operate at a low level of service, traffic does manage to move into and out of the intersection streets along Kruse Way with little trouble, The traffic signal system seems to operate at at a relatively good progression rate through the corridor. The development as proposed Is to consist of 110,000 square feet of community church which will include seating for approximately 2000 church members, a multi-purpose room and class 1 rooms of the church high school and Sunday schools. t' H: • Access to the development as proposed, is one main driveway onto Carman Drive and one minor • driveway to the newly completed Parkway Drive to the north. • The site will generate approximately 1,193 vehicles per day, with 81 trips during the pm peak hour • 41 (41 in and 39 out). it should be noted that the peak hours of the surrounding roadway Is not the same as the peak hours of the church, Studies conducted throughout the country indicatesduring that din • g the week, traffic is highest around the hours of use by the high school operation or a weekday service. There is little traffic (80 vehicles) during the workday rush hours. Peak traffic for the church will occur on Sunday during the morning services and Is approximately 75% of the Weekday traffic. • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH 1N1PACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PACE 1 ,' I r . , , N .rn..ej.�.ry - ..�.y�y�iM"wwvl'ww�•r �L ,ity wQm\ ti_ �1" WMwJ•gMw1 Mr•••w�M* 1 ..` 1 I f�4!r r. NJ M` lwf W M iJw �MNY:. . ! �}R I\f} '� ^'� !� µ..Ill•iJw lwMrfn+w w.lui 1�'� . '! F r \ , X nvv.vnrrl.ullnr.r PI' .1 IuM M r 'A...N. - w`RM.'n\ V•1 nwww MrlJ�WrV/rM 4 411, Yr.4r 111\' -'MM�w Iw 4.NWrYF wrV rY MWI—fM9M41 While the traffic generated by the development will not have a substantial impact on the r, surrounding street system. The following improvements are needed to provide safe and eas) , A access to the site and the surrounding intersections. ,, 1. Carman Drive be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane between Kruse Way ` and the new realigned intersection of Carman, Fosberg and Parkway Drive. 2. Left turn only lanes be installed at the traffic signal located at Carman Drive and Kruse Way and lane use control signs r"Left turns yield to oncoming traffic" be Installed for the , north/south signal phases , This improvement will let the Intersection operate at level of ' . : service "D" after the construction of the church. U • i a Jr t • , ti I LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PACE 2 . t ! i q • 1. 1 � �r '® This report describes the results of a ‘,1 INTRODUCTION transportation analysis update for the construction of a 2000 member church and 250 student , '4 church high school located on the northwest corner of Carman Drive and Kruse Way in the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. (See Figure 1, page 4) • The traffic impact analysis outlined in this report identifies the impact of the development on the surrounding street network and is based on three different periods of time: • First, the current conditions within the study area; • • Second, 1992 conditions with the development; • Third, future year 2005 volumes with the development; EXISTING CONDITIONS The study area consists of the area of Kruse Way between Carman Drive and Westlake Drive and north to include the newly created intersection of Carman Drive and Parkway Drive to the •-.•; north of the subject property The area is currently developed north of the site with residential • homes and a new subdivision is currently being constructed to the west of the site. • • Kruse Way is a five lane arterial street through this area and carries approximately 30,000 • vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on this section of Kruse Way is 35 miles per hour. I . TRAFFIC CONTROL Y, Currently the side street intersections along Kruse Way are controlled by traffic signals. The newly created intersection of Carman Drive and Parkway Drive is controlled by stop signs. • TRAFFIC C VOLUMES 4�. . The traffic volumes used in this analysis were provided by the City of Lake Oswego and consist of both 24 hour volumes and pm turning movement counts. These volumes are diagramed in Figure 2 and 3 on page 5 and 6. Adjustments were made to the raw traffic count information to account for seasonal fluxuations in traffic volumes. • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 3 1\\ 5 M t�RTGN I PARKWAY DRIVE ,,..:...... . . ... - 7_: 4'. :y • .f }:. .i 'r. .,,, '-*' 1.,. :' ' ' KRl1(2E WAY • • f G. t ir IAK15 13AP1'15f • • 51.1'E PI/AN • • 4 •, �, � � ,. a ,. ' � f ;�R,r - ''� _ '. � _ - , /. 0 ',C ..,,.. .. Y ' C 7O, . %117 M v E V V PARKWAY ORIVE �, .� 71 l� 511'E • P15-• + 115 r 100 • 1305-4. 4--IV0 ) t P •. . , . ) t rtt- , .. . ... .. . • � N KiZUSE WAY cm cc\ E 4"41 88 115 15 • 4. 1340-0 4--/40 m R 15"--+► r C05 m ) tr y- m m . 7�\. AKY 13 P 1'I1 MCI1 t ..r: . „ EXb1ING IKArifIr. VOA t) PM PEAK NOUK o , 61114\00 Y t Y V ,s1 N ' a . r 1: reg... z Sb ——la� 4 i—OO2 . s t .% ti ) t ��n 0. _. ,..... Ni i .1 1. c. . . oL--. a ` :}- 1 l' Z • r r =�. ::-.. , • • . . ,...... . . . , " CARMEN DRIVE a ' ›.. cp . . ........ •• . :, . . . . . . . . ..Z I . . ' ' 11 `r ,'I', ! •'• • ``i// . it ' ttla.. ..>:-(- S ' ' V �4 Y , Salmi 11.... '' l'—A 4—O1.L . °( -*1) t r" . .. . . .kr; a 8 u��c, • . 'tS. ....I n::', WE5fLAKE DRIVE » v ric7u4 PAGE 6 . . . AEA "� it . a ♦ "� . .n Since the development is scheduled to be constructed in the spring of 1992, traffic volumes were increased by three percent to be consistent with the construction year. This increase was • based on the average annual increase obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation a System Studies Unit. This was done to reflect the worst possible case for traffic on Kruse Way. A" . CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that was developed to measure how the driver perceives the conditions surrounding them as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. This degree of perception includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. As originally defined by the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these grades are f shown in Table 1. Using this definition, it is generally agreed that for signalized intersections LOS , "D" is the minimum acceptable for an urban area and for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is { the minimum acceptable level of service for urban areas. Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat different approach to determine the capacity of the intersection. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual offers the concept of "Reserve as the guideline for measuring the capacity. p Capacity" ' Reserve Capacity is defined as " that poi tion of available hourlycapacity that is not p ty used". It should be noted that the concept of Reserve Capacity only applies to the individual movements { k of traffic on an approach to an intersection, either in an individual lane or a shared lane, not to the overall operation of the intersection. This determination is made after all approaches are analyzed and the LOS determined is usually that approach that typifies the 'Worst Case" • • condition or worst Level of Servi-e. A description of the levels of service relating to the Reserve Capacity Concept is shown in Tables 3 & 4. LOS analyses presented in this report were ' performed in accordance with the procedures described above. p • r. tt YI • • ' LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 7 • • Table 1 - Level Of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of0 h Service • Traffic'Flow <; Characteristie;s . � . N.`A Very low delay, less.''than 5 0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles'arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop>at•all Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. y k i j B Average delay in the.range of 5.1 to 15 0 seconds per vehicle: This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle length,. More vehicles stogy than for LOS A, Causing higher levels of average delay, P • C Average delay in the range of 15.1.to 25.0 seconds per vehicle: These higher ,' delays may result from..fair progression-and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is.significant at this level,although may still pass through the intersection without • stopping. D Average delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result 1 from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high , I • v/c rations. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping 'declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Frequent signal cycle failures • , • .; r' ' and associated congestion. E Average delay in the range of 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered a to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate i . poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/e ratios. Individual cycle failures •k li are frequent occurrences. y . F Forced flow, with average delay in excess of 50.0 seconds per vehicle. This is _ considered to be unacceptable to most drivers.. This condition often occurs with oversaturatjon, i.e., when arrival flows rates exceed the capacity of the•, intersection• . It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with may individual cyde failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major ''=contributing causes to such delay levels. Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985). • ; 4) .-.:. ' -.. .- , . . .. .. I ,, a LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 8 i Sd, 11 r : v ,„ ': Table 2 - Criteria For Signalized Intersections Stopped 1 delay per' vehicle (seconds) r. A .00 5.00 • B 5.1 - 15.0 { C. 15.1- 25.0 D. 25.1- 40.13 E. 40.1-.60.0 E'`' • F >60.0 10. r Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special -'1 • ' Report.209 (1985). • • • p .. r I 1 ,; { LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 9 yai c • • . r r 1• 1 ! Table 3 - Level Of Service Definitions (Unsignalixed' Intersections) Level of 1 r, • Service Traffic Flaw Ch n . . A Average delay per vehicle between 0:and 10.seconds Free-flowing with.no co►igestron.. Very few vehieies waiting in a queue. • B Average delayper vehicle between 10 and 20 seconds. Slight delay to vehicles ;�, "' little or no vehicles in queue •{ • 7 C Average delay per vehicle 20 to 30 seconds.Occasional delay and congestions, more than one vehicle in queue. D Average delay per vehicle 30. to 40 • seconds. t~requent delay and • congestion,more'than one vehicle per queue.: • E Average delay per vehicle in excess of 40 to 60 seconds. This condition exists19 when the demand is near or equal to the capacity of the intersection or movement. Unstable flow which includes almost.continuous vehicles in the queue.. .,:: µ, � J • • F. Forced flow,with average. delay per vehicle in excess of 60 seconds. Queue • • ° ' , is extensive. • Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985). • p r � r :I • ' LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 10 I • t t . �' V r i '::'.•.'... '..'„ ... ,, 0 Table 4 - Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections . • .. ... .. .. .. ., .. ..... ., , . ..; _ • •.:,,,..•. . , . •., •• r Reserve. delay Expected to ..,.,,, • .. .. mor street..traffic >400 tittle•or•no Bela 300-399 Short trafific delays 200=299 C Average:traffic delays 10A-199 D long traffic:delays 0- 99 E Very_•long:delays * `F • • *When demand volume on any approach:or movement exceeds the capacity of the lane, " a, -, extreme delays will be encountered with;_queuing which may cause severe congestion i affection other traffic movements in the intersection. this condition usually warrants 'aiprovement to' he intersection Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway CappacitY Manual", Special Report 209(1985). • ASP ;, • ' • ,*- r {i . ,.,,n,,,•,......, .: • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 11 p r 1, fr' 4 i ,. Table 5 - Level of Service for 1992 without the Lake daptist Church \ i --_Y'_r I ( 'µ \ { Kmse,Wry&Carman Drive N3 Left f `t>�iii`•' ` 9.3s1. iirea. • Knhie'Way&•Wres*Iake Drive Wa Lek \\ { ;\t \\\ , .Tp Carman,Driva'&Parlavay }W T ru \\\� C 4\ c�S 5\ \ x33 i �• .Wa- � an W:hiO 110 irna ` ♦�\ I t\ \\\ W4567 y , [ \ As Table 5 indicates the intersection of Kruse Way and Carman Drive currently operates at a t level of service "E" which does not meet the Lake Oswego goal of level of service "D". By adding F.rotected left turns for Carman Drive, the intersection would operate at level of service "D" during the pm peak hour. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT } I r ` ._ As proposed, the development consists of 110,000 square feet of community Church including a 250 student high school. 0 ,. .,:- ` The development proposes to have one driveway onto Carman Drive and one driveway onto the new Parkway Drive. TRIP GENERATION :• I ' Estimating the number of vehicle trip ends that will be generated by the proposed development is of prime importance to City of Lake Oswego. is • Two basic procedures are available to traffic engineers for estimating the number of driveway a vehicle trips generated by a proposed but not-yet-existing development: 1. Apply averages observed through field studies conducted at other similar facilities located throughout the United States. A number of sources are available for this information including Trip Generation Manual (4th Editions 1987, which is published by the Institute of Transportation ` Engineers (ITE); and summary trip generation reports prepared by the California Department of ' Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and other public transportation :; agencies. All of these sources provide excellent guidance in estimating the trip generation rate • for various land uses, but obviously do not take into account the effects of local conditions argil ' • • • unique characteristics of the proposed land use-., ! . ` • . LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 12 I r a '{• . • 2. Observe through field studies the actual trip generation charact€•ristics of other similar and existing developments within the local area. • . „; , .: . 0 Procedure one above was used in the development off this report. The figures shown in Table 6 below,represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed i ': development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations • found on page 766 & 789 Sections 530 & 560 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 6 - Trip Generation For Buildout of the Lake Baptist Church ..Weekday �� Generated Trips (B) �� P M Peak Hour • Size:of Land Use Dai Land Use GSF (A) Volumes „ Total! In Out Church'. 1'10,000`' '847 70 37 33 High School included '346 •'10 4 6 't,193 8A 41 3g A Sunday ; Church, .. i ,•I 31460' 919 '' 386 533 laiiiiiniiiir ,. .• .t. ' ,... _. NOTES: A. GSF — gross square feet B. Total trips generated by the site •! , TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips generated by this development was determined by reviewing the distribution pattern of the existing traffic patterns within the area. The trip assignment 16 percentages are shown in Figure 4 page 15. • This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and • ; street distributions as shown on Figures 5 and 6, pages 16 and 17, The site generated trips from Figures 5 and 6 were then added to the 1992 traffic volumes shown in Figures 2 and 3 to arrive at the total traffic volumes for the Lake Baptist Church for the p.m. peak hour and the Sunday ; ,.• ' peak periods chnwn in Figures 7 and 8, pages 18 and 19, i • o . • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 13 " i rye, « b 1• • I • The peak hour levels of service were calculates using the volunoes shown in Figures 7 and 8 and are shown in Table 7. • Table 7 - Level of Service for 1992 with the Lake Baptist Church \. ♦♦ v ♦ �.�_.:,a\\t__��♦\\� \\\. .:SJ, '+c T�`1•.zl,!♦�� ,>a,♦ �\\��♦ Q \fit ,7i k,�. ♦ rY r. / iY!x f ... ::i�' tft�6L6w& �\ ' .Pr ii,•,, ,•'!,♦ .,y.\��`\♦♦ ���i.•\♦\\,; �•� .--1V 1))�r alr�r 1�x '0• + r,. \♦\�� \\\ \ „ - tc�s <v . {'\.1\���\\SZ*N \A,zv \i\ .. >tr/iif , . - '♦ •R`,3♦s.. �\ \. \+ \ - • y•,\ S\ r!r �i 1/ram � n ;\\* \\ : \ ` W <:�\\, \ $:p.?:•: '`. \ � \ :. 3 3 . `wl\♦:\ti' ;`,aFastl_l a= biWi. ; ett \\\, : �F �\ . \; ; .< „J%r-,: a !` �twR Vy ^: Q }`; p'\♦�: h\ t4. `\t \,♦♦ J ,ti, v\♦ \_._,�; \ s 0, J1`v♦\ 3 .hilt` \`4 \0 ♦ ♦ \ o. rx �♦eArIn e CWlal ��Ay # tum` `:` ;� ♦t36 u y ,W wjpnatec tpert . A comparison of Table 5 and Table 7 indicates that overall the developmer►t will not have a significant impact on the surrounding street system. ! / t + a s I 0111 i • + 1 1 1 • • • i. LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 14 • k 1 . • • H 1 1` • . • I ., . • • • a , • 0 1 II ?N.T. ' 4 • i \*".4 : ►°A1ZKWAY OR 1% 6% 1 • • ..� ... ,,. K1. JSE WAY e6Y S ,1 ` v,-, �``�� 1.0A0�� �® moawomsl ie��r . (. ... LA TRIP 0151'RIBtifIC,1N5. . I. A w • 17Y , , ..Y\ 3 ---A 11\ . .,_ 11 PARKWAY OKIVE N o l \ * 1 riry ,......,@_.._. KKuSE WAY .. ,..‘ ...r lA R m t .1 m �� BA��1'I (,OWN . 11`E CEO igt\fflC VOLUMES PM PEAK I . ....,......,......... , . . 4 it•vrgia it r tl•.vri laiiii ifik4.4 :_,L; , IThNIM �«r..•� F.......J *...-moo •T L.er.) ' .. 1 0 •• . ON ; rRT\ q � 0-- q \" \ ilk PARKWAY OKIV� 0- a ---------------ito-A, ) l . . ( ---. 1 . 5111E r •111• b ncs-� 1 170 —. — Pqe 37-''d 1 8 ~ 400-4 _./.----\\N...-- ....---il ______:, . . KRUSE WAY • a1tt m 170—' a-- 140 C m t GN --� LADE BAP�'I5�' G �Uf�GN it. . OAY 51 "E ivi1 %G V�I�U ES . y11 p����; _ ` y t ..a L.+...... •ate! �M r yr: ➢ � iJ,,r . - •.x 4 . .... . : 4..4, y 34 --0 PARKWAY DRIVE �" /I h� 1 iq :' , — �7) tep ,t-- 100 •s2 �$ 1 r /I� r , r •- Z15—j° v--- 115 q_iv ' 1331--• 4-- 03Z Zp--ti► pr- �5 c�Th ' v ''.- \...........___....__.ili 14 1340--0 4--140 • c • m �" �A �APIS� --0 5 . CP fol�t, cRAf fIG VOA . ,,,• k‘6'..%".""""M"*"""N""""n" M"'""d'""W . . PM PE N( •r , 4 , ,, , . ,„'..."'''. '',..:''' . • t n ..1'1 L1''9*'Mwow6i1fAaOI rr.1,yMr (r«...nY r...... r .,. oIl . .. .......... Y 0 • ------ • 1 F �i' ' `I ' I ®11, . . , co g , .. . i 4i --,....* tir- 9) PARKWAY otw __,e ^ R . t, El - V._•r 15 0-0 a-- 0 160-�J 1 L S,TE 42. °I t 06 1145--, .— b57 g�,s l 15Ikl/ t9 . . . . . . . . . . . . KRUSE WAY --�. p ' L55-A 196 1001--s o--.yS m 56-�. ~ 153 IrAKE 13AP1151" GI1J CH WAY 101N. 1'KA(11C VO 11*4 b ,. NOON 10 1 PM • • 7 w Y 4 • This portion of this analysis compares the future growth of traffic along the Kruse Way corn and the impact of the development on those traffic volumes. The traffic growth along Kruse Way was projected for a 15 year planning horizon by using the numbers generated by the Metro EMME2 transportation modeling program and is shown in Figure 9. This projection indicates that traffic volumes' along the Kruse Way Corridor are already ' • • approaching the year 2005 volumes projected by other traffic studies in the area. This also shows that the current side street volumes are not approaching the year 2005 projections. • While this increase is significant, the actual impact of this growth will not pose a serious problem ) the operation of the highway. oy ,, j •' • • obi v s • �;fAjjp dr . . •• • • 41110 LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 20 iR11rF.ti I.4n41 g....u.0J ••.,..•sr a:ruw M.t,.• {w...,r3 ' ,.,:,. . .; ., :v ..,.., ,. , . , . .. . . „ • . .. ."---- a 1man 4 . • e6 --Os' 4- 50 ORT • 9 --%. /0— 9 t • • ) r c PARKWAY OIRIVE ? f l 1 ..A �.• 1Z5 ' 5— . 0- 5(7-1-----cln o "� l �� 51 E �"°� �'�' »5 .� Do 1175--0. s— 9.10 q --sel e5� 8 = EO —` • KRUE WAY • 165—4 105 m q 1300—* a-- lq� r 181 \,.8 6P ., • .• ., .2.2: LAKE BArrl5 C ft i1 • . . 01 YEAR e005 1'O1AI, rIKAFEIG VOft • . PM PEAK NO . „. • a,. NZl1+4'5 VW MO WOO 1901 RCP fq . 6 ' 1 ' a `I Ifs; ..1, . .. . .•` .. . » ' a • 411118/` Based on field review and the above analysis the CONCLUSIONS following conclusions can be made: • • • • The proposed development can be built and if the improvements listed in t report are constructed should not significantly impact the surrounding street system. • The intersection of Kruse Way and Carman Drive requires signal improvement to operate at level of service "D" under the current conditions. A Kruse Way should be able to manage the future increase in traffic volumes that • are expected by the year 2005. • • Based on the results of the traffic access analysis RLCOMllEIVDATf SONS described in this report, it is concluded that'the istaignims. property as proposed can be constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding street system. • • r 2 . To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians within the area, the following traffic operational improvements are recommended. 1) The proposed development be constructed with two (2) full access driveway -� onto Carman Drive and one on Parkway Drive. . , 1 2) The proposed driveway onto Carman Drive be constructed with two exit lanes and • u one entrance lane. This would provide left and right turn lanes for exiting traffic. 3) Protected left turns be installed for Carman Drive at Kruse Way. This will require • changes in the existing lane usage but should not require widening of Carman { Drive. • 4) Carman Drive be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane from Kruse Way to the realigned Parkway Drive. • • w S • • LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE PAGE 22 • • • • .." • 1.. . /` • r . • ' • .. . . , . _ • 4 , .. . , . . . • . . . • . . . • • . • , ., : ., ,,_,•,:. Y0'•e .;••., ..-; '..,1 ••• • ,. . ...•3i'4'.*" • ' • W,e; NI% • • 4:1:0".••••• ..41W1/.,• . ,s , . ...,,,,,:., ...........r. A S 0 CIATED. . .., ..„.,,, 1,4--iiiire A Nsp 0 RTATT 0 N ....„ 4-- Eir,_. -M. . . . . , ......ise V . . rt.:.41.il, .r.GINE E RIN G ..:.:.:.:.: ...... & I , , r , NNING .t . , ... „..........:, . *.4 1 I ii I I.PIP 4 A (ATE P) . . 1/4 , . • • • fl• ''''':• . fe" 1 •• .• • ..i: ' 1 '''. .....;' •: f; .1. .. • ii i i e . ' •' ' *. i . ._ "''...; e . ,. •• * ' • . . ''.:0' '; • ,. • ; e e . ,. .. • ., , ....e . . , D . • . , • • Re -. la ..".•• ' , • If , . . '01,,', '• . , 110 • .APPENDIX i . ••• • ' '' 'T. . • .'N. . • I I '' 1, ' I " '` '' . i''4 ' • I .4 " " ' ". ' " ' '', . - '. 4 ' ': ''' ' ' • ' ' .. - . ,.i • I av tP I • 5 e f .:!,'. : ...„...., .: „,,,,,,,„ ......„. ..„.,,,., ......,„„,, . ..,-..•.i.....,...,,•..,......'....•..,.,..:....,.....,:'..•..,•..'.".n.r,.,:•„...,•,..„••.:..; '.'','... Aar . 1 ERIN . .• ,.. i1.,11.. ..'•,''...;'.,..'..•,..„.-.'....,'.,..,,:.'.. ., . •.4.:.t..'7. -`s e ..,f... & \I .........•._...,..... y r ..,,,.:.........,...... ,, ,,.,. :.„.„.. S.A %:•.�1,, GINEERING .ix....: .. (ATE p ) ,.. ,...., :., ...,..:.•,.„........, P I,, 'lull\\ NNINC I ,�j, sir. ' • .y I , , .. . 4.' APPENDix A , . . I j i CURRENT .L.L"T/. L 1 t �•'.1 �fi1 rw s OF Y :. . . , . ,. • , !. / ... . . LVIcE AL� UL � TIONS '. ... % . ,,,, ; .. . . ... , , . . . . . , , . i• 1. b of 1 1 'oho tl .YA M .. .i �' r. f u 1985 NCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT $ftffftffffff'lflatffffffftfffffffffffffffffffftfffffffffttfi,Mffffffffffff • INTERSECTION KRLSE NAY/NESTLAKE AREA TYPE OTHER0 ' ' ANALYST DV 1 DATE 88/18/91 J TINE PM PEAK ' CURRENT..... EXISTING VOLUMES : GEOMETRY -____\--~---- EB NB NB SB : EB NB NB Sp b IT 215 25 98 140 : L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 TH 1386 B28 125 181 : T 12.8 T 12.1 T Ia.O TR 12.1 • RT 20 115 82 121 s T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.1 12.0 ',.. RR 15 68 35 68 : R 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.6 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12.8 12.0 12.1 12.1 1:��.1 `' - - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N min T ' ED 8.88 2.21 N 8 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 NB 8.80 2.18 N 0 5 1.90 5 N 17.5 3 ., ',. NB 1.80 2.81 N 8 5 1.98 5 N 23.5 3 f• SB 0.11 2.88 M 8 5 1.91 5 N 23.5 3 G SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH si 97.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 }" EB LT I X NB LT X TN I I TN I r . RT I I RT X PD PD k NB LT X SB LT I ,. TN I TH I RT I RT X i' PD PD GREEN 15.1 11.1 38.1 1.1 GREEN 18.1 20.0 1.1 1.8 ti' YELLON 3.1 1.1 . , 3.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE ..' LANE GRP. VI^ 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ' EB L 8.548 1.250 24.0 C 41.8 0 T 1.137 8.412 42.5 E { R 1.889 1.412 18.9 B NB L 8.186 . 0.155 26.8 D 30.8 D TR 1.944 1.319 31.9 0 NB L 8.573 1.183 34.8 D 26,8 p ';'. , T 1.378 8.216 21.7 C } 11 R 8.171 8.206 21.5 C Y *. SB L 1.091 1.113 59.7 E 41.5 E TR 8.768 8.286 29.3 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 36.2 Csec/veh) V/C = 8.792 LOS = D y .e 1 1; 1.. Y I' ° U J U '_t . ,.. ..'.. ::. ':l'I.:. . e i i r414 III .::::::::: , Ls., SOCIA TED . • ::::: • ..,,,,,,,, .„, . . . • , z ...:.::::::. r,,...... . .. . . , ..„a . A NSPOR TA TI00...N .:.::::.:. ,,,....:.:.:.:. „,.. pi., , • . • . :. • . . . ,, , . ; .::::::::. ,„.,,,,, . „, ',., , GINEERING oc-, . . , N.:.:::::::::, ... re, .,;; . , . .. • ..� ( ) . { + LANNING ATEP ain . 6� la 1, . . . , t jA ;' . , ,. .. . . i a r tc • ,- APPENDIX C 1992 LEVELS OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS 1 '` N • 1 4 1985 NCH: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 :' tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttauleattttttttttttfttttttafttiffifffttt `` '' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9' • U, AREA POPULATION 188888 ti NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SITE DRIVE • ` 'z NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET CARMEN DRIVE J NAME OF THE ANALYST DO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS Ien/dd/yy1 88/11/91 TIE PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK c; OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT '4 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL • . • _________............._______________ , .: . . . INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH --a CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WO MB SB +; 121 LEFT 9 -- 28 I THRU B -- 422 258 RIGHT 28 -- I II NUMBER OF LANES , E8 NB NB SD LANES 1 -- 2 1 ti G . p L j • 1 t:. Y• ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (It) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 1.80 91 21 N WESTBOUND --- «- - • t ' NORTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N SOUTHBOUND 8.08 91 28 N 0 44F.' 4 # ' 1, ' VEHICLE COMPOSITION I Z SU TRUCKS Z COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES Z MOTORCYCLES • EASTBOUND 1 1 1 WESTBOUND --- --- • NORTHBOUND 1 8 + Y . - SOUTHBOUND 1 1 1 r CRITICAL GAPS r. TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED BIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL SAP =') MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.58 1.18 5.51 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.88 5.80 8.88 5.88 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.58 6.51 8.11 6.51 j 1 . . , . . „„ , . . . • I , w • • d s I,• '4 A i 11111/ CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOM- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ' ;; RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY HOVEMEENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c m c - v LOS p N SH R SH 5 MINOR STREET ED LEFT 11 328 312 > 312 ) 381 > 8 �� ' ) 582 > S37 >A f RIGHT 34 887 817 > 0O7 ) 772 > A MAJOR STREET ,A R . . " ND LEFT 34 981 911 981 066 A A : .d: :t 1 • �, . 1 - 1 • 1 '. L f .. fh .. vi j .. M • yr. ,�', . 1985 RCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ' ttttt+t++t+tt+ttt+t++t+*tt++tt+ttttttt+t+ttttftttimittt++f9tii4vcitaitt++ 0 IHTERSECTION KRUSE VAY/CARMEN DRIVE !� .. AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DV DATE 10/11/91 TIME PH PEAK `" COMMENT M/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY ES YB NB SD : ED ' 1111 NB SD , LT 131 215 145 112 : L 12.0 L 12.1 LT 12.1 LT 12.1 . TN 1341 74/ 234 119 : T 12.1 T 12.8 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 75 16 165 57 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.8 12.1 RR 75 75 111 45 : R 12.1 R 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.0 12.8 12.1 12.1 \ , V : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ti •• � .� �� w ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (1) (%) Y/1 Ns Nb YIN sin T EB 0.18 2.81 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 19.0 3 `.' VD 1.11 2.81 N / 0 1.91 5 N 19.8 3 NB /.11 2.11 N 1 8 1.91 5 H 31.0 3 • SD 1.81 2.80 N 0 0 0.91 5 H 31.0 --« 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 119.0 0 \ 't PH-1 PH-2' PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 r ED LT X ND LT X TN X TN X RT X RT X y PD PD NB LT X SD LT I ' TN X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD GREEN 15.1 5.1 45.1 2.1 GREEN 35.1 1.8 1.1 1.1 . • YELLO113.1 1+1 3.1 1.1 YELLOU 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.8 4 Iji LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.621 1.138 37.2 D 51.3 E T 1.062 1.413 52.6 E 5 • . R 1.881 0.413 12.1 B ' : OD L 1.978 1.138 74.9 F 26.4 D T 8.52E 0.459 13.8 B Is R 1.110 1.459 11.4 B . NB LT 1.415 8.321 f f t t R 1.149 1.321 17.1 C SD LT 3.128 1.321 t + + 1 R 0.127 1.321 16.4 C INTERSECTION: Delay = + (sec/veh) V/C = 1.417 LOS = + 0 ' 4. :. �..' 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUPOTARY REPORT U ( INTERSECTION KRUSE WAY/CARMEN DRIVE • AREA TYPE OTHER •:; ANALYST ' OW ..;,, .:.. DATE 18/11/91 TIRE.- PM PEAK COMMENT W/DVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB MB NB SD : EB MB ND SB LT 131 215 145 112 : 1 12.0 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 •4 TN 1341 740 234 109 : T 12.1 T 12.8 TR 12.1 TR 12.0 RT 75 86 165 57 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.1 12.1 RR 75 75 188 45 : R 12.8 R 12.1 12.0 12.1 : 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 e , : 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.1 ` , \ ii ADJUSTMENT FACTORS N• GRADE HV ADJ PK6 BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (Y) (2) 1/N Na Nb Y/N oin I EB 0.10 2.08 N 8 1 1.91 5 N 19.8 3 ',`:'•' NB 1.11 2.01 N 1 1 1.98 5 M 19.8 3 • NB 1.11 2.11 N 1 0 1.91 5 N 31.8 3 • N' :I SB 0.01 2.10 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH ■ 109.1 ".;� PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 & I EB LT I NB LT X TH X TH X PT I RT X Z PD PD MB LT I SB LT X TN I I TH I RT X X RT X PD PD GREEN 15.1 5.1 45.1 1.1 GREEN 35.1 0.8 1.1 1.8 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.8 1.1 YELLOW 3.0 1.8 0.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 6RP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. I;ELAY APP. LOS 1 EB L 0.621 I.lp 37.2 D 51.3 E ,I T 1.862 1.413 52.6 E •I. R 1.111 0.413 12.1 D '... .: 11 WB L 0.978 1.138 74.9 F 26.4 D T 1.528 1.459 13.8 B R 1.118 1.459 11.4 D NB L 0.414 1.321 22.3 C 28.9 C TR 1.618 1.321 21.2 C S8 L 1.514 1.321 24.4 C 28.6 C TR 1.239 1.321 17.6 C " • IHTERSECTIOh: Delay = 36.0 (set/vehl V/C = 1.567 LOS = D w • + ,,-If 1905 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT fffffffffffff4fffffffff44fff44f$f4444ff444f44fffff4ffff4ifffff4HffffffOCHI !NTERSECTION KRUSE WAY/WESTLAKE 0 ' AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DA DATE 88/18/91 • TIME PH PEAK • COMMENT N/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY . ED WB NB SB : ED NB NB S8 LT 215 25 91 141 : L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 TN 1331 832 125 1B1 : T 12.0 T 12.1 T 12.1 TR 12.1 RT 21 115 82 121 : T 12.1 TR 12.1 R i2.1 12.1 • RR 15 6I 35 60 : R 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.1 12.6 12.1 12.0 7 ..,......,_ „j ADJUSTHENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PK6 BUSES PNF PEDS PED. BUT.. ARR. TYPE (1:) (X) Y/N Na Nb Y/N ein 7 ED 6.88 2.11 N 1 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 ' OD 1.81 2.81 N I 5 1.91 5 N 17.5 3 NB 8.81 2.81 N I 5 1.91 5 N 23.5 3 + SD 8.88 2.11--- N I. 5 0.90 5 N 23.5 3AA -- h o' SIGNAL SETTIMS CYCLE LENGTH o 97.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X • TH X X TN X . s RT X X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X .{u TR X TN X `'\ ' e RT X RT X PD PD , GREEN 15.1 11.6 31.1 0.8 GREEN 16.1 21.0 1.1 1.8 • YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C B/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.548 1.258 24.8 C 45.1 E T 1.157 1.412 40.4 E R 8.889 1.412 18.9 B W8 L 1.116 8.155 26.8 D 32.3 D TR 0.957 1.319 32.5 D NB L 1.573 8.113 34.8 D 26.1 D 1 T 1.370 8.286 21.7 C R 1.171 6.216 21.5 C SB L 1.891 1.183 59.7 E 48.5 E • TR 0.768 8.286 29.3 D 1NTER5ECTION: Delay = 39.2 fsecivchl V/C = 1.002 LOS = D 4 1905 HCM: UNSIGNALIIED INTERSECTIONS Page-I tef1KEnilfffaf4rr+fe:tftcfsclemaat+eteaerocum+tffatiliafuo- efetoa. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 31 + • PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 AREA POPULATION I11111 M-y x NAM OF THE EAST/REST STREET CARMEN DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG NAME OF THE ANALYST DU DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (er/dd/yy) »1/1191 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PH PEAK' -� OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC ;`; INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ,a SJ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG s,, .: a ti MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN ^` CONTP4, TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED NB MB SB ' . LEFT 1 116 65 43 .. THRU 1 1 274 135 �. . RIGHT 35 19 155 5 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE • J EB NB NB SD LANES 1 1 1 I I LANE USAGE LTR LTR r �. . ■, , 1 • 0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ______ .________,.r____..___________________ ,r_ ____. „, , . PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (itl ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS w EASTBOUND 1.08 93 21 N '. • u . WESTBOUND 1.81 98 21 N NORTHBOUND 1,11 91 21 II / u SOUTHBOUND 8.18 98 28 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION \\ Z SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES i MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 1 " I" (' , WESTBOUND 1 8 1 NORTHBOUND 1 1 1 01„, : SOUTHBOJNO 1 0 1 F . S CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11.2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS • WO 5.55 5.58 1.18 5.58 EB 5.50 5.58 8.11 5.51 } MAJOR LEFTS Yf , i,' SO 4.11 5.88 8.88 5.18 • ' NB 5.01 5.80 1.88 5.11 MINOR THROUGHS WO 6.88 6.18 1.18 6.18 LB 6.88 6.18 0.88 6.18 +• MINOR LEFTS • I NB 6.58 6.58 1.18 6.58 EB 6.58 6.51 1.81 6.58• !'