Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1990-05-07 . . ^ ' � � � � ' . ^ �' ^ ~/ ^ ' < ' �^ ' � , " ^ �^� � / ' ' � ' ^� .� +�{—� �� \ \ �� �~� �-\`-1 �- / ' ~~� �� ' . - b/ \-� ^~' ~ ^ �� , ,. '` ^ ` ' , \�^ l'�� / \ --\ � � ] ~ . \ � �� \� [ \ � / ` `�� ^ . . ^ � ^ . . . . ` � ~ ���� m �� ^ ' . `, . � � " ' � ^ zp � . . ^ � ^ ' ^ ` , ' ' ` = ` « ~ � . ' ' ' � ^ , ' 0 u . , ~ . , � ^ // o , ^~ ' . � , . ' ` ' o , , ^ . � � ` ` . ' . � ° ^ . � �� ., �, . ', �. v ^ . �' ` . ' » � � . . � ^ \ � / ` ^ ^ � , ^ ^ ' r ` ` � ' _�-__ _ ' __�-~-�—__-_ _-- __`_- __� _ '�-_---__- '-_--- ^- __° _-^_~��_-_ ____-� _ f-' /� ' � ' � ^ � / ' � , ` AGENDA aak_ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 380 'A' AVENUE IMOMONDAY, MAY 7, 1990 r 7: 30 P.M. w"` I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . November 6, 1989 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING TRH -90, a request by Timothy Walters for approval to remove thre trees. The site is located at 18462 Anduin Terrace, on the west side of Anduin Terrace and is the third lot north of Westview Drive (Tax Lot 133 of Tax Map 2 lE 17DD) . DR 23-881I1, a request by Oswego Properties, Inc. for approval • to construct a 36-unit apartment complex with ground level • parking below. The proposal was appealed to the City Council -���'' and Remanded to the Development Review Board. Testimony will be _ limited to reevaluating the Park and Open Space Standard to determine whether it was appropriate for the Development Review Board to have previously approved this project and allowed a fee in lieu of providing at least 20% of the site as an open space ` ` area. The site is located on the west side of 2nd St. , between "B" and "Ctl Avenues (Tax Lots 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2000 of Tax , . Map 2 lE 3DD) . PD 3-90\SD 57-89, a request by John Kyle, Architect. The applicant is seeking approval of a two-lot planned development, each lot of which will have portions in two zone districts (R- 7.5, R-15) ; also the applicant is seeking approval for a Lot Line Adjustment between two existing parcels. Each adjusted parcel is proposed to exceed the minimum required lot size of the zone in which its largest portion is located. The site is located at 107 Burnham Road (Tax Lots 100, 201 of Tax Map 2 1E 11CC) . SD 60-89\VAR 43-89, a request by Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. for approval of a minor partition to create two parcels, each a minimum of one acre in size from a 2.19 acre parcel; also, a Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 ft. Neither parcel is proposed to abut a street. The site is \-. located at the west end of Twin Points Road (Tax Lot 2700 of Tax Map 2 lE 9BD) . q, Q SD 7-•90\VAR 4-90, a request by Blue Heron Development for approval for the creation of three parcels from a 1.20 acre parcel. Each parcel is proposed to be in excess of 10,000Illir square feet; also a ClaII Variance to the Access Development '' Standard which requiresCt``irt each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet. Two4ifrcels are proposed to have no frontage on a street. Instead, they are proposed to be served by an easement for access. The site is located west of Hilishire Drive, south of Westridge Drive (Tax Lot 800 Parcel III, SD 31-89] of Tax Map 2 lE 17CD . • [prtion; v VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII• OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order DR 6-90 - OTAK, Inc. 4 VIII. ADJOURNMENT j / / , ______Z--------- ------ / The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your int\ereSt in the agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. �`, se DRB Members: Staff: \\ Robert H. Foster, Chair Robert Galante, ActingPla i Ginger Remy, Vice-Chair nnirr Director James A. Bloomer Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner D. Hamid Pishvaie, Dev. Review Planner Roberte StD. Greavesway Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner Harryip tStarr Jane Heisler, Associate Planner arr N. Sybrowskytr Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson, Secretary 49 s s • STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - h APPLICANT: FILE NO. : Timothy Walters TR 2-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Timothy Walters _ Robert Galante A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 133 of April 6, 1990 Tax Map 2 1E 17DD 5- ' DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: 18462 `Andu m Terrace April 16, 1990 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Palisades R-10 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 � a I• APPLICANT' S REQUEST , The applicant is requesting approval to remove 3 additional trees from the site. The request before the Board is prompted by a citizen appeal objecting to the tree cutting request and accompanying grading which is proposed on the site. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48 . 195-48 . 225 R-10 Zone Description (set- backs, lot area, lot coverage) a 11111 TR 2-90 Page 1 of 10 r J w;. .41? p1. . 4 w II B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: II LOC 49. 090 Applicability of Development Standards 1` LOC 49. 140 Minor Development LOC 49. 220-49. 210 Minor Development Procedures ' V LOC 49. 215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49. 615 .� Criteria for Approval LOC 49. 620 Conditional Approvals C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards. 16. 005 - 16. 