. • • . i t ' CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE -N- Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOG- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ;:u- RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ` `' ;6 MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph.‘ c (pcph) c • c v LOS p N SH R SH ,... %. MINOR STREET US LEFT 123 386 345 > 345 > 222 ) C THROUGH 8 462 424 > 375 424 > 238 424 )C A RIGHT 22 727 727 ) 727 > 785 ) A MINOR STREET • ED LEFT 1 358 315 ) 315 > 314 > B THROUGH I 417 382 ) 898 382 ) 856 302 >A B RIGHT 41 940 948 ) 948 ) 910 ) A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 75 993 993 993 918 A SD LEFT 51 752 752 752 763 A t ,; e i[ y i w • i i iP, 1 » . v: ,,, 0 . Y , , , . 1 y. i P by - • .+: 1905 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMNARY REPORT eaasee**********c****************aa***cart**********************s********* INTERSECTION KRUSE BAY/CARMAN AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DV DATE 18/11/91 TINE NOON x.. 12111ENT N/DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED 18 NB SB : EB BB NB 88 LT 255 153 188 271 : L 12.1 L 12.1 LT 12.1 LT 12.1 TN 1111 553 212 132 : T 12.1 T 12.1 R 12.1 R 12.1 � d RT 56 196 123 275 : T 12.1 T 12.1 12.1 12.8 • RR 56 158 120 250 : R 12.1 R 12.0 12.0 12.1 ; i : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.8 12.1 12.1 12,1 __ _rr ---r ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N Ns Nb YIN sin T EB 1.18 2.18 N I I 8.90 II N 19.8 3 BB 0.11 2.81 N B I 1.91 II N 19.8 3 • NB 1.18 2.88 N I 1 1.98 II M 31.0 3 S8 0.11 2.II N I 1 0.91 18 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH . 114.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PN-4 EB LT I NB LT X TH I I TN `• RT I RT I PD PD 4. ... C¢ 48 LT I X SB LT I TH X I TH X RT I X RT X • PD PD 4' GREEN 21.0 5.1 41.8 8.8 GREEN 41.1 8.8 0.1 1.8 ` ' YELLOB 3.1 P.O 3.1 1.0 YEL .1 1.1 /.1 1.1 ' LOB 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP, LOS I EB L 8,954 8.175 64.5 F 37.5 D T 8.934 8.351 31.0 D R I.I88 8.351 15.5 C NB L 8.458 0.219 31.8 D 19.1 C T 8.459 8.395 16.6 C 'a R 1.885 1.395 14.1 8 NB LT 3.71E 8.351 * * * I ; R 8.807 1.351 15.6 C SB LT 2.119 1.351 * * * * R 1.852 8.351 15.8 C INTERSECTION: Delay = I (set/veh) V/C = 1.801 LOS = I NI • I 1 • Ja J4-: S/ f,• ✓_ .. b n • • AM '� t , • . S 0� �� TED . .. . . .„ .• i�t, % s;•. Ø- /gyp , . . . ..,, •.. . :., ..,. , ... . . r ..,...,. AN SP 0. . , . riiiill G & . e ,.. . . ...,.., ....„ : ./..,� �. :. ANNING . . , lr 'None/ (ATEp) • p . 1 • • ',. ,_ ..:. , ,,,.• ] ! ''.,. APPENDIX D . . j • YEAR 2005 LEVELS OF SER VI C CAL CULA TION, • ..r a a e • 1 ' •s 0 /i : .r 1985 NCH: UNSIGNALIIED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 N ir, ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttetttttttttttttttitttttttttttttttttttt IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 't AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 31 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 95 AREA POPULATION 110111 NAB OF THE EAST/NEST STREET CARMEN DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERB NAME OF THE ANALYST DM i` - DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (oa/dd/yy) 4/1191 TINE PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: YEAR 2105 1 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG . • MAJOR STREET DIRECTIONS NORTH/SOUTN • K., CONTRDI. TYPE EASTBOUND: STDP SIGH t,, CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED NB ND SB LEFT 1 145 65 90 , to i THRU 8 5 385 225 ' «" RIGHT 35 125 185 5 ,., sw c WUNDER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE .,-.:' •••••• , 0 ED OD NB SD r ------ ` LANES� a 1 1 ` g 1 ri 1 ": LANE USAGE LTR LTR J. u, • • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOM- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE • • RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY �l MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c s c - v LOS p M SH R SN MINOR STREET 110 LEFT 168 286 238 > 23B > 70 ) E THROUGH 6 354 383 > 341 303 > 22 290 )E C RIGHT 145 687 687 > 607 ) 542 > A MINOR STREET ED LEFT 1 213 154 ) 154 ) 153 > D THROUG,I 1 389 265 > 756 265 ) 714 265 >A C RIGHT 41 051 851 ) 051 > 018 ) A • MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 75 945 945 945 871 A SR LEFT 114 699 699 699 595 A , . 1 4• i, 1 • • + 1 • 4 1 • ,, \ .h • i 1 4 Y q{. • i � f . 4 • • • r 4. • STAFF REPORT ^I', , . . . . CITY OF . .LAKE oswEG0 . , . . . -PIANO DIVISION r. APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Thomas H. Nelson SD 56-89(Mod. 7-92)[AP 93-01] PROPERTY OWNER STAFF: William and Debra Larsson Michael R.Wheeler x • '- 1' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 3400 of March 24, 1993 Tax Map 2 1E 3CC DATE OF HEARING: LOCAMId: April 5, 1993 SW Corner of intersection of Chandler and Iron Mountain Boulevard(1210 Chandler NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: *` 4 Road) Forest Hills COMP.PLAN DESIGNA 1TON: ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 R-10 • I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST wl c;, The applicant is seeking to modify an earlier partition approval (SD 56-89; Exhibit 7) which enabled the creation of two parcels from an 86,058 square foot lot. The parcels } created are 20,078 and 65,980 square feet in size. The applicant seeks the elimination of 4 two conditions of approval (Conditions Number 3 and 11) as they regard Tax Lot 3400 ' • .. , (Parcel 1), • IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Cily of Lake Oswego omprehensive Play: • • ` Urban Service Boundary Policies ' General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 Impact Management Policies . General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 • ID General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 Residential Site Design Policies • SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] • i Page 1 of 13 ,� , 1 0 I +. l u General Policy N,Specific Policy 2,3 General Policy V,Specific Policy 1 • °r Bikeway Policies General Policy I,Specific Policy 2,3,6 Pedestrian Pathways Policies v General Policy II,Specific Policy 1 Transportation Policies M' ° General Policy II, Specific`Policy 1 General Policy IV,Specific Policy 7 ;; General Policy VI,Specific Policy 3 ,;? B. of Lake OSwegts Z' e: LOC 48.015 Definitions ,, • LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (set-backs,lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535(3) Special Street Setbacks LOC 48.820 Restrictions and Conditions C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.015(36) Definition; Public Facilities LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.125 Authority to Approve Changes in Development 0 Permits • LOC 49.140 Minor Development '• • • LOC 49.200-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.225 Appeals LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals LOC 49.630 Appeals of City Manager Action D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: • 14.005- 14.040 Utility Standard E. City of Lake Oswego Pathways LOC 42.900-42.920 LOC 44.374 III. FINDINGS • A. Background: The owners of the site requested approval of a minor partition in 1989, The City , granted approval, with conditions, on April 16, 1990(Exhibit 7), The final plan was 0 , . ' authorized by City staff on May 2, 1990. The original dwelling was remodeled and a • new dwelling was built on Parcel 2 during the summer of 1990. • "e SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] • Page 2 of 13 ' J. ,te • • The applicant subsequently requested that the minor partition be modified mto eliminate two conditions of approval (Conditions number 3 and 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). This request was considered by staff as prescribed by LOC 49.125,and the requested modification was denied on January 15, 1993. The applicant submitted an appeal of this denial [AP 93-01] on February 4, 1993. As required by ORS 227.175(10)(a),the applicant's appeal is required to be considered "de novo", as if no decision had been made regarding the matter. Appeals of City • Manager decisions are required by LOC 49.225 and LOC 49.630 to be considered by the Development Review Board. This report has been prepared in that manner. • B. Existing Conditions: 1. The site is composed of one of two parcels created following approval of SD 56-89,totaling 65,980 square feet in an irregular configuration. 2. The site is bounded on the north by Chandler Road, an 11-foot-wide paved • street with no shoulders; and Iron Mountain Boulevard on the east and °r , southeast,also an 18-foot--wide paved street with no shoulders,curbs,gutters, sidewalks or pathways. The rights-of-way for each an(0 feet wide,and 80 feet wide,respectively. 3. An existing six inch water line is located in Chandler Road. An exisiing eight inch line is located in Iron Mountain Boulevard. 4. An existing six inch concrete sanitary sewer line is located in Chandler Road in front of Tax Lot 3600 (to the west). , 5. There are no storm drainage improvements in either Iron Mountain Boulevard • or Chandler Road. 6. Street lights are located opposite the intersection of Iron Mountain Boulevard and Berwick Road,on the south side of Iron Mountain Boulevard. There are no street lights along Chandler Road. The applicant installed a cobra-head lamp on an existing utility pole along or near the frontage of the site or. Chandler n Road to satisfy a condition of approval of the earlier minor partition (SD 56- 89;Exhibit 7). 4 Y' 7. A dwelling, guest house, greenhouse and detached accessory structure are located on the Tax Lot 3400. • C. Proim i • The applicant is seeking approval to eliminate two conditions imposed upon a minor partition approved on April 16, 1990, specifically Condition Numbers 3 (regarding nonremonstrance agreements) and 11 (regarding a pathway deposit) as they regard ` • Tax Lot 3400 (Parcel 1). While the minor partition and required conditions of approval enabled the creation of • Parcels 1 and 2 of SD 56-89, the applicant's current modification seeks the ; • elimination of Conditions Number 3 and 11 only as they regard Tax Lot 3400(Parcel • • 1). This report does not include consideration of such a modification for Tax Lot t. 3401 (Parcel 2),based upon the application submitted. D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: .• SD 56-89(Mod.7--92)[AP 93-01] Page 3 of 13 • • As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor tJ development. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. 0 • ' . The applicant hr'i;s submitted many of the documents marked as exhibits, • . accompanying this report. The remainder of the exhibits were provided by staff to assist in the review of this application. 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The description of the applicable Plan policies has been provided below. Because ,. they regard only the two issues raised by the applicant,each has been addressed,in a summary,located at the end of this section. The policies are as follows: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban , Service Boundary,with a logical planned extension of basic services. p, The policies are as follows: General Policy III—'The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban , Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services." . L . � � � Specific Policy 4—"New development shall be served by an urban level of service of ID • the following: "c. adequate streets, including collectors" "e. Open space and trails as per Open Space Element" "Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development,or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds," Though Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Boulevard are paved streets, they are . inadequate in that they are narrower than the City standard of 20 feet in width, lack curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and/or pathways. Compliance with this Plan policy was achieved through Condition Number 3 of SD 56-89 (Exhibit 7), which required that the applicant sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements to both streets,for use in the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID), The applicant complied with the condition by providing the ' agreement on June 25, 1990(Exhibit 8), • Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals,and payment of an equitable share ® . . , . . of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several code chapters, and the Development Standards, addressed further below, Compliance with SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93411 Page 4 of 13 Ii• y the applicable Development Standards assures conformance to these Plan policies. v f� Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. General Policy I-'The City will protect natural resources and processes from ,a " ' adverse impacts of development, within reasonable cost limitations." ' Specific Policy 1 --'The City will assure that each development seeks to preserve and maintain natural features and processes. Each development shall seek to provide,in accordance with the applicable plan element:" 7. Provision of pedestrian and bicycle circulation" General Policy II-'The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community,requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted." Specific Policy 1 -'The City will place principal responsibility on the developer for demonstrating how a proposed development complies with Comprehensive Plan t policies and standards contained in regulations or requirements." A Specific Policy 2-'The City will prepare and carry out regulations requiring development proposals to identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts, ` including particularly:" , "a. traffic or safety improvements needed for access, circulation,parking of autos, bicycles and/or pedestrians;separation of auto and other circulation a or to reduce or eliminate traffic impacts on adjacent areas, or to facilitate use of public transportation." 'u "f. public cost impacts, assuring that development: 1)pays for costs of facilities r '. required to serve it or,2)ameliorates the public cost impacts of the development." • Specific Policy 3-'The City will review developments for compliance with the Development Standards and other applicable City Codes. . ." General Policy III-'The City will require new development to pay an equitable . "' share of the costs of public facilities,particularly sewer, water, drainage,parks, open , space and streets or traffic improvements." Specific Policy 1 -'The City will require new buildings and development to pay for an equitable share of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of ,. • . the development, including but not limited to:" "a. street and traffic safety improvements, including off-site improvements," -' In its review of SD 56-89, the City comprehensively evaluated the proposal. The , City considered the location of trees on the site and required a tree survey prior to issuance of any building permits for the site(Condition Number 6, SD 56-89;Exhibit 7). The City determined that the proposal did not fully comply with the applicable ; Plan policies, specifically those regarding the provision of pathways and adequate streets. The City required Conditions Number 3 and 11 to ensure compliance with • . those criteria. Satisfaction of these conditions was deemed by the City to be the , ` applicant's ".,,,equitable share of the costs..." associated With the development. The , , 410 applicant satisfied both conditions by June 25, 1990(Exhibits 3 and 9). The staff found that the additional impact on City facilities caused by the additional need for SD 56-59(Mod.7-92)[A.P 93-01] Page 5 of 13 • ` 2 ' h. `4 • pathways and improved streets created,a basis for requiring compliance with the J conditions. RcsidontiaLSitr,flesigniolides. These policies are intended to guide the appearance and function of development, resulting in more livable neighborhoods. r The relevant policies are as follows: General Policy IV—"Provide for residential streets which enhance residential livability." Specific Policy 2—"For new development, the City will:" "a. require residential streets in new developments to be designed to provide for pedestrian and bic,wle safety;landscaping,especially street trees,and for controlling the.cpeed of automobile traffic. ' • "Priority will be given in street design to amenities which improve livability over vehicle speed and convenience, and to reduce disruption of residential areas caused by traffic." • Specific Policy 3—"For all residential areas, the City will:" ,. "c. encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation in residential areas." • • General Policy V—"Provide for innovation in residential building types and site planning." Specific Policy 1 —'The City will encourage and assist the design and development of innovative residential dwellings, related facilities and site planning in new developments. "Examples of such flexibility include:" ' • . < "1. street design to slow traffic cand protect pedestrianslcyclists." ,'•, . k The applicant was required to comply with these policies (and the Code provisions r. which implement them) by either constructing the required improvements to City standards,or paying a pathway deposit(Condition Number 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). • { The applicant paid the deposit on June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). The staff found that the additional impact on City facilities caused by the additional need for pathways and improved streets created a basis for requiring compliance with the conditions. "�• Bikeway Policia, •hI , These policies require development of pathway segments identified in the Conceptual ,�• ', Pathway Master Plan. These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation— Bikeways and Walkways Development Standard and portions of LOC Chapters,42 and 44. The latter is reviewed on page n of this report; the former is not t\plicable to ' • ' minor development. • The relevant policies are as follows; • • y 1 , +` SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)(AP 93-01] Page 6 of 13 • __ r ,`p, +.� a«_ tie ,. . r. 1 ._ ,•. ;, » '' :Yi.. ♦ P ., , 1. General Policy I-'The City will establish and implement a Bikeways Plan,which provides for safe intra-community, human-powered travel, with connections to adjacent cities and counties." J 1 ,,, .. • • Specific Policy 2-'The City will develop bikeway standards which:" "e. require bikeway route planning for new developments at the preliminary design stage, to connect with routes in[the]Bikeway Plan" .. Specific Policy 3-'The City will designate Fublic Works Department as • administrator of the Bikeways Plan" Specific Policy 6-"The City will provide for a variety of funding sources to 17 implement the Bikeway Plan, including both public and private sources" The Pathways Master Plan and Ordinance(Exhibits 4,5, and 6)enable the Public t Works Department to require a pathways deposit when the actual location of the pathway along a planned route has not been determined but will be constructed in the furie. The location of the future pathway on this segment of Iron Mountain • `' Boulevard has not been determined. The applicant was required to pay the deposit as • a condition of the minor partition approval(Condition Number 11, SD 56-89; Exhibit 7). The deposit was paid by the applicant on June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). ade"stri n Path_w.ayc l o ick These policies require that pathways be planned for and developed to connect n , ' • facilities throughout the City. ' 0The relevant policies are as follows: "°• General Policy II-'The City will assist in the development of the Pedestrian Paths • systems to connect parks, schools,public open spacr3, residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas." Specific Policy 1 -"The City will develop flexible standards which require individual developers to provide segments of the community's pedestrian pathways. These standards should assure: "d. footpath extensions of existing sidewalks" "e. protection from vehicle traffic" i, The discussion of these policies is the same as for Eilr sway Policies,reviewed earlier. nanortation Policies ` These policies require that streets be improved as planned(including required width, , • curbs, gatters,drainage improvements, sidewalks, and pathways) when demand - • requires. The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional • right of way as necessary to provide for widening. These policies are implemented in • a , part through LOC 48.535(4), Special Streets Setbacks. While no additional right-of ' • or to sign a nonremon,trance agreement for future right-of-way�to construct improvements,in way dedication was required,the applicant was requ r ' improvements,m �, { 40 Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. .r,.•' i •4 SD 56-89(Mod.7--g2)(AP 93-01] Y Page 7 of 13 , " 1 General Policy II- 'The City will plan the use of street rights-of-way to serve human powered modes,such as bicycles and pedestrians,in addition to serving motor : ' :-• vehicles." • The relevant policies are as follows: Specific Policy 1 -'The City will manage public rights-of-way in a manner which best meets community and neighborhood needs,as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses of the rights-of-way will be varied,in accord with the particular needs, expected vehicle traffic,available funds,physical conditions or desires reflected in each situation. Uses include: • ti q. ,'r,' "d. bikeways "h. pedestrian paths" L,, General Policy IV-'The City will develop a residential neighborhood streets system :'r adequate to handle expected volumes,but at a minimum necessary scale to preserve the quiet,privacy and safety of neighborhood living." a•' 's Specific Policy 7-"Plan with neighborhood representatives for the use of public rights of way in the neighborhood. Such uses could include:" "a. bikeways" "b• pedestrian paths" General Policy VI-"The City will develop and implement a,system of bikeways and pedestrian paths, which provide an energy efficient alternate means of circulation k throughput the community." • ` ` i Specific Policy 3-'The City will plan for Pedestrian Paths, to enable residents to travel safely on foot or bicycle throughout the camntundty. These pathways should:" "d. Be developed as part of development and landscape approval" A discussion of these policies is the same as for Impact Management Policies and Bikeway Policies,reviewed above. Summary: r The City determined during the review of SD 56-89 that Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road did not meet minimum City standards ,particularly in the areas of pavement width,curbs,drainage, sidewalks, bikeways and pathways. The proposed • development created an additional need for these improvements, and were required in r the conditions of approval. Alternatives available in order to comply with the relevant Plan policies were to construct required improvements or provide a signed .. ` nonremonstrance agreement and pathway deposit for future improvements. The applicant provided the deposit on June 15, 1990 and the ag reement on June 25, 1990. 14 r b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. ZoningCode ` Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 4 • ..;.` The following requirements were in effect on the date this application was received: 40 .. , 4 .!' The site is zoned R-10 Residential which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is 65 feet; required minimum lot depth is 100 feet [LOC 48,210(1)], r • SD 56-89(Mod,7-92)[AP 93-01] Cr, Page 8 of 13 " • V Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 25%for new construction [LOC . Y 48.225(1)]. w • The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for new construction [IOC 48,215(1)(a)]: Front yard: 25 f. Rear yard: 30 ft. Side yard: 15 ft. The maximum height for new construction in the zone is 30 feet on a flat lot or 43 feet on a sloped lot[LOC 48.220(3)]. /.1 Maximum lot coverage ahowed for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction in the zone is 30% [LOC 48.225(1)]. A. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction [LOC 48.215(1)(b)]:• • . N Front yard: 25 ft. Rear yard: 25 ft. Side yard: 10 ft. The maximum height allowed in the zone for an alteration that does ^"t qualify as new construction is 35 feet on a flat lot or 45 feet on,a slopedlotO], • „[LOC 4F,,220 3 z The applicant propNes no change in the configuration of the approved parcels, which are the following sizes: Arm Width Depth ' '' Parcel 1 65,980 square feet 250 feet 250 feet Parcel 2 20,078 square feet 170 feet 150 feet • The applicant applied for the modification with regard only to Tax Lot 3400 (Parcel 1). This parcel meets all Zoning g Code requirements. The existing right-of-way widths of Iron Mountain Boulevard and.Chandler Road meet the Special Street Setbacks [LOC 48.535(4)]. • Development Code Requirements and Analysja( .O Chapter 4j1 In order to determine the level of review required, the staff must examine LOC 49.125, Authority to Approve Changes in Development Permits. As prescribed by that section, "Any change not meeting the criteria set forth [in this section]shall be processed as a new application. A change meeting the criteria shall be processed as a minor development," • 'The City Manager may approve changes in any development permit,provided that • such change: "(1) Does not increase the intensity of any use,or the density of residential use; 4 r and... The proposal concerns two conditions of approval affecting future street and • SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] r Page 9 of 13 • • r , pathway improvements, and does not propose to increase the residential density . of the project. . r "(2) Meets all requirements of the development standards and other legal • requirements;and..." - 1 U x The approved minor partition meets all such requirements,as described in the staff report and decision (Exhibit 7). The applicant proposes to eliminate two conditions of approval affecting the Utility Development Standard. The f, applicant has not proposed alternate methods of complying with the Plan policies and the Utility Development Standard,which requires adequate streets or the construction of a pathway. Absent a proposed alternative,this , requirement is not met by the applicant's proposal. "(3) Does not significantly affect other proprty or uses,will not cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature,process,or open space; nor significantly affect any public facility; and..." The proposal does not affect other property because the subject conditions "" affect only future street and pathway improvements; it does not affect any natural feature or open space; the proposal does affect a public facility which includes public rights-of-way, as defined by LOC 49.015(36). "(4) Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by a hearing body or City Council." The proposal does not affect a condition placed by such hearing bodies since the two subject conditions were imposed by staff in an administrative decision, 0 , , as provided by the Development Code. The applicant's request is required by LOC 49.125 to be processed as a new •'� application to modify the approved minor partition. The applicant was required to submit a new application for this modification to the original minor partition approval. Other than applicable Development Standards, there are no other .. Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Pathways (LOC 42.990-42.920.LOC 44.374) The City has adopted a procedure for the public review of pathways design and routing (Ord.No. 1981, Exhibit 5). To implement this where major development is , ' not proposed, the Public Works Director requires a deposit of a cash amount to be • reserved for future bikeway construction. This applicant was required to pay this . deposit for the 300 foot of the site's frontage along Iron Mountain Boulevard ' • • (Condition Number 11, SD 56 39; Exhibit 7). The applicant paid this deposit on ' ^ June 15, 1990(Exhibit 9). c. The applicable Development Standards • • . Udlit ztand d(14.005 14.040) • Before approval of a minor development can be granted, it is required that all utilities be provided to City standards [LODS 14,020(1)1. This includes streets [LODS ''i, • 14.020(1)(h)j,bikeways and pedestrian pathways [See Comprehensive Plan Policies, • ... ` ',4 • discussed earlier]. � Though paved, neither street abutting this site meets current City standards involving ' quiled width,curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and pathways. A pathway is ,,, '.' !) . SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-011 re • Page 10 of 13 Lp • proposed along Iron Mountain Boulevard as identified in the Pathways Master Plan, but has not yet been constructed. A pathway deposit was required as a condition of ` • approval (Condition Number 11, SD 56-89)and was paid by the applicant on June 1 ; 15, 1990(Exhibit 8). Though the Standard inquires the provision of adequate streets, the anticipated impact ` of the partition upon the street system did not merit its improvement at the time of approval of SD 56-89,due to practical considerations. The applicant was required to r sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements (including bikeways and r pathways)to both streets. This agreement would be exercised in the event of the • potential formation of a Local Improvement District, which would improve a larger :' :• area of the street. The agreement will allow participation in hearings necessary for the CityCouncil to form the district, but D %° wouldpreclude a remonstrance bythe applicant with regard to the district's actual formation. Additionally, as required by the Pathways Ordinance, the applicant was required to ,° "•:, provide a pathway deposit for the planned route along Iron Mountain Boulevard, as , discussed earlier. o d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. . E. C mlusiim The Comprehensive Plan,Development Code,Development Standards, and Pathways • Ordinance (Exhibit 5)require improvement of streets and pathways as a part of any • development. Th development has been shown to create the need for additional • , improvements. The applicant provided a signed nonremonstrance agreement in lieu '' • of constructing those improvements, as required. The applicant has not proposed to improve Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road to city standards. Instead, the applicant has requested that the nonremonstrance requirement, Condition Number 3, be deleted from the earlier approval. The applicant has not demonstrated that this would achieve compliance with the Code. It is therefore necessary for the City to require that the nonremonstrance agreement for those future improvements remain in effect for SD 56--89. • . The improvements mentioned above include a pathway along Iron Mountain Boulevard. The applicant provided a cash deposit for future pathway improvements 1, in lieu of constructing the pathway in 1990. The applicant has not proposed to improve a pathway in Iron Mountain Boulevard to City standards. The applicant has • requested that Condition Number 11 be deleted from the earlier approval. The Pathways Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan charge the Public Works Director with administering the construction of the Pathways Master Plan, The Public Works -, Director secured a deposit for the pathway in lieu of its actual improvement as a ' • condition of approval of approval of SD 56-89. Based upon the provisions of the '�: Pathways Ordinance, it is reasonable for the City to require that the applicant's cash deposit for a pathway along Iron Mountain Boulevard be retained to satisfy SD 56- . • IV, RECOMMENDATION 14 The staff recommends denial of the proposed modification to the minor partition approved previously (SD 56--89), and that the following conditions remain in effect as originally • numbered and approved: „, SD 56-89(hlod;7-92)[AP 93-01] Page 11 of 13 • y 1 y I • ' • 3. The applicant shall provide the City a signed agreement of no!iremonstrance and petition for future improvements anticipated in Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved, and be binding • on subsequent owners. • d 1' ,� 11. The applicant shall provide the City a cash deposit for the purpose of constructing a bikeway along Iron Mountain Boulevard prior to the issuance of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. The amount of the deposit shall-be determined • by the Public Works Director. .1 a Y Q. eP , 1 4 • • • • • SD 56-89(Mod47-92)XAP 93-01] Page 12 of 13 • • :r • . • , I/ EXHIBIT S 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative 3. Site Plan 4. Pathways Master Plan(Map);dated December, 1988 5. Pathways Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1981);dated February 7, 1989 6. Pathways Master Plan(Text);dated December 20, 1988 7. Staff Report,SD 56.39;dated April 16, 1990 8. Nonremonstrance comment;dated June 25, 1990 9. Pathways(L.-posit(Receipt Number 158827);dated June 15, 1990 10. Memorandum from Jeff Condit,City Attorney;dated October 23, 1992 11. Notice of Appeal;dated February 3, 1993 12. Letter from D.Pogue; dated March 16, 1993 i• 1 .r • • 1 r ♦ r ° • .� ` I • ♦ •, SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)[AP 93-01] Page 13 of 13 200 T.; 480 Cil 2100 - 4.DI Z •• v er�fr�le-w .. , 0 \.. �O 4°• ,4,. 300 - ♦Ail II' - V 0 7 ,,i.,. w 41 . , COURT ,,,.,P.,.,, . a.= V t ' • • Op ' o Q� '� �.pNo OD D .� e •�-�y° ♦1,' ter./ 15 P 0 30. eii?1 " g' • , A 11 i'. //6 a 4v..12 0 Ogii, nr•.iiii•i•Ti,.. . �' 1290 .'.rrast.°a•snow. as 400 2 0 444 [� ,,« �!� M P 1500 1400 Y v ,,,�• A �p0 1.034Ac. '. 4.0.2IAc. ..M a� ���� ,0.29 Ac' �1235 1225 y ! �� , w • 0,6 c' 124b o �J• r+ t1.55 V. \ is.). Ts.a, H *4 N ro•re'.4.".' t 1,• R „ A"' 10 Te. .0 JOSI�.H 5. • RANKLIN �- , �``' ` Ac' URM °�' ,O. 1 70' 0� io' tyV.44 �� r. R� »�® ill. 5. N . oOD \ ••,, / ✓1T -'•• 41 J+,t, /;+ .6 3401 .. 14 3400 ��� w R96tCEL 2 �'. 