040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: i Impact Management Policies I General Policy I, II Social Resource Policies General Policy I E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55. 010 - 55 . 130 III. FINDINGS4111 AR Existin Conditions: 1. The site is approximately . 28 acre in size and square in shape. 2. The site is a platted lot in Palisades Park Estates #3 Subdivision which is a 36 lot subdivision that was recorded in 1984 . 3 . A single family residence is under construction on the site (Building Permit No. 89-1213) 4. The original slope of the lot was approximately 30 percent downward from the rear to the front property line. Excavation of the site for the residence has resulted in approximately a 20 foot cut 12-14 feet from the rear of the residence. A 10 foot retaining wall has been constructed but not backfilled, 9 feet from the rear of the residence. II t ( ,, , TR 2-90 Page 2 of 10 . J r u /' 5 . There are 7 trees, including one cluster of maples, remaining on the site. •� B. Previous Actions: 1. The building permit was issued in December, 1989, with approval of TR 2-90 for cutting of 8 trees. 2. On January 2, 1990, staff followed up a " complaint and inspected the site to verify the tree cutting that had occurred prior to excavation of the site. It appeared that more / than 8 trees were cut and that the trees cut were not in the locations represented on the site plan submitted with the building plans. Brush and stump clearing was underway at the time. Staff issued a notice of civil (_\ infraction which required the applicant to provide evidence of the correct location and number of trees that were cut and remaining. A second notice of infraction was issued January 4, 1990 for continued stump clearing and grading prior to submittal of agreed upon materials. The applicant stated that he did not know how many trees were cut and agreed to mitigate the alleged violation by submitting a landscape plan prior to final occupancy ID approval. Staff informed the applicant, and • noted in the City' s files that significant 4 plantings would be required as mitigation for trees cut prior to approval. TR 2-90 was modified for approval for a total of 16 trees which was based on the number of stumps found on the site. A condition of approval was attached to the modification approval which would require the applicant to submit for approval and implement a landscape mitigation 0;, plan prior to occupancy of the residence. 3 . On January 25, 1990, the applicant contacted x. ,?` '� y staff and requested approval to cut the three 0"��E, siti, additional trees in question. A second site �''' inspection was performed. The applicant was required to provide an arborist' s report and grading plan as evidence to support the tree cutting request. 4• On March 6, 1990, the applicant was issued a citation for continuing work contrary to approved plans and for failure to have erosion control measures in place on site. A stop work order was also issued for failure to have 4110 TR 2-90 Page 3 of 10 • erosion control measures in place. The 's'top 1111 work order was released upon placement of hay bales in front of the site. The citation is • being processed by the City Courts system. 5. On March 13 , 1990, staff issued a tree cutting permit for the three trees in question after the applicant submitted grading information and staff was contacted by the applicant's arborist by phone. The applicant was notified the next day that `she issuance of the tree cutting permit would be appealed by citizens and was asked to return the permit. This was done and the permit was voided. C. Proposal: \ The applicant is requesting ap proval g to cut a 20" fir, a 24" fir and a 10" maple. Approval of this ". . request would also result in further grading of the site. The request is before the Board due to a citizen appeal objecting to the tree cutting and grading. This request does not include review for previous tree cutting which was approved with the condition that the applicant submit a landscape mitigation plan. Review of other sites developed by the applicant in the neighborhood is also not a part of with this report. fl� D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49. 615, staff must consider the • following criteria when evaluating minor development. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proofthrough submittal of documents marked as Exhibits 3-10, accompanying this report. 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 applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: ", 7 l J 1111 TR 2-90 Page 4 of 10 l,\ Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development and comprehensive review of development proposals. These policies are initially implemented through the subdivision review process and later through the Tree Cutting Ordinance and applicable Development Standards. Compliance with the regulations applicable to this request are reviewed below and demonstrate conformance to these Plan policies. During the initial subdivision review process, the site was �� platted as a buildable lot. Conditions can be imposed, when necessary to assure compliance with the implementing codes and standards. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis The site exceeds the 10,000 square foot lot area, 65 foot lot width and 100 foot lot depth requirements set forth in LOC 48. 201 (1) . The requirements for 20 foot front, 25 foot rear and 10 foot sides yards are also met. Pursuant to LOC 48 . 