410 3 Sze N.E N S/i LS IO R i \ (' C) 5 C6 V y, \ a 90 � 5 A • CCC a a ,4 I • po s' ^� h,1 ,1 'ti 0 r1 as, ba A, ip00. • • 5, y :, `/�-. \ `y N 4 Off' _ , .. `.r 1") `• Epp - 1R h°1 A� y i'''', \ \\ /Cr 1,61 • \ 1�Y1 to A. y `]� 4, 9 \ 6t nQ ...., N?S' 63 ,4 ' , fa l 0 K �i + "' n ft4t/ ,. o w 0. r 4 # mkt r:N \ `• ,1 1 b6 (d /' °\ a • F,.. - . • . R i it STATEM ELACC�OMPANXTN 'LIcA ION FOR MINOR CI$LGES_Ta D VELA': ;NT PERMIT Introduction u By a plesding dated May 1, 1992, William and ' Debra Larsson moved to reopen a prior land use decision in File ' No. 56-89. A copy of that motion is attached hereto as - '','.• 1 Exhibit 1. In response, by letter dated May 27, 1992, Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, informed the Larssons that the appropriate procedure to reopen the referenced „ , decision and to address the merits of the issue would be by application for minor changes to development permits. A copy of Mr. Wheeler's letter is attached hereto as Appendix 2. r. Mr. Wheeler also informed the Larssons that the fiAing fee for ". , such an application was $400. On July 24, 1992 the Larssons, through their attorney, submitted a document titled "Application for Minor Changes to Development Permit," together with the $400 filing fee. On August 13, 1992, Mr. Wheeler wrote to Mr. Nelson stating that the City required • • "a completed application form, site plan, supporting graphics, and narrative. The . narrative must include a description of how :•;� • the proposed modification complies with LOC 49.124 (1-4) , applicable provisions of the • Development Code, Development Standards, and other development-related ordinances. ;: , ; : The Application must be signed by the property owner or written evidence of your authority to act as agent must be provided." • a This revised application and narrative summary accompanies the � . '. 1 one-sheet "Application for Administrative Review for Minor � •. Changes to Development Permits. " Written authorization for Mr. .,, Nelson to represent the Larssons in this matter is attached to the one-sheet application form submitted herewith. A site plan and supporting graphics are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. '' Narrative First, addressing LOC 49.125(1-4) , the Larssons contend: • (1) The change requested herein will not increase - the intensity of any use, or the density of residential use, of land, and 1. r .4 . 4 . EXHIBIT ® 2 (3 eaXy-244o.1 19612 0001 i1.�y, , , i r • (2) The change requested herein meets all requirements of all legal development standards and other requirements legally imposed; in fact, the reason that • this application is submitted is to determine the legality of two existing requirements that Applicants believe to be ,• • illegal; and ' (3) The change requested herein will not f` significantly affect other property or uses, will not is 4 cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space, and will not significantly affect • any public facility; and - . t (4) The change requested herein does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing body or City Council. (The prior action was administrative in nature. ) The application does not seek to change any existing use of land. Rather, it seeks a determination of the legality of two conditions it attached to its approval of their application to create two parcels from one parcel of land, viz. , (1) the legality of the exaction of over $5000 to fund a bikepath along Iron Mountain Boulevard (condition 11) , and (2) the legality of a "nonremonstrance agreement" (condition 3) . Applicants contend that both of these . conditions are illegal. 0 : `• (1) The Bikenath Exaction. Applicants contend that the bikepath exaction was illegal and unconstitutional. Specifically, the exaction appears to be a violation of ORS 0 223.389 (imposition of special assessments by resolution or ordinance) , Section 38 of the Lake Oswego City Code (imposition of special assessments by ordinance) , Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution (taking of property without just compensation) , and the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the &institution of the United States (taking of property without due process of law) . The Larssons seek a refund of all " • bikepath funds paid to the City, plus statutory interest. (2) The Nonremonstrance Agreement:.. Applicants contend that the nonremonstrance agreement was illegally obtained and is both illegal and unconstitutional. In essence, ' ' �» the nonremonctrance agreement requires that Applicants forfeit civil and political rights in return for development • authorizations. It is a longstanding principle of law that governmental benefits may not be conditioned upon the surrender of constitutional rights. More specifically, the agreement deprived Applicants' right to, and chilled their exercise of, free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under Oregon Constitution Article I, , ` i 0 PDX'l-2440.i 19642 o0r01 � �a h 1 „ 1 • + . \ • •. •.. - • section 8 and Article I, Section 26 and underthe first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; it deprived them of their right to free elections as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution and under 42 USC § 1973i(a) ; it is preempted by 5 Usc § 1502(a) (1) (the '. Hatch Act) , and it is in violation of the Oregon Corrupt Practices Act, ORS 260.665. Applicants intend to provide full legal analyses backing these claims once this application is processed and this proceeding moves forward. W . Applicants William and Debra Larsson look forward to • working with the City on this matter. DATED: September 3, 1992 Respectfully submitted, m<A67440,0 /1644—%. °"" Thomas H. Nelson • STOEL RIVES HOLEY JONES & GREY 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2700 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 294-9281 Of Attorneys for Applicants ;u. y 't. PDX3-2440,1 19642 0001 .�i ry • � 1 0 0 . • ` I PRELIMINARY MAP FOR L B E LL'9 �' / g � , • _,t'(1'�� �t10'120 —`t,=Gl.ta' O./1� �'•..,_ 1 BEING: LOTS 71-73 & A YN�v �'j PT LOT 74 C ,>,,a'� ,r, 1nnP' 'p�� „FOREST HILLS„ tam'\0`.1%'S 7oes.>� $ • p. a-wAart w[r[ns I��in y'�7°a`Ya I,�r/P, IN THE: CLACiV KA 4 SEC. 3, T'2 S. R.1 E., W.M. .' " COUNTY, OREGONi. :4.,.,' i ' `o• PARCEL 2 • r I'''1/ r ')t Z4a�0 SQ. FT.t 1 laucN T.L, 3100 MAP 2 1E 3CC i ! :, oust e. m,eo' I • 75 .heard., • b•\ is",yobd / / PROftESS gNAf. N � �.. vamp LANTI &11rvCY IN • Hoot • '[ ^ I Nitro, �/ oARCEL 1 '`' ` u N'nll'is r I •ttJ ( 1 ci )i 6l,.701]SQ. FT'3 �_ ...::�s I • 11 be Di AI •a . / �' f 71 A.. iwou' i M c CFI ■N 2134'3I'C LEGEND: 1 SCALE i"•• 50, • MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED 70 a 1' ���4y Cr+ oWNuLtAPPucANR DEUDIE LARSN I :. I.P. IRON PIPE ilu tAM[NEW tiw. CC �� p / • LAKE OSkCOo'o tcoN 07035 U G h H I Q I T ," LR. IRON ROD t R[CORO DATA �� (, l 55- • RECORRI SE'AER b Mw'7-'9� :II / PREPARED 19Y: ANDY PARIS k ASSOCIATES C I;YI P. 1/YIP 5 1/'!y' I6877 S.W. CANYON MOT. 636-3341 iERO TEL, ELEC., k C-34E n1]' PH. 05WECo, OITECON o`Ofi • �� • , A 2so.00'. L . 0./2'�' it1 • al • H s6nrsb' r APr� 4 .t 1 oil ' 1 2 1090 • K \S t . •;,.,,6'. :b. , I�N • V 1', 1 IJ' it �. 1et�`- itie . ..VJ. n-� ti t•• A~'► 1 I, frl �•1 1�� .t -`` ra1111O \,3 ��a;4c„J 1 �� i. oi:iih dlnoea'" 7 • 4 "••,` F � • , �� 1' • ( ..�-> ..� _.•� • , .1,Me•.. .. r• /J(( `�\`\Ll / r, South IYPrY + jr or : � ' t �' I;*" ) I t 1�. d :_.•' k , ., ;. PuynntN;;ee 1.:.'Y -I. 11 \ _'�•ti c( /•h ] , 1 1,, NpA/ YJrY, 41► �..._.. 1 � _ :1/ l Yt,�. r-... ►^'o.r. of elyo ^Iv r, 4 _.n 1^ I -, .a _ 11. J•:-n YYrY L nt. J ,Y1 r r 7�--• / I0r+ . (' ,A, _ No n IIeIA p it 1. ,- ,.1�. , •.. 12,(If '. ' %Il+t _.: ' •-� - -1 / ( ` 1/,1. I 111 M, • `O 1 ♦� •`�-1 y •�' I ",-a..-. . (IaiW- _ fitly,r aaY1J 7.R{>' �'I ., . n •OlO l l/ ,(• . 1, r � ._ �1 +, i �.-.•� 1//% 1>. 14fYbA llferl k,_ . er1 \_ • S1 , T' t.fi R,- 'l' T 1 .. _ ''� . 7 Vln•,%,-...ram w �� [ry+��, rfY-1 I iiL�' U N• 'v. ......1 ✓ C47.14.. arwt jii '. ( � �!' _ - �..' \ 1 r 17 c.rn.n arlre rl1 : / il� '4 Iflir 1 \ y/ '41 %7ttt ) 4f?r.f C2 e Y .» I/ i. u °unit 2+ �y _ ts. ,r,t) .S p ) :)1 ' ���� 1 ,' ' e0 p 2o, e:rr Po.d 1 21 � .nit 1 I •' -.. t p yid n. eott2peu J.�f �.Slit. •�_ I ,_tlltl. �^ »� �� . errant Pe•d IUMI 11 Y �' • J ! .� , A 1�, n / 21. Jun e•.dlunit}I /11 `r ^r 21 re•Wr Mud `�.�^ I' r �' C l (� '+� _r1� .�� �� �� Y �� 2>. Nutrlia lunll! 11 1 ( r ,i �'�•.//� r 21, Overlook Drive i.rJl Ii \ I of.,� 'S CD I (4 f �'"Z.., J,;I I !" �IIJ. u'1 , r t ill r 117� 27, ole 111u•f ee.e • ,>•2:�,„ �+ '� 1 ' ,f .Pw4'1" aml .1 ') `�;- �r 4� ./ir ` 'it i�ee°ut�»�no.d t ,,y 1 }1kil 1 �jT� rvY,.eY Moot r r �i:�: )♦ • r. i!r 11 'I '6.6 J 11. cmrq tom r Ywr R• r `r .1" ••• .' �r a I' I' .. r In Ile.d 1 I �, 1, , ,. ( 1 21, erY.nt Nop y: 1 /I `� ✓ '� •�' r�r /lam 1 • Ifs r 117 `•', � ,^i.� `�t� wrr�1 2,. :r.a. •. .t. �Yi,, � �., �.�.• 1'- vJ ��• 1 [_d fi. Uourlu°elrele .rz , \ r , t T ♦'�' i1 "" o,�, ., Iuv p7fooholde 11. garish. a orlu b . 1 rr.7..p.,1C y •-••�r, kit 0,, ���� ,S4 7(W. •1 i.%1 / \ I. /�// I /0, IIOYOIP Mold + Jc►. i'T��r.:�"�'T► .uralr ry Y�i r.1 i ' li, eee•eaten - ,_ r �2` I /,,�. , e rt..N• 'i / 1 Tleb•r 11n•Anr• ---1^ n•� -J �cl' 4� ie OAICQO r / f1 egli1 U. 000d.li Snood eeeed k V �• V I 1.�. _ _. y.� Ci L _ A.11 a 41, oHentroe eb.' �. 1� ' �W '�.'11,.y , 12,41, CI, lY do h Shod �. /� 12. ci.n.or Nord It 4111 NM ®j' - . ♦ >e clenrn.nn nnrn ood I"""� r A �-- ni', M^y iL IWIUru IIurU PI'1 • .:D ��ec .00 „1 ; i ��'�_1•�I i jJ`,` ..'' ilt, i�r' II NLYUo IlU,llonnl N,wll /� .1 I __ `. . J osI00 Le V P+J Z,__ d "f 111". 1/ I ���. t ��'�}♦f�c�7,�`. / 1 4.,-,- l i- l•.4 C �!_i Y •f1�`/./ �lUi 1'`�: �.. J. � (I1i t ,.4•: ' ,;,i~ - -.. . vi' 1,,,.F1L�l (4 '/ 44**4 .1' 2`-"'?' -' / �L Y" ` f�. /w>/.� -'+' fir' r 7e" "iGfli ,M,p� `� .r o ,4•- �' i.Y /, I .Y� ,ff'V/ s .,fR,,l�.' _..71)1•.� O 0 a/, -•'W@' ' nr- "-70,( i •-./OW ----, r 3. . ,,,,,,,,,,, r ` '` � ' r _,. y ll ,,a , a I ) e 1e e. .� I.e•ee .Zr:... i.-r . . �,EXIS, NG , . `%� I ,:litis4r" r ,, 1 101.14La " , i itrflo ,.1 ' it_ 1 l ,IM I • -4 '1 '() 1 �`e�), - y/ 'etl , • ' ftr,Wrst E 9 II WE •P'-•-• :I ' . iiik ''' . . * '...111 ' 1 Aii4V,/ "1-';',4 441R19.),...i " ' ' 1 ' 13iv i .... kill , . • - ( •_ , p� • •12:ry�••N``` FOR IDO IVIHYt + ;0. - � > Ww� 2UAIAMI I ' �'� Clt ,. ' r...rn1 (--y ( it en S �` A 0 4 EXHIBIT 1 ���= �~� .� `1�� b S W M� '�' III, 1 E X H 19 ♦� ...IAA ° 1 it • \ ;2:7 AND VICINITY % R A f r44- �14. ' �' J l� � C)ECEM[3EFi 190F1 ` . t .,�, 4� -st ::, / i I / ) 4 ,��� r1e f� I / �e 11 L n f r .r+ t `a fit- . '.� M EXIiIBiT J5 (4 ) , ORDINANCE NO. 1981 " :� A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTERS 42 AND 44 TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR PATHWAY ROUTE DECISION MAKING °;1?, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1 . LOC Chapter 42 is amended by the addition of the following sections: "42.900 Purpose . a, It is the purpose of LOC 42.905-42. 920 to en tablish a { process that will provide an opportunity for early and meaningful input into the decision making process concerning the route and design of City pathways identified on the Pathway Corridor Map. 42.905 Definitions. For the purpose of LOC 42.900 to 42.920, the following terms shall mean: :, 1 . Corridor map - The city-wide map adopted as, a part of •/ the Pathway Master Plan , that depicts all corridors within the .. k' City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors, ' . ,•.` ISO potential corridors and those corridors designated for use as part of the regional pathway system. .� ' 2. Hearing body - the three person group appointed by the ,, Mayor, with the consent of the Council, to act as the decision maker in the process established by LOC 42.900 to 42.920. The group shall be composed of one member each from the Planning Commission, Development Review Board and Parks, Recreation and '� Open Space Committee. 3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee - The ad hoc committee, appointed by the City Council, to oversee activities and facility development• of .parks, : recreation and open space • I . facilities . . 4. Pathway -.A public improvement to be located within a corridor identified:on,.the corridor map and designed for the purpose of providing- bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian access ti, t and use. A pathway may be. designed_ for a single or a combination of uses. . 5, Pathway Master Plan - A document that provides for definition of terms, - policies. guidelines, pathway types , corridor list and map, public review and plan administration. 6. Pathway route - The actual location of a pathway within ''R' • a corridor. 'JAt Ordinance No. 1981 `. + Page l 7 i • 'p Z , •: u 7 . Preliminary engineering - The study of the design, route , location and cost estimate of a pathway within a corridor. ' `: 42.91.0 First Informational Public Meeting. ' 1. When it has been proposed by City Council or the city staff that a pathway or pathways should be constructed within the City an informational public meeting shall be held. The meeting shall be held prior to the preliminary engineering of a specific \.: pathway route. The meeting shall be conducted by City staff . �, ; The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of the t' . „" intention of the City to designate a pathway route or routes and : ' , ' to design and construct a pathway. At the informational meeting concepts for pathway route and design shall be prosented by City staff and an opportunity presented for discussion of the issue ''* " and presentation of recommendation by the public. More than one .; .. � . proposed pathway c• ,n be described during any meeting. • 2. Notice of the informational meeting shall be posted in <` ° three places along the proposed pathway corridor as shown on the • corridor map, mailed to the affected neighborhood association and ` mailed to the owners and residents of property bordering the pathway corridor or corridors. The notices shall be mailed and?). :.' t, r '' posted at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. 'µ c:: 42.915 Second Informational Public Meeting. 0 . • , . Upon completion of preliminary engineering of the route and • r ;a. design of a pathway or pathways, a second informational public meeting shall be held. The notice for the meeting shall be the same as that provided for by LOC 42.910 (2) . The meeting shall be conducted by City staff. The purpose of the meeting is to N ` present for public information the proposed pathway route or routes and design and to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions concerning the proposed route and design and to offer , „ alternative routes and designs for City staff consideration. If public recommendations or suggestions were made at the first yinformational meeting and were not incorporated into the proposed "' routes and design the staff shall explain the reasons for. not •" '�~ incorporating the recommendations or: suggestions. More than one . � , pathway' can be discussed during any meeting. ' ' 42.920 . Public Hearing, Review► Appear: • 1. No sooner than 14 days after the meeting held pursuant to LOC 42.915, the hearing body shall conduct a public hearing concerning the proposed pathway route and design. The hearing body may adopt rules to govern the hearing process. More than oiie pathway can be considered . during a public hearing. The notice for the hearing shall be the same as that provided for by : " `.. LOC 42 .910(2) . The purpose of the hearing is to allow for public comment on the issue of whether the proposed pathway route and Ordinance No. 1981 .` + Page 2 • design is in substantial compliance with the guidelines t established in sIV of the Pathway Master Plan and City Standards , ` Plans and Specifications. The hearing body decision shall be the ' d plans for the approved route and design. The date of the decision is the date the chair of the hearing body certifies the r' accuracy of the documents comprising the decision . i V7 4 . A person who participat•2d in the hearing before the hearing body and who is dissatisfied by the decision may appeal that decision to the City Council by filing a notice of their appeal with the City Recorder within 10 days of the date of the decision. The City Council shall give notice and conduct its hearing in the same manner as that set forth in Subsection 1 of this section. The Ci Council may affirm, revise, modify, reject or remand the decision of the hearing body . The decision of the City Council is final. A person dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may challenge that decision only by Writ of Review , pursuant to ORS Ch . 34. " Section 2. LOC Chapter 44 .374 is amended to read as follows: , "44.374 Application. All street improvements within the jurisdiction of the City '` of Lake Oswego shall be g governed by. the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of Chapter 49. Decisions concerning the route and design of pathways identified on the City Pathway Master Plan Corridor Map shall be made pursuant to LOC 42.900 -- : k 4a subject 42.920 and are not to the•tprovisions of this chapter. The City Engineer shall recommend to the City Council, Planning ti Commission or Development Review Board, as the case may be , design and construction standards for any street construction or '' reconstruction. The City Council, Planning Commission, and ; . Development Review Board may condition approval of any development activity upon the dedication and improvement of any v street or highway in accordance with provisions of this Code. " ' w•i Read for the first time by title only at the regular meeting of A + the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 17th day of January , 1989 . . .{• :. AYES: ' CHURCHILL, HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHN,, FAWCErr, HOLSTEIN, a•"� ANDRSON NOES : NON . ABSTAIN: NONE , EXCUSED: NONE ' • `• Read for the second time by title only and enacted at the regular • ''' meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on 0 , the 7th day of February , 1989. Ordinance No. 1981 Page 3 D• + t = AYES: HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHAM, FAWCETT► HOLSTEIN, ANDERSON, CHURCHILL • NOES: NONE • . x • ABSTAIN : NONE :. EXCUSED: NONE �, / •►,,:_Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor • ATTEST . 2(2z.i.) r' � / N Kr i Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: / if47,04----- , ,. ,-. , 44110 s M. Coleman • y Attorney • n r fil , J e rp• • A:, ;` Ordinance too. 1981 y. Page 4 • 'R • .\ `, t anti 1' ,' .' n +. ' i C^ • Adop ci by City Council. Decemb( 20, 1988 • PAThWAYS MASTER PLAN .�• It �� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON ' y INTRODUCTION " :. The Pathways Master Plan is a synthesis of research, testimony ; • and analysis contributed by the Pathways Advisory Subcommitte , Parks and Recreation Commission, Commission, individual citizens; neighborhood associations ,School District and City staff. It represents •' of communityinvolvement. hundreds of hours This Plan i:s intended to establish a flexible framework within which this community can develop a functional, safe and cost effective t community needs. pathway system to meet The adoption or this document by the City Council fulfills the requirement for a Pathways Master Plan found in the Comprehensive Plan. It establishes guidelines for locating guidelines for their development, funding sources, and hearingpublic, '. process to insure continuing community involvement and a ` r process for revision and updating the Plan and map. The M-ster Plan also contains a corridor location map based on existing community need. Pathways located on arterial or collector rights-of-way and/or ^ P with a high rate of usage are considered to be major pathways . Minor pathways' serve to enhance neighborhood circulation and/o provide a linkage with publicly owned lands or facilities . r � rt I. PLAN OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE 1 - The principal objective of the Pat Plan is to direct development of a pleasant and safe spathway r system for the enjoyment of Lak pathwa e Oswego citizene and users . y OBJECTIVE 2 -- A second objective of the Plan is the ^• f encouragement of continued citizen participation in the • development of specific pathway routes and pathways. The key to this continued involvement of the public is the • public review process specified in the Plan as it may take many years to accomplish during which time the participants may change. • OBJECTIVE 3 - The third objective of the Plan is to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhoods through which the pathway passes by ensuring that the design, � • location, width and type of material used in the • • construction of each pathway is safety) in keeping with the existingsneighboistent rhoodpublic 4 ra environment and character. ^ ® iii EXHIBIT CIS ) J • e, Substantial effort will be made during the planning and construction process to keep any adverse environmental • impact regarding trees, landscaping and other amenities to an absolute minimum. OBJECTIVE 4 - The final objective of the Plan is the provision of a plan document that can be published for wide '* .- provision to citizens , special interest and service groups, neighborhood associations, development industry , , City staff, and City officials. II. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Pathways Master Plan, the following definitions shall apply: City - The City of Lake Oswego. In reference to rights-of- way, City includes all rights-of-way within the City ' s jurisdictional boundaries, including those that are not the responsibility of the City. ( Interstates, State Highways , and County Roads/Bridges) . Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lake Oswego. Corridor -. An existing or potential public right-of-way or easement that is designated for pathway use. A corridor ,a includes the entire width of the right-of-way or easement and indicates a general alignment linking activity centers . Corridor Map - The city-wide map that depicts all corridors within the City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors, potential corridors , and those corridors designated for use as part of the regional pathway system. Final Engineering - The final pathway route locations , design, and cost estimate of a pathway as approved by the public review body. . v - • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee - The ad hoc committee, appointed by City Council to oversee activities and facility development for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Open Space . Pathways Advisory Committee - The subcommittee of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee established to develop u and oversee the city-wide Pathways Master Plan. : . Pathway - A public improvement to be located within a ,~ corridor identified on the corridor map purpose of providingbicycle, and designed for the y pedestrian, or equestrian . . access and use. A pathway may be designed for a single or a ", , '. . combination of uses . Pathways Master Plan R: Page 2 4' Y y 1,. W .r i ' .1 0 •A F.' 4 • .• • Pathways Master P., In - A document that provides for ,• definition of terms, policies, guidelines, pathway types , corridor list and map, public review , 'and plan administration. Pathway Route - The actual location of a pathway within a corridor. a .01. Preliminary Engineering - The study of the design, route location, and cost estimate of a pathway within a corridor. III. MASTER PLAN POLICIES 1 1 . The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee, in 'ir ; concert with the Pathways Advisory Committee and City staff , shall select pathway types for given pathway routes to meet community needs at reasonable public expense. 2. Pathway route planning shall be required for new private developments at the preliminary design stage in accordance with z` . the corridors, policies, pathway guidelines, and types contained in the Pathways Master Plan. . 3. The developer of a new development located along a corridor and/or route shall be required to provide sufficient `:. right-of-way or easement for the pathway adjacent to the new development. The developer may deposit funds, sufficient to cover pathway development costs as determined by City staff , into a City pathway fund or construct the pathway. A pathway to be u' •` constructed in concert with a new development shall be in accordance with Sections IV of the Pathways Master Plan and be reviewed and approved under the procedures specified for Minor :: , and Major Developments in the Development Code . 4 . The City will use a variety of funding measures and sources, involving both the private and public sectors, to implement the Pathways Master Plan. 5. On-street parking shall be required to be removed , restricted and/or prohibited, where necessary , along pathway routes to reduce conflicts between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes and to provide adequate safety to pathway users by Traffic Control Board action. The prohibition or removal of on-street parking shall be a consideration of the preliminary engineering study of a pathway route . 6 . Street trees and/or landscaping that occurs in and adjacent to pathway routes shall be either removed or modified to „' . provide adequate width for pathways and the safety of pathway users. The removal and/or modification of str-et trees or landscaping shall he a consideration of the preliminary engineering study of a pathway route . , , Pathways Master Plan .. Page 3 . ,V, • 7. Provide for separate bicycle and pedestrian pathways wherever feasible. . 8. Assist interested residents to maintain equestrian+ easements and pathways, develop suitable new equestrian pathways , compatible with neighborhoods and residential areas , and develop an equestrian pathway connecting facilities like the Hunt Club with existing equestrian pathways (i .e . Tryon State Park ) . 9. Encourage expansion of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian safety, recreation and edu,ation "° children, teenagers, and adults . programs for 10. Direct the Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Police Departments to work with the School District to develop pedestrian/bicycle safety programs, and pathway events including bicycle and running events, fieldotrips ntours pathway improvement projects and safety classes. 11. The Metropolitan Service District Regional Bicycle Plan policies shall be considered in any map amendment or any implementation actions of the Pathways Master Plan. a: All routes shown on the regional network shall be identified in the master plan map. b. ORS 366.514 requires local jurisdictions to establish footpaths and bicycle trails, with certain exceptions, wherever a street is being constructed, reconstructed or relocated using State Highway Fund revenues. Footpaths and bicycle trails are not required to be established under this law: ( 1 ) "where the establishment of such paths and trails would be contrary to public safety; " (2) "if the cost of establishing such paths and - trails would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use: " or • ( 3) "where sparsity of population or other available ways or other factors indicate an absence of any need for such paths and trails . " 12. Encourage participation by citizens, neighborhood associations, school groups, service clubs, and military "'' Y organizations in pathway or " costs and fostering communitye athe nd se of reducing fellowship pride . • 13. Hold public hearings on preliminary engineering studies r• . . of pathway routes . 41) ' , t . i.., , .. . Pathways Master Plan0 Page 4 • • • 14. Utilize as necessary an ad hoc citizens ' Pathway j� i y, . : Advisory Committee to assist City staff (Public Works, Planning , • Parks and Recreation) at all levels including planning, grant application, education programs, volunteer activities, and annual evaluation of pathway implementation and prioritization. • IV. PK ,{WAY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES • The following guidelines are factors to be considered by those involved in the selection of pathway corridors and routes . The list is not exclusive and other relevant factors may be `~ considered as necessary. Corridor and routing decisions should be in substantial compliance with these guidelines. • Pathway Corridors 1. Safety - Will the corridor provide a pathway route that is physically safe for cyclists, pedestrians, and/or equestrians , • . regarding personal security and conflicts with motorized vehicles . 2. Feasibility - Is the corridor feasible for pathway construction, and is it a cost effective way in making pathway connections. 3. Connectivity - Does the corridor provide optimal connection of neighborhoods, schools, parks, open space, public facilities, and/or commercial areas. 4. Pleasant - wherever possible, have landscaping scenic corridors and viewpoints included. Pathway Routes 1 . As conditions allow , pedestrian pathways m3y be separate -" from streets, utilizing: a . alleys b. 'side/back lot lines c. dedicated but not constructed street rights-of-ways r' d. overpasses and protected crosswalks e . pathway easements f. public utility easements g. railroad rights-of-way • • h. sidewalks located in ; treet rights-of-way • • i . areas adjacent to stream corridors j . Willamette Greenway 2 . Where pathways are in street rights-of-way , provide for pedestrian pathways separate from bicycle pathways when possible . Combined bicycle and pedestrian pathways only when physical Pathways Master Plan Page 5 y separation of cyclists and pedestrians along street right-of-way 410 ,. . . has been determined by a preliminary engineering study to be impractical. • 3. Provide signs to establish safe right-of-way along I routes where bicycle and pedestrian pathways must share the roadside. 4. Where equestrian pathways are constructed on steep , ' and/or poorly drained areas, the pathway should be designed to assure the safety of horse and rider and minimal impact on the , k surrounding environment. *o; 5. Where located in street rights-of-way , equestrian pathways should have adequate signs . } 6. Where equestrian and pedestrian pathway use is combined, `' . the pathway shall have adequate width to assure the safety of both horseback rider and pedestrian. The design should provide for- the preservation of the pedestrian portion of the pathway j; from damage due to horses. 7. The location of a pathway route in a corridor will be determined by an analysis of the following and other relevant . factors: r a. right-of-way width b. general topography •and terrain limitations c. major barriers - lake , canal, railroad tracks, arterial streets, etc. • d. location of existing pathways e. land development projects along the route f . land ownership g. vertical and horizontal street, alignment conditions h. parking and landscape elements i . cost effectiveness j. safety k . neighborhood environment and character Pathway Types The following pathway types apply to the design and _• construction of pathways until appropriate standards are adopted and included in the City' s Standards , Plans and Specifications. The standards have been endorsed by the City 's Engineering department, incorporate minimum standards for the safety of the users, and are based on the Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities , 1981 published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . l`" . - 0 . .. . , . Pathways Master Plan , I Pace 6 1 ' A pathway type for a given pathway route will be selected on an analysis of: .. , is Ci a . projected users: cyclists, walkers, runners, horseback riders and/or combinations thereof . b. general topography and terrain limitation c: citizen desires d. funding Typical Pathway Types: A. Arterial Street - four to five lanes , B. Collector or Arterial - paths off roadway C . Collector or Neighborhood Street - with 50 feet r.o.w. D. Improvised Pathway Atypical Pathway Types: E . Arterial or Collector Street - one-way bike pathway adjacent to parking lane F . Off-Street Equestrian (secondarily pedestrian) G. Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian V. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Pathways Master Plan corridor map shows the general alignment for existing and potential corridors for pathway routes that link activity centers such as schools , residential areas, • . public facilities, parks and open space, view corridors and commercial areas. The depicted corridors are the result of extensive participation with the Pathways Committee, Parks and Recreation Committee and the Planning Commission. Participants • have been individual citizens, neighborhood associations, special interest groups, City staff and City officials . To assure continued citizen involvement in the development of pathways within the City , a public review process with the following characteristics should be adopted as a part of the City Code and followed in making a routing decision. Prior to preliminary engineering an informational public meeting is held during which the proposed routing and type is discussed and public concerns aired. A preliminary engineering design is then prepared and discussed with the public at a second informational public meeting. A proposed design is then the aubject of a public hearing. The hearing will be conducted by a • 3 member group consisting of one member each from the Planning .,, F. Commission, Development Review Board, and the Parks, Recreation 1 . and Open Space Committee to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the Council . The hearing body after considering public input will then approve, modify or reject the proposed route and design. A person who does not like the decision may appeal the decision to the City Council . r+' Pathways Master Plan , Page 7 i • . , 4. • VI. ADMINISTRATION , The administration of the Pathways Master Plan will be the responsibility of the City staff . * Staff will provide ongoing assistance and information s regarding the Plan to interested citizens, neighborhood groups , N school organizations and service groups. The staff 'will provide , briefings to other City employees, appointed City bodies and elected officials to further understanding of the Plan. 1y In carrying out this responsibility staff should: • s ,, + ' 1 . Provide staff support to the Pathway Advisory j. ¢`. Committee/Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee. 2. Be responsible for holding informal public meetings ` regarding preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes in accordance with City Code. 3. Provide an annual review and report 6n pathway route construction and improvement p priorities to the Pathway Advisory Committee, Parks Recreation and Open Space Committee, Planning • ; Commission, and City Council. The report will be made available •,, to the public. .4. Assure that pathway routes are included in the design of e: st, eets, subdivisions, and site planning of lot developments located in or adjacent to pathway corridors shown on the Pathway Crridor Map contained in the Plan. 5. Initiate and carry out preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes. 6 . Be responsible for assuring that pathway route priorities are coordinated with capital improvement projects, and where feasible, pathway routes are integrated in capital "... improvement projects. , r , 7. Develop and maintain a current inventory of existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian pathways and all rights-of- way and easements created or desi na;.ad as;• ...' g pathway corridors. 