220 , the maximum height allowed for a structure is 35 feet. The residence met this standard when the building permit was issued and also meets this standard using the proposed grading shown on Exhibits 3-8. The maximum lot coverage specified by LOC 48 . 225 (1) is 30%. The footprint of the residence is approximately 2, 432 square feet and the lot is approximately 12, 198 square feet. Lot coverage is approximately 20%, which is in compliance with this standard. Based on these findings, development on the site is in compliance with Zoning Code requirements. Development Code Requirements and Analysis The proposed tree cutting request is listed in LOC 49. 140 (1) (k) as minor development. Pursuant to LOC 49. 125 (2) (a)' , the City Manager has forwarded this application to the bevelopment Review Board for review (See Exhibits 11-16) . Other than the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard addressed below, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. TR 2-90 Page 5 of 10 • 1• Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis % LOC 55.080 specifies that the following criteria be considered for evaluation of a tree cutting request: 1. The condition of the trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services or traffic safety. Based upon review of Exhibits 3, 8, and 9, the three trees are not diseased and are not causing interference with utility services or traffic safety. The evidence submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 8) was not found to be sufficient to require the immediate cutting of the trees. The City retained another arborist to confirm the fact that the trees are currently stable and are arborculturally sound. 2. The necessity to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements, or to otherwise utilize the applicants property in a reasonable manner. This criterion is the most subjective of the criteria listed for review for a tree cutting request. Proper plans and proper staff review of the initial submission for building permit should have resulted in a revised building and site design which would have had less site impact than what is now proposed. The residence that was approved now appears to require one of two options: a) As requested by the applicant, utilize the already constructed 9 ' high (from top of footing to top of wall) retaining wall at the rear of the residence and remove a substantial amount of weight acting on the wall by regrading the site and constructing additional rock retaining walls (see Exhibit 4 , Section AA) . The regrading is necessary to conform to the structural design limit of the existing wall, but would require the cutting of trees located on the slope above the wall. b) Construct a much larger retaining wall (about 15 ' tall) to retain the existing slope and preserve the existing trees. The trees would 1111 TR 2-90 Page 6 of 10 , 1 require some pruning and feeding to reduce the (, affect of wind and to minimize any stress • caused to the trees. may which options Staff is not aware of other exist; however, no evidence exists in the record to demonstrate whether alternatives were explored. The Board may wish to question the applicant about the feasibility of other options. Staff recommends that "option 1" requested by the applicant could be construed to be reasonable use of the property given the grade conditions and the apparent lack of a reasonable alternative. The applicant has indicated that the larger wall would ♦ cost 30,000 to 40, 000 dollars and that the existing wall would cost a substantial amount to demolish. In addition, the larger wall would have approximately a 14 to 15 foot high exposure to the windows at the rear of,the residence (about 9 ' to 10 ' away) . " Gr /Any approval grantedby the Board should include a requirement ,for substantial replanting. 3. The topography of the land and the effect of tree removal on erosion, soil retention, stability of earth, flow of surface waters, , protection of nearby trees, windbreaks and a desirable balance between shade and open ill space. The applicants proposal to regrade the site to remove the weight of soil now surcharging the % slope and to step retaining walls up the slope would have the effect of stabilizing the existing slope in relationship to the now too small i` retaining wall. Revegetation of the regraded slope would further stabilize the slope, minimize erosion and control the flow of surface waters. The application of this criterion needs to be cc,nsidered in light of the "reasonableness" of the applicants proposal as determined by criterion number 2. Criterion number 3 could not be used as #• a basis alone for allowing tree removal and any approval should only be allowed if the effects of the tree removal can be mitigated by the regrading and substantial revegetation. The loss of the . three trees would not appear to substantially affect nearby trees, the need for sunlight or shade, or the function of these trees as a Windbreak, ' Ill TR 2-90 Page 7 of 10 4♦ 4. The number of trees existing in the 1111 neighborhood, the character and property use6. in the neighborhood, and the effect of tree removal upon neighborhood characteristics, beauty and property values. The site is one of only a few sites left for development in the Palisades Park #3 subdivision. Other than the vacant site to the south of the site, the character- of the neighborhood consists of large homes with dense but young landscaping, • some of the lots having mature trees in their rear " yards. A few of the lots on Bree Court have large trees in their front yards. A substantial area of mature trees exists above the site, particularly to the northwest (Exhibit 1, Lot 109) . Any approval should require replanting to mitigate any loss to the neighborhood. 