8. Provide ongoing maintenance of existing and future ". pathway routes. VII. FUNDING MEASURES AND SOURCES i The ,implementation of the Pathways Master Plan will generate a continuous need for funding until the Plan is completed. Funds , will be needed to publish the Plan, provide staff support , undertake preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes, ; construction, provide for ongoing maintenance, and produce 410 . .' : related publications and carry out related programs. 1,• Pathways Master Plan �. Page 8 . • The City will need to use a variety of funding measures and sources, that involve• both the public and private sectors, which will include but may not be limited to the following: 1. The use of at least 1% of State Highway Fund monies, as required by state statute. •y • 2. City Fund monies to provide staff support : 3. Establishment of a Capital Improvement Program, based on an annually evaluated pathway route construction priority list . 4 . Construction of pathways in conjunction with other public facility construction projects, i. e. streets, sewer, water or stormwater lines. ' .' 5. Use existing City Fund accounts and financial practices to allow deposition of funds, sufficient to cover proportionate pathway. development cost, by developers of projects located adjacent to pathway routes in lieu of constructing an isolated pathway segment. 6. Establishment of Local Improvement Districts. 7. Bond measures ', 8. In-kind contributions by interested citizens performing ► volunteer maintenance and related programs . , 9 . Grants. ;., VIII. PRIORITIES r As a part of the development of this plan the Committee, ° after extensive public participation, has identified the following corridors as those which are currently of the greatest public need: 1 . Upper Drive 2. Quarry Road ' 3 . Iron Mt. Blvd. 4. Kerr. Road • 5 . Sundeleaf Drive 6. Stafford Road 7 . South Shore f 8. Bryant Road 9 . Royce Way 10. Riverfront Path 11 . Jean Road 12. Reese Road • Pathways Master Plan ' �:4 ° • Page 9 • • • The City Council is urged to consider this listing during its budgetary decision making process. The omission of a corridor from this list is not intended to preclude the City frome • , taking advantage of an• opportunity to develop a pathway in �'•� conjunction with another public improvement project or a new • development. This listing will be reviewed and updated on a A` regular basis to reflect the best judgment of the committee as to • current public need. ;. . .;. IBC. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee will at least annually hold a public hearing on this master plan. The purpose i is to receive public input on suggested changes and improvements to the plan, to discuss the priorities listed in $VIII of this plan, and to consider requests for addition of new corridors. . After a public hearing is held on any proposed amendments the Committee, by motion, may amend this plan. Any person ' dissatisfied with such a decision may appeal that decision to the • City Council or the Council may review a decision on its own motion. • b • it , a • (masterplan•)rm •, III • • . • . . , . • • . • 411 • Pathways Master Plan Page 10 / I • STAFF REPORT . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , . 4 t �' -- LAND •�r DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • APPLICANT: FILE NO. : Debra Larsson SD 56-89 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Debra Larsson Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE: Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 lE 3CC April 16, 1990 ,. ' , LOCATION: ' ' NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: SW Corner of intersection of None Chandler and Iron Mountain Blvd. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DESIGNATION; w R-10 ''t I. APPLICANT'S RE VEST • The applicant is seeking approval to create two From an 86, 058 square foot lot. The Parcels r proposed to be 20, 078 and 65, 980 square foot inesize. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • A. Cit of Lake Oswe o Comprehensive Plan: •,, ., Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III Impact Management Policies General Policy I • General Policy II General Policy III a E X H f B I T:. Wildlife Habitat Policies Gam) ' General Policy I General Policy II 7-1 SD 56-89 • Page 1 of 12 • 4 . - ' 1%. • Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II 0 , ,, : Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II u Pedestrian Pathways Policies General Policy II , ,:'` Bikeway Policies General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies ' General Policy I B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: , LOC 48. 195-48. 225 R-10 Zone Description (set- backs, lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535 (3) Special Street Setbacks ' ,• C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: • LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development L , Standards • LOC 49. 140 Minor Development LOC 49.200-49. 210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49 . 215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5.005 - 5. 040 Street Lights a i `'• , 7.005 - 7. 040 Parking & Loading Standard 12. 005 - 12. 040 Drainage Standard for Minor r. Development 14. 005 - 14. 040 Utility Standard 18 .005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19. 005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation - Private •,1 Streets/Driveways E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: . LOC 57.005 - 57. 135 '' F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55 . 010 - 5 . 130 0 •. ilk . .' SD 56-89 4 , • Page 2 of 12 .. • • .. t/ • • y . 9 it . :•r .. ' *` • G. City of Lake Oswego Pathways • LOC 42. 900 - 42.920, LOC 44. 374 III. FINDINGS A. Existing conditions: 1. The site is composed of 86,058 square foot in an irregular configuration. 2. The site is bounded on the north by Chandler Road, an 11 foot wide paved street with no shoulders; and Iron Mountain Boulevard on the east and southeast, also an 18 foot wide paved street with no shoulders. The rights of way for each are 60 foot wide, and 80 foot wide, respectively. .' 6. 3. An existing six inch water line is located in Chandler Road. An existing ... i.ght inch line is , located in Iron Mountain Boulevard. 4 . An existing six inch concrete sanitary sewer • line is located in Chandler Road in front of Tax Lot 3600 (to the west) . ` 5. There are no storm drainage improvements in ,; either Iron Mountain Boulevard or Chandler Road. • + 6. Street lights are located opposite the intersection of Iron Mountain Blvd. and Berwick ' v ' Road, on the south side of Iron Mountain Blvd. between Chandler Road. There are no street lights along Chandler Road. 7. A dwelling, guest house, greenhouse and detached • accessory structure are located on the site . which are of historic significance as determined ; '4 by the City Council (Exhibit 6) . B. Proposal: The applicant proposes to create two parcels from an ,,r 86, 058 square foot lot. The parcels are proposed to be 20, 078 and 65,980 square foot (Exhibit 3) •p 4 • • C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval : As per LOC 49. 615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. SD 56-89 Page 3 of 12 • •• • • • t • - i• is 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. 0 The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, • accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: i a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as + follows: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. • Specific Policy 5 , which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including ,schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 7 (the City Council memorandum of December 5, 1989) demonstrates that the current levy of school planning and coordination between the ' City and School District satisfy this General ''` Policy. The recent passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. ` Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural. resources from development, comprehensive review of ``; development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development "•' Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees be protected from removal, streams be preserved and that density be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. " a SD 56-89 Page 4 of 12 , ' `: , Wildlife Habitat Policies •4 These policies require protection of upland huthitat in the form of preserved tree stands or open space, X, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards and ordinances are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. This ordinance is reviewed in this report following an analysis of the ' applicable Plan policies. Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into • account the site' s natural features. These policies ••^ are now implemented through the City's Solar Access ' ' Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. Social Resources Policies •4 V J. These policies require the City to support historic preservation. This is implemented through the. • Historic Resource Preservation Standard and recently adopted resolution (Exhibit 6) . This site is ` ' protected from alteration and demolition by the ,a ' resolution for a period of 120 days. None of the structures may be altered or removed from the site during that period, ending April 19, 1990. An ordinance has been be adopted to address the City' s concerns regarding historic preservation, which will become effective April 14, 1990 at which time the • • resolution will terminate. Protection Open Space Policies These policies further protect the natural resources .° identified in the Natural Re3ources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of "•'^> . applicable Development Standards and Ordinances. b b4 • These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. ,,,4 SD 56-89 Page 5 of 12 • 6. + w 11 Y "V • • Bikeway Policies/Pedestrian Pathways Policies These policies require development of pathwa segments identified in the Conceptual Pathway Master ' 7''' Plan. These policies are implemented through the Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways Development �' Standard and portions of LOC Chapters 42 and 44. ii. This is reviewed on page 7 of this report. p r Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right of way as necessary to provide for ' widening. These policies are implemented in part through LOC 48.535 (4) , Special Streets Setbacks. . . . " The applicant will be required to sign agreements of nonremonstrance for right of way improvements along Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road. ' b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 48) The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot ` ' area of 1^,000 square foot per dwelling unit; required mit,imum lot width at the building line is 65 foot; required minimum lot depth is 100 foot Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% [LOC 48. 210(1) , LOC 48. 225 ( 1) J . The zone requires the following minimum setbacks • Front yard: 20 foot minimum Rear yard: 15 foot minimum Side yard: 5 foot minimum (15 foot total) The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area Width Depth Parcel 1 65,980 square foot 250 foot 250 foot Parcel 2 20, 078 square foot 170 foot 150 foot Both parcels meet all zoning code requirements. The existing rights of way of Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road meet the Special Street Setbacks •:, [LOC 48 .535 (4 ) j . SD 56-89 • Page 6 of 12 ,to 4 '••`-..4' Development. Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) ; The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as minor development. Other than the • • applicable Development Standards, there are no other j . . ; Development Code requirements applicable to this •„" .. request. t. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis • (LOC Chapter 57) The provisions of LOC 57.005 - 57. 135 require that 80% of newly created parcels be designed with solar orientation and size as defined by the ordinance. Both parcels have portions of their front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and a lot depth in excess of 90 foot Both are solar lots, providing compliance in excess of the requirement. Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) There are numerous large Douglas Fir trees on both proposed parcels. A less forested area exists in the middle of Parcel 2. This area would be well suited for construction of a new dwelling and 4i. accessory structures. Careful siting of the improvements will involve the preparation of a tree survey in compliance with the Tree Cutting Ordinance. Trees in excess of 5 inches in diameter 4 must be located and the necessity of their removal • .., carefully reviewed against applicable criteria. This will be a condition of approval of subsequent { building permits. : > . `� Pathways (LOC 42.990 - 42. 920, LOC 44 . 374 ) ,• . The City has adopted a procedure for the public • review of pathways design and routing (Ord. No. 1981) . To implement this where major development is not proposed, the Public Works Director has required , .' deposit of a cash amount reserved for future bikeway construction. This deposit will be required for the 300 foot of the site' s frontage along Iron Mountain Boulevard. Historic Preservation (Resolution R-89-43) ' By this resolution, the City Council enacted a W moratorium regarding a list of 102 sites recommended 11110 . SD 56-89 . • Page 7 of 12 • • o It landmark status. This si':r.+ is included in the list. As a result, no alterat;,.on or demolition of +� structures may occur on the site for 120 days. See Exhibit 6 for specific technical details. This resolution has been terminated by the adoption of a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ord. Y. No. 2000) , which will take effect on April 14, 1990. v ..-( c. The applicable Development Standards • Street Lights (5.005 - 5. 040) Street lights exist in adequate numbers and location along Iron Mountain Blvd. No street lights exist along Chandler Road where Parcel 2 is proposed. The applicant will be required to install a cobra-headlamp on an existing utility pole along or near the ' frontage of the site on Chandler Road. This will be required as a condition of approval. Parking and Loading (7. 005 - 7.040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage parcels are lageenough ctop provide ort. ofor th pcompliance with this requirement. Y Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12. 005 - °' 12. 040) This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. No grading is part of this application. Compliance will as a . required upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action. Utility Standard (14 . 005 - 14 .040) This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. The electrical service for the existing ', '. dwelling as well as that for new construction must comply with this standard. In addition, neither / street abutting this site meets current City.r standards. A pathway is proposed along Iron Mountain Boulevard as identified in the Pathways Master Plan, but has not yet been constructed. The anticipated impact of the proposed partition upon the street system does not merit its improvement at this time. As an alternative, the SD 56-89 Page 8 of 12 .hI 4 applicant will be required to sign a nonremonstrance agreement and petition for future improvements • • (including bikeways and pathways) to both streets. The applicant will be required to provide a pathway deposit for the planned route along Iron Mountain Blvd. as discussed earlier. Access Standard (18. 005 - 18. 040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Both parcels exceed this requirement (Exhibit 3) . Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways (19. 005 - 19.040) • . • This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The site is flat to gently sloping and can easily comply with this standard. Driveway `• approaches within the public right of way must meet . • City Standards, which will be a condition of approval of this action. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. '' ' C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria. IV. ACTION TAKEN • . .i, The staff approves the proposed minor partition, subject to the following conditions: .' ; '.- 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and modified by condition number 4) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within ` one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year • period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be `` requested in writing and must be submitted to the . . City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the • SD 56-89 ' Page 9 of 12 project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 0 .,'.:. ' ':: The final plan shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 56-89. 2. The final plan shall be registered with the • • ,': v, Clackamas County Surveyor ' s office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks ' s office. • . 3 . The applicant shall provide the City a signed agreement of nonremonstrance and petition for future street improvements anticipated in Iron Mountain . f • Boulevard and Chandler Road. This agreement shall apply to 11 parcels approved, and be binding on . subsequen owners. ` • 4. The fins plan shall be modified to note that Parcels /1 and 2 are solar lots and are subject to compliance with LOC 57.035. The following note shall appear on the final plan: -. "Development of structures and planting of non- exempt vegetation on parcels 1 and 2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57. 050 - 57. 090) . This requirement shall be binding upon the appllcanc and ' subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1 and 2. " 5. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public 1 ' Works and Development Services Department prior to R '' the issuance of building permits requested * subsequent to the date of this approval, I . 6. The applicant shall provide a survey of those trees tl • on Parcel 2 which exceed 5 inches in diameter prior . to issuance of building permits requested subsequent • , to this approval. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or ,, accessory structure on Parcels 1 and 2. This removal shall comply with LOC 55. 050 55 , 080 (Tree • Cutting Ordinance) . y 0. 7. All utility services necessary to serve Parcel 1 b shall be installed underground prior to occupancy of the existing dwelling currently being remodeled. , •• All utility services necessary to serve Parcel 2 shall be installed underground as a condition of building permit approval requested subsequent to ' . `' this action. 0. ° SD 56-89 ` Page 10 of 12 �' . • r t . - i . . - •0 y , 0. The existing dwelling and other, habitable structures shall be connected to sanitary sewer prior to occupancy of the existing dwelling currently being remodeled. 9. The applicant shall pP provide an engineered design for a positive method of storm water disposal (drywells) for Parcels 1 and 2. The design shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a building permifi, for Parcel 2, or occupancy for • Parcel 1. -, 10. The applicant shall construct any proposed driveway • ti within the public right of way with a minimum of six inches of crushed rock covered with two inches of • . asphalt or concrete. • 11, The applicant shall provide the City a cash deposit _` ' for the purpose of constructing a bikeway along Iron Mountain Boulevard prior to the issuance of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. The amount of the deposit shall be determined by the Public Works Director. . 12. The applicant shall install a street light on an existing utility pole along the sites frontage of �•. , ; Chandler Road or as near as paus�ble to the frontage prior to the issuance of any building permit tl' . requested subsequent to this action. r '� M % y i i ,.. ,., • ;,. ..� I x A SD 56-89 ,t Page 11 of 12 • . .. fro , , 1 , / + », • 4 . 1 V .i' v Prepared by: • . . • , 0)(hfir-4.424-es- 12. ck-iz.4.4.- I , - ( 41e, . , . . . .. .. . MICHAEL R. WHEELER ate associate Planner , Approved by: a,ti£. t..I - ....1 9//67 7 ram ROBERT GALANTE Date ' '• Acting Planning Director Reviewed by: (7- 1i1 VA/PO CINDY PHILLI S Late �•1• µ. Deputy City Attorney EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant' s Narrative 3 . Site Plan ' 4 . Water Line, Plan and Profile 5 . Sanitary Sewer Line, Plan and Profile • 6 . Resolution R-89-43 regarding Historic Preservation; r memo from Jane Heisler, dated December 28 , 1989 7 . Council' s Memorandum regarding schools, dated a December 5 , 1989 , 410 . - . If SD 56-89 Page 12 of 12 . r .. 1 ) ' RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ` �' WAIVING RIGHT OF REMONSTRANCE J U N 2 G :I 'J ::'., FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS The undersigned, being the legal owners of the real property described below, do hereby consent to the improvement of the public streets bordering said property. In consideration of not being required to improve the said streets at this time, we hereby expressly waive any and all right to remonstrate against the improvement of said streets in accordance with the City of Lake Oswegc's applicable street improvement standards in effect at the time of such improvement. We irrevocably consent to the formation of a Local Improvement District by the City of Lake Oswego or the inclusion of said property into a zone of benefit, for the purpose of assessing the cost of such improvement to the said property and to any other property benefited by the improvement, such assessment to be made in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances as the same may exist at the time of the improvement. It is understood that "improvement of streets" , as the term is used herein also a �', includes construction of curbssidewj tos alleys, and and gutters,sidewalks, storm , drains, illumination, traffic control devices, and all other work and improvements deemed necessary by the City of Lake Oswego to ' bring the streets into conformance with applicable improvement standards. ' Also, in the event that the property described below is approved or becomes approved for subdivision, the undersigned waives any • • and all right to remonstrate against a method of assessment which distributes the assessment equally among the subdivided parcels . The signatures appearing on this document are to be construed as equivalent to signatures appearing on a petition to form a Local Improvement District for the aforesaid purposes . The covenants herein contained shall be binding upon the undersigned and upon all subsequent owners of said property as N..-" ,C covenants running with the land and effective for twenty years from the date hereof; provid d, however that the City of Lake Oswego shall have the right eo extend the covenants for an additional twenty years by recording a notice of such extension ' in the deed records of the County in which said property is situated prior to the expiration of the first twenty year period. The property subjected to these covenants is: ii EXHIBIT ue. - g oryo .,, . . . , , . ; • ....coot �.. . . . The following information is for reference purposes only: aft Tax Map : I 2 C.C. Tax Lot(s) Site address City of Lake Oswego Public Works and Land Development Service file 4 .Ih £& . , • , n • SIGNATURE(S) , OWNER(S) OF RECORD '&24q 1-2Df 7.-- /.9,-,f,se,..1 Signature Print Name Date L- i�ELS )V`� �..sL.. ..•_ ��� x la-o? to-9 a Sign ture Print Name Date • OEI • at • STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. COUNTY OF R-J\Wq.o vN\0./3 ) BE IT REMEMBERED THAT on this `S-.) day of , 191W, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public 'n and for the said County .,nd State, personally appeared the within named LQ.r CSc (\ who are known to me to be • the identical individuals described in and who executed the same freely and voluntarily. • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET BY HAND AND SEAL THIS \� days of _.__., 19WQ• O No ary Pu lic fo Oregon • , Commission Expires: ,.4``Q. 2,\ STATE OF OREGON ) )ss COUNTY OF C.I CIAk.O MDA ) ' BE IT REMEMBERED THAT on this a-- day of , , 19 qj, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public�n and for the said County and State, personally appeared the within named k01042A-Y 0S0 who are known • to me to be the identical indi'>iduals described in and who executed • the same freely and voluntarily, • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET BY HAND AND SEAL THIS day of , , 19Qv, i N ary Pub is for 0 ego •• ', Commission Expires: 5 �1�-Aq w ,., E.Xti ` e, IT' A -' ReSa'R.IC."i' 1`J e cO11EIVAA!'T" A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T2S, R1E, WM, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON, BEING LOTS 71-73 AND PT. LOT 74, "FOREST • HILLS", BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT IN NE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHANDLER ROAD THAT IS N 70'48'26" E 13.81 FEET FROM A 1/2" IRON PIPE AT THE NO ITTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 74, "FOREST HILLS"; THENCE N 70°48'26" E ALONG SAt}b SOUTH- ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHANDLER ROAD, 83.28 FEET THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TLINE O A 1 ON A IRON PIPE; THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 249.43 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE UOF 38' 42'04" (LONQ CHORD BEARS S, 89'50'32" E 165.30 'FEET) AN MC LENGTH OF � 168,48 FEET TO •A POINT; THENCE S 70'29'00" E 101.66 FEET TO A 1 2" IRON * i • PIPE: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 117.68 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 70'30'35" (LONG CHORD BEARS S 3513'43" E 135;85 FEET) AN. ARC LENGTH OF 144.82 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND .CURVE IN THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN BOU -- • EVARD; THENCE* ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN L BOULEVARD ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 250,00 FEET TH ROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56'09'32" (LONG CHORD BEARS S 27'56'51" W 235.35 AN ARC LENGTH OF 245.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 71, " FEET) FOREST HILLS"; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IRON MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD, N 44'55'21" W (PLAT N 45'00'00" W) ALONG THE N EASTERLY, LINE OF LOT 70, FOREST HILLS" 257.24 FEET (PLAT 256.gg FEET) TO 1/2" IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 70; THENCE A • 191.29 FEET TO ME PLACE OF BEGINNING. • 41 6'24 E i • I,, • • • t. • • 1 H. • Order No. 855229 C Legal Description ,. EXHIBIT "A" ;, A tract of land situated in the Southwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette r w Meridian, in the County of Clackamas and State of Oregon, J being a part of Lots 73 and 74, according to the duly filed plat of "FOREST HILLS", being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1/2 inch iron pipe at the Northeast corner of Lot 70, "FOREST HILLS", which 1/2 inch iron pipe is in the Southwest line of Lot 74, "FOREST HILLS"; thence leaving said Southwest line of Lot 74, North 41°16 '24" West 25.00 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod and the true place of beginning; thence North 65°11 '20" East 84.52 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod; thence North 00°56 ' 57" West 129. 66 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod in the Southerly right of way line of Chandler Road; • thence Westerly along said Southerly right of way line on a curve to the left having a radius of 249.43 feet through a central angle of 24°37'27" ( long chord bears South 83°07'10" West 106.38 feet) an arc distance of 107.20 feet to a 1/2 inch iron pipe, thence South 70°48 '26" West 83.28 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod, said 5/8 inch iron rod bears North 70°48 '26" East 13.81 feet from a 1/2 inch pipe at the Northwest corner of said Lot 74; thence leaving said Southerly right of way line of Chandler Road, South 41°16 '24" East 166.29 feet to the true place of beginning. . • • . • • • o; 0703 LARSSON & COMPANY 1210 CHANDLER RD. 636-2887 24-22 21a1230 ' ... LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 C ORDER OF . x .,..,/,'"---A % :" ,e'.&:14:2,- /i•••"' ,f,l'A ----DOLTARg I ' . . ,, ,,., Iiii[BIANK KRUBQ WAY BRANCH' P.O.SOK 1775 LAKE?OSWEGO,OR 97035 UNITE:O STA7®5 NATIONAL BANK OR OPBOON r FO 0000 70 311' •1: L 23000 2 201: 2 L ti 0009 9 ?Loa f :..r w 1 8V 252 IL y 0/ c,ea he auie90 aide.:.1, a .. . . LAKE OSW O, OREGON ,J.4141/ /L.7�i �� '. ' RECEIVED OF � { �)do 0��i� ..•..' . . . „ . ADDRESS /c /0 (W'(,�/,4,v)u::2 I) ACCOUNT .. ` 1211 TI40/f(f 7)/1/)d•S/T' A 4. 7 Zti• • Lx � 4: 3 �� . ?• Tbis Receipt to be delivered to the person making payment. City of Laic ' swag°, Oregon �' . —...... —.-*•—.,. _._...__...-- ..-- . ... _...-. ,,r• 1 A • t- , . .. .... . . ..... EXHI IT M 9w-efi 4co7-`ia r . � .- u . +n. ,,,. • x•c •I.- ••- r'C.r 'j:'"-• ••,4•4 tia"y w,fi rY' D {Y : a d. .r44:4/' Y 4.4 , r `4.' [•eat' b 11 �;, Y ti, 'M �L•'•• .. ':l u.•;� nl � .i,' /O �• r Ta . V 4. . • '; yw-• ., • 4.6 ryt1 1 t '4 ' • •.•' • _L • VV •Y• tt .MBA a Z' tro!L..1„' `. ^ r1 yiyrY' �''�';V,. �aar ;,.. '1.4••ska •:r'.r" i 1 . .Le•:, 4 • .11 .�`,..•�` .�?�'(�•M �� rt '� $4r•�, mir .f3►:».g+aettl�6' It `'•` k;7''' „ly .... • t a n "'tip a•%:•r 4.1 "...i.• 'r ...11'7 J..U `.'J,+^",,ii et a ��44, i,,� ,1' ` � b 1- aara �+ • �a `t.l'` r ~ � ` . r•�S e« b.- • -�1 r`?�y.i:m , 1bL•t a• , lb�, • �° • `�ct`. F.t4'' y iq:,'. •--m— .^.k.wr'g �,,044, s'1t•.••.�.• M,•!:. • , ,: LS 44) �• "Ai^'It., J' 1 G a .st t . 7.1 , •�!•• 4!, 4••: } • ' • `Te "Y C, L!,.1(. :• i• .,,I ...a� I • • .0'1i� '.1.•• .. 4• i• x v f A '+•• t •I-, ` •,• 'larAY� 7YI 4 '• Y --r• ''•w• a ' .`Iro. CI't, ., .Fw,.tib, .'.Y,, ▪'t•.a'{r • • .. yL�•, gtaf•^I. ^�,,• Avo. •• "�f .{.,},. . •t' ,".• I�,�^ .yA., •:a, y .4 � 't I `� _ `7`.. •� y°t. ,.' , r •r•, •� ,. ;l' . i.� :ca.,.•, wf t.•., ••*. • y•; r a,- ' ` ` • . Vb. . ..k... • 44 . ,( ' !1 a• ?It'?- • � ''1}^' lei a *' Y6 / :' Atk. .'4Pjlaic. t• .! .a.,'Y •N J:ti wr .....x . ...•.I ►'• :'4 . ,:?.:i4., I' ! _IY•�.� L M • ,lam �i r,...,. ., !M, i...v..•4r ,.411", d.• I •7C t~• .). a• .. /•f1mlld�'I�•! - '� •�; � Y �r.• .r„.-�.�Erg. n.,lr ! ••�e! ,+ d,�� '� �t ,.a . ., ,1 I r... 4 P,.�f " `A//y�.]�. + • I• •• �,. • "�`• �`/�' ,, , .'-ya d -Tj.•}` ' , '�''� 1 FBI\/V ,'J • • **44 y•. • �t .,•���+,,, , • K-:-•Y , �1"t ��5�0p�0 1 t. ,.4 ,.. _.•..,! .,,�y •r.47. • +l+T'�� '?• , i.�♦ ., ,l' L11••..Y .r`•; .4.. `r l • tt r 14�, O,$)Ac 'g•: 7 .• .. t�• , • .,r... * , ,.* �} sy1`•M' • a : • . -,., 12tb '• .13 e y y + �. 1,,y r Gl ` its •' ,jr�:,t i' afir-.•••t4✓r'I. •`F ,'.1 r ive. P ' ''t�4 of S « r 4 '.t 1t .'d • •2.1 tiLtlV /\ d� ' 7t, I ti��,. ••.'J I • • , 1�'P W��1(_1s , , \ ` T jfVh' , =`]ti•.ta ,�0 N•^a.. •`,"''iT '.•��'Yf. ' ; •«,• •'�' •rte. ',Wn • 1A' sue• • t',,3 Y'y • • •,I `lttddt� \ • j^ J, uCh '4' 1i-Y` . 1 V...y 1. •Ynr1 �A. • • • • 0*...;1.*..••*,e'...• . ...r t.:r'''. 1,04,,s, Igir / r x \ .. ,,,. \a '..:\ 4,11 .X „ „.1; .,1 4. **.X„. 4) 21 F I r,:1 1. 1 ' ' * • _in:3 ..,. , , Il•••t V ,, r...., , , ' • : s. ... 6e,081:)...,.. . - . ., .., . ....... • sik • .... i k 10••6h.1/4 P 'I 'a,1 •2. • i t .a, • •.• .,y d• ‘..• q, arm *� O` �- •'ems, I.t� • / ` 4. ,6 ,.... ' "'411 ' 140/ .. b 4'• .\Zst,N . la bi 1 3 % f� . � •l1 f f"Y j • .. i j1 1 •a Y' -�-' • '. ,, • , ' ▪ , , ram. 0 _ • $•IX 1. i d ' •n ., gfir •'I ,+'' T. y' • i''.• ` :.a • 1'`' d�, c".,:'..4.;'; s�0 . d ` ` . •1 0 : :•1: )• N • ,▪ 71 $S i ,J i .‘ ,,,fj " 1 , ',. r . r ''':1 'l 4:/..•!1 ' '..4•••; • 4141111111/a r •es1/441;:4:1.4••••••:.*44.4.sotf.',4,:V47:4 a'::.; .k.....", a 1 ... . , e •• a�1 / \ �' .•- 4 r.Ira.. a a. ♦ r • -. , : 1. L v y, .ti u , To: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Plans -r ,.... :- . . '; 0 From: Jeffrey G. Condit, City Attorn- -� -...7 EXHIBIT Re: Legal opinion regarding SD 56-89 (Mod. 7-92) to (30) t Date: 10/23/92 p 'a�) Question Presented: Thomas H. Nelson has applied for a permit to amend William and Debbie Larson's 1990 minor partition by deleting two conditions of approval . Specifically, Mr. Nelson desires refund of the Pathway exaction (Condition 11) and ,; ' termination of the non-remonstrance agreement (Condition 3) . For various reasons, he alleges that these conditions are either illegal or unconstitutional . You ask my opinion. • Anaweg: These conditions of approval are lawful for the V . following reasons . 1 . The Pathway Exaction: The pathway exaction is required of all development along designated pathway corridors by LOC 49 . 620 (3) (H) and the Pathways Master Plan. LOC 49 , 620 &llows the .. City to impose conditions or restrictions as a part of any approval in order to protect the public, implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter, or to Fulfill the need for public services created or increased by the proposal . LOC 49 . 620 (3) (H) authorizes the City to require ' ' dedication and construction of a pathwayin a where thepathway pathway corridor route is clear or reasonably clear, or require a deposit of sufficient funds to construct the Pathway when a route within a pathway corridor is not reasonably clear. At the 1, : time the Larson partition was approved, the Iron Mountain Boulevard pathway route was not reasonably clear, and so the Larsons were required to pay the fee in lieu of dedication and construction of the pathway, Mr. Nelson first argues that the pathway exaction violates ORS 223 ,389 and Section 38 of the Lake Oswego Charter (Mr, Nelson incorrectly cites Section 38 of the Code) . Both of these 4: sections authorize construction of public improvements by ` formation of a local improvement district and assessing the costs to benefited properties within that district. Neither of these sections apply to the pathway exaction, which is a condition of development approvalr P and not an assessment pursuant to the formation of a local improvement district . Mr. Nelson also alleges that the exaction is an unconstitutional property"taking" of p y without compensation in violation of Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and ` Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I disagree, The Oregon Court of Appeals recently held that. . • pathway and stream corridor/open space exactions imposed by the City of Tigard as a condition of development did not violate either the Oregon or the U.S. Constitution. Bolan v. the City of_ Tigard, 113 Or App 162 • • •. 5 .. - i 0 + a 1i. (1992) . The Court of Appeals ' decision was based in turn on a recent decision of the Oregon Supreme Court upholding exactions . required by the City of Portland for street right-of--way and sidewalks . Department of Transportation v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568 (1992) . Although these two cases involved conditions requiring the dedication of land, the holdings are equally applicable to a fee in lieu of such dedication because the constitutional u provisions at issue do not distinguish between real property (land) and personal property (money) . Based upon these recent, • , unanimous, decisions of the two highest courts in the state, I am confident that the City's y' pathway exaction would survive constitutional scrutiny. ' 2. The Non-remonstrance Agreement: If the City street improvement for which the City intends to assess sthe es a abutting property owners, it is required to form a local .. E improvemont district pursuant to a complex process involving two public octrings . See generally LOC Chapter 40 (Improvement ProceduT ) , The first hearing is to determine whether the public improvement should go forward, and the second is to hear objections to the amount of the assessment. LOC 40 . 050 and 40.090 . Property owners that would be subject to the assessment are empowered to file a written remonstrance to the the time of the first hearing. If written remonstrances arefiled by property owners owning more than two-thirds of the property to be assessed, the project is delayed for six months . At the end of the six-month delay, the City may proceed with the development regardless of the remonstrance. If insufficient written remonstrances are filed, the Cit with the Y ma Y proceed immediately project . A non-remonstrance agreement waives the ` ►. file a remonstrance and delaya property ywror s righty to project . The City routinely . requires the signing of a non-remonstrance agreement as condition •, . of allowing development on substandard City streets . Such non- • • remonstrance agreements are in lieu of the standard requirement imposed upon developers to install all necessary public improvements as a condition of development, as is otherwise required by the Impact Management Policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Citytypicallyrequires q wires the signing of a non-remonstrance agreement instead of requiring a developer of individual lots to improve the street frontage as a condition of development . While requiring construction of the improvement works well for ' subdivisions and planned developments, it is not as useful for ' • infill or lot by lot development because it is neither cost effective nor good eng ineering to construct a half street section abutting just one or two lots , The non-remonstrance agreement • enables the City to develop the entire street and assess the { ' §' abutting properties at such time as incremental development r+ f. ' creates the need to improve the street . 0 If the City did not require the non-remonstrance agreements, the City would either have to require each property owner to l i OC 1Y' , r.. . •x construct that portion of the street abutting his or her property, or deny all development until the entire street is improved. This is not beneficial to the City or the property owner, because incremental development ma'j not create the need to improve a street for many years . Because each new parcel or development incrementally contributes to future transportation/utility needs at build-out, however, the City is u justified in imposing a non-remonstrance agreement as a condition of such development in anticipation of that future need pursuant } to LOC 49 . 620 (1) (B) . The straw that would break the camel 's back ,, should not be required to shore up the camel all by itself . Mr. Nelson argues that the agreement deprives the applicants of their rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances . Mr. Nelson is wrong. All the non- remonstrance agreement does is to prevent the property owner from • delaying the project for six months . LOC 40 . 040 (1) (e) and 40 .050 (2) expressly allow all persons to appear and testify at the public hearing, regardless of whether they can or have filed a formal written remonstrance. Further, LOC 40 . 060 (2) requires • the Council to consider any testimony relating to the formation of the assessment district, in addition to formal remonstrances, prior to determining whether to proceed with the project . This � •:.::., section also allows the Council to amend or reject the proposed ,.' improvement based upon the testimony regardless of the remonstrances . The non-remonstrance agreement therefore does not ` limit either the property owner' s freedom of speech or right to _1- . address the Council in objection to the project . Mr. Nelson also argues that the non-remonstrance agreement violates the applicants ' rights to free elections under the Oregon Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act, the Hatch Act and the Oregon Corrupt Practices Act . The local improvement j^ district formation and assessment process is not an "election" within the meaning of any of these provisions, and so these . provisions do not apply to non-remonstrance agreements , .R Non-remonstrance agreements are common tools used by cities throughout Oregon and throughout the United States , For this reason, the League of Oregon Cities has filed to appear amicus curie in support of the City of Lake Oswego regarding Mr, Nelson's lawsuit objecting to the non-remonstrance agreement . • imposed as a condition on his development . Although non- remonstrance agreements have not been tested in Oregon, they have been upheld in Washington as a valid exercise of a city's planning power, Five Mile Prarie v. City of Spokane, 755 P2nd 836 (Wash.App, 1988) . Given Oregon' s much stronger planning program, including Goal 11, which requires cities and counties to • plan for and ensure adequate public facilities to handle development during the planning period, 1 am confident such • agreements would be upheld in Oregon. In addition, as noted above, the alternative under the ,. Comprehensive Plan to the non-remonstrance agreement is to require the Larsons to construct the half street improvement , J . � , )' u� t a u 3 • STOEL RIVES QOLEY • , 5 p .o 1 •t cc: Doug Schmitz JONES &GREY `' • �03� 1 z 3 q s�, Tom Coffee ATTOtiNEY5 AY LAW .`.: •"• SUITE 2300 Jeff Condit STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER ti� ✓iv.ke Wheeler 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE ,�� Fla r9 per• Planning File PORTLAND,OREGON97204.1268 ccc��V S,i Telephone(503)224.3380 tN r.&,�, ./� �1 Teleeopter(503)220.2480 `r! /� • s Cable Lawport 6 �Q IA., Telex 703455 c`•1re) 4t Writer's Direct Dial Number d (503)2944211 February 3, 1993 ,,//M DALERE1;D,. in.......- ,1,-. . .-. -� TIME„ ,,,,,,. d. r ' _�,,,,���� R • � 4. // CITY RECORDER CLRTIF1i?D—RF'i'URN RECI 'T REQUESTED City Recorder CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 380 "Att Avenue P.O. Box 369 • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL: SD 56-89 (Mod. 7-92) d EXHIBIT "• Modification to Minor Partition Application C " Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 3CC I I 2'Pi / William and Debra Larsson Our File No. 19642-1 SG-®q +�°`I-ti • Dear Recorder: t , •- • . By lr,tter dated January 20 to Mr. and Mrs. Larsson, Ms. DeBartola, - ` Planning Secretary for the City of Lake Oswego, transmitted the above-referenced decision rejecting the Larssons' requests that a prior land use decision be modified ' - in two particulars, viz, that a bikepath exaction be refunded as illegal and that the ' requirement of a nonremonstrance agreement and its effect be voided as illegal. • • Mr. Michael Wheeler transmitted that decision to me by letter dated January 22, 1993. The Larssons hereby formally inform the City that they disagree with the • • ..,• City's legal analyses and conclusions regarding both issues, and thus hereby formally inform the City that they are appealing both issues. The Larsson's specific arguments are that the exaction for a bikepath violates the City charter ' and state and federal law, and that the requirement of a nonremonstrance agreement violates state and federal civil rights and voting rights laws. • y I am enclosing Specifically, Mr, fee of is enclosed, together in order ' Wheeler specified must be to perfect the appeal. p y, filing g $100ogether with two sets of mailing labels identifying owners and tenants within 300 feet of the PDX31(679,119642 0001 I'UptLANt) 1[AtTLt IICILLrLL I Odin 11ll IMI9L WAAIIINt,It1N UNCGUN VAASIIINUt(1N IYAAIIINbtO. WAKIIINl,104 MAIM tt14IKitI ill Lott:A11IWA STOEL RIVES BOLEY )ONES&GREY • ° City Recorder February 3, 1993 Page 2 • site. Because no address for the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association is provided, I am unable to serve them with a copy of this notice of appeal. • Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, ' Thomas H. Nelson THN:mjh Enclosure t` cc: Jeffrey G. Condit, Esq. Mr. & Mrs. William Larsson • • t r , •y ,t� M1 1 PO X3+11677.1 19641 030 i ' t. • , . Mr. Michael Wheeler City of Lake Oswego 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 BAR .< S 4993 . Re: Case File No. SD 56-89 ( • Mod 7-92) [AP 93-01] . t Dear Sir: r We object to the proposed action by Mr. Thomas H. Nelson. The applicants (. knew the condition by which the parcels of land were bound when the parcel > , was purchased. Since they agreed to the conditions as part of the purchase, we don't believe the City Council should agree to amend these conditions. These conditions were negotiated in good faith and should ,�. ., , remain in effect. Respectfully, ,_ G/�� David C. Pogue 1200 Lake Garden Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 a I - .,.. • . a, kb • _.• . , .. . . .. . . . . ,• . • . • , , .. . , . . . • .. a, , • .. ,.., , .EXHIBIT R. I121.. A .tic y_41 • • • • - / r • •ky • • • 1.. a • • • • d • • • • • • t ,l' . - • -1/ - �r STAFF REPORT CITE EAKE OSWE ..,, - _ .. , , ,, . PLANNING DIVISION . ' APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Roger Edwards PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 PROPERTY OWNER: ETAEE: Morton and Joanne Bonime Hamid Pishvaie LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT; Tax Lots 3300&3400 of Tax Map 2 1E March 26, 1993 18AB,and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 18AC D OF ARING: LOCATION: April 5, 1993 East of Pilkington Ruad,on the north and ZONING DESIGNATION i• . south sides of Rosewood Street R-5 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Rosewood Action Group(Clackamas County) 4 R-5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST `r ' , 1• r The applicant is requesting approval of a 16—lot single family residential planned development, and a Class I variance to the Access Standard [CODS 18.020(1)]. II. APPLI ABLE EGiJL TIONS A, City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Services Boundary Policies Impact Management Policies r Social Resources Policies "' Residential Density and Site Design Policies s 4 Transportation Policies .., . 0 ti 1., 4 PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 1 of 12 ‘: 4 \.° /. p ' B. Cila of?ake Ogwtgo Zimitag : LOC 48.120-48.155 Residential High Density (R-5 Zone Description) _ LOC 48.470-48.490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance u v'� C. City of Lake Qswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures . LOC 49.500-49.510 Variances LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals D. City of Lake Osweg J/} • . 5.005-5.040 Street Lights Y ` 6.005-6.040 Transit System 7.005-7.040 Parking and Loading • Y. 8.005-8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005-9.040 Landscaping, Screening and buffering z 10.005-10.040 Fences 11.005-11.040 Drainage for Major Development ° 14.005-14.040 Utilities ". 15.005-15.040 Erosion Control 18.005-18.040 Access • 19.005-19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 20.005-20.040 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: Criteria for Issuance of Permits LOC 55.080 Af F. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: ' £' LOC 57.015 Applicability D gn Standard • ' t ' LOC 57.020 LOC 57.030 Adjustments to Design Standard LOC 57.035 Protection from Future Shade 2 M. FINDINGS Y _`` A. ckg ii in* I4 1. The site is 2.85 acres in size and is relatively flat. As F hibits 2 and 3 illustrate, • y there is an existing dwelling on the northern portion of the site which will be • • removed by this development. The site contains a large grove of fir trees on the 'tn south side of Rosewood Street,Exhibit 2. The area on the north side of the street also contains several large fir trees. 2, The surrounding land uses include: . 1, I fp . PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 • . Page 2 of 12 North: Single—family residences Single—family residences i ` • South: East: Single—family residences West: Light Industrial 3. Public services including water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer are or can become available to serve the site. Access to the site will be provided through Rosewood ;' Street. B. Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval of a 16—lot single family residential planned development with lots ranging from 4,300 to 5,760 square feet in size (average lot size of approximately 4,980 square feet),Exhibits 3 and 4. applicant also is The for asking,f � approval of a Class I variance to the Access Standard[LODS 18,020(1)] which requires every lot have a minimum of 25' frontage on a public street Access. As Exhibit 3 illustrates,Lots 10-12 are proposed to be accessed via a private street,Tract "B". C. CQmpliance With Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the followin cri ' when evaluating a major development: g tena 1. The burden of proof,in all cases,is upon the applicant seeking approval. • The applicant has submitted the information required by LOC 49.315 1 1�documents are listed as exhibits which accompany this report. ( x 1). These 2. For any application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to : a. The City's Comprehensive Plan,and, ' ' Applicable policy groups are listed on page 1 of this report. The applicant's narrative(Exhibit 10)provides an analysis of these policies, —Urban Services Boundary Polices These policies require that new development be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. They also require that these services be available or committed prior to approval of development. The ongoing school planning and coordination between the City and the School District satisfy these policies. The passage of the $17 million dollar levy in 1989 and the subsequent construction of a new school and additional school facilities further assures an adequate level of service. —Impact Management Policies These policies protection require of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities, As Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate, the majority of existing trees on the site will be preserved • • in the proposed open space Tract "C". This area contains a large number of mature trees, " . PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 3 of 12 • . j including several large fir trees ranging from 28" to 36"in size. This tract adjoins an • existing open space tract(Tract "A")in Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south, . .; Exhibit 1. 0 The Impact Management Policies are implemented through several Development Standards. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure full compliance. -•Social Resources Policies These policies require protraction of features valuable to community identity and preservation of the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of residents. These policies also encourage citizen participation in the development review process. Regarding the preservation of natural resources,please refer to staff analysis of the preceding Pin policies. The applicant has a neighborhood meeting with representatives of the Rosewood Action Group (a Clackamas County Community Planning Organization) and neighbors who live within 300' of the site. The neighborhood views are presented in Exhibit 16. • ; • • Other policies are implemented through application of specific development standards ` such as Open Space/Park Suuidard. Compliance with the applicable development ' ' i ' standards reviewed below will assure conformance to this Plan policy, -.Residential Density & Site Design Policies The applicant has adequately addressed these policies in his narrative (Exhibit 10). To 0 ..1"1 assure compliance with minimum criteria for overall site design,all the applicable development standards (Chapter 49) will be addressed later in this report. • -Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The f' policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right-of-way as necessary to provide for widening. The site plan (Exhibit 3) illustrates 10' of right-of way dedication along the north and south sides of Rosewood Street. As Exhibits 5,7 and 8 illustrate, the applicant will be providing required improvements as determined to be ' . ' necessary by the traffic report(Exhibit 13) and by the City Engineer. This issue will be addressed in more detail later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations including: •• 1. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: a a, Residential High Density R-5 • LOC 48.130-Maximum Density •_ The applicant provides a detailed analysis of development density in his narrative, Exhibit 10. The density was determined after ubtracting the public right-of-ways 4 '' (approximate) .43 acres) from the acreage (2,85 acres). The resulting net ' r4 • PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 4 of 12 • ,�ur ' developablee acres (2.42 acres)is then divided by the minimum lot area in the R-5 zone ' (5,000 square feet)to determine the number of allowable lots in the development. The ,• ' sin 16 lots,or about 76%of the allowable density. ..,,..:,. , lei applicant is proposing ;,. LOC 48..1.35—Lot Size,Density Transfer The minimum lot size requirement in the R-5 zone is 5,000 square feet,and there are no minimum requirements for lot width or lot depth in the zone. As Exhibits 4 and 11 illustrate,the majority of the lots (12 out of 16)are below the minimum roper lot sizes ment which can be allowed through the planned development process. range from a minimum of 4,300 square feet(Lot 10)to 5,760 square feet(Lot 8). LOC 48.150—Setbacks,Buffers As Exhibits 4, 10 and 11 illustrate, several modifications to the standard R-5 setbacks ., _� (for detached dwellings) are requested, as follows: " Besl1tnhmsi •t Front Yard 20' 23' (for Lots 1-3 and 13- 15) t 20' (for others) 10' 5' minimum, with total r '. Side Yard combined minimum of F... 15' (for Lots 1.7,9, a 10, 13 and 14) • 10' (for others) + a \ Street Side Yard 10' 10' 20' 20' t �r t �\' Rear Yard . •,, The applicant's justifications in support of his request is provided in Exhibits 10 and 11. After reviewing the above evidence, staff finds that the applicant's request cannot be supported for the following reasons: • — The applicant has failed to provide more open space land than the minimum amount (20%)required ; ' by the Park and Open Space Standard. [LOC 48.476(2)(a)] P — The proposed lot configuration does not provide an access to the proposed common open space Tract"C" from within or outside the project. [LOC 48,476(2)(b)] : applicant has not demonstrated whether the proposed modifications will maintain f ` .�. = The ,• •. . or improve privacy for Lots 9--12, [LOC 48.476(2)(b)] , — Sin^e sidewalks are shown in 5' easements on the lots, the 23' front yard setback on Lots 1-3 and 13-15 will result in an 18' distance between the house and back edge of sidewalks, The Public Works Department recommends a minimum setback of 20' , measured from the back edge of sidewalks(for a total setback o`.25' from the property „ line). This will prevent cars that are parked in front of the garages from obstructing w ! • the future sidewalks. PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 Page 5 of 12 . \i,, - - , • .. � Y i ` '' •''' Staff finds that the side yard setbacks for Lots 1-3 could be reduced to a minimum of 5', if an adequate access (minimum of 10' in width)were provided to the proposed open ` ' space Tract "C" 0 . . ' LOC 48.140—Lot Coverage LOC 48.155—Height of Structures • As required by the Code, the maximum height of structures and the maximum lot coverage in this development will be 28' and 30% (excluding paricing),respectively. The applicant has not requested any modifications to the lot coverage requirement; therefore, ;; it will be applied on a lot—by—lot basis. b. Planned Development Overlay \ LOC 48.470—Purpose LOC 48.470(2)requires that a project that contains an area of 4 acres or greater,or r+ . consists of 20 units or more be processed as a planned development. Even though the project is not required to comply with the planned development requirements, the ^ applicant has requested that it be reviewed under the provisions of the planned development overlay district. • LOC 48.475—Procedures Since the development contains only one phase,no Overall Development Plan and , Schedule (ODPS)is required. The ..one requirements to be applied to PD 1-93/VAR 2— 93 are the R-5 standards described in LOC 48.120-48.155,with exception as noted on ;1, pages 5 and 6 of this report. [LOC 48.475(1) and (2)] ^• • °''‘. , 1 '.e. . LOC 48.480—Special Requirements ` The applicant is proposing a common private open space tract(Tract "C")on the south e portion of the site, Exhibit 3. This area will adjoin an existing open space tract (Tract w '. "A")in the Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south. The covenants, codes and restriction (CC& Rs)and bylaws outlining ownership, use, maintenance and liability of the epen space Tract "C" have not been provided by the '" applicant. To insure the continuing preservation and maintenance of this area, the e' • �' .' homeowners association's bylaws and CC&Rs will have to be submitted for review and approval of the City Attorney. These documents should also provide the City an enforcement authority in order to assure reasonable maintenance of open space tracts at the owners' expense. . . ''•• c. Supplementary Provisions I A LOC 48.530—Vision Clearance F ' • •`` Exhibit 2 illustrates vision clearance triangle areas on Lots 4 and 15. It appears that the applicant has measured the vision areas from the edge of the proposed 20' street, Y Rosewood Street could be ti iproved to a minimum width of 28' in the future, with ) ' parking allowed on one side. The vision areas should be measured from the future curb • location or edge of the asphalt so as not to cause a vision clearance problem at the intertection in the future when Rosewood is widened, As a result, toff recommends that 0 ' is. I. �►J' .` PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 '\ Page 6 of 12 ' :,, I pp w • \ access to Lots 4 and 15 be provided from Rosewood Street, as access to Rebecca would obstruct the vision triangle areas with cars parked in the driveways. it 2. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.330-Major Development Procedures This development review application is appropriately being processed as a major development. The development review procedure for major development is found in k' LOC 49.300-49.315. The applicant has submitted a complete application as illustrated in the exhibit section of this report. The applicant also has held a neighborhood meeting with Rosewood Action Group and the property owners who live within 300' of the site [LOC 49.301],Exhibits 16-19. l' . LOC 49.330(1)requires that the final plat be submitted within one year of the date of the "`' Order reflecting the Board's decision. 3. City QLe Oswego Tree Cuffing Ordinanm: LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits } Exhibit 2 illustrates existing trees on the site (8" or greater in diameter) and identifies trees which will be removed as part of the project development and/or housing construction. The applicant addresses the tree cutting criteria (LOC 55.080) in his ' narrative,Exhibit 10. Removal of any trees over 5" in diameter, measured at 4' above ground, will be subject to the requirements of LOC 57.080. 4. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: , i • , , r , '•\•• The Solar Access Ordinance requires that all development in the R-5 zone be designed so that at least 80% of the lots would be solar lots,as per LOC 57.020(1)-(3). If however, due to physical constraints and/or tree coverage this objective cannot be achieved, the applicant can request exemptions or adjustments to LOC 57.025 and LOC 57.030, respectively. Exhibits 3 and 10 identify 10 solar lots in the development, including Lots 1-4,9-12, 15 • and 16, for a 63% compliance ratio. The applicant is requesting a partial adjustment in ' the percentage of solar lots form 80% to 63% based on several constraints imposed by existing road patterns and impacts on the development density [LOC 57.030(1)(c)]. . Exhibit 10 provides a detailed discussion of these issues. Staff finds that Lots 1-3, 9, 10 and 16 meet the Basic Design Technique [LOC 57.020(1)], while Lots 4, 11, 12 and 15 meet the Protected Solar Building Line Option [LOC 57.020(2)], The applicant will be required to illustrate the protected solar building • • >, i \ line either on the final plat or on a legal document that can be recorded along with the ' plat. This requirement can be satisfied prior to approval of the final plat. , :. The solar lots will have to be identified on the final plat. The applicant will also have to provide a note on the plat,or on a document recorded with the plat, binding the applicant 1 and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade protection standards in LOC 57.035. The cityshall be made ato party to any covenant or restriction created enforce „- any provision of the Solar Access Ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be , amended without written City approval. i Y PD 1••93/VAR 2-93 Page 7 of 12 • • ,.' c. The applicable Development Standards; • The Building Design Standard does not apply to major development involving single family detached houses as proposed. The site does not contain any Historic Resources, Stream Conidor,Wetland,Weak Foundation Soils,Hillsides or Floodplain; therefore, these standards are not applicable. The applicant's narratives and plans illustrate substantial compliance with the applicable • standards. This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposal are recommended. .•'r Street Lights—(5.005—5.040) The proposed preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 5)does not illustrate the required street lights on Rosewood Street or the internal street. The applicant will be required to submit final lighting plans and photometric data for review and approval of the City Engineer • prior to approval of final construction plans. The street lights should be 100 watt fixtures on the internal streets and 150 watt along Rosewood Street. • Transit—(6.005—6.040) • Based on an analysis of Section 6.020(1)(a) and(b), the applicant is providing 5' • sidewalks on the east side of Rebecca Lane and south side of Rosewood Street,Exhibit 5. R.. Staff recommends that the sidewalk on Rosewood Street be relocated to the north side of the right—of-way for the following reasons: •„'; — The site has a greater frontage along that side. • — It will provide continuity by connecting to the proposed sidewalk on Rebecca Lane, and future sidewalks from Tualata to Pil dngton. • Parking and'Loading—(7.005—7.040) This standard inquires that each single family dwelling unit provide two off—street parking• spaces in addition to a garage or, pg� g carport. Each of proposed lots are of sufficient • size to accommodate two off—street parking spaces,Exhibits 3 and 4. For additional staff comments regarding potential conflicts between parking and setbacks, please see page 5 of this report. Compliance with this standard will be assured upon application for each building permit. • Park and Open Space-(8.005—8.040) All major residential development shall provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of their gross land area: • Exhibit 3 illustrates the proposed open space system in the development, The open space • Tract "C` measures .57 acres or 20% of the gross land area in size and contains a large number of mature trees, including several large fir trees ranging from 28" to 36" in size. This area will adjoin an existing open space tract(Tract "A") in Lindsay Park Planned Development to the south,Exhibit 1. • The proposed site plan does not provide an access to open space Tract "C", As defined •• by LODS 8.015(1),open space land ",...shall be permanently reserved by common i• ownership among the owners of a development..,", Staff finds that the current design will PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 • Page 8 of 12 • • • ti 1 • II only benefit the owners of Lots 1-3, and not all residents in this development. To meet the intent of this standard, staff recommends that an adequate access (a minimum of 10' • in width) be provided to Tract "C". Staff also recognizes that since this requirement may result in a significant change in the proposed site plan, that the hearing be continued so that the applicant can submit a revised site plan for review and approval of the Board. Staff recommends that the open space Tract"C" be labeled as "Private Open Space Tract "A" on the finalplat. The followingnote should be • provided on the final plat and ' individual deeds: "Private open space Tracts "C" shall remain in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic,aesthetic appearance,protecting natural processes,providing passive recreational uses and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a certified arborist, and after • a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in this area, A including landscaping,which are in keeping with the above purpose, must be approved .. by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings,except play structures or other similar landscape features, shall be allowed in this area." Landscaping,Screening and Buffering—(9.005—9.040) • Exhibit 2 illustrates the typical type, location and size of the proposed street trees. The proposed type,Prunus Subhirtella "Autumnalis" (Autumn Flowering Cherry) is a "solar h' friendly tree", as determined by the Solar Friendly Tree Report(City Solar Access `' Ordinance), Staff recommends that at minimum one additional tree be provided on Lots 4 and 15 along Rebecca Lane in order to provide a continuous planting along that street, • There is an existing commercial use to the west of the development site. LODS 9.020(6) {' " requires that adequate screening and buffering be provided as a separation between /`' dissimilar uses. The applicant asserts that the existing vegetation on the commercial site, which is located above the applicant's property by 4' to 6', provides an adequate buffer, ,• • Exhibit 10. The applicant also states that future fences along the rear propertylines of ; �" Lots 4-7 (to be constructed by property owners) will provide additionl buffering., Staff finds that the applicant should be required to construct the fence at the time of proect development in order to provide the necessary buffer prior to marketing of any lots. �' ,; Fences—(10.005—10.040) '• As stated in the applicant's narrative will �. ••, pp (Exhibit 10) all fences w have to comply with the provisions of LODS 10,005-10.040 and LOC 48.530 (Vision Clearance Area). For • additional comments on vision triangle area, please see page 6 of this report, • Drainage for Major Development— (11.005— 11.040) . Exhibits 5-8, 10 and 15 address the proposed storm water system for this project, After reviewing this information, staff makes the following observations: �. ' — Storm Water Quality Facilities: The proposed design and calculations have been f reviewed by staff and are found to meet the City water quality requirements. A system of roof drain and road side swale infiltration trenches are proposed, Exhibits 5 and 6. The final design calculations and configuration of these facilities will be required with the final construction plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 ' Page 9 of 12 ` - Storm Water Detention: A storm water detention facility is not required for this site, because detention is provided downstream in a City regional facility at Tualatin ` Street to the east. - Drainage Easements: No public drainage easements are required. All private drainage easen*.enis should be shown on the final plat. The proposed drainage system is adequate in concept. The final design of the drainage system may require r odifications to meet the City's design requirements. Utilities-(14.005-14.040) . The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 10) and the preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 5)indicate r that adequate water and sanitary sewer facilities are available and can be extended to t: service the development. • • Water: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with a 4" water line,Exhibit 5. This design does not provide the required fire flow at 1,500 gallon per minute. The nearest fire hydrant is located approximately 450' from the future home on Lot 8,Exhibit 3. In order to provide an adequate fire protection, the applicant should be required to • provide an 8" line in Rebecca Lane and install a hydrant in the area of the proposed • private street,Exhibits 3 and 5. Sanitary ewer. The site will be served by an existing sanitary sewer line in Rosewood • " Street, and lines along the north and west property lines,Exhibit 5, '. Streets: As Exhibit 3 illustrates, access to the site will be provided from Rosewood • ' Street and Rebecca Lane, a new street with rural-street design. Lots 10-12 are proposed 40 • - Y < to gain access from a private street(Tract "B" on Exhibit 3), with a public access easement over the front end to serve as the required public turnaround, Exhibit 4. Staff recommends that the proposed 25' x 34' public easement area be dedicated to the public ' in order to protect the City from potential encroachments and violations in the future. • Staff also recommends that this portion of the private street be constructed to public street • standard as it will be used as a turnaround. To properly delineate the boundary between the public street (Rebecca Lane) and private street(Tract"B"), staff recommends that the applicant install a concrete strip at the boundary line,Exhibit 3. To assure the continuing maintenance of the proposed private street in the future, the applicant will be required to • provide adequate restrictions on the final plat and the deeds for Lots 10-12, to the • ': ;satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of the final plant. • As Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate, sidewalks are proposed to be located outside of public _ • right-of-way on both Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane. The Public Works • Department recommends that sidewalks be located within the proposed right-of-way in • • order to avoid potential conflicts in the future. However, staff could support the ' applicant's proposal if no variation to the 20' front yard setback is allowed and if the • setback is measured from the back edge of the new sidewalks, Staff recommends against measuring the setback from property line, since cars parked in front of garages would ' obstruct the sidewalk. Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate the proposed improvements on Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane, Both streets are 20' wide and are designed with rural-sections, in accordance with " '" the recent City Council direction that grass-lined smiles be considered as an alternate to curbs: Due to the narrowness of the proposed street improvements, the new streets will 40 not provide the ability for any on-street parking, The streets will be required to be - • PD 1-93/\VAR 2-93 • ' Page 10 of 12 " d r ,. constructed and designed for a 20 year minimum life. Design calculations for a 20 year design life are to be submitted at the time construction plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. •-‘ •....,/ 410 The applicant will be required to provide an acceptable barricade at the end of the Rebecca Lane. The final plat should also illustrate a one foot control strip at the end of r this avid. i r • The applicant presents two alternative circulation patterns to serve the properties to the . • north,Exhibits 9 and 10. Staff finds that Option "B" is not feasible due to recent minor land partition approvals. Option "A" is not a desirable pattern, because Lower Drive, from Tualatin Street to the west,is approximately 1,000' long, very narrow (12' to 14' in width) and is without an outlet. This situation was created when Boones Ferry Road was improved,eliminating the Lower Drive intersection. Staff recommends that any future r • extension of Rebecca Lane should provide a connection to Lower Drive; therefore, a cul— de--sac at the end of Rebecca Lane (as in Option "A") should not be considered as a final ' , • design. The City Tra Engineer has reviewed the applicant's traffic reports (Exhibits 13 and " ffic f:' 14) and concurs with its findings and conclusions,Exhibit 20. Staff review of the utility plans only verified the location and capacity of public utilities to serve the development. Final determinations regarding the exact location and size of public services will be made prior to approval of the final construction plans. Erosion Control—(15.005-15.040) Exhibit 6 illustrates the proposed preliminary erosion control plan for this development. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed erosion control plan for review and • • ' approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of final construction plans. This plan should comply with the new State mandated erosion control requirements outlined in the "Erosion Control Technical Guidance Handbook" adopted by the City, Access—(18.005—18.040) • All proposed lots,except Lots 10-12, meet or exceed the minimum 25' frontage requirement to a public street [LODS 18.020(1)],Exhibit 3, Lots 10-12 are designed with no frontage to a public street and they will gain access through a private street(Tract "B")off Rebecca Lane,Exhibits 3 and 4. • • The applicant has requested approval of a Class 1 variance to LODS 18.020(1). Exhibit , 12 provides adequate justification in support of the variance request. Site Circulation Driveways and Private Streets—(19.005— 19.040) ., Access to Lots 10-12 is proposed to be provided through a private street,Exhibit 3. This street shall be designed to comply with the requirements of,'LODS 19.020-19.025, to the • satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of the final construction plans, All • individual driveways will be reviewed under LODS 19.025 at the time the building permits are issued. • Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways-(20.005-20.040) .°. Please see staff comments under Transit and Utilities Standards on pages 8 and 10 of this • report. • PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 , Pagel 1 of 12 h •i ' d, Any applicable future stre( 4 plan or ODPS $ There are no such plans which affect this site, IV. CONCLUSION Based on the information submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this repurt,staff finds that the application does not comply with the applicable criteria for approval,including the Park and Open Space Standard,LOC 48.150(Setbacks,Buffers)and LOC 48.476(Planned Development Authorization). V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends PD 1-93/VAR.2-93 be continued to a date certain in on ier to allow the • ' ' applicant to address the issues identified in this report. EXHIBITS . " 1. Fax Map • 2 Site Boundary/Tree Survey/Landscape Plan 3. Preliminary Plat/Vicinity Map 4. Reciprocal Access Easement Plan for Lots 11.and 12 5, Preliminary Utility Plan 6. Preliminary Grading Plan • 7. Preliminary Street Profiles 8. Revised Street Profiles 9. Preliminary Future Streets and Circulation Plan 10. Applicant's Narrative 11. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative Addressing LOC 48.476(4) 12. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative for a Class 1 Variance to LODS 18.020(1) 13. Traffic Analysis Report by Charbonneau Engineering, dated January 27, 1993 • 14. Addendum Traffic Report by Charbonneau Engineering, dated February 16, 1993 • 15. Preliminary Storm Drainage Analysis,dated February 12, 1992 16. Minutes of January 20, 1993 Neighborhood Meeting with Attachments 17, Affidavit of Posting Notice 18. Affidavit of Mailing • 19. Receipt for Certified Mail to Rosewood Action Group 20. Memorandum by Wayne Halverson (City Public Works Department),dated March 15, 1993 • • (b(boaad 92"4FcRepons>PD 1-93/VAR 2-93/3-26-93 • PD +• � � Page 23�12 2-93AR H I�,y". • C. 1 E 1 ,.) , „ ZIE. 1T.) A �00 „ � D• / P xOa ;,r .,�j %� i , R , yp�kP\L �.' . iP .20 1' • / 0(J S A .0\ R0;„ Ax 2ztlo IA lc / / ` •,.,Al i s AA . !, A ` y1 / / , .o s� zoo \\ xsp0 ! sot ,00 ,•••,.... A:\ , • v • . "' �" �',1 1sp0 rft !9 q /O •A. t 1.1, \ ,, t / I I ;,It 9Q P H r . sp01 ti A. 1 llt 1 ',It: 1t1 .9't°+ !,. >� rt",�itl 1� • 1,1 1 MS ' '' �` •.20A r1 ' ..'•�1 °• i•° ,*61 ?$!.i..t.ti fit` •• ",J! A' x rl, !,,,, p\ A101 \\ ,'{ , '. '4!.14.0 • + $%00 0, V«4 '1 ,ii ,mod' •r •1 10 i. ./} gyp • '� a 2,1' ; ^, W` 't .:. .44 c'''(A �� A102 .!•1'�. N!' .•y0� , ��` o l.•�=Ott A • ` ,u' �}.�U�G• r 61 A ti:.IP '\' `3 !!..l,•°- Y fQ •.4 .14 tw,11 ' .,.n0 .t....I 11.. 66 Af0 tv .t P p . t to / {'. ' IIIM Q` V .„ ✓ '\A'.., '••,Cif i r �11 M , 1�i11�� \\� ,' �ppD,':`�°t ,r6tl2 3e��2• , b .`\ r l'n�B61 .�'' •� o/ Y — 01. .\ pUl►SY ''.. ?O °' . 't:: •..`tot_ 1+�1 o lift .6 Z.;{ \ �,,.• ✓ ° •�„O •'2 ,s 01 y►l, "i 1 \66 !'\\°'�" 61 h / t l0 , •• l '! ,01 + J�� I \ r / �• �;j'i 6 '' li,�.� _• •,,,.,�r� 4 t.N !, 1+,J �` rb 1 _I .1 1,1;.!..s.,19-1%;',(-).., 00 " cp... 411kaggellffill00- \ I ..." '''•:'..t 4e• .7.4\l'' .1* 10 Lf0 6 U°i /� '�'I' �i, Q `ti+t ~l •yr rJl. t. 1 ``p `Q���j " 0 1 I q0 !!'1 ! ( ,y'�y a j: OS` ', 41 A i1 ,6900MI • 6900MI !!.; 1 tit,1 06 ,,Off, '/'10ti`�.6 i/t" 0° `-:a ` �'�. `_>,�! 4.,... •+1 yyJ , '17 ' ' aol. /,> it i 1 60z 6':g. `, -:.• M01 •c'J ,/ : 0' , V� 4 ( 1,- ,,, ._ e •6900M1 t�ei1° ;1 \ , 'f ,1•6 �• `.. �t'}�(,�y' I : 6 \ , . 1 //J'd :, .. yov ' • •• �, ' ,«. -.. , 96 ry•` �,ONi , 'CA' 0% q1, 4 f<...�' •aa •°•\ y.,. 1{ • S , /' T00 ,,..pp ' :, r•! 6470M1 ' t '�,, 6R•tt„ _ ;, r• yf�ta •°, a•,' •A • i,( IIIf I >; fit''!!'' - 1 , 4 ,`iV• •••••- :An I • •'1n4u ,\t6 N'401 t-a• .•J4,lJ'.A \ k.•\ ,, t, , • . t • �11 .r:121Itl3 �.• . •.,.. i .4 EXHIBIT - . tip , pD{ ' r 41. A. i •a • 4 4 . , . I • e Y 7!,. •' �' 0 _, , , , .. XI rkr '1\ 4 . , \ 0. \---- 31o2 - 4: ow Lea • 11 111 . , .......„,5\14„4„.spo � Jil is �`'%, g \\ .41 t . ,r r 10 " t»• 1 li [1 i 10 .•• N -••• • t 12 tt ;p^ sty j �_°I �_I 1 I'~ .� \ t '-�\t COf11�ER0US TREE M1TH CIRCUMFERENCE fT11UYAi'-i MI VI ti i 1 a ' �` ► 0 U t LP 0 DECIDOUS TREE WITH CIRCUMFERENCE SHOWN t t e► \ t ssY�YCR° r�'� Q ►+I • st le ---- Q PROPOSED SIREET TREE: 2` CALIPER - 32 b1 s� ■ "` V,. 0 T t �� M'�.. t / Je PRUNUS SUBNIRTEILA AUTUMNALIS' 1 15 1 11 l tt\......... t .�' *�11LL i ' \li ` •I� if OR Ilti PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL I'' +5 � 'd's -'-sT' -.-----. ....i...-ecret.!..r... .. .. ,,ii." , . lAr' Ro T s {L ft PK * ._ O1. f' ......ii to. 7.-- xi t / " A 1 F.� `J� r U 1 2311r t'vL4!t �P I_ Q' 'Y t\r4 t BA1Cp Q Q v) yX 11 'Seri WI b"' Q .ccr$$it{{t It tS{V .. • 4 y' g it •• w el t,rip. . GE i'' 1I�1 t Q 0 r � �r ,` err �'� r'r�✓�' 0 CO • r , PROJECT. ROSEWOOD ' _ NO. 2117-005 TYPE PREIAT,PLAT ,, •�v r aU ,.y ,. , I C ( rr...a� .f d � ,moo.• �. -- 4 1.---: I ► Y -:.. .,M ) e5t• 1:, . "...,..-•....4-,,..'.,... .... ', : ' t'l L � __I+:.I .4—, .4L I l • +� W +t/(B) ✓ vs SCALE: 1' r I a.r. .. 50 •1, 1— A '' ESb sr 5,634 sr C 1190 (A) tit • 7 0 r 11 a+ ad °'� S7.�sr 1 St., • r4 ++ b 1A VICINITY MAP 2 J 0 ( Illk *p p1 --. Iv (S) \ � N.T.S. w . . . �+ 4 73� \ 1, 6,,15,506 Sr A 'r+; a a a �1 91 o. (A+ t,`, `+'` VII �-\� n 1+ �� Q L j + h,e sr `�' Oa+ neio -(H) \ 7it 1 OWNER A , S P +001 SW HUMPHREY PAR(mgt. P • / Maw*CONINE �E) ,��, ���s(5) ,�,a3x sr POWILAND.OR 07221 4 lir- ,961 sr 15 sr X, +r 11 `,+t t o. , APPUCANT /DEVELOPER - - "- , ,-�- --- ROOI SE WAY PIJ2A ON?,/100 -./ / 4500 S,W.kRUSE WAY v e -4,1151 sr 1 ,/ 1�' ypt a LAME 0rd3e id,. -� S'0y5E'1 S 1A p 11 ENGINEER / SURVEYOR dos A ALMA[NaussRola MI0. •• �0,i, TV"1S3P,� ,�'�, &.. '�+dD sy `4 PPflO C1 u1�afEE 9 RANDY rMj4( .• s � �yJ .o t�� UTILITIES /SERVICES ',�+ '�' , # \+ m N �,.-=" WATER-a TY Or LAks OSWEGO i VP \l\ 10. + p �N1, sENER-UNITTED SEw[RAO;ACEIICY • ++ ) 2 POWER-PORn1J10 OEIIERAL =CTMO R •. 0 Sr OAS -N.W,NATURAL oA2 ►- A .)! "10p.G \• 1 .r 5,000 S • 9A PHONE-U.S.MAST Q W n •' Z� 1. 1 .... 31� CAN -COLUYOIA CARL6 .J Z p "` . -;�► NOTES • Lu,o,111-5 a • Yp + CROSS SITE AREA! 2-05 AC sW� '- ' ,- STREET ARUM 16,014 St Z g7 • - I - >E a OPEN SPACE AREAL 24,1153 St (LI N CONTOURS! ALPHA EJ10NITERINO P\ TRACT`C` + SOLAR ACCESS COAIPUANCE C+i.l (/') P/8 61 .• + OPEN CE A\ 6-(o) carats YAn1 SotM oRONIANcE. �� gl 24,8 3 :r p + �, O 4»(S) COMPLIES Mlnl sP[aAL salaams 0Y APPLYING TIC SOLAR BUILDING I , LINE Tonto, ,\ � •' S»(E) fictionfictional,(ECN, .`NIFP PROJECT 601(WVo6 KM267-005� ���,,,,,,JJJJJJ . r. • • , 4 `• r 0 • • / : 't•v n"4f V r : ,' ,.PICK t T, », • •.1 ,i .. 1 1'.,411, ......,•. ,.fn, .,1,111" .,.nn III 1 1 r�i I! i�i kOiddF'j '�Ibin�+" 1, sulrvrinrall 1 1l1 llrll.I.I • TI Iiiii f4^.JI i n inr.j 1 11 r 1't E. (PpAkn I I I I Oc un 1.1II,IIInu4wlp if 1 44. MH+�I. �T1 1 �"�.1Pd1'twV I 1I � , i; • • Anil tji,'il 1, 4 1 9fi f , 11 t '�1`11 4.Kif, .,,r� � l:. ,,, 1 ''t1'I 1 • •1 +t1�gHtit t � i�;ry' 'n,Ill; �\ ♦ uIz. •I"fir', 11 I'. .�i11KHii.i rii!.4., Gla: i;.P:T'MitiO, Ii ' '1!,:' I, .. .�.O r111,i; -I .1H : III -• ' ''� ,n��:S. N� �.I�f�� ��'^.�i�l� o1) U • ' ,.:1 v .1r y,,► v 1t2 <''�.,e?' ill; • 11 & ? ¢ ji "a' `' 1;1�� '"' • lii11yt{�,'��I} �oo a i :,,. • oi .�C? .1,1,����� �va-Ir3�1�NN11::.'M[.i«...r �1� •'�I� 14 •A, '14,r1 AIP`� , ., • i �a'!.' �' � I I I 1 • 1 �jf iintll 'EXIS Ns. ' 20 scMTA�R, ° STORM , i .,•: . .-A : • 53' , d . ! ; tit Phi ,. I 101J1, N I e.. tWi... l..:a.-... 1...,...:.r ..•s.... 1+� ........... .3...,,.n. .......— .......,47;r.+ »..1 i i, `, .,,:i0„ it-1(1,-. 1 „,,,ir.j , , ,, ...i v I9 I „' i1'"M/{ i t0 1 ' 4J- I I ' I,jll�'tll 11; 1 *0 ?"'" I 1: 1 *,, . ,,..•:. ..• 14,1i , (4 . ,„, • 5. r' 144 :Ill, 11'4!Y'i ' f• ijii; I 1,1 33., . ..„,.. ..4 i . 0 .(0 , „ , , ,,• ;,,,,,., ., ,,..•. II a GI r Ili J , 11 • oi� ' • ,� I',I, I {, i ' j� I �i� ���1��.��,� v i!{�iC�1 I �i 11 i 1 11i' !� I, tidl}1P 1 1 , ., 161'R CPi� 1i.1CI lr ( ll; if II':ii +4i11M11� 'Mb'u .n�' m . t��11�` 1a1,lli�h� ,is..r�Iso` 1I,I,'1, r , 11111'II r. I ( 179, I l 1 I,i III I,I nD �' 1 ?. ;�,C Ili,i � • r'i!�('jl , Il �11 j 11{ i f• i, , l lit 1 �' 1 ,I, 1I1. 1 1 'y11 C4{C 'd� ,•1111• 01,1,1,r J�f 1. I I i I1 s Ln k 1 1 11 !QD. ; .J 7(!(ltl.!!!i,nr.�"11��if, 11,1 fI II;.14' M to 1 it'N:n1• C I .1 1� . ill 11. 1 ' , , 1 . . bi, Ii . ,, , „ ., '� r H t I1�: I f ,,r, •11 . ! 1, 1,-,r 1),, . , 1 .i.+.,'i k:1' ,++++1.r, (s fir, �1 ,;, %IC 1 'I t.ii III I^ , I ! ri,—..4..-.-.;4.41.+, .•--..ia.i .47 I. Z5'i '...4,1 J! A' o� l 7„`111ii' GII 1 i .444, 1 (5).. , 1 0. el ,0 rm. . , Illi, I / or) g., ,• ,• , .,,. . ,..„, ,• ., 1 ,,. „., .i 41h,n 1 i•O ' 1 1:1 , S Iiiii:i 1: WI ti I .Illin 1, 3 t:,..5', (• 41,,O, ri,j;j(16 iStp+t1/4 I :, ! 1 evie) 't • . ' 11,141;i I' .1 l• I • 4 • ',,�N+li ,> 1,,;..1* .l 11'1.1, 'N .i __ C+d.i4l:fu-...wi4 lL�.. ..... . / ,.u11 1...1 J I { 1, 4; OBI i , .. ., ;�{ir...If ......0'44,...••••••1 1 ......... .., L: ,. . , • -61 -t,▪ EXNIBI . t II il 1 I 11 II I �� 1:',1 1 ,.. tO:,.r ,pow 0 i A a/v,�0.L 9 y o 4 r� , 'is: *.A. ,,, . e. E . II ' 1 • \ oil ��Tz.r _...\ . ON r s ,`l7'tl+t P'" ` ,SIODA WATER DEIA& W ' p� •f Citel"tglW �VI 1 li \ . 1M+ .!i•,, /ii- l j \ '1 N w,• ,.rSNid ��1 R Y.. 1 n.' ' : .' tit'' l'c ''..... 1 • ""'' 11 .1$ ,-' I "ovtontor a „4,, 1, tor' . ,• �' \ "` nT"illi'�1111 q 1�$idbAyJJ7 F t ►eglRAnoN Tillie I ,� r' a 4 'A\t• t ` •rtAVOl,n�,Nwx • \\, s C . • ,%,�t • i 0 14 nnvo now o,6 a urewnf-aAIA 1 �P d 1 12 I y €ANt1RAnol oloi Is \ 7 r4) t,.. .1, , 00. UM►PACncu, n \.. .\\S �r , �'1��i1 r- ...• WA Ktl ttaN A ® yj :�, ' li N ib ri rrctuM[cnaN AI 91 �I n 1 "J n cry„ t 3 1 \ FlI1ste 1 \ PAV[uW/ l DRAM 11t toot 1' P . \ ./'(E1l \I1` 16 , ,,. IN*IP I10N 61 i 8�tj f 17 i\\\ 'y '"\\n,' l f" e :'� / :1..::,..::70,4_,Trci,08 t �11 •}r� 16. r--___11/4 rge \ .\ '..- 1]ISr - '� / • iPAlgN nKlrol 4i•..f. �t Y• tr15 1 \ S , �� � - r[ = :1� 100,1irk.tj� • ,•\\��,� ��L' G+� / '.v/' V ✓ � N 66c6 f r' t.� yHrol-M 1 \ /�! .r V'- Pk t�,1Y . � Iy`rA ` lY+'• sM j� / ,'.rlc�11�.' • may.` -Or 11 �Y, .17:1 ---rU1r011A1N'I' '�.11:• 1�(,w 1fe -\ \ � r� --1 / DITCH •` - �, :,,,- �� 5EGThal, DITCH SECTION :; •r' '' pOQ,� j '��''l r^�� a s+�l 1 t10 ; //' �/ \ o ,\ AT DRIVEWAY 41.ROSE •' ---�,,-�;l'� «.v'. 1 • l._ �� �\ • \ UTILITY LEGEND v '011 1 I ' / f' �� ,/, s `tlr,1` , b ,' . ,. . .,,,..-\lifxi TM�� At% •. 1 \/I 2® ;.-, ♦ \ 6.,\ \ m---tut— Iwo uAtlfMslalC1ARY SEMI uuc M 'tSgt/s,10 \�'1' / \../✓,V \ pA \ —cw-.q EktsTlNo slonu DN N 1INt AHD ai ,Z otq i //� /..,✓' • Cnll'fl BAStN J 0 Q W b - /\ r / ®` "n''v— tx,serTO WAtGt LINE AND VALVE n' CL eg31.1 •\41., y. '/ A • m • •t"•R ��~ PROPOSED r0 IOINAI SANITARY SEWEII LIfIE >. 3 ,.' e 2 0 � 11 t • • �•�' C►-p PANG,RtSOUT DRAIN tiNC Z L(C '—.` A F, • `. . ' •.I. T.41 Ii '�,•'�`� b•-1'oi PRGrOSEo WAitn LINE,mow- 2 I' --J 9� 07• +�` `/ � •��\ I rn',AND IntE fionANt �j O F ', •'_° r. /• •, • . '� 3.5.t. SAMATIt SEVER EASEMENT 1A- y��� y • • �• r� 5;D.E. Sirnu GRAIN EAsELiENT w NOTES ' •• \ • t • j,•/ pha \ / ✓ AN EgCSIDN CONIRDI PIAn tNA1 N:ZTs �� ��b�h� S `�}}}���,,,• 'EROSION CONTROL rtAN THE PEOLPITDIENIS or sEnoti ,:AL ' t os \ r'r� y' \ CUIOANCE NAINUCT1 1Mtl DE PRE. Or �� \ AT THE CONsoNcooN PLAN STAGE Or . J DEVELOPUENT "PROJECT ROSEWOOD _ NO. • i •‘. . illo...___________ . , , T1T E M . . . EPIAT , - .i^�. *. * 1 W •- PrI K er r lilt) , '7, ''.1 I ';.'.i:'..„:.'', ': \ \ I ...: l'.:I IR! ,:;';',.7. ro• rq� 0. .• . .. ...\ 37,6) `*, . `.'. ' , ., .., j1� ti '. �P�p,�UnT�� �05";.+ ►'N huuaA'I OY9Nl4 ejG io .isi *It .% r '!, vt 1 f._. ,•/ \ 'V +11✓j , 12 `T is k't '� y ' . \ �.r1 x I37,31 T aIti 111 ...."...\:;..1,, 11% r 141 TT ( I 0 7 r,.yM1 us a • 4• `1 , .............-woe 1 k iJd7.7D •i I�`�M� -'y "�! 11 1 T: 6'�� 'tit , • 15 TO .. T i /I'l ,r.✓ LEGENR TWa"9A,\ , r 'a•"'e''- -. "'.- -•.+-•-`- \ 1 , 'l,l. 3. s T`T a„ oA 1 p1 p1 `. !J- ai°,��p 2\E N�P sotto. MIDI GRADE ROPE(Ms •' \c. \5''�,.--- `•\. Y t •' "10 \ �..— PROPOSED DRAINAGE PAt1ERN r�1' PP .� \ :.•. 41 u 1 L 3 \ \\ Itiet,Ig EttsnNo mom(rep) T '4 0 �Y' a 3 T. - vir14•DAAITT I \ •,•'2 TD 1.•• , �..1 \ I EROSION CONTROL.SEEDING AREA '� . • - \SAG +Iri o . 1 r� , ,.x I.�.......J ot� ` s\ \ NOTE1 MEMO MULd11N0 ANO REVECATATIDNSHALL �• • • • • • ,N'r p��I'-s AREAS,DC PCRfDgNfl!ON ALL WOMBED Q '^ �8 .' t -c /q y. RECOMMENDED EROSION CONTROL Lx; 2 ZZ W `T , ` O • -••' LOW MAWTENANCE)hOw HE1O1T, O 91$ • Elia PERLMAN.RYECRASS AO% 1 >.* CREEPItO RED FESCUE 20x • s \ cE• •l\ .'- a L. Ct 9 • T �. A. qe•� ! • .4 q*p/ ,,,....,.„‘FP /��� ` PRMCO, ROSEWOOD r NO, 2e7-ooe - \ 1111 PREPIAt ,1 C' . 1 • • Fb • h" ..,4, _ .. 4 .. 1, 711 ".•. AI I l I; : / i Yi . ':- . ' 11., .........._ .........-.1---.... I ..........-.-,.. _...... . .. —"%"""" -L-------.."-*;11—i b a� ..way X or II ii r t•M ar2+tN ianmr«wMt l•..ir il C F la e e e -► e e e a e •y 11► -1400 -1100 ^0400 0000 0400 1400 1100 0000 *400 3400 3100 4100 4400 J1 . AAA a � + - ' REBECCA LANE I�' I Si t PTMl1C Sinai � d� 66 i M00 0400 Inc 1.70 :100 1400 3/00 1400 4400 4400 (0400 10..000000:0) 0. i PRIVATE STREET �,�„� J — F • •,I' M00 MIO 1/00 1/10 } te.olvuru>1�[r► A/W tl' M/W p/W VW 4- a. 1 g • 0' e' to. } He tl' a 12' It2, re eh. PALL ` f w ;1 ONAINAGE Mat ,snAINACE Dint swALL SSRWALE • •, •' 1 L)fT 3'SIDEWAU< O1tAINACE DITCH, CtUuNACE otTtxl 'RAVEL SNoULIX l , Y S /`-0. SHED Moat C,pvut.c Asj�'c•-2 LfftS :hDd'.A4L..gASL'C=2.1d33 . r S.I,-07 alUStHlt Rodt 7•t7h'-oboe o ROCK 2'.4 4.. No float .c, 10g2•-0•)atv»1ED ROCK t0•p•-Ir)a1UstE0 Moat • 'I �(_ ERIVATE STREET SECTION. M P� t_,SZF_F_T SEC71bN S. . ______ _ SIREET SE IQN (jn15 tD ,.,..! • mutt t1o%Moao ' j Ito.. .2e2-005 PML-PLAT .h. . • • :. Y ,1 T ¢ a •.b 4r \4 • • • • • • 4.• - < { • 3 tl• • . • • F. p.'` •• t • • • • *r . y , 4 • • y • • ' ` 4y f { • tk • ALPHA. ENGINEERING INC. • ,` `' ENGINEERING A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • SUR"EYING March 12, 1993 Mr Hamill E'ashvaie, Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego F1' 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Hamid: • Please note the attached corrections for taheet 5 of the 'Rosewood ' ;..: pre-plat application. a) The new public street section, Rebecca Lane, should have 6" o • f (2"-0" ) crushed rock not 10" as shown on the plans. b) Rosewood Street section should have 8" of (2"-0" ) crushed rock not 10" as shown on the plans. • ,p Further copies of the revised sheet 5 will be submitted upon r request. If you have any questions do nct hesitate to call, sincerely, x ALPHA ENGINEERING INC. ♦.r A glia."'"" ".••••••••., ark Dame Junior Planner 267-005d.md • • •O• EXHIBIT , J 11 1 • Pr ci7A U1r4°r A Ct trrg in A oA?n 1/ ("AV A pnP1-t AKtn npf;r~r,.l 07711 A kni.ac7.gn11* . t;Ab• c „ .an4.1 • • • • . • .. . r a .4 ^ • , r b Iri R. l '. •: a. 1! ... • g• ; 1.*Ir;'/ itt't, • • : . 1IP . .; • : [4..3 . . l'• • f-../i . • . .• ' 0 F•-• • •!: 8 % 41.1, • • E d• 4.4; /1. 0 •.- • ' ,-,'1:1* ttsio", II "'''''• ......... 1 cu 1 -...... ''.'".. 44.4.... ....••.... t .•1 ;1i 1.' ......1.1 ; .../ • • • = 4:••• "FF. lit.—q- --] . ...... . . .;• ,v 5 • .) c . . it.,• 2+80 31-a0 34-80 4+00 4+60 . - • •. .. 'I'N • ‘. .1 . \I) . • .. . , . 11--- W ,.......1 1.0 co '$ • E Rtag . a... 0 • . • Riw < w 50 4t R/vi R/v,i Rtiv ix . 0 . • I ' Z (I) a o a ; • • , ln. M _ , 0 1.--. • , t— - 8' a% ,104 _f_• to* . 0' te ,....1 LEJ RVE3 ; P,U.E. 1.1.1 —f 3' 31 4/1 3.--If ri ,-.11.- 3. yt frJ*1—. 46,* ' * \ 44./M. • ,m1,11 4. v •' , (/) ?i I • • I .ORAINAI;E Drittl DRAIMADE bird-I DRAINAGE DITCH . .. 0 PAM4,...LH9MLOgR___ VEt, SHOULDER" ZtVittrA_CIA211V.:=2....LIE15 N. . \. 4-;.frItstliSIIE0 REIN • 4'. a ,, '' .• .'..• ** "--a' " "*""(1 ID --0-) GRUSHEP 1100A . 4. 40" _.,.. 4 io -137) CItIJSRELI RoCk . ' . .t•,, • - : ,....) --- ----I.= NtW PUI3LIC STREET SECTION, __•-•-- S.W. ROSEWOQD STREET SECTION . fi u') co 1 • , . . • • • . , PROJECT ROSEtioG011 'NO, , ..u......:-.4:...:-..0.414..,•.::;;;.;:-2‘.-' . - • :....-1.:.....:.: _ _ .. . .... ... . . .•' .* I * i * 1 ' . " • .. - . V rr+yy 1 *y. '�' .,w,q4 ; JNr +Ih � lr^ \ \ I. • 1 t 1; '\ C 1 /; , •,.pr: ...` e i• j •.t r .:L f•�,I. �•,' r .'.. Ili 1) 1. , • / 11(1 1t r /, �\ N ,,/',t a `itZ' :w } JiJ;•fit, / \`r,p, • jr '9 0 ` % 0 ,, ' .•. !..1,, ..1: ‘. .4 s' ):.,1%-1 , . , .6 ,‘ s,,:‘^1..'..Li '..,.T ., c. . ...., 0 a ti ". c I , • ••••;71,,, .: yk, .. , . ,k..., i ,4. .v.:, 4„,., , ' Pk ... P.4`.' 'Pi .s-'-'*•e ir;;' • ' ,,t ) % i t; It' ''''."----"--7.i..... \ ,, , 11 , ,, '1i 1 ` N,•� ,• a .„r,27 t1V' ; . ' ,' .' ... '• •0 ' .....-710' ' fil,• '":14 • 444 "/7fOr 4;,."-. ''.'. . /. A,.,..-wm. / ,0 r 11 106.1 , ,:. ..,,* 4t'.1,,C,, . . ry. I.tr. r .1. * '''. I-le-f! yam,\•` i „hc.!,..t.'; .y- t�+ •� t ('�• . ' I m 1 , 1 ,3.fi,"'Y % Ol• 0 `' `S'�"re'� , .' , r'r �' • $ 0Is' N . ' 5u1'4• , •,,4 ., e . . c --.-e.' s .......(14,c; 4i. -1-' ,..-4. ,‘. -.,\i' 39 •''.4.,,C7;•!',Ii," .• .. .•: ). "M .iy' r 0. •�. r:•. ;, .,;, y, ,' �, • ; a • ; ," a > "`"1 9 • "41 3 11 , 40.1 •'•-''.c.;'e", t'111‘4. ' : . . i ." 'kt '' ' 't-.f-.1.' ''''.. .44,4.. ;-'-., 1. c6.: ,,,,,,..:0 4114'1.. .4°' t. .' ,6'''IF 41 ► .1rR • a r ,: • �RJ ', 1 r',� ;31W • M ` A yy" �•3' ,,�. w , 11 •V/. ' 7,,,;,,,,,, 7.,..e: ' • • r. , t..4 CNit i' ' t'i . 1 Al o•6,411,A,o• ,A i k • •t,Jr 1 `,."i�Y', C4 R',�o},i ' 1 , a'Sf.•f_t imi,,• � ,•1 ,,, ' \ A, �K..'.•, • ,,v. 1 ;Ili, \•i.�. • :.: �, '.yF ',y�,.'h q`�n. ['� 1/' A•;" 1 olt t y ,' J' .,-e '1 • '�, _ • \ 7 �`.' 4i • f14� l'` �yy+4 , `-1�i � • J " T. � ? ‘J;. / Q N' ,, ! • .( •4t` '� �S `t. ;• Jr °I f,J f• 1H 5,,:. • t ..J,_ 1,• '1,a tip ,.J-C.' , \• ltrr �": a' uy'' f� r rG t / ,+ •1 `2; 'r• t ' r 1� �' ... •7,�'� .•,•'; •A,. :• 1•\'' 1 , \`� f r r 1 1 Q. '1 2' .•h •At _ c .. to 'o. • J! f ♦ ,5..1 !¢•1, ',Farti • ... r✓ y . ; ' 'r /1• y" • �7.W' ' d r . A. , �y�)y 4!L j1�5; t i q' 1, '•.t •.i „r 1 yi',r[• ,:.�,a \•,,r \` 1'W i' •V 1 L .144• ' ' 10'1' u' 1h- • ,y : •{, ; 4 41' .,kle'4,T{b 1 i„• , •• • • '`' y ' j, ` 1• +` i 7• k ,V� p !aL L , •1- 7 / r \� Q,"" P . � ? y♦ ! ,I % G _ ' \,ttt •, 1� �,. , .$:1.'41 4. 6•. . t[i 1. I' g, '. nfi' ', , ,.t• i'�1• r (",/, ' • 1 r„'A . 1 \h St,lk \ +M , •1 .n`. ++ 7 , ... r"b-' •+ .Ay, .� ':,�. > - ,' " ,, / ,. j .:41. .. r v A w / 11 S 'Y. E .. 1 7 , 1r 011 'l. ' 4 'II `. r tli:i 1 ..,..:i •• , • - i EXHIBIT • • ""c' f E�I 3`t•'! :non 0r t10,DAt�.... y Ib Flo W1EEt C t l, p ARC PLAT runic ,Tn[t.i rO4404 Ur,uD, DAtrt1,ino9s ' ODt 'y1"Ali �,,,''i 1 IM _ ._._ r.. ytp„ ...� 9f 1E'ALD BW.��..D 1F,lts4� pp,, A J Nil DF' •'�; +=y "��'" 'C�. OG ornyw w Wr«!."t NL,r6''-9P5 Jl3'}tA iLfiOIN&SftINO t}T ' 1 • �_ly i f�C'v 1 1„e" �`.�•+ W r, 1 �LvtftD la1.ii• illana It1N0•Dm70FYWT R1 na*.nmRulb a►' f i " A FAR.a D omci em-Jei•iooi•YAx eor-w,45o�' f LOTS SS b k SWC,NAP 21 E 10 AO SH*5:MC DWIt FUtI rrn•tURc tw•woo to oil•rorfLsu dM'htttT ~j 1"'� AI,D •AX;.J! G0.14AP DE 10 AC ,.__.. 1 1 f c• Y, is it • I- 1 �.c +np .•i�•r r.. mot+Y q . Yw . • • sk • • • \' q 1 • ' \ YI Y f• aY• � Y . \ . Y t ti • APPLICATION FOR ?jo LOT SUBDIVISION 4 • • CONTENTS • • 1. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2. PROJECT SUMMARY ' 3. NARRATIVE ` • • o Introduction " o Compliance with Comprehensive Plan o Summary o Appendix • 4. TRAFFIC REPORT m ,� r`!' 5. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT DOCUMENTATION o A copy of letter sent and accompanying documentation. o Corresponding Affidavit of mailing, mailing list and returned envelopes. o Affidavit of Posting for sign. ; ► o Minutes of neighborhood meeting. o List of attendance for neighborhood meeting. o Resident comments. • 6. BLUEPRINTS OF PRE-PLAT a Sheets 1-6 .p • ® ' + EXHIBIT ® 10 Pal•'t i/va • t •,. ,,',•. '•;-!..• . . •,'„.•. ....- ,. '•:• :;'.,• ..' :••,':',. .'•,i'7 c.. ..... , '.... ..-: : '• ..' .''.•':..,.''.' ''''' . •....... .,-,„ .,,, .,, I•' '. ...,...'... n . . .1*.•,, ., . . . .. . . , • , . .. , .. . ,,, '', •n.'. ,, .. • * *:. .,... ..,, ..• '.'*:,'•',7' '',...`,.^ . . . , ., .. •'... ,,... ' . c•'.:.'4-‘'.''' .;.' .<, '. ,• :... ,'.... . ' . • . .' .-. .., , . ' ,.., • . . .., .. .• .'.•, .. . • ., . ...... ., n .. . ... . • ''' ,. ,'. . .;.' . • ••.— ,' ,..:4:.:. .,•,.. . jr,n' ;,,3-•,.'... • ,. .. . ,..„., . , • , . . ., ., .,. , ., • . 1 .. ...,• • .„ .. .• 4., , ...„ ,... . ,.., ...,_ ' .k..- • . ,.. ., ' , ,..• . .., „ _. , . . .. . . . . . ..,..,, . , . .. .,. . . . . .. . . . • . ...., . .. ..• . . _ , . . . } 1 1 •! Y• Ai w I 1 • } APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ROSEWOOD — A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION TAX LOTS 3300 & 3400, MAP 21 E 18 AB, AND TAX LOT 100. MAP 21 E 18 AC. •• OWNERS MORTON BONIME • 4901 SW HUMPHREY PARK CREST PORTLAND, OR 97221 4� ,10 APPLICANT +\ ROGER EDWARDS KRUSE WAY PLAZA ONE, SUITE 180 a 4500 S.W. KRUSE WAY yj LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ':r PREPARED BY R I, ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. 9600 S.W. OAK, SUITE 230 • PORTLAND, OR 97223 • (503) 452-8003 PROJECT MANAGER: RANDY CLARNO PROJECT ENGINEER: JERRY PALMER , • 1 j U A n a aa. o a ' Yd •�' DIY �.. Y s + \ 4 . a ,- r •�M1 e • La F R, 4 1. i� •1 V.. . . p • ua P • • a' r.: I r r JECT SUMMARY ,': •..the proposed development is a sixteen lot subdivision that will be built on three parcels, two of which are vacant. The existing residence on the third parcel will be removed. The site lies adjacent to S.W. Rosewood Avenue, with two parcels to the north, and one to the south. The attached narrative identifies supporting • factual information and reasoning which demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, and applicable State goala. • A Planned development Overlay is applied,, no variances have been requested, however under the Planned Development Overlay a request • has been made to reduce the sideyard setbacks. 20% of the site will be dedicated to open space and will lie on the southern end of the southerly tax lot adjacent to an existing private open space. • Materials used on the project are identified and described on the • accompanying plans. All sixteen lots will be created in a single phase. Construction will take place in early summer and house construction is expected • to begin in early fall. t, • • i dG ♦ it 1 • u �•. r r • INTRODUCTION This application represents a request for a 16 lot subdivision. • The applicant plans to offer lots to site quality, single family residential homes comparable to those currently available in the community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . r. LAND USE DESIGNATION The subject property: tax lots 100, tax map 21E 18AC; and tax lots 3300 & 3400, tax map 21 E18 AB,consists of three parcels of land that lie to the north and south of S.W. Rosewood Avenue. The total area of the development is 2.85 acres. The site . s located in a medium density residential neighborhood, and is zo ed R-•5. These properties are undeveloped except for an existing residence and outbuildings on tax lot 3300 which will be removed. Older single le " family homes lie to the north of the site, with newer residences • the south and east. The property to the west is zoned commercial • and is occupied. The land falls gently in a northwesterly direction across tax lot 100 with the low point on the southerly site and S.W. Rosewood being the northwest corner of the property. A number , `. . of sizeable deciduous and coniferous trees exist on the south half of said tax lot 100. There are a dozen or so trees on the north half of the lot, most of which will be retained. • There are far fewer trees on tax lots 3300 and 3400, again however these will be preserved when possible. The land again falls to the northeast although the east quarter of the property is almost flat. ,.. A localized depression exists in the northwest corner of the site. TYPE OF APPLICATION / ACTION This application is for a sixteen lot preliminary plat subdivision. A Planned Development Overlay (PDO) is being requested to allow the . . applicant more flexibility in lot design and potential house placement on said lots. The request is related to the 20% open ` space being created in conjunction with this development. The public street is being designed per 'rural' guidelines with no curb comparable with the surrounding streets. • 410 • • :r. 1 ' '.d 9" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIOti GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ELEMENT i Urban Service Boundary Policy • ;�.. General Policy 3 ° Specific Policy 4 These policies require the City to manage the phase urban growth within the Urban Service boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, 4. which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of � • the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. This specific policy also status that these r� services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development.PP p Exhibit 4 (Tha City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990) demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The recent passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. Basic services and facilities are available and other applicable growth management policies are complied with. ii Impact Management Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy-6 ? ; k The applicant will try to preserve and maintain all ` ur; natural features and processes where possible by providing a private open space at the south end of tax lot 100, and by reducing the possible building envelope 1; to the northern portion of lots 1-3. General Policy 2 Specific Policy 1-3 'r The developer will comply with comprehensive plan policies and standards contained in regulations or requirements to mitigate adverse impacts, such as traffic, utility safety and utility service needs. See t attached traffic report and utility plans for details. General Policy • 2 �.. Specific Policy 3 • Development of R-5 density can occur within requirements • set forth in the development standards and other ; , applicable code provisions, because it meets those said q' . standards and provisions • 3 • F1Y COMMUNITY RESOURCE POLICY ELEMENT Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy 1 . . Specific Policy 1 These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable �t plan policies. The developer will maintain all existing trees outside of the building setbacks, easements, public streets, private , ,; roads, and street dedications required by the City of . Lake Oswego. A request for flexible setbacks is being made to aid in the retention of a number of trees. ' 20% of the site containing the most heavily wooded area ,{ with more than 2/3rds of the property's trees is being designated as private open space arid will remain , •.— undisturbed. Energy Conservation Policies • y General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1-4 These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are 0 ,. now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) . Street and utility line footage are "•` also minimized with this design. General Policy 5 4 4 w Specific Policy 3 i,,« The proposed development allows efficiency of access comparable to neighboring developments with similar private streets. Only four of sixteen lots will directly access S.W. Rosewood. ': rs Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 3 The private open space in tax lot 100 will contribute to the existing network of Greenway corridors. • 0 4 R, • 4 . .Y i. X'LANDUSE ACTIVITIES POLICY ELEMENT Residential Density Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1 The proposed density of housing is far less than zoning ' 4 allows and the local existing infrastructure is more than sufficient to cope with the licensed vehicle trips, and demand on existing utilities. The site can adequately handle the proposed density. t , Residential Site Design Policies General Policy 4 Specific Policy 2-3 These policies require the design for pedestrian and cyclist safety. A sidewalk has been provided to ensure { r • ease of access for pedestrians and has been separated from the road by an 8' swale providing additional safety for pedestrians. A 3' hard shoulder has been provided for cyclist access. General Policy 5 Specific Policy 1 • The developer requests a waiver of setback provisions to • compensate for the open space required by the City of Lake Oswego. This is requested via the PUD to allow the builder to develop houses of an adequate size on the lots. The request is for a combined 15 ' sideyard setback • between two lots, with no less than 5 ' on either lot. Transportation Policies General Policy 1 Specific Policy 1-4 These policies require that streets be improved when demand requires. These policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for widening, these policies are implemented in part through 48.535 (3) , Special Street Setbacks. The existing right-of-way of Rosewood street fronting the ` site is thirty feet wide. Therefore an additional ten feet street dedication on both the north and south right- ! r of-waylines is required. public q The proposed public street will provide adequate vehicle capacity while minimizing the scale of necessary improvements. • The proposed private street provides ?dequate vehicle capacity while minimizing the scale of necessary improvements. It is compatible with d;imilar private " ' '� streets and shared driveways on neighboring parcels. See attached transportation report for further details. k" 5 • r + f e. ,Y • .