5. The adequacy of the applicant's proposals, if any, to plant new trees or vegetation as a substitute for the trees to be cut. This criteria can be met by requiring the applicant to submit a landscape plan for the site. As stated previously, significant plantings and careful review can be required and is recommended to blend the site' s landscaping into the character • of the existing neighborhood. Neighborhood input ° should be included in the applicant 's landscape proposal. Staff recommends that the applicant submit the proposed plan for Board review. c. The applicable Development Standards Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16. 005 - 16. 040) This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. The site is not designated as having the potential for weak or unstable soi1Ej. The soils report and grading plan submitted by the applicant, (Exhibits 3-7 and Exhibits 9 and 10) demonstrate compliance with DS 16. 020 (5) , which delineates specific requirements for cuts and hills on slopes in excess of 12%. Erosion prevention measures are currently in place on the site as required by DS 16, 025 - 16, 030 and by' the Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook. 4111 TR 2-90 Page 8 of 10 c.: 1 This standard refers to LOC Chapter 45.600 - 45 . 675 which is the portion of the City Charter providing standards for Earthwork and Erosion Control as regulated by the Building Division. Through the building permit process, the applicant was granted a permit for the existing grading of the site. The approval was based on finished floor and corner elevations. A plan of existing and proposed contours was not submitted prior to grading plan approval. The proposed plan meets submittal requirements of Chapter 45 as well as DS- �' 16 . 005-16. 040. 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 can be made to comply with the applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. III. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that any approval of the proposed 4111/ tree cutting request be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall complete grading of the site in compliance with Exhibits 3-7 and Exhibit 10. xn 2. The applicant shall retain a qualified arborist to inspect work in progress to assure protection of nearby trees. The applicant shall adhere to any recommendations made by the arborist. Those recommendations shall be submitted to the staff for review. 3. The applicant shall submit and implement a landscape mitigation plan. The plan shal,l be subject to Development Review Board approval and shall be submitted for neighborhood review‘, The plan shall contain 18 ' -24 ' firs and native understory plantings. 4 . The applicant shall provide written verification from the soils engineer that grading occurred as specified in Condition 1. The engineer shall verify in writing that the regraded slope is designed as required to provide a stable slope • TR 2-90 Page 9 of 10 0 • which will not detrimentally affect adjacent properties. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3 . Site Plan of rear yard and proposed grading plan 4. Section A-A of proposed grading plan 5. Section B-B of proposed grading plan 6. Section C-C of proposed grading plan • 7. Section of rock proposed retaining walls 8. Arborist's Report dated March 12, 1990 9. Soils Engineer 's answer to questions raised by staff 10. Soils Report and engineering calculgtcions 11. Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm date 1990 d March 16, 12. Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm dated March 17, 1990 13 . Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm dated March 19, 1990 14. Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm dated March 23, 1990 1 15. Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm dated March 26, 1990 16. Letter from Joe and Pam Wilhelm dated March 27, 1990 411 17. Photos of site 18. Letter from Brian and Rita Henry dated April 7,1990 ba/kaa Wink ' ( TR 2-90 Page 10 of 10 ' K-A M AS COUNTY iez;z lens v I"- too' _ 3 . I. NI 33�,. �.3 126 ; 18263 • I29 bu16r2,e2 h �, Tr-�lr'�l1( W ..J.)r' 31 10 57 '�r•• , . v ` M se,, ?� Yo-Rr.,o.. 34 ' W in" 16303 0 13 hLI \ D,-.S Ieo W 10 s... • .4. . r �rf-� 1- 30 (J 2514 W wa�•r.ae w v a o, w .1 0 ,.•;'.3.• ;,, u'' �^ av-,? .„r 35 k 1 24 " A'/1 •1• J.r 1 .103 a..�i 6 as \ r^ I b rrr..v. 25s1 J f 1J 131 (36 T ' 0ti 16362 0 �� a° I ('`' ,� h •;, Is360 a • t✓ J /�r Sri : N of • ,', •`�.a, .moo. nF ~rr ,o 5 ` 132 �'� 36b�' o Ie3e3 _,_e;�°'y1'r I6 . O K„ tiP ''�' CC 1 N .../. J. . �� 16402 s, r I. to. i37 104 U 2601 N,, I. �t syr• m 16400 2s0 �� 4 4tiw�% +g Al.a 'I2?_ 'r •,y.28 ° . ° 133 37 d 2625 ,tea• rrrq• 4 (� `:� 3 .�y'� .>t+ 121 '�J.19' (� �'� t 4' 138 IP O s 4 ` `r^Q III 2640 ,o r° "3 13 4 °�`'"..., 6 *le �,(N °,' N % V > �f a. ` I8 3 a� ,d ob J '1%•L,` y Nerst� 3,.° lam+ aD e Q �-�j ,L� 'J J.r4• o 4` `C ,...1 33 r' o •4 m , ... 'Q,...,• 26 o e'^ lia --',°c'• ,o Q. ek 18503 .1 R°b;v� r 0.?..? .. ,,• r 18480 °:j R°�4 �•y 0 •rDro..1li. Al Q �y. 120 yr r* /3' 1 I I c' \'• w 39 qb 135 2662 .F, at 119 C, 16562 ,� °j.� A y' 1' 0 N �0 = _ �� 1, '0 i. ` n • 4� w• m° eN* 1 � ry ie943 �' 23`; ,S. 1 c m . • MS4 • 40 d4 • a 191`•j'p 11 N N • 25 .37 9., I -,ciAlet:_t4 �'3,f° b0 poa. 22 C' �• 140 1,a.r II5 ?rO',, 11 . •• 18212 18304 m — 3 t 16336 ^ � , °'., • .Id •1 0 4 `p` ,,`Y. 3 zoto!' NITIAL =1 ? 21\NBf°#{'4/�'y,r 2af3 „- POINT �i 1!