-,• Protection of Open Space Policy General Policy 2,3 These policies include the preservation of essential natural features. To this end, a private open tract on the southerly property will be conveyed to the local Home • Owners Association These policies are implemented by a variety of applicable development standards which are addressed later in this report. • ZONING Zoning District The subject property is zoned R-5 by the City of Lake Oswego. Zoning Standards t ; - The site is zoned R-5 which requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 ., square feet per dwelling unit [LOC 48. 135( 1) ] maximum lot coverage allowed in zone is 50% [LOC 48.140] . , The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: [LOC 48. 150] • Front Yard: 20FT Rear Yard: 2OFT0 , 4e Street Side Yard: 10FT Side Yard: LOFT There are no minimum lot width and depth requirements in an R-5 '. ' zone. The maximum height in R-5 zone is 28 ft. [LOC 48. 155(2) ] The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate typical housing styles within the standard setbacks However the city's requirement for a sidewalk has entailed a further setback • restriction on the affected lots. Under the moral and conduct codes there is a requirement that the sidewalk not be blocked. For this reason an additional setback is required between the garage and the rear line of the sidewalk. The applicant requests an 18' setback from the garage to the rear of the sidewalk. This would mean a 23' setback from the front property line to the front of the building envelope. The 18' request is consistent with previously approved developments, and should provide adequate minimal depth ` . for offstreet parking requirements. Density Calculation The gross site area is 124,218 square feet. The public street, private street and the 10 foot dedication to Rosewood Street, take up 18,614 square feet. Therefore when the remaining 105,604 square feet is divided by the minimum lot area for R-5 zone of 5,000 square foet. The allowable density equals 21 units. 0 . • This application requests a combined total of 15 lots. and ,' , therefore complies with the ctty's density requirements. 6 w e J . y v - a . ♦ . _•. J. x • • 1, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.005 Historic Resource Preservation: There are no designated or significant historic resources on this site. g . 2.005 Building Design: This standard applies to major developments involving ,' structures. This application is for lot development only, no , i structures are involved, so this standard does not apply. 3.005 Stream Corridors: • There are no stream corridors on this site. 4.005 Wetlands: •' This site does not contain any wetlands. ' 5.005 Street Lights: it i., Street lights will be provided consistent with City standards • for residential streets with public sidewalks. There are no accessways or parking lots associated with this development. 6.005 Transit System: The proposed development is for a single family residential development and only a small increase in demand for transit facilities is proposed. The nearest bus route is on Boones Ferry Road. School buses are not required for this street as A the nearest school is in close proximity - see minutes. A pedestrian path will be provided along west right-of-way of " ; the proposed public street. A sidewalk shall be constructed on , the south right-of-way of Rosewood adjacent to Tax Lot 100. 7 .005 Parking and Loading: Each of the proposed sixteen lots has the necessary parking capacity for two additional spaces. 8.005 Park and Open Space: 20% of the site containing the most heavily wooded area .• • , with more than 2/3rds of the property's trees is being designated as private open space and will remain undisturbed. The open space will be adjacent to an existing open area in the 'Lindsay Park' subdivision. The open space may be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, 7 v. tl f . C ' Y` ► P. • 9.005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: G •'. There is a commercially zoned property to the west of the site. The adjacent property is situated some four to six feet above the applicants site and the slope on the commercial q property is fully planted with bushes shrubs and come trees providing an adequate buffer. • However as noted in section 10, six foot fences will be constructed along all rear and side lot lines which in the • , case of lots 4 through 7 will provide additional buffering • against the neighboring commercial use. 10.005 Fences: All fencing will be installed by lot pLirchasers in conjunction • with construction of homes. Such fencing will be designed consistent with the code standards. Street side fencing will comply with LOC 48.530 11.005 Drainage Standards for Major Developments: h;' ... This standard applies to all major developments, therefore this section is applicable. Adequate storm water drainage will ° be provided consistent with the standards set forth in Section 11.025. Development will be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns do not adversely affect other property. Drainage from the roof drains will discharge to infiltration . trenches via connection pipes to a perforated pipe either along beneath the roadside swales or constructed systems . . t (lots 4 through 8) . Surface Drainage from the streets, •+ driveways and yards will drain to the roadside Swale and ''E infiltration trench. On lots 4 through 8 surface will drain to a swale along the rear of the lots. The i,nfiltration trench will include perforated pipe with pick-ups at Driveways and ultimately a connection to the ;. . Ni 36" pipe. the constructed infiltration system for lots ' 4 through 8 will have an "overflow" connection to the 15" pipe. e roadside ditches along the Rebecca Lane and Rosewood will terminate in trap catchbasins with sumps • Y , prior to connecting the exis•:.,ing pipe system. No detention of storm flows is required since this site is provided for in a downstream regional facility. Calculations for water quality treatment are attached x>: (see addendum #2) . The detail of the proof drain system is also attached 12.005 Drainage Standards for Minor Developments: This standard applies to all minor developments therefore thisII . ' section is not applicable. 8 e 1 . 13.005 Weak Foundation Soils According to the City of Lake Oswego Public Works department • there is no indication of potentially weak foundation soils. Therefore at this time no soils report has been provided, this standard does not apply. 14.005 Utilities: 1, Utilities Required: This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. This will be required upon application for a building permit for each parcel. Water line laterals will feed into a new 4" line in the new public street which will connect to the existing line in S.W. Rosewood Avenue. A new 8" sewer line in the proposed public street will serve lots 4-15 ` and will feed into an existing line along the north line of the property. Sewer laterals for lots 1-3 and 16 will hook-up with an existing line in S.W. Rosewood. See se�,'tion 11.005 for details regarding storm water improvements. • The existing 30-40 foot wide right-of-way of Rosewood Street is inadequate to comply with the applicable Plan olicies and ' Special Street Setbacks [LOC 48.535(4) ] , in addition existing width of the pavement does not meet the minimum 20 foot City • standard. The applicant will be required to improve Rosewood Street to provide a minimum 20 foot of pavement and 3 foot hard shoulders, and widen the right-of-way to 50 feet along • the sites S.W. Rosewood frontage. This will be required as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this • action. • Street lights will be provided consistent with City standards and served by underground power as will T.V. cable. r , ^' 2. Required Easements: All required utility easements will be provided. All utilities will be designed by a registered engineer. They will be designed consistent with City standards and in - consideration of subsections L.O.C. 14.020 3-8. 16.005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: There is only a minimal slope over site (max. 5%) . However, street and lot development will be managed so as to provide f adequate erosion and drainage control measures. 17.005 Flood Plains: ,M ., : There are no flood plains on this site. Therefore this • section does not apply. 9 J. . 4 . 18.005 Access: ' 1. The subject site fronts S.W. Rosewood Street. Lots 1 - 8 and 13 - 16 all have more than 25 feet of public street frontage. Lots 9 - 12 access a private street which in turn accesses a 25 foot strip on a public street. Because this application does not directly meet the standards for approval, in this section a variance has been requested to permit development. See the attached addendum #1 for details. 2. Access design conforms to all of the following criteria: ` . a. Topography - The topography along Rosewood Street allows for adequate and safe access and egress from the local street to each lot. b. Traffic volumes from this development are identified in the attached traffic report. c. Rosewood Street is designated a local street on the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. This development will provide safe and convenient access. The traffic impacts will not exceed projected volumes. r 3. There will be no direct access to an arterial from this 4 development. 4. Each lot will have 25 feet of access to a local residential street, through either a private street or direct access. 5. The adjacent property to north of the site currently has adequate access to Lower Drive so access to the new public street is not required. �. 6. Satisfactory s'ccess is available from a public street so this section does not apply. • See the attached traffic study for further details. 19.005 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways & Private Streets The proposed private street will meet the minimum 20 foot width requirement. It will be a 25 foot wide easement with 20 feet of paved travel lanes. The 20 foot wide pavement of the private streets will consist of 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of crushed rock with a 2 1/2 foot wide gravel edge on either side of the street. • • The proposed lots will be similar to those that exist in the neighborhood. Visual impacts would be related to the number of lots and/or the number of driveways accessing Rosewood • Street. Noise impacts will not be substantially effected by the lot pattern. 10 _ •j • . \.. \,,. The reaction of neighbors was in general favorable towards the project - see minutes. The lot and access pattern proposed meets the intent of the . code relative to providing safe and convenient access. ' ` The c.pplicant is served by an economically viable development with quality lots. The neighborhood is served by quality lots k�. and reduced access points on Rosewood Street. The lot and access pattern proposed meets the functional intent of the code relative to providing safe and convenient access. It also ensures that each lot has some public street frontage, even if less than 25 feet. • The applicant is served by an economically viable development with quality lots. The neighborhood is served by quality lots and reduced access points on Rosewood Street. 48.440 Planned Development Overlay The purpose of the Planned development Overlay is to "provide greater flexibility in development of land, encourage a variety in the development pattern of the community. . . encourage a creative approach in land development, and • conserve natural land features" . ,,..:; The applicant is requesting a PDO even though this project less than 4 acres and has less than 20 units. This project �' will be developed in a single phase. The PDO is being ' YJ requested to increase the flexibility of setbacks to reduce the sideyard setbacks to a combined two yard setback of 15 ' Z with no yard having less than a 5 ' setback and to create some lots smaller than 5,000 SF. All other zoning requirements will be met on an individual lot level. The City in making its determination the following points should be considered. a) The applicant is exceeding the 20% open space requirement. b) The exceptions allows the lots to be designed in a manner 0 that offers better solar access (lots 9 & 10) ,improves privacy ' Y' sy in that it offers a more flexible lot design. 4 c) A more attractive streetscape is created with the private • road, created by flexible lot sizes. " d)The requested exceptions allow the developer to place an adequately sized house on narrow lots ( 1-3) reducing the need • for a private street, increased runoff, and allowing a larger open space while still maintaining economically viable lots. e) The construction of path along the new public street will `" enhance future linkage to the north. The Private open space, is adjacent to an existing private open space to the south ' thereby complementing it. . 11 lit, .. V. f) There are few physical limitations on the site. However. the . the preservation of a substantial stand of trees could be , ' seen as 'compatible design. Thus the requirements of 48.476 are met, and the applicant is requesting lesser setbacks to provide additional tree ' preservation, and maintain an economically viable building ` , envelope. The open space shall probably be private, and the required maintenance responsibilities adhered to. 48.490-The PDO will not increase the overall intensity or density of residential use. All legal and development standards will be met. It will not significantly affect other property or uses and will not cause the deterioration or loss of any natural features. The PDO will not affect any condition specifically placed on the development. 49.120 Future Streets Plan r. The future streets plan attached shows two alternative layouts. The first proposes a public street beginning at S.W. • Rosewood Street and heading north, meandering east and then continuing its path to Lower Drive. This route would create a connection between Lower Drive and Rosewood Avenue, while also providing a fuller utilization of vacant land that currently lies between the two streets. The second alternative is a Cul-de Sac. This option takes into account the possible limitations of the new minor partitions to the • northeast of the site, while opening up the potential of minor t ' ,':} partitions for tax lots 1800 through 2100. 0 ... 55.080 Tree Cutting: In order to construct proposed improvements some of the J existing trees will have to be removed. The removal of trees ,4 will be based upon the following criteria per LOC 55.080: 1. Only trees that are identified as interfering with "' utility services will be removed unless an satisfactory alternative location can be found for service 2. Only trees that fall within areas requiring either public or private improvements will be removed as necessary: this includes building envelopes, driveways, private streets and required public street dedication. 3. The flat nature of the lots, the underlying stability of a the soil and the mitigating efforts of the developer should minimize the potential for erosion. The existence of a large number of trees on the southern site and surrounding area, are adequate to offset any loss of trees as a windbreak, and provide an adequate balance between shade and open space. • 4. For a residential neighborhood, this area is heavily wooded. At a recent meeting the neighbors did not voice any `. .'-�: :• • ' concerns over the proposal to remove those trees necessary for 0 development. The proposed improvements required by the city , . ' should more than offset any potential loss in local property values. 12 ` d 5 30 street trees will be planted (see attached tree plan) •',. •, I :,. 0 throughout the project, roughly twice as many trees as are being removed. • to 57.0200 Solar Access: • This application is for a 16 lot subdivision. Therefore 80% or • 13 lots must comply with solar requirements. 6 lots ( 1-3, 9-10, S,. 16) meet basic solar requirements: N/S dimension of 90 '; ,.� �.• and a front line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west access. ;a• 4 lots (4, 11,12 & 15) are able to comply with the solar • building line requirements • Therefore 10 out of 16, or 63% of the lots in the development comply with 57.010(1a-c) as well as LOC 57.035. Therefore this •'' application is 17% short of compliance with this section. There are a number of other factors pertinent to this • ; 4 application. By definition the intention of the underlying zoning R-5 is to create smaller 5,000 SF lots. The• along with the 10' sideyard setback requirements places osevere design constraints on the house design. To attempt to make ", said house design to comply with additional solar performance requirements comes close to making the lot unbuildable. In , addition the average width of R-5 lots rules out the solar building line option. With these points stated the requirement by the city for a / ' • north/south through street creates a condition where it is • impossible for the developer to design for solar lots of " appropriate R-5 density. The direction of the street dictates • lots that have an east-west orientation. The design options normally available to overcome this problem (the building line option and performance option) do not work with such small lots. Therefore the applicant requests an adjustment to the design standard because of the road pattern enforced by the City of Lake Oswego. A denial of this adjustment would force the developer to increase the size of the lots so that the building line option could be used to comply with solar standards. This would result in a loss oi0 at least two lots and a reduction in the density by some 13%. • •. 1 t ur A' 13 4w1 r i.Y c U, R • • • • • • • • • • ;1rr / 1 it P' 1 1 �• .to f9 • h Y r . , - • 'l. • to �� - •�, 1• �. • ALPHA. ENGINEERING INC. ENGINEERING . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . SURVEYING ADDENDUM - 3.1.93 This addendum is presented in answer to comments offered by staff per their response to the applicants revised submittal of the Rosewood Planned Development Application on February 16, 1993. • Five issues were raised and will be addressed below and on the amended site plan herein attached. 1) Under section LOC 48.467 (4) a reduction in side yard setbacks is requested for the following lots: The proposed sizes for lots 1-7, 9-10, and 14 are less than the minimum required by the underlying R-5 zoning and therefore a setback exception is requested. Per discussions with staff and subsequent amendments to building envelope location, a setback exception for lot 13 is also requested. Additionally certain building envelopes, for example, on lot ' 3 have been moved to one side to preserve existing trees. ° It is hoped that the citywill with the re grant these exceptions. Along 'requirements of LOC 48.476 being met( see application under 48.440 / page 11 for detail of compliance) the intent of • the underlying zoning to provide buildable small lots is severely restricted by the existing setback requirements. 2) specific building envelopes for lots 10-12, utilizing the w'.. flexibility allowed in the planned development provisions are shown on the attached site plan - la. 3) The public turnaround required has been designed over the proposed private street in the form of a public access easement, and is shown on the attached site plan - la. • ' A 4) A ten foot ( 10' ) wide reciprocal access easement required on lots 11 and 12 is identified on the attached site plan - la, and the net lot areas (minus the access easement) are •. shown in brackets. 5) The Sight Distance Triangles (SDTs) on lots 4 and 15 are shown on the attached site plan - la. Thir ac has been lessened due to a combination ofe the prequired otential front- yard setbacks and the location of the edge of pavement. The result being. that the two lots should remain buildable despite a '' these further constraints on their use. ' . EXHIBIT • •r PD rh'R z..ti z. 0 11.\/.•A \VF T A `1 111. 210 A 01,00 ` \\ L 4\h A Vol(f I \,,..1i , III'( it 9\ ,r7»2 t A -3C 3 •,4`+.' +t',41 A 1 \' 4 , 41 • r . I - Ni ..—N-0(1. -"--. • • 0 , ., ., _....._,..._ ................ .... ..... )\ B s' 411.' v • . '/ 1 a a 10P. {'D ' 444 6 p �,uU'\ lJ i ono 0a,,... ISO )441/&W LOW UOF:,, I� . rt ti Opp a \y 1 rto I 7 7 e 'il _ eli s_1_ 51• : I ' �" �' r ,qpp\„p 1a 5 ,!�1 Jt • •t000 0I Jo hf , y i i ��.. y a .tea 1{ , 1 , �n. SCALE: 1 50' .� A U ru ¢.. O'\ + ,R �.✓� f•S1 a, �B)6\��:1,�i, 11,,1EL '"' I + v i b /, ` \ \6 0' ��,• r \ ••>a A41.rrr\'6,Td 1 ,634 SF t°. �0� M \ �1�`NfN III_Tt+� ST < +( 72 � 'p0\ �.,t"f, ( 1 t•'•+1 300 Sr, <'3.159 SI+� _ .�.,"'"" 4.1 1 ` S� 5 , ,� B �j\` 1,' t� ,,��3;-U ...� 31p5�11 SW A�k"Ht. 1 �Q� ~/ i=1'�;' 1 + s'�•\ 8 I \' V a1.' 1d ,,.'.'3104Lopf1cW4oly` ` —. rr� I00 ,,i _,, NV\ 770 tL:+�I id it, ' \ •rh0t Zsass •ti f / 5550 �'G 5,7 o sr;,.: \ Y:.�, y1 ��'• ,-. ,r.;h o IA VICINITY MAP N, N; .�f'1d+ •ti' •1 q. ��q�1�' !.' r' (S }++ r^'N' •- II.T.S. - u r' ,,.} , ,5306 Sr,�1 c c , �` N (� ,� ��� .S"'r^' f+� t;'I�j ,a34,s��,�1 �'Al' u Jt\� 'AA 1,06T SV,I'1\� \ 'Q• 1,6 \, 5,0 5 SF,� 1"'r N 1. !' 9, t ry. v t.\........ '9%.Q1 1 \ ' `'G,(B)'1.1 r .%+v� .y�,��.,. ' �I m > o' ,_ r• • 'ON \�rA g �\`` %., \\`` \ ~f� �''0£) Y.`+ $.f�� ,y,�i*` 1 u �1t OWNER �rA e < i., 1 1,0 Sr, p ( , ,$, P L 1 \ �� 1� ?':1,92 SF +} �)lg b" MORTON 0014 E \�"� JA1 • ,$' ^ $!\5,/S2 SF+ �Py. M AOtlt SW NUAIPIllitf PAN( ()It'll'. \� a VY..y �As, { t `1, ,• ,�.• hORtLANO, ON 87771 \R,,+•gyp '\��,',, , ;�1 •%Td oSy•PH, , \ + 1 .+fl f. t� 5 �, ., \ � `. eT.•yi `S),15 + b,, -''" ,�^ .@' APPLICANT / DEVELOPER ,, 1 Vti, (, 1 sr% `\\ t\ \ I•:'i 5,29 sr'i '6'''• -- d r ROGER EOWAROS • • ' KRUSE WAY PLAZA 011t', #100 • �, • ,yCi.A�\ 'AS ' j7, / ,r -�N 4500 S.W. KRUSE NA'f, • '1 4f .-""�,/ , LAKE OSt1EG0, Olt SOUS'. P �X(S�4 5}, $ '. 2 ' T 36p1 (503)635-2660 • 1T • \k* .' ~" _` + ! �. ' g•1 510'OW 7,\t ENGINEER / SUf2Vr'rt7tt jc r 0 S; lik r , ALPHA ENCINEEnolo IIIC, „A �f,� r• , , 5 • 1 '\("/' B600 S,W. OAK, #210`. \....\,........• „ ..••" 4„ ✓"`• 1 Q% S 7itt PORTLAND, ORB 773 r •"`'0+ VI, i. (503)152-6003 \gnt;1 •� '. x0\�. ydlp0 ., PROJECT MANAGER RAIINY 'AU.IEO . • i, .-': S,j .0- ,,i sy,t,f PROJECT EIJGINEEfb J(Illhf rALMER b 1l' ~ ,i • T1-Aa •'Ve \ t UTILITIES / SERVIGC, ` +6 ' .v .- + dJ yo rya'r.\4M+ W:1"6+�, ,erN WATER - CITY or\I AY$ Os14GO . . A • rQ 1T W , , (B) + 1 t u SETTER A wilco .tvA't1AGr AGCNCY r'`. fob 00 , to 1$�\. + 1 \to W PON£R - POR1lAl11J CirNENAL ELECTRIC x a Q 1 \i`\ B ''1 ' 1 tp ;450 .1- A < ..s e��W \(c1.5 , ( �. ` •W c7 �Y` CAS - N W IJAlU11A4 OAS PQ V' (a' A\$, +,! 2 1L.. PHONE - U.S KIT \p,pa 7 I. ) , t,,1,750`5,)j 01 co 00 CAW - COLUTAl11A GAII'C •�! Z ' ',, , P •t\i. r L\ 1,956 1 L• - 1 • 3� c; [Z 41 'T A :\ \ IN t:A to t,�,, -,.^r�'od \°�. NOTES 0 T • •" {, r LI- J , `FP. �. ' CROSS SITE AREA: 7,65 AC .t1 Lrl a'V U' / rl 1 STREET AREA: 10,61/ sr ' m� \ OPEN SPACE AIIEA 7'5,003 Sr " (i` ly t {h CONTOURS ALPHA CNGINEC.flllld 1.— y T 1 , A lv) .. C. \ ' \ PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE 1w `, \ SOLAR ACCESS COMPLIANCE rt tt t , t5t '\\ • OPEN}W CE �l\ I 50' 1 6 .. (B) COMPLIES 'Mill SOLAR ORbINANCE ."' ;r g �y •�-� {1 1 I 4 (5) OOIArLICS vAT1+ SPCCUL CON01110N5 �� 25.6h11sr I:J J> , .go" I t. er AraL'fluti n,E souR eulLbu,o tiNE ortlON • • ( if `y ` a��\ `y..//y �0e a I I 3 •• (E) ExEtArtloll .� n .4 ,% + N d' 3 - (A) ADJUSTMENT .-- \>,.t......‘qt• * ' ' 1(13 • a n-----7'—•W 5l+ • �t tiye 70. 1 • A { ' A f ADDS!DUF1:#1 • CLASS I VARIANCE FOR PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH APPLICATION FOR A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION ON TAX LOTS 3300 & 3400, MAP 21E 18 AB, AND TAX LOT 100, MAP 21E 18 AC. u This This request pertains to a public street frontage variance for lots 9,10, 11,and 12 (see attached site plan) . • Under LODS 18 .020( 1) it states: " Every lot shall abut a street for " a width of at least 25 feet" . The term 'street' is defined under 49.015 as 'The entire width between the right-of-way lines of a • public way capable of providing the principal means of access to an abutting property' . Therefore the lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 do not comply with these sections of the code. 1. A variance from development standards is requested for the following reasons: • % a. For lots 9, 10, 11,& 12, to comply either the proposed private road would have to become public, or two other 25 'wide 'flagpoles' would have to be constructed so each lot would have access to its own frontage. This would create an unnecessary hardship on the • developer through both the increased construction costs, and elimination of several thousand square feet of lot area. ' The removal of the private street would also create unnecessary` hardship by preventing the developer from fully utilizing the • potential development possibilities under current the R-5 zoning ' b. The variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located. It would reduce the points of direct access onto a public street, improve the street-scrape and is in sympathy with a number of other developments in the area using private streets / shared driveways. •• c. To access the eastern portion of the property a private street is required to most fully utilize the land under the current zoning code. d. This request is not in conflict with any part of the comprehensive plan, and does not negatively effect any of policy elements discussed in the original application. .. .. .. EXHIBIT 1 ) Z 41/ Po I..1%/y0 z-'1/ y i r �.` C ' 2. In evaluating this request a number of relevant factors need to be considered to determine the justification of hardship: 2a. 1) The shape and size of the property in conjunction with the request by the city for a north/south public street limit the number of lots that can effectively be designed for the site ' • without some form of shared access. • • r' 2a.2)The tax maps in the initial submittal show a number of cases - • 1700s, 3100s, 3200s, 3700s, 3800s, where private streets / shared driveways have been required for the owners to make reasonable use ••1;�. ' ' • of their properties. 2a.3) The applicant previously requested a number of minor land partitions for each tax lot. The requirement by the city for a • public street has created the hardship for the applicant. • 2a.4) The economic impact on the applicant if the request is denied • • • would at the very minimum be the loss of a lot, the increased cost of more construction, the further burden of new design costs and additional burden of further time delays before construction can begin. • 2b.1) The proposed variance would reduce - the number of lots directly accessing a public streets decrease the quantity of runoff and related mitigation problems. 2b.2) The use of a variance to enable the property owner to design single family homes as opposed to having to build multifamily dwellings is much preferred by the local neighborhood - see the letter at the end of the original submittal. This granting of this variance would be beneficial to all concerned. It would allow the City to fully utilize the zoning of • .,: : the land while minimizing its impact. It would allow the developer to afford some return on his investment, and it would offer the neighborhood affordable single family housing. p .. . . • 1 .. . . , . _____rire-v gl II ..' . , , . . • . ___A \ i\ti . \ \, \,. 1 1 .. „..„--. ,.. .. . .... ‘ till :. . to . . , $1.0., \ a .m... .. ...:2., • . 1 1 i . . \ \ , . ,.,. • . . . , 0:0 . . 1.•:, t,.t 1 :. , \ ._ .sio• , \ lilt 1 . .eito .,41 , 4 li 11 • . • ,‘ ,. . ... VP B) t0 ��,.y.' SCALEt 1' . 50' e1��'.�5�1' U ii � �� . ,..,, \ 5I u� \ '1q'0 � t D .,6a1 sr �1W S ,06 ' ,et \ $ (Sra ' 4,200 sf b oA ' 31 / C ,1, 70 S Id tt 4 1, 6 sr , 'k TY �' '- VICINITY IdAP �� " �aC N.T,S, i i _iI � � ( ) ° tt t,tt� 'b l¢ I• �ti, Soot; sr "�i� p l I �t ��, ao sr w o �t q^II , Sbl lN) a, t 0 Al .1 11 '• � " r't 0 1• 1.a ro . ZEE OWNER i 1 i Y 5 `• •• O•�' 4 6 Sri I,9e• S iuAAy r•(e) MPP taonro1 oo+nt7E a JoANtir notate +.N' ttA el 15 • KI' I901 SW HUNFIIREY PARK dl[41, (N) Ott \ ��/(S) ,ISx Sr PORTLAND,OR e7221 3 \ 14 IRt y� e`" , APPLICANT /bEVEIOPrfi 1\--- 'J,I20 sr ' t J,291 sr - flOGER EbWARDS • 11 ,� ,,. 5 t '_ ','.:i'',....""I..-_,..- if , 1000E WAY 5W.K USE PLAZA1L.111W e � ` / ------•w .�'"" LANE OswECO,OR W070a . • s' t .dot (503)a35-2ee0 1 1: �g SItCR M1,P 1 v IN ENGINEER SNGVEc,m ' ,�{ ,. t0oa))IS2-eOlt `',♦jP �• `�/'~ Tf (503)PROJECT IIANACEAt RANDY fAAn110 1 '� / 5 t PROJECT WdNEER1 JEnflY PAPER pP 6 ! � �c_ '. `, \ f tt�, UTILITIES /SERVICES A.� 'b t 7�1 C t>• WRIER�-d1Y or yv.E GOWrfir) t / (b) tl1 t 0 SEWER-an'o SE m of Ao NCY °� • • 1 W t \ /. +, 2 aJ' t�p�tj a"`�� POW[n-PORTLAND OCNENAr,tuterni0 p�. OS t b) y' t ra OAS -KW. WES1 1 OAb • bPG !r 2 bxso s t A OAS - W. toot WQ .O rt�E, 1.4 (8)v'( 6.250 sr\1 `�1.�.1 521- cloy - CoLUNDu CANTS; z Ti g • '1b�'�M '�ie.ersr ie\`, t 0.. \a'' LU.b.NOTEs. n-s , �'� t r GRoss SLUE MEN Zee Au g$ . •t 1>� STREET MEAL 10,e11 SP \ yt OPEN SPACE MEAT 20,701 At � $ f•v' - CONTOURS( ALPHA OtptHYtStIH0 • It , , \ SOLAR ACCESS COAIPUANCE (I.) �^ Ig fi TIT C 9 9� \ �[ a ifs al t e-(a) COOKIES MAI ELM OADINAIIM ' ' 'rl{_ ,10 e- (S) CA°Y'APPl1Y,oIl It SHOW SUILm10ORIC ~ \�n WE oPlal. .� t1 � O% I {10 j-(N) DOES NOV couPLY. ,�/4 0" ...e Jl y •J`'ritt � /',IFA �'�'� Pnoarct RI7sEwoao ^, N0. 201-O0S 1E111,1,PUt �, t.t6 H., a• . • 0 . ., 11 0 .. . ` .M1" I • • • • • 0 • . • .. 1' . � : CHARRONNEA ENGINEERING January 27 , 1993 •.y MEMORANDUM TO: Mr . Randy blarno a Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Oak Suite 230 t Portland, OR 97223 ` •• • FROM: Frank Charbonneau, P .E. 6., • ' Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Report FL9314 f Rosewood Street �'> , ° Lake Oswego • This technical memorandum will serve as the project traffic: '• report for the proposed Rosewood Street residential development being planned in the City of Lake Oswego. The project will consist of residential development for 15 single family homes to be constructed along both . � • sides of Rosewood Street. As shown on the attached Area Development Plan (Figure No. 1 ) , the site is to be located . . �• southerly of the Boones Ferry Road corridor , between Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street. The development will be located on vacant land within a zoned residential area. There is a mixture of older and new homes within the area. Plans call for the project to place 12 homes on the northerly side of Rosewood Street and three on the southerly .• ` side. A new public street that will dead end into the site :,�; will provide access to the northerly side of the develop- , ment. Ultimately this street may be extended northerly and ,; connect to Lower Drive. This would eliminate the dead end and provide a desirable second access to the neighborhood that can be use by emergency vehicles . The three units ,•� located on the southerly side of Rosewood Street will have driveways directly onto Rosewood Street, which is common for the present situation along this street . . , ' The posted speed on Rosewood Street is set at 25 miles per hour . At this speed the required intersection and access sight distance is 250 feet. This requirement will be met for the street and access locations proposed on the project . ��� •, Although there is a slight crest in the vertical alignmen of Rosewood Street just westerly of the proposed intersec A EXHIBIT SO tion location which partially obstructs sight distance,sufficient visibility exists to meet the standards , ' `^.� 1.7 r-'t 3 a 'IA- One S.W.Columbia,Suite 520,Portland,OR 97258 (503)228-9507 4 _ . - • Page 2 • Based on the existing street conditions and traffic circulation patterns, the primary existing streets to be used by the site generated traffic will be Rosewood Street, Pilkington Road, and Tualatin Street. Most of the site traffic will eventually access either Boones Ferry Road or • Lakeview Blvd. Both of these streets are classified as • major collectors . In performing the study, the following information was applied in the analysis . • o Capacity analyses for the critical intertiections on Rosewood Street at Pilkington Road and Tualatin '.,,'. :•' Street were determined to evaluate the intersection capacity and service levels for the peak hours . • o The new north/south street constructed to serve the north sector will provide direct access to Rosewood Street . Traffic will then be able to travel either east or west on Rosewood Street to access • Pilkington Road or Tualatin Street. This new Q street will be constructed to a width of 20 feet, • matching the existing Rosewood Street paved section. It will be controlled by stop signing for the southbound approach. o The existing intersection sight distance for the Tualatin and Rosewood Street intersection is partially obstructed by vegetation in the southwest • corner . Existing traffic and site traffic • ,; generated by this project Will be affected by this condition until it is improved by the City or local ;d property owner . • • Vehicular trip generation for the development was determined using the I .T. E. trip rates from the 1991 , fifth edition manual . The facility will generate a total of 180 trip ends in a 24 hour weekday period. Listed below are the total number of trips expected to occur during the AM and PM peak hours by the project . • , Inbound outbound Total AM Trips 5 10 15 . 10 PM Trips 15 5 20 • • i' • Page 3 Attached to this report are a series of traffic flow maps (see Figures No. 2 through 7) which depict the traffic flow patterns during the AM and PM peak .hour for various scenarios. Figures No. 2 and 3 depict the existing traffic, Figures No. 4 and 5 depict the site generated traffic to and • from the site, and Figures No. 6 .and 7 illustrate the total site traffic (existing and generated traffic) . °• The volumes shown on these maps were then used in '. X` .' calculating the peak hour intersection capacities for the critical intersections . A computer progran for non-signalized intersections based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual and vehicular delay method was used. Printouts for the analyses are attached to this report. After analyzing the two intersections on Rosewood Street at 4. ' Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street, it was found that both intersections will continue to operate at level of service Ii '' • "A" during all traffic conditions . Due to the current low volumes (that will remain approximately the same after the project site traffic is added) there will be little traffic delay at these intersections . From a traffic engineering standpoint the development can adequately function based on the data analyzed. The existing traffic conditions will not be adversely impacted - by the new facility. For traffic operational and safety reasons, the following elements should be implemented in conjunction with the , project. o Maintenance of the existing sight distance along all streets and the project site frontage is • essential . Obstruction by landscaping, parking, buildings , signs , or other objects would be unsafe . • o It will be necessary to implement standard trr .`fic - control devices , including ,,,.tvement markings NA signing according to city standards and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices , ~ ' o No parking should be allowed near the new street intersection with Rosewood Street for visibility clearance . • . . i _ .N!A• l;- • • • 'vP ni • . • j• • • • • . • • 0 . i 0 y Figure No. 1 Area Development Plan a: North IG. ,, i 1 'roject Site 0 a i Rosewood St. . • . ' ti—r----,--1 . , 0 •1J ' a)u .•1.0 4) / otcl al 1-1 ftS • , , .ea 111 r' • 04 E-1 W • I.. jai • 51-,.1 7- 1 • • • Y + d. f..1 S I• N • Figure No. 2 r io. Existing Traffic AM Peak Hour • v' North SS' I1O Cl/ t i'" ji, t3 , , Project i Site 41450 to I i I /S fpD1 �..o Q o 3 t)' 4-- �� 4— 1 Rosewood St. 4--- --)1 v --A> 3 ) II ----p --�D, s i (07 r x /00 It:V 4 3 I5 /os' r0 ti . 0 0 ab 4-1 a i •EMI ro $4 .54 o .-+ +-$ ,a b U p, E-+ l. '1 t 0 40 41101 k a •I, • • • , ',,,,,, ,4-0 0 0 • • ,• '.,r• ':.'• Figure No. 3 Existing Traffic PM Peak Hour • 4 t North f` , /SO 11 i ci i z Project Site ti• IN I / / O� 4 4— �l —0 • l — 4--� y` Cf �`� tr-- o Rosewood St. q /0 - It --t> s� 0 75 It b II..s- 17 115. li Cn 0 4i 0V (11 .., .1 41 44 �'.i a .-1It 44 ,� aUl cL Ea j .4 •� 1 .. . .._ .. .. ... fib. - • , � ., .. ':� s -'+` s. U.s �• , Figure No. 4 1 Site Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour North 2 i 4' 9 1 I t Site v •., Project r ) L4' , • 2. 1 Rosewood Ste --p -p `�3 --I> Q t • . 4 c 0 4-1 01 .4CO 4-4W IJ a N n, r-+ u + „ niU] m + 111111 .. • 0 410 0 r a .. . «. •. �� c a:' _ N _ .. _ '; a� gip ' . • . • • r c ti .m' .i, :••. .' 'n k ih • • a ie •• y e 0 . , ' , •` : i Figure No. 5 Site Generated Traffic PM Peak Hour • North • , , . \/ tr.5-* —... • J7 f , . Project i Site 9 e ^p ) L C .:._,..5.- <1----- Ci— I S. d,1 11 .. . <1...__ .. . - ..:. : be-- Rosewood St. , • . ,. —,,ell )I 10$7 —L> ----C> —51 ) I t S Q 't 2, f. 1^ , O c 'Cy Y-b Gb �x1 Np �11 +�' °' J W 1_ 1 dui •. .._, .. .. .. ' I Nv .• -. _ �'• 1•p ° Figure No. 6 Total Site Traffic AM Peak Hour • North f• s.9 • • '. t. S!, t 118 ..".., • Project I Site •V 3 /� ci a.._._0 1itCj s!'ll . , �'v S Rosewood St. <�--- --3077 t p --� ----p (,' `-0 s- ---> Z) Q • ` : $ u 45",t /obt . .5' 0 -.-1al .li al •a �d � n, .-a u ro (I) • H L, 411) • 0 • , • F le, , .. . . • . 0. . . .. *. ... . , . • . . ,. , ... . . .. • , . . ., ..... ., . wti i, " Figure No. 7 ` '` Total Site Trair_ .,,, : ... ti PM Peak Hour North • • • { ; 403 , ... . 4, ?is. ^- 2. /8 Project o f Site1 o �a �7 Q_ + 1;1) d.._._0 fz 0 / a-- I I° ,5"TI Rosewood St. 4"" r �� -_p a S� � '.�I /�zo �Z 9 1 t • / • •t• { Ii.• ? 7? ' /0 1 . . . . . . .. . , .,.., „ ,. 0, . . . 0 .0, . • . ,, ,, •,.... . .. . . .s4 0 Ili 4JN W /.a .--I IJ 1.1 ai � E.,i • • • • • • • • . y �l • • • r. f t S: F . L. 0 . . I • 1 . . r •' -. , . ' 0 , e t• ''' 19B5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS rac,JP-1 ****************%K**gC************************%C********************** 1: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION "``': •' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION 1000000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET rosewood Street NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET , Pilkington Road ,:, NAME OF THE ANALYST FRC ` DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 1-27-93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour '''. OTHER INFORMATION: Total Site Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL F INTERSECTION TYPE : 4-LEG D MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB , ', , LEFT 5 2 0 18 THRU 0 0 75 140 ,: - RIGHT 5 10 2 0 N a, • NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE tip. EB WQ NB --�58 LANES 1 1 1 1 LANE USAGE LTR LTR , M c 9 ', r•: - • tl , ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page { PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE m GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - ,�, EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 • • WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 , CRITICAL GAPS • TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL ',AP MINOR RIGHTS WB 5 .70 5 .20 0 .00 5 ,20 : . ED 5 .70 5 ,20 0 .00 5 .20 MAJOR LEFTS • a SB 5 . 10 4 .60 0 .00 4 .60 NB 5 .10 4 ,60 0 .00 4 ,60 MINOR THROUGHS WB 6 .30 5 .80 0 .00 5 .80 • EB 6 .30 5 .80 0 .00 5 .80 MINOR LEFTS WB 6 .80 6 .30 0 .00 6 .'10 EB 6 .80 6 .30 0 .00 6 .30 410 I • J , I. !h ,• �.. - CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page • • POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE • RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LO "., P M SH R SH MINOR STREET • WB LEFT 2 687 676 > 676 > 674 > A THROUGH 0 766 757 > 926 757 > 913 757 >A A RIGHT 11 1000 1000 ) 1000 ) 989 ) A MINOR STREET EB LEFT 6 682 669 > 669 > 664 > A • THROUGH 0 765 756 > 800 756 > 789 756 >A A ` RIGHT 6 994 994 > 994 > 989 > A MAJOR STREET410 . NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A SB LEFT 20 1000 1000 1000 9e,0 A A • • r o rr, 1• ' • t ' • 10 8 • • • • 9 ,„ Y+ • I, d L }` d s.+p • • , •.VI, y +.t, y1 1 r • , FEB-16-93 TUE 15 : t2 CHARBONNEAU Ensr . 2289809 P. 02 • • 1' A. CB ONNEAU ENGINEERING o February 16, 1993 Mr. Randy Clarno Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Oak • Suite 230 • Portland, OR 97223 ,{ • Subject: Addendum To Traffic Report FL9330 Rosewood Street Lake Oswego • Dear Randy : It was brought to our attention that the proposed Rosewood Street project will now consist of 16 single family housing units instead of the 15 units studied in the traffic analysis report dated January 27 , 1993. We have reviewed the trip generation volumes analyzed in the original report •and the information is still valid for this small change. Therefore, there will not be any additional traffic impacts associated by increasing the number of units from 15 to 16. x y` If you should have any more questions, please give us a call . Sincerely, • Ya Frank Charbonneau, P .E. hx Traffic Engineer • EXHIBIT :r .. • I1NA /'411x,N1.ik 6,1h3 dr71 ttAri444rt (10 f1""':: IseN ti htiq nen-, rkv ,ter hn n n:1fi • • . I t 1 Y 6. • • r♦ If , ` • i�P wr • 1 'Iy W . •` • f'' • • • T r �Rrw ADDENDUM #2 , Jfrie i .. ,. 0 ': reteet-4.4210 ' ` - -G k,�Qt - ,184-•\ LA A-71. e.. `A cts l . !is. % I. , ti USN s; / ç- : off , . a}s o,- 71.\--ts 1%'x90 ' - w hi 4440 e-3-6 kse = 14 etc GLo �'`t lb. 1 U711 s� Ktrraio-4,-4 20[a \ k,Ge. 1 t.51- A ' e e v S/-- 2(00011 Aa. 41- tAtc-w ., e I�W o ld kr,„te .� O ISO�F- /' Prr-t sr-4-i abr9M-,d • Wros ar-- I (e'• 1E-1 .- ?'‘i ` 44PIs At,arp .NA'', +1'710 fit- 'C"n''Cio k �- '!b ' o• /a I'� ` T O S'1h m ••Sti4g(-IDt4'.- I ''k>7115r;+i US I redF 94-trt ak_�►a___ t4 = \ FT. ( -1d c�sty,. `t ,S f LiF, aF 'T . - 7 Fee4-rj-od - /2-, �a IroD �cl�L arc � G'� /' 6 r 1/4 . .. M �� - ' 2ic1' 's 1 Sao Iwr f5y i81k C24 ,& 1 - e1664 r ~'' g k4 : 'a5 oav� <• wlal 1 64, ST4 7 161 41-2‘, 1 =.* I 86.04 i ,.... '› , .:.-. A` co i�; N •a.rar�Nil t't Auu ,i I, rr.. �iilal c .h rkt4t- I-t6 . II ,,t,' i•I �') I It v 1, ' - tt„Z m�1Tl�.�\-c c S tom- ?tie a rc , d .a Y"1v2eo Ust/ - 6 .9S IrtC tVT1-PnaNCt- &a S I t1-i t' * i4 Aitost-- alzik ... y d • r` _._._Pa- ac WJ . C\t° 2L_1 ) _ _._�<, . a0 6fl.[v) '1�1�3� = ICI 4 6 St t(1� 4 artU61.- (_ SZ _2d Dl t,-2) *v• ' k 151-ci r 41. E LT; Th4 / a B / oa �•°' 3a, - wt,t,* •:: :•.. .•.`" HJ4.1 d H St-1T Z 4.• . .. . Rile- Lrs 4 .. s 6"1 C k._. c r .1 lb 15'4 Eolair, eithie- -.:' 1.2)14-.1 tit tit . i \-t- CA tit lei t .i:.: .. . 11 is 1 2 iF t-"-err- . S jqr IC 1l 1'2-f13 (Vet _ o� i ,i,t ZUJ a , i a t C , ROOF DRAINS • INFILTRATION FACILITIES • > ;• .' ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS Trench , %t .catch ba.tre 4 I catch basin Roof dealer?' Pc.A!bla alinements PLAN VIEW NO t',CAU: • . Moot pbsarvatton wall , , . .: : LL .6.42 . .._., .... Infiltration trench et/solid Ili Roof d.atn PROFILE VIEW t1. NO bCAL S re • obsrsvattore wail t twat town(' Mat'1 splash block • < -111,A I 1 mire. 11 Levei - /� 1'Mkt' , '� I'min.1'mkt. �� n^a ,` � ne.h 6 'nl -�Ab' perforated pipe �/. catch basin stnrp with solid Ild • t vvl _ ` observation well •" • (valeta! cap 4 lock) ti v ... ccnpact backftit 4..6.Lw0 pips i;r. "„ b•perforated pips dpertarated) ; - -,•• v' 4° acceptable for downspout diversion souses I. crap trench •. i, washed rock 3/4•-I Ifl' entlralg with ',10 ;'z 1� ;I/ Pater fab Ic �, t�" ` SECTION r4-4. . 2' ;J Noe At.L �. y 0 ' Figure 11.16: Typical Infiltration Roof Drain. ' ft, 8/91 . GUIDANCE HANDBOOK II-40 • • Vr'• • •Y is Q� 4 `a .R. A• _S �w '� t • MEETING WITH ROSEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD COMM/TEE + ' / 4 TO DISCUSS 15 LOT SUBDIVISION: 1/20/92 PRESENT: RANDY CLARNO - ALPHA ENGINEERING MARK DANE - ALPHA ENGINEERING ROGER EDWARDS - EQUITY REALTY NIKOL & HEIDI KRYPILO - 5142 SW ROSEWOOD ST. STEVE RUDINSKY - 16151 SW LINDSAY CT. JOSE' & CHRISTEL SARAIVA - 5229 SW ROSEWOOD ST. • JIM & CHARLENE SUIE - 5222 SW ROSEWOOD ST. WENDY & JEFF BAKER - 5384 SW ROSEWOOD ST. TOM & LORRAINE JOHNS - 5207 SW ROSEWOOD ST. STEVE MURRAY - 5213 SW ROSEWOOD ST. •1 ,'� SUSAN ADKISON - 1600 SW LINDSAY CT. MARK & SUE NELSON-ANDERSON - 5200 SW ROSEWOOD ST. • JIM TWEEDS - 16131 SW LINDSAY CT. 14, MINUTES: Randy Clarno opened the meeting with introductions and a brief explanation of the proposed subdivision. He included descriptions of the proposed improvements, lot and house sizes and the city's requirements. He noted the previous attempt at partitioning the property and cited the cities encouragement through regulation, and comments by planning staff to encourage attached housing development. Mr Clarno also noted the cities requirements for a • public street to run through the site with the intention of • • • connecting to Lower Drive (north of the site) . That 20% of the project would be given up to open space as required, and that the improved streets would probably have ditches rather than curb & gutter. The meeting was then open to the floor for a question and answer session between the neighbors and Randy Clarno, along with Roger • Edwards & Mark Dane. Q LORRAINE JOHNS: Have you talked to the neighbors north of your development? A: Yes but they have no interest in developing their property at: the present and the new public street is unlikely to push through to Lower Drive in the near future. • Q: NIKOL KRYPILO: Will the Commercial site west of the property +� access Rosewood? c� .. N A: With the proposed location of the new street, no they will have • no new direct access. We do not intend to move the proposed roa• C to the west boundary to provide it. There is currently an 4 '- 6' ��. height differential between the two properties providing a ru 4 natural barrier for residential development and making the • l ,o..wnrorDNu .• F r 1! 1 • ,k• location of a street there impractical at best. If we were made to build it we would probably have to dedicate 1/2 the required right-of-way but construct 2/3rds of the street. Q: TOM JOHNS: How will the new development affect traffic levels? A: We will be doing a traffic analysis for Rosewood. the city • accepts traffic levels up to level 'D' . From our initial calculation of increaseing traffic by 150 trips per day we will probably not get beyond a 'C' level of congestion. Q: JIM SAWYER: Will alignment of Pilkington/Rosewood intersection • have to be changed? A: Unlikely. However if required, the developer will bear the cost not the residents Q: JEFF BAKER: Are you widening road? A: We are dedicating 10 ' on each side and improving the current AC to a 20 ' width plus 3 ' shoulders, so some widening will likely occur. • Q: JIM TWEEDS: The lots seem small and densely packed. A: The zoning is for 5,000 SF lots and we are also dedicating at least 20% of the site as space which is included in density f requirements. • :r Q: JIM TWEEDS: How big will the homes be? • A: If I build them probably between 1450 SF & 2000 SF f" Q: STEVE MURRAY: Would the house footprints entail removal of trees? A: Getting flexible sideyard setbacks would enable us to preserve ' more trees on these sites. • Q: SUSAN ADKISON: Who will own open space? A: We may dedicate area to the city or form homeowners association. • . r Q: WENDY BAKER: Where will the children go to school? A: They will walk to the Bryant School. • Q: WENDY BAKER: Will you be building a play area for cildren in the • open space? A: No, firstly because the city requires the area to remain untouched, and secondly the parks fees I will be paying for this site will be between $10,000 and $15,000. The city could divert some of those funds to build a play area if they wish. • Q: STEVE RUDINSKY When is the Public Hearing? A: Sometime in March, we will make sure that you are all informed. • Q: JIM TWEEDS: When do you intend to start house construction? A: Sometime in July, we will be building 2-3 at a time. Q: JOSE' SARAIVA: Have you done market survey for selling price of these homes? A: We believe that they should sell for around $145-175,000 y Q: STEVE RUDINSKY: Will lots 4 & 14 face towards the new street? • A: Yes. Q: SUSAN ADKINSON: will the existing house be removed? A: Yes, it has no foundation and is not worth saving. There were no more questions so the meeting was adjourned. e , e . .. ,1 • • S•i ;• '1 1 . , • ,. • • • I- - , 0 • 1 _ • • • • • • • Y.- •y Y• • • • • -.1°1\ . *. • • 1 F E C J v j MHO'/ 19„9 " 5142 S.W. Rosewood Street Lake Oswego, OR 97035 a}. November 5, 1992 Mr. Robert Galante, Planning Director Planning Departntent • Lake Oswego City Hall 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • • RE: Proposed develop ment pment of tax lots 3300, 3400/Map 21✓, 18AB and tax lot 100/Map 18AC • Dear Mr. Galante: Enclosed please find a petition by the residents of ROSEWOOD STREET in support • � .: of the development of single family housing as per the current proposal of,.the aforementioned tax lots by Roger Edwards and John Neimeyer, heretofore known " as the Developer, and this petition is a formal declaration by the residents/ property owners of ROSEWOOD STREET vehemently opposing any plan which favors or suggests the development of multi-unit/joint housing in any form, i.e. row r houses, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums or apartments on this street. • Let it be known that not only are the residents/property owners of ROSEWOOD STREET opposed to multi-family development, the residents of the adjacent areas of LOWER and TUPLATIN STREETS are also opposed to such an endeavor. It is the community's contention that the current proposal for the development of single family homes would be in keeping with the existing homogeneity of the area, especially with regard to the newly developed units on ROSEWOOD STREET which has spurred the refurbishment of the older homes. Therefore it is In the best o.: interests of our community and ultimately of the city of Lake Oswego that we maintain some continuity and encourage the desired existing plan for single family development, which in itself shows expert planning and should ba en- couraged rather than impeded as is the case by short-sightedness and lack of economic prowess/understanding as ha's been evidenced by Mr. 'Wheeler to date. With all due respect, Mr. Wheeler's actions show quite clearly that he is out of touch with the needs of our community. Perhaps the issue should be placed in another person's hands who may be more objective and open-minded and look at the project with a new perspective. Mike Wheeler is only creating "grid- • � . lock". Bear in mind, this is not his community; it is ours and we resent his stonewalling the current project with his questionable and absurd demands. 11 • In addition, this street cannot safely accommodate the traffic constraints caused by the concentrated population of a multi-family development. There are numerous other sights in the area far more suitable for this type of ' ill/ development. • + I \J Ni u w (111 In closing, we re-iterate that as a community, we are in full support of the proposed development by Mssrs. Roger Edwards and John Neimeyer. Their plan is a one; it is what this community good y needs and wants. We do hereby • respectfully request that all efforts be made to cooperate with the Developer • for the benefit of our community as well as for the common goad of Lake OsWttgo. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. cerely, 6i Nikol J. o fors the Residents/Property Owner:. of ROSEWOOD STREET cc: Mr. Randy S. Clamor Alpha Engineering Mr. Roger Edwards, Equity Group Builders ' Samantha Haney, Lake Oswego Review Mr. Mike Wheeler; Planning Office • • Enclosure • • • • + _ • • • • • • • i.I • d ,, , • , ».- 11 ..v. ,; (lb October 18, 1992 A We, tho undersigned, are the current residents of ROSEWOOD STREET and do hereby petition again2t multi-family development in any form, specifically the tax lots of 3300, 3400/Map 21E, 18AB and tax lot 100 of Map 18AC. We are vehemently opposed to this proposal and as this is currently a single family unit street, we require that it remain so with any future developments. (-_-; .;4.-----4:(29.. 444 .6tvc.4g24/y1-(/7-4-\, , . . • . ..... . ,, . _ . A. •• . • Ce .4 14. C.% l' . _2i:el,— i k ,101)>I. ,--. * ., - 0 . .. . t e. v i .._._. . .. . . •, c.J. ` , . ... . lg.', L,L.C.2-e.,/ r , %...„,,:fet,c.1 1),L,“4.4.47 „ .„ , . : .. , ., 7/ i./ /aGle-e- # .aci,,,- , /1 ;' 24/te/P2R:71 . . .. ... &;!(,,,t_________, .. , • . '20 <T" :),atie;:? (h*-64( ;.'4"-- . • l__ 6 u � .,, • - • UCUHL ckiv1/4-401111 . , , w- lia-t------n ibni ,,o a OWA ..,...._./ (i1(011/1\61t, /6 , AcpA0AG k. ... ( ..:::: ..7A...111 . , !�� . L/ GLC P� J N�. V tame i'�._.. »�. I. , , . \ . 3,.yol ik 1, /?apt. ' � . • M • r•' • • • • -r 4 1 Px' ✓ !t 1 ti .h t- r V � r M ' . 4 fie, • ., ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ., ' 1 •.F. ' . , • > r'',.• '' Fur ;• a rl STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS .� County of Clackamas ) I, '1 %Att-ate( o , being duly sworn,depose and say that on ; 1 or- � q_� —t tg � ,-, I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the +.+ attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at s, , �-r� -�-. E rwC t•1 PtL44In.N rOla i 'R)nc.,,441..1 's-r , a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and ,. ., . 0 made a.part of hereof. ` may, • I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the•United States Post Office at Lake Oswego,Oregon with 9* ' postage prepaid thereon. • • V 'a. i • '1 G , e i . t. r Srgn `/(/ . '✓ a ti Subscribed and sworn to me betore this 151-E. day of. ESfc', -soP-('--t 1 19'i. OFFICIAL SEAL �'cu NOTARY PUBLIC.OREGON � COMMISSION N0,011872 °D MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC,22,1995 /,/ No Public X .- r — , . Ili My commission expires: 1 - z2- d15 W k i N parlBll y, Pre—App,No,: 5 e --a 2 . r • ,, 4 J. • Name of aY-,licant OnK0 NISI `taR Pre—App. No. 55—9'Z ' r. , I Ql IIrG I..c 'r too, Subject Property: Tax Lot(s) ,�a,,r-�,,1 Tax Map(s)—Z.)E 10A ` • Address or General Location:�Z,�'s �,.� m6 l 6 le,A.C. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE ,do swear or affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed affecting the land located at rt 5 LA). cy �T Pe� p�5C2l n ABOVE and that pursuant to LOC 48.801/49.301, did on the la► . day of ;T' uP.`R:1 , 1915 ,personally post the notice indicating that the • .'.�., site may be proposed for a 50 ttJ051o1r1 application. The sign was posted at iNEAg.. 5255 S.wY grt..5&4,..3er—ta 6.rr P.�.t#.1 11:,6s of -rlls• poe L • (state location on property) • • This 15 tt'L day of 3i�-iuAf4-rf, , 19 61\.\Sign tore • • Subscribed and sworn to,or affirmed, before me this t t4 day of 5 u/rR•-1 , 19")3 OFFICIAL SEAL MARK S.IC•OR DANE NOTARY PUBLEGON —62%4/ ,.11;# COMMISSION NO.011872 Notary Public for the State of Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC.2k, 1995 s, My Commission Expires: 12-ZZ- 41 5 t , • • • , WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING,RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Lake Oswego , Land Development Services Division r P.O. Box 369 •.. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT • .; , r7ai-7s/vo. • w ' • . * . ,S ... ,• .. ,•F: ., is 1 '^"i SENDER: , • Complete hems 1 and/or 2 for additional services, 1 also wish to receive the L. • t • comT:ets Items 3,end eo&b. following services (for an extra • .r. .. 1 • Print your name end eddnse on the reverts of this form so 0 can ioo)t return this card to you, , r t > •• Attach this form to the front of tta maNplew,or on the beck If specs 1. 0 Addressee's Address a ,, E does not permit, ,. ,,•r, l ,. , . Write"Return Receipt Requested"on tile meloplece below the article number. 2. ❑ RestrIcted Delivery' i . . The Return Receipt will Dhow to whorn the article wee delivered end the date $1 0. C delivered, r o Consult postmaster for feel o' f 3. Article Addressed to: 4e. Article Number CC U 1 ' ' 9N0,A,\l' 1,,2,t^ 1 Ica e k-1711 - to ' - ' E .. r; f R ',. ii s\L1I•:':7 0`/ai t ,,N°61K-, 4b, Serv•ae Type ` ❑ istored , ❑ Insured :•:•• � an ' ¢p,cy; Ott `1"1D35 a Certified tst u) t i. ,1 t o , ❑ GOD 4 ` r n; ' i �.'•• • 0 Express i 'all 0 Return'Receipt Icr ' ...':. 71: � t • Merchen• :Y , a0 �. �4 1,+,• r 71 Onto of olive `_ cc 6. Signature IA roeao 8. Addr sl®a's Addeos Only If requested ti ;'4 I';I 1 ;:'1 +{ "U a; , and too la paid) 8, Signature (Agent) I 1 , , • • , I. PS Form 3811, Disco b e ..1/ m or 1991 * us,a.a,o.t7992•a(t7.699 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT . ' • i • PS Form 3 00,Jun 991 ,Iqk ug' 1 ZS ,G a 'Al ' 1;, �,oznm ti 6 rJ, u o n m•� in3 ty i b ngO rt, o -t , d? (� c ID f:t N r• f:� b t0 • C ~� < GI M 4 t. CO .• .ate :' W r • • • ' . yy • / !!: .. l • t, •.'./ E t of r f' 0 11 t,' • 0 ..,,,. ... . 1 • f1 if t • f + f • . i •• • • • r j�F �1 g • , . . AI • t 0REGO r DEP.\RTNIENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner FROM: Wayne Halverson,Engineering Development Coordinator RE: Engineering Staff Report for Rosewood,PD 1-93 • DATE: March 15, 1993 ' Hillside Pmtection/Erosion Control • The proposed development is located on the north and south sides of Rosewood Street. • The proposal is for 16 lots on relatively flat ground. Even with relatively flat ground, erosion control requirements and plan are required of the developer. The applicant • should be required to provide an erosion control plan along with the final construction plans. • �, ; Positive roof and foundation drains should also be required. The applicant has said Lots 4-8 will drain to a swale along their back lines. In the past, drainage swales have not worked as they are filled in during the home construction. Either a private storm system should be constructed to these lots or direct connection made to the existing t, storm system after the surface water flows through a pollution control box, Staff will work with the developer's engineer to revise his utility format prior to designing the • final construction plans. ,Access/Site Circulation M Access to the site is proposed to be from Rosewood Street with a new public street with i-- i , • • • a rural street design. Lots 10-12 are proposed as being served from a private street with•' m a Staff _ ' •g a public access easement over a portion of it to serve as the public turn around. M prefers that the 25 x 34 foot easement be dedicated to the public to protect the City, The ' X ' ` Q i . applicant has not informed staff who will maintain the private street and mentions i �' o. •1•N.6uui/ipar9H11 . • Page 1 of 5 ' , I .1 el.: I',, 't 6 t t - .',11,1'1'•I i ,10 i;It v; « .{��ti • 1 t ,,It., 2.,s 1 1 �} • ;f. r nothing about a home owners association in the narrative. The applicant is also ,. ,: • proposing on 2 inches of asphalt over 6"of rock for the private street. The public access easement should be built to public street standards as it will be used as a turn around. The new public street section, sheet 5 of 6 of the applicant's exhibits shows the proposed sidewalk outside of the right-of-way. This is against the new rural street design criteria developed by staff at the direction of the City Council. Sidewalks have been required to be within public right-of-ways even on the new rural street section , (see drawing). If the Board allows the sidewalk to remain outside of the public right- ` of-way,staff would like to see the following restrictions: 1) That deed or plat restrictions should be imposed on the sidewalk area that would provide the same protection as if the sidewalk was within the right-of-way and 2) the front yard setback of 20 feet be conditioned to be measured from the back edge of the new sidewalk. If this isn't done and the 20 foot distance is measured from the property line, cars parked in front of garages would obstruct the sidewalk. Engineering would also recommend a one foot control strip at the end of the new public street. The applicant is also proposing small drains at.each driveway crossing of the public • t 5•. . drainage swale. The new rural street design criteria requires a ribbon drain across all driveway entrances where the swale is less than 12 inches in depth,last of all, staff is requesting that a concrete strip be extended across the private street in order to delineate the public street portion from the private tract. This concrete strip and private street should be made the responsibility of one of the lots or a home owners 4 :. association. • As the new public street is only proposed to be twenty feet wide, the new street will not provide the ability for on-street parking. Rosewood Street at present is narrower than twenty feet. It will be required and the applicant has shown to provide a twenty foot section on Rosewood with three foot gravel shoulders and swales. Lighting .,. The applicant has not met the lighting standard as required. It will be required that al.l street lights on Rosewood and the new street will meet the rural street criteria prior to m approval of the final construction plans, Utilities • Water-The applicant has proposed to serve this project with a 4" line, This doe"not ' • provide the required fire flows, 1500 g,p,m, The closest hydrant is approximately 450 6 feet from the proposed home on Lot 8, Fire protection is required and an 8" line will be ' • required in Rebecca Lane to the end of the street and a hydrant required in the area of • • • Page2of5 L . P �� U'' • • 'I the private street. Staff will meet with the developer and engineer to resolve these issues prior to their beginning design on the construction plans. A u Sanitary Sewer- The site will be served by existing sanitary sewer lines in Rosewood and lines along the westerly and northerly sides of the development. Storm Drainage The applicant has proposed a drainage system for Rebecca Lane which consist of a perforated pipe and infiltration trench. Since we are dealing with a rural street section, the swale must drain and provide a performance equivalent to a minimum 2% curb grade. The system must be accessible to maintenance personnel (i.e.,pipe) and will require manholes which the exhibits do not show, Final construction plans should include specifications for water quality treatment facilities '''r' and drainage designs and all design calculations. .wee Cutting The applicant is apparently asking for setback reductions in order to save trees. Looking at the exhibits,it appears that only two trees will be Ieft standing on the north side of Rosewood (one on Lot 9, and one on Lot 16). On Lot 3, the applicant states the building envelope has been moved to save the trees. On a 1:50 scale, the trees along Lot 3 appear to be from four to five feet from the property line. Without knowing the diameters of the trees, it is hard to say whether these two trees can be saved or not. . Fenced In the applicant's narrative, Section 9.005,page 8, they state that six foot fences will be constructed along all rear and side lot lines with construction of the new homes on Lots 4-7, The City has a twenty foot existing sanitary and storm easement along the back lot o • lines of proposed Lots 4 to 11. Construction of fences cannot be allowed which will obstruct the City's easement rights, Vision Triangles on Lots 4 and 15 .40 `• The vision triangles on Lots 4 and 15 are not drawn correctly on sheet 1a. of 6. If • r '.' : Rosewood is ever improved in the future,it would probably be a 28 foot through street • that would allowparkingon one side. applicant's The applicant's engineer has measured the vision triangle from the edge of the 20 foot street section they are to construct, The vision clearance triangle should be measured from the future curb location or edge of �a asphalt on Rosewood so as not to cause a vision clearance problem at the intersection in the future when Rosewood is widened, Access will have to be from Rosewood Street for Lots 4 and 15 as access to Rebecca Lane would obstruct the vision triangle with cars a • parked in the driveways. Contrary to what the applicant shows on sheet la of 6, staff computes the 4' x 4' cut corner on Lot 4 to be 10' x 10' and 7' x 7' on Lot 15 not 1' x 1', Page 3of5 • r �� •-� •�). Future Street Plans to . . .i ‘ The applicant discusses their proposed future street plan on page 12 of the narrative and shows it on sheet 6 of 6. Staff has previously indicated that Option "B"is not attainable due to recent minor partition approvals and Option"A" portrays the wrong circulation plan staff has in mind. Lower Drive from Tualatin Street westerly is approximately 1,000 feet long,extremely narrow (12 to 14 feet wide) and a dead end. ., This was created when Boones Perry was improved and Lower Drive was cut off. Staff • envisions that Lower Drive could be connected in the future to Rebecca Lane and, therefore, a cul-de-sac at the end of Rebecca Lane as in Option A should not be taken as j. a final layout. .. ••�. 1'i •gyp.• As with all projects, this report is written to bring to the attention of the applicant and his engineer areas of concern that must be addressed prior to the approval of the final • �• ,; construction plans. Some comments specifically relate to utility lines. It should not be construed that staff agrees with the locations, type of materials,or sizes of utilities shown on the preliminary utility plan; additional relocations might be requested before final locations are agreed upon. Our review has mainly been limited to the ability to serve the site and not necessarily an approval of final location,materials,or sizes of lines. Recommendation, • 4' A. 1. That a complete erosion control plan be included with the final construction plans. ,4 2. Provide positive roof and foundation plans to all lots. 3. The private street section is to be constructed to public street standards and a home owners association be required with CC&Rs to establish maintenance responsibility of Tract"B" and that the public easement portion for a turn around be dedicated to the public 4. That if the proposed sidewalk is not located within the public right-of-way that two restrictions be required: a) That deed or plat restrictions be imposed on the sidewalk area that would ; provide the same protection as if it was within the right-of-way, " b) That the front yard setback of 20 feet be conditioned to be measured from the back edge of the new sidewalk, not from the property line. .c 5, A one foot control strip be required on the plat at the end of Rebecca Lane. 0 ;;„ . . . , . . .. ,. . . ., , Page 4of5 • • e n.' !1 v� :. . 6. That a delineation strip be constructed across Tract B. � 7. That the required street lighting be in accordance with the new rural street - criteria. . , Y.. 8. That the proposed rural street sections meet the new City rural street criteria. :.'; cs That fire protection be provided and waterlines be sized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. That the storm drainage system be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. - ' • 11. That fences be constructed with gates wide enough to provide the City x Maintenance Department room to drive down the existing twenty fltiot easement 4 if necessary in order to protect the City's easement rights. 12. That the vision clearance triangles on Lots 4 and 15 be measured from a point 14 feet north of centerline on Rosewood so as not to create a potential vision problem in the future. 13. That Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane be designed and constructed for a ' , 0minimum 20 year design life. • , WPi/kaa r C:PD1 93doC I - •1 . • 1. Page 5 of 5 r 1 F• ' • a .,, - ` 1 r 1 . r 1,: M. , r'MPlka7