{' 2 Ad OP.f{'� "w oLr �� I 9A r° Olt CO 96.r°. Be s, Z.X•AF4' 17�1 I ur I , 1706 1707 1708 I709 � 1740 1366. 2161 2699 2661 12606 2 %b • , g EXHIBIT a o In a N b° / 9 • . 4,, / ri1�. I. .1.0l rpl Ii/i i1 +,e.�,.o�/„; ryr+ a' ' RAV[11 �. r q : .,�' y I l j• lay 11i.• t�,•1 „ I,p L/ 4. it; r1 w y Y �Z 11 .... ...11.1. ...4 ..3 _I ..l, • ��.i 4 I, Ii1rI lade t♦ o z°.r t 1� ►. (y, p�• , III 1•�h/1. 111i ' '1i�'Jr . ..• ' " , t t I I I 1 I. '1 . 1 I e v 'oily° i/1�:1 1 ilri ...40, ut• / •• • w•r ,3 1 ° °°q'. : ; I• 11� It'yIiI '�-• L •$ t IPA 1r`.'y 111 IN 'A 17001/ ' y , H y H L ••+- On[[NTn[[ y te, I• k/hi lnoorr°l+: / an[eNTn[t j" G I a I o J'+ a �+o I E 18 1 o S o 1 a I r,1 o �- y . rr Y' w .. u '1",)'(‘... .. % +,. i 17171 , ` 1 I''r '•. i'� � •Iru � • 1+Ko rI' • � i l; 7 Y e W , u � J + "� I1p, ....i RA, -.`" r/'ray�.� • 1 Su��` �� 4 p ° r+r �6 H ►la \ •. ..1 ts 'all f,.�f1. .,na' I,,, '' 1 `J �. rri �1, . . �. 1" W 7117 7770 r,r 1.•'e , lop, 11330 .` /j'. ly rl r.! . h 4aj",I. 1• • 4,0 " ' t — '�'�`I,a Q '�,J `- ' .' , _ _ `'.� r 11r ,i IlI1 J/ r ` • r +I, t i r Y , ♦ 1 r- ` !„ i` ,I,J 3/ "'3 ° .• ' 'L 1 r 44 777/ \ 11l! .>lip. r,'' / .. Lurie r♦ •'' \ , •L : • •^ I 1 rail? .o, 1 711/ rri I IJrI • /lr� Il`11j., ' ::' I •.. .. •• •• •_ :•iiti,e:. � � :::� � �_ T• q• rra �,:,r1op r.olI.p,•1., i • , Ip a •, ♦i 1 .1 A ,I 7� 7/v `•''.rr° ♦I♦r�"� i f. /� _ IIt .y +' , ,r:p •.,,I ,Jil Dn1Yt '1 J,p \ rrrrJ+ ofrl , h/toIt/t!�� 1e4. '4 ,, !if. ."� r•,r, /00., St t, .,. 11 ,<, b, . ,r y' I ^• .0 , I, ;I\•• ). P I,r . 7y) `•1..'.rye ,� �' , o `,r,, iYir1 °'ya r ��` i ��IrJ,, +.r ` rri 1/rpV t ` I,I•r ,� .k , b .1"I,, . ,r,,ir.•.i ' 1 y..ii 0,1 1 I. . I rr ••.r ♦ i,. I �. • I la` ir/1 rA •1 •, r ! i a e /� I 11 `� ., ♦ 1 ,I+r.• :'l if "� +� CJRCL, ~`i `' c1iNVON r+b/\. .[ �1 Ii,° 1i11 4q, r/r 0 W , ,Ps.r� ' +, . I ``/ `..L..4 . } „o�•..•.. 1,'° ryb, /. �. {A,., ,0 `‘ 1'4,4 �t1. . Cavnr y �,.• ° �'Gr%1 o Ill • - , J�...;. % ••., +I'rf .4. b, i 0 ,4 00 so' t i 1 IC• 3 .• , %,•.. - y ! R hop /uloo n ,e L I`°_4_ _ 7 6 • , a rr a0 !4 r 1 1 l,••r..< '•�w g u 8100 `p,.• w ° Ir �+, •i4 ', ,r+ / ,y- . J T ,M _,p ia,! 440 ••,{ M.11..�.'�' .' ,..• 1i; 1 '' •r "'\ '1 r -f woo I ? w g for .00 r_pl ) ' I. • • • W I j ,y c .� ,II C, �, ' 1Af� Cr, apa 1 �" w 'o/ot ♦'T►,r if �-- 7 =� ' ,` • IreTT ^t I1 , 0r . 01, C �; H , itr 1,7op • , . '' / yfr +1'4 2 ; t ! •I, • ti1 J,OV 4e `I 7 1 . ORIri ••• 110 • . ° • I r+• a• -, 'Ir70i �. 1>7ar ,, - J •••,"'�`, 1 . qqK Y k r z L``7-• 1 -too, , _"_ ,.. ,.' nT )" = :; 1 00 ' 1•p1 1et1 1 i 1 : I tt t 11e. As11 , /fH1 Y.. 1 I ar , •+ i•. ITTee 1TTe1 -' I `‘ V" `o �, ,1 1 ., r w I u t11,10 �/ I I I r— ' `I' Irrt1),1i, 4117e1 \r r• •1. ,'* 1111A. I, I•., i . L "� r1 1 .. ..� u _I • .. 1 1 - 1 IFNI oleo ; • W mil 1r0o ills , D ,) ,!jr •. U „e. NILLatot LAN[ 1po1 ,04 'mod' " 1•n �� aolco wit T ' Y7r E t . 11 1 t�ttr ""g 11TM . p/4* ►,` N s , .0 I • 7", y • �`"' o^ 1 I t OV[IILOOK y ,r N 11 • It• + l' ° -, w , 1 • YL' 'y' k— counT I I 's+• �' >± I ;/fits 1 r WO% Y. I S , a - i : Is • ; ,i.,I-,,.1_ "- 1 1p' 1 l♦I • 'Si,.' .� ,4J,.�.. - --,.!. .,a --1_. -.... / rel. i • lIf i .. Ito • J I 'A Y 4 04 ! / . J •E J L: 'b 1 s , % •,"1,r ' C600°. '• I, ,t" `'i.,..., ` % "40 GI' +r+o Ii• • '' ! O W[lTININ3t P . • I a, ne:a R, ,f , o' ° ORAie WAY 1N• '•orr +ov1 r •y '' r I w 1 1, tll OV•a 10 ,� 11311 .• i All° i 5CNlillt - 8 I ,aa,. ••II .•• 'Pt. 4 .1 p '1 ! d %�.::::*0 r �. 1a�1 t-.-' .._. • t g . S ° 3 •� w .,I +rff'' , •` ,� + Qp \ o --•�'- y I -t7e11 •.-I— -- 1 •, b •'' • °• ,` oaIV, S. +.p a•1 ; 1 ,410 ~ f a0 L. ° J +' ''f•' IrOM �' Irl♦ ,,/ '�• ,d i ,. I.. 1 —--I I. • 4 `` •. ,,,x :,, •- r., pia. 1/j,}••g"-'••=_.� •••• • • I7ew ,Trf 1 1r 14 "• : `1� • PARK •t'• J + '• ' % •Oip VA,uotp • ' ..,. fof.. �°�I = I t p,'' 1 � • . • 61Y1.1 .o JI '' • af0 r, I •a• I • o Jr ;, Ie011 • ; 4,4.„, 64,1 +11114/3 o 1 11 C Jr•' ,,r, �7 i •N . .'•.•0 rljf ``Il1 • IOye• \\` : +ti?pi .-. --r�I .. t' `1�7 ,� ,. _.L r,. .. .. .._}. - 717j / t110!(1 e00! 1 a0• (1 O =I ' w u I u• ` I • , 11Oe0 • • N is;�`°'1. tt � 71pp J1 ,�' .. u fpf O�' Ilat- t Iola - 1 •..t`� l eor M ire, 1 ti Ip• _/` till �.�I,O��L I t 00• Pi Jo P 1) I • L• p f. , .! or � 0 trlpp.IR e• p i fl,, ..1 "11 ,1.1.71 _ 1r 1.11` 4y �!•I M i 11 o IJ ,, 1 • 1 1 3j "w .4 1• ••` f I,0i4o t !1/!'1 ,,-,•"' r 1 ' . C , 11101 1.tI Hry , t E(► '70• ` ' f1-J • C fell ,f1p p 1� rrty or ,. A • J �• i r - •: '� 10111 '. 1+70 .4111' y, /011f 17.1 • rI73 ?•I .,,`.+''J f, J• ,. '+11i11i� I1,,,`�,s, ♦.' ,l '' • it t'I ,f, H11 'r 1•1.1 10,10 S°.• DIW fat °FT I" 'r I I.o ' w/ .. �. ' d ' . 0 '' 1•�1 ftIS 1a1;• j •IYr, 0. 1,.. Iy . 9 u 1 0 i11e1/ 1 i 1} f °i I HI I 22. I J 0 `^ 1�0,+ •• 'I �I tli '`• io1/7 r ! 'cuss w .Ky .. . . I • I ° 1 u I 'I " r •I'M �, 1. •0 "' ,,I'• I• , r,T 9 I -.w—c•r"�'j y 1 ,• .,A• y j , .i ♦, !t '.. Iwo .f ftot g y si Y ( . 1' .. 1 1 Y• ,,,�..q. ti ♦, OATi I• ,Ii111 O, 1 ur u y u 1-` • 'N• `, ♦, ,a /, It • bl , 11/10 l.t.e01,1111 E '� I ' '.� �`••.'' Y••r•O� Jr \� M /1 44)3 1• w A • : • 6 • Y I i 1 r1• �� R •c i , EXHIBIT f ` .f"." OOV[R . WAY 1 \. i` V (7 PO I 11 •t I p / pte0 1 t ' •r )1 1 uw S. to at .....�. ., [,. • 10 • 0 • • / ... • tr o ft.;;r / /. // / t,, if 1 'I' ,/,/, .y �� ... // J/ 0/.. ) ./ // i:',..•-••••...a i 1 /I ,Y� WN.LI / .. 0 rliz. ctyl , is - # / /,,,i/ // / �. �' '1 1 �!' l� I:4/,` 114 0, 'Si. `' t l III ('/1• , ji* l1 1 1 y '• N . 1 j1\ ,4 ` ' • ee......„. -,,.. ....,.../ , .... Mzp�� 1 I . ,„ ...l .. •-•...,, ) / •-•..., 1/4....,..1 ' ,;1 . i • I 4 ,i) : .. N .... a , 0 /� SITE PLAN E )CHIIBIT .4 ,pry I t. )i a 1' , i\ . iiiiiiii (t „ w .. n ' i 0, r , i wl o: ` G �, 0 • till I ' * ', =xu. .0 0 3 1�, , 4;, • 4 i(\ 0 0 •I 1 .e• 0 . ..., . < t n Lt.,M„,i.f. •.,,1.. e�•,, , . I, 1 1 J _y y I' o : N1 `p '4-1 i"I .11 1 Uri -:. i ir. ,1 . . � °- .. ". ,4%1'" � ill' ; 0 ' , ,. t-iAj',,,t, ,1- o li(. mf ,, i9 .- _I N ',, lu1 _ 4. N < 0 ID p • — r.,,..,........1, . , x i, g , HIBIT , ,e .., 1 . . . . 17?... P a \ . 11 , , '(_ , 111 F;0 .. i : 1 (� .. I� .) .. ,r , , • • 1, 7,,, ii . • .. y� ,‘,.,,,:, .., t 1 L!"5:' t,� .:.„,...•• . , }--� , . . , ____________ .., ._ 01 i 1 / • ( 11.• H "Z �� O i a) . • . , • r 11 / . " Y ,I zs 7 0 1 _/ I II / , , "': i . 1 'f: r, . Y 0 , . XMIiB1f wl - , . . , . ' r1 r• , r •• ., f, II. , E., . . . . „..,). • I • , . , .; \-: ,‘,....•n, .......trr..,. .••i . -•• , 0 0.,..".0., 1 , r , COO:. . • ......fr"....7) ...." . 1) .4., ..- - i •I . .. . , . ..- 4 • \.....4 / • mom . . / . 0 =mai 9 . / / I 1, r,1 , 0 , u..1 , co / ,, . . , ..., , 1 , , e 1 , 1 ! I 01 I '.t01 l EXHIBIT I i( 1 1 - .--.....,___J-...-, ............1 1 1 ' It, • ' cl . tn I r• A-9i) . :-.., Lam 'L k I I .' . r II fn • S • • • r. • n n • • • F. I( 23.1 5-k, t4 ,,, ,, 0 v 0 yi , „.., , .. . ,i , ...,= ,D 0 :-.,-.. ri3, 0. 931s. = 1,6 , , A u.41 4,oci, 4..4 Pt t .....,1 . .. , " a -.‘4:.SL-3 4 o , .. ii, ,.„,, , k,,,,, ,, • , „ 'NI N tO 1 , N Icy • AI z _ 0�btii 4 4 0 ' 4. Iz / N' • r. `\LI i _ 1 i* I rI lirIBIT ' ?` • , , I1ALSTEAD'S • 0 •• ; ARIBORICULTURE "Specialists in the care and t; CONSULTANTS , • preservation of trees" David Halstead,Consultant B.S. A P.O:Box 1182,Tualatin,OR 97082 ��i•�`� Phone:(503)245.1383 March 12, 1990 Mrs Tim Walters 5024 Foothills Road V Apartment A Lake Oswego, OR 97034 w • f 6366-2220 :I Dear Mr. Walters: 1 ' 1 I have inspected the two fir and one maple tree located on the 'P - Anduin Terrace building site (lot #38) and inspected the plot / • ,, plan dated March 8, 1990, by Zarosinski-Tatone and the proposed - INV 0 terracing which will be done and report the folllwing. � ., The trees are in danger now and would need special assistance in order to remain on this site. If the terracing is done the � a. trees will be gone or totally unsafe. Because of the steepness of this lot it is my recommendation ,� that the trees be removed for the terracing. Sincerely, • • t • 1 : "et . '.. J David Halstead , I , , 1 :,f 0 1 .44ti EXHIBIT ;r- • 4110 V . 1-1"(;..7:*:;'.:....'6:7\ 1171‘i'l3C'/4::.\ .t • 1 '.:;,,, w 12219 C'r - 144VIlJ ` J 1 F W. Y0 G y E. S 1 F k 4v r L_ ( � -fl.(L- wqv-- f213 rc .16-0 r' A (Z. %... : Li, �,.i A-5 S#a0�N c?i-Z. /fie" ? i p I.J 4 µ T. ! r,J r 1 1'tf ) r J..�-fti 4 — ,rcb P er-e4-A- i • y PIS. pm.•Pems,Gas( pPeY2 .ra..r'�-MI0s 7 rt (5 2 2vr0a9 3 { , IDS IK!S`rA L1... k D,. O r& W r.r.11..,-- l 5 ,-/i÷e I • G. -1.rJ 'z2 /�/7�-eg tv� v5'Z. :1r pLA (J ; ( r ''-x.1, 5 �.(.b trill) I -c-.+42./Fi ( (6 II-. S c.) "t d.i e"`.1 ? , \J -C) I c ' !--` a, t7UR‘1L y' (Aj<L..t._ O'NL.-{ ,rJ ?t '1 b 6,� . . u„..::,,,, \&..,'. L L c.-.., - h r :i 1'.t..i-r,. 4--1► .,,i/ 'C.`9 G arJ S-_"4 14 Q • q 7, v rpF)+ c...)i,-, 7 ' _I 1: . " ;r, ; 1�' -i•1`� kiwi r 1-1 ,•I/ ,,-ram,___ r r EXHIBIT j a .rR . o o �� • fI ,, i DyWALKER/DILORETO/Y'OUNIE, Irs1 C:. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS II 215 S,W. HOOKER STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 503/223-0555 FAX 503/223-1025 Job 1546.2_ 11;N 13 u 1 N Tit'••_1?-4 L..-D. Job No. Ir Sheet No, 1 a t• I . ilio Client i I h11 UV A•L? E..R..S / Date ,—, „> By t, ALS �' j t / , t I I F-1- .--) / a 2 I. ti ;IJIE �ti/ _ 3 P.E. n `r-. %.1I ' >\•. ` a �v., -{ , , i�. •iDO c .1. /( RICO ° ! a.. ,.'PM I t.J. ilif _ r-G uj� YJA t.,.. •T`o \,-c, -, f ., HA,h,p 0..41-5iar4e. , ,.. 1 .. 561111. t-A r F. 1' - ..,,-r �,II5L�}g_ .1 4/. : -1._ . .. _._. . .. ;_ i �, �,� , c.w 03 _ 1 ..�_.... .... N, 1t•;. 1 , , , , ,, , , _2,,._ , .,.. .. p 1, ' .. (..;i..Y��, ' U�'f 1 i} 3/ 11 c Rus0Ev--- .:. — ; )� • �o C.�{ .°\` Ill(,,�, /1 -----...1 — l' 1 1 - - , - "Q't,,,-.61ort-Ii----. 1 .4.- 1)..... ..,..,„ .1....•: .,... .....,...4,_ )/ • • c,' ` `-' s A 5 A LT a 41 1,1 , 14 A P :�'Old �'-o n �.:�" _.__,. ��c:,�� w J I, E,N ;S 17" 1" I I �{�t..du 1 II .,1 I , 6i.e�p 11,010 3 Imo, II T. �' EXHIBIT � 1 NTE.g.,I1oc.k >'t, c G j-M . D ,..,. L-AI2. :.Via, olwltt.7--, ( . V .f . _ '' s6_l i7: 00 FPcM P. T . HILLEF' ElK,. PAGE , 702 • 03 •‘.."47,-- - (2)* 5 GONT. , lv'a,,.._~q,.. • c• r • . c y . ! •• 4--7 v -r. ,:;\ a Po - F Ll.F..r F,ae,RG. • (•a,,4 !I/0 ; .' `"... &RA 6t.+ t*A.CAFII.4,. p . • , �,, 4 coK s. k e.. ., ' . . .. i I, .. ,:o b __ � d ,, ,1 bA. IN I•-8M r 0 I' . ��--0 1 r Re 6n 4srs 46 I S a lah. 4 a o • C:•orstGe.Ezk. 3666 psi e a,o 4-y , 9 ,....... ,., ,....0 . s.,...r R. T. MILLER ENGINES FtN , 1t'g ". p . coNsuLr7s b1t7up f'JY;,4 tki ri/ftNn .42_.._. Sol coNcaon eL6.1. PGArLANt•, i,4.1 4 .04 w t 1 4,0 . . / i ' SO 1 t: 00 FROM P. T. M1 LLER, EHG. FAt.,E . n03 . ' • ' 0 111/1 R h.I TAYTN WW1 r:RS1 :4.; •?r4 NAME: .;tL�E: G' 'ILL DESCRIPTION: J r'r ' r:E TAIWINoi NALL 1 . Soil retained ined Jo .:f. 1Z, F=" r = ;:: kmi c; / .'. 33.Cype = 1 foc?F. I" i•ist i.ri 7.. •I 1' . r•i.ln 1.4. Fv I', 60 ksi : ` Slri �pl-r :?. = 0 IF f. . J5. Stem l;ti i c lr,ro lr ms =u 10 i.n» Add F' hoi-t ,, L i,r kips 16. Foundation izhicfcness = ,12 • Add F' vTrt . = c:r 1••i F•t;� :.1) . i-m C1. 1_ . 17. Depth over toe = 2 fib,, ' . F•FP = 55 ) b51,,'�ft .2,/4;t i . Toe 1 encith = 5 ft. . 1to ri N: pressure := 1,500 1 t,t= '.1 .-, 10. Maw . key = 0 4t. • Increase br'q, `.n 2400 1.b=trr 2 20. • r_ls. i.;e pr-e;u ._re 1000 r 1-: { , ,, ". 21Cover eutem = i =i. ]. �,itt. 1t..�ty .1.f:'•1, ! °f :' ;r 01 . Coeff . of friction• . So ., Cover toe _� i n. .' 0, 75 7.. Cover heA 1 = ? ,i h. :. anis1ort r•rac•1. not 01 1' 1 .4. F. r ,` over turning = 1 .F1 2y . E. S. sliding •_ 1 ,5 :EL LENGTH = ;I. :;r:,';. FEET L":PaTinrl 1_I NC3T;1 _ 7» 3 -�e , ;' . r',.....J. :r. 4,; TENSION ,: 1 E ;' e., FEET - .!' r<rr•, - t , '��.37 1.'SE i . i �" . I 'I. . .3r�6 r±EI L E:Rr;;�= ?, flat F.; F ''E SLIDING r: r i i '-' v 4110NT STEEL •a) STEM rse+r• 4 �i ,'I, .. N. I1.�i• . EC:r1TL1F:E STEEL ,� 1'F'r4 �;f:, :# ,� 1 J,1.1. ri. r, , . OMENT STEEL. ;7 'TOE NAP 4 5 •,a F2 IN. 0. C. ::MEN1' 3TEEI.•. ,l HEEL. BAR 4 5 i C TN. 0. 0, 0 MPE ATLIFE STEEL .i1 FCU Iwr) -r oN riitk, 4 •5 ,D J. 4 TN. 0. C. , ' STEM MOMENT SUMMARY _..._. �.....__.__..__-w _ �._..........•. .._. , ; TANCE FROM II1,.T1MATE•,' i .EC tJ.T,FiFC1 HORIZONTAL ° :21" OF SOIL '^•' MOMENT !: F 1 1 ,� ; rrl .,2, r-r•t _ FORCE cf'°];F��+? to. 0i.>: t 0. 12F, 4r_ i1 4 0„ 097 ,, 0e.-1 ., . 44 1 . C 4 , 1",• (%57 0. 690 y . .7,61. 0. 0ty' 0, 99 1 . f, J1 . f, t.,. , ,�.. ., 2'2 t !iw. I,,1 , , 1 ' • of + o ' SO :17: 01 Fr^.OI'I R. T , i': :...EF-' EhG. FAGE . O04 I J ID CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL, CALCULATIONS o 008 NAME: 00E WALL DESCR: 'TI'ONa 1s;,' RETAINING WALL (s F' - (0. 055*1 J 2) /2 = ';. .7:1 L'1 1'':I F;,.,3 C. T. MOMENT = 7,. ".7.2E3* 11 3 -- 1 :. 1 tr-H"1 . MOMENT RE iIS'TING WE I QF I T ARM MOMENT KIPS FEET KIP-FT ., 141 . .9&7k1s; _ , .. 66 6. 667 = 11 . 114 1 ,. t r s1 . .5,�7 ''J '.0. 717,T , 1 * SOIL J 1.: 2 TOTAL WEIGH:- - I .' i'al. MOMENT = 2 . _t O. T. FACTOR OF SAFET° - ;,'2 7n , 1 Z . , , 865 SLIDING RESISTANCE • . FRICTION C►. .,75*sl. 1 5 .- 1 . 457. PASSIVE (7'2) 41 :2 _. 4. 5 ' TOTAL = c q 5'- SLIDING FACTOR OF SAFETY = 5. 95`;T :`„ "':c'3 ''IOMENT STEEL •- STEM Il t + REQUIRED MU = 1 . 7'I ( 1 t:�J'•^,} .u, u'j5/6 _ - E,'--F T. =O. 31* (1 :/,10 *6f'.►/ ( » G �*.�.*12 = 3 . 7216 6 I Nt S _ .,. c� GI1F Z = 7. .L.;3 .,. ( 1 . 21/2) = 7. !_S 1NCHwS . FROVIDED Mu = . 9Ys (7. O8/1 2) T•:04f:'; ..14 ( 12/ ) _ 1u. 7rgr. p • Y ' , ` (, g ' F.40 t7: O ! FF :)fri P. T . HILLF Elba , I PAGE . 005 4110 I or 44_ 4 ( 1 t CANT/LEVER r,ETA I N I tit WcM.l_ COILCULATIONS . JOS NAME: .101E y i -.ALL .DESCRIPTION: 10--' 14E7`f iNING WaiLl n i c, _ <<.,, �a�;�,* , 1 ,•�,1 / , = _,..,E f, iF,(6 C. T. MOMENT — '1. .:•,1L1-1* 1. 1 ,17 — 1 .I. 2fr.', }; . r"I. .. rMLOML I rr RESISTING . ` al WEIGHT ARM MOMENT Kips FEET k!;IP' FT 0. 1 *i .667*i�;� = 1. . 667 4 6. 667 = 11 . 114 son. ,((/ . 0. .1* ( 1 , 66, "' :) *C1.333*.5 = 0.046 * 6.9.44 = 0. 7..19 7SOIl., . Ca. 1S*7. *1 = 1 . 125 * 3.7S = 4. 219 FNLDT C'. 15410. *0, 6r7�1 = 1 . 312 * 5. 417 — 7. 107 STEM . TOTAL WEIGHT = 4. 15 TOTAL MOMENT = 22.759 C . T. FACTOR OF SAFETY = ^. 759.' '1 ':.. :.'i.+1 = 1 . S65 _.—I r I NG F;ESISTANCE. FF.ICTION 1"1. •"r.,` . 1 I — 1.. 1.01:1 .. -Z IVE (; �i 41 ,2 _ 4. 'i . S-IDING FACTOR OF SAFETY = 5. q 5» ., ha' — 1 . 789 I`-ALIMENT STEED_ — STEM REQUIRED Mu = I •7* ( i o,' ;;) :kc:1. r:►r'_45/6 — 15. ,3`:.', I.:—f='1'/ =: . * ( 1I?/4? * :►/ ( . 95*3*121 = 1 . 176 INCHES Z. = 7. 7.:-- ( 1 . 1. 76/2> = 7. 162 INCHES // FF.OVIDED Mu . 9* (7. 162/12) . 6C,$C). `,'k ( 1TI4) = /1 ,n. c ,. 1. . „ E T ��i 4• 4 .. s-`r , PIMIIIIIFAIIIIII, /, ii/ '. 11 I / , g tl 7 / Joe and Pam Vyilheliii / „ (f, / . 2618 Palisades Crest Drive iv.46-17;71" , g •s\-, j ‘b / Lake Oswego, OR 97034 N c 41 ' ' (503) 638-'71600 4.." MAR\C9° '',":, / • , • March 16,,/1990 CO ,) i c-'"' ') .c5.:/ / • Mr, Peter Harvey City Manager ,f',,, 1,, 11'.1•7 / ge r r tr• .)e City of Lake Oswego „. a im.,.. .:-,' 380 A/Avenue Lake/Oswego, OR 97034 2 , Dear Mr. Harvey: 1"- Ttis is to notify you that we are hereby appealing the issuance of Tree Cutting Permit Niimber 408-89. We also hereby challenge the verbal report issued by arborist Mr, Dave FIalstead regarding the ability of the remaining trees to survive or any emergency dondition that may exist, We hereby request that the City obtain an impartial and i independent arborist report regarding this matter. , We request that a hearing be held regarding the events that have taken place on the site of Lot 38 in Palisades Park Estates II (Building Permit Number 89-1213) and that no El) further tree cutting or grading on the site be allowed until the conclusion of a full hearing. We request that no emergency condition measure be allowed to be declared that would permit any further grading or tree cutting to take place. This site, regarding the ". • remaining trees and present excavation, has been in this condition since the excavation was started in early January. , We would like to point out that City Ordinance 55.080 "Criteria for issuance of permits" is not being fully complied with. In particular, the builders present plan for further grading and tree removal will violate paragraph 3 and 4 of the above ordinance..,, We understand that you may need more information from us regarding this situition, We will be preparing a detailed report of our grievances and will submit this report to the • City by Friday March 23, 1990. If there are problems with our appeal or you have any questions, please contact us immediately. .; Thank you, 1 .f' Sincerely, OA:ILL— Joe and Pam Wilhelm 7, 4 EXHIBIT . 0 • 1 .; ,,,,,,,,,..) , , . . , f' I l I/ ,..r...) ov q. ,0 `,, l Joq 1 and Pam Wilhelm , �''lea 2618 Palisades Crest Drive II Lake Oswego. OR 97034 , .7a (503) 638-70t; •rp(,(a L...71LIA Wy 5s Al i\rA1' March 17, i99(} -7vt-0.. 1 v oi-ri szcppitue, Mr.Paul Hains ' wc,9.t AT-4244.,\ . City Director O L i City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Hains: This is to notify the City that we hereby demand that a complete stop work order be issued immediately against Building Permit 89-1213 until a full hearing has been completed. It is evident at this point that the builder has grossly violated numerous City ordinances. The builder has also received several citations. The builder has completely and deliberately abused City policies, ordinances and building intentions. The builder has ' demonstrated on numerous occasions his complete lack of any intentions,of upholding and abiding by City ordinances or City intentions, This was demonstrated again this morning when a crew showed up to back fill the retaining wall and start grading with ' heavy equipment. This would have been a clear violation of City Ordinance 55.010 paragraph 2 since any such work would,substantially destroy or damage existing trees 1,1 root structures. (' . We have made repeated verbal requests to the City to issue a stop work order, investigate / the site and the builder as to why he c;ontinue;, to perform work that he did not have proper permits for and/or performs work under permits that have been issued under ., erroneous, false or incomplete information. All to no avail. We can not continue to be the City's 24 hour watch dog. If we would not have been home to prevent this illegal work from occurring today, the builder would have succeeded in circumventing the , City's intentions and ordinances once again. Next Monday morning we would have heard from the City "We're very sorry it happened, it should not have happened, we can't be at all sites all the time, and the builder will be required to come into compliance with { the conditions as they AVE are", We have heard this from the City too many times in the past! Do citizens in Lake Oswego have any rights or do they all belong to the builders? I If there is any reason why the City can not comply with our request, please notify us in writing immediately, Thank you, • Sincerely, r • \ : 79-t tt);(M.-- t/Z-t. C..t),Wq,e4,' - Joe and Pam Wilhelm cc: Peter Harvey; Jim Colrnan Dan Anderson; Jack Churchill John M. Grund/Lake Oswego Review id EXHIBIT arc ,97- ,, r 411110 Joe and Pam Wilhelm 2618 Palisades Crest Drive Lake Oswego,OR 97034 (503)638-7000 // March 19, 1990 I Mr. Bob Galante Acting City Director of Public Works , City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Galante: This is to notify the City that we are hereby appealing and protesting the excavation and grading that has already occurred with Building Permit 89-1213 as well a's the additional grading that the builder intends to perform on the site. We will follow up with more detailed information and site specific paragraphs under City Ordinance 16 and 45 by March 26, 1990 that have already been violated and will continue to be violated. t. • We are again requesting that a complete stop work order be issued,except for any safety n, • related issues, until a full hearing;and investigation has been completed. The builder has IIII once again demonstrated his complete lack of any intentions of upholding and abiding by �' City ordinances or City intentions, Another example of this is evident by the fact that the builder was directed by Mr. Paul Hains to erect a safety rail around the excavation last week. This work was still not performed as of this morning. Instead of performing this work,the builder instructed a work crew to fill in behind the retaining wall, as well as grade and terrace the back of the lot on Saturday March 17, 1990. If this Work had not been stopped, we can imagine that the builder would have come to the City stating ' something to the effect that "Gee, the retaining wall has been back filled, the grading and ' terracing has been done, do you (the City) still need me to put up that safety rail?" There . / has been no safety rail or any form of hillside erosion control since the excavation (for which the builder did not have proper permit for in the first place, as we understand it) started in early January. Why was no safety rail and erosion control measure at the rear of the site (some 20 foot vertical cut) immediately required by City officials when they were on site about two weeks ago to issue a temporary stop work order? The stop work order was lifted after about one hour and some bales of hay were placed at the street side of the site. We can only surmise that up until last week (when Mr, Hains was personally on site), in the eyes of the City, there had been no unsafe condition or potential erosion problem at the rear of the site. Also, it is our understanding that the builder has not been •. ; issued any citation for grading or excavation work that has clearly and grossly exceeded •. the original permit: If this is true, why is that? . 411 1 i_.0 Mf+•If EXHIBIT jay? f3 9 .N .. n • S March 19, 1990 Mr. Bob Galante Acting City Director of Public Works City of Lake Oswego Page 2 How many times does this builder,need to demonstrate to the City his deliberate disregard of City Ordinances and City directives before the City will tell the builder to stop? The builder has grossly exceeded the bounds of several City permits. Why is the City not willing to stop this builder? With the extensive ordinance violations, it seems to us that the City should have already, and certainly at this point, stopped everything. We believe the City should investigate this builders building practices, abusive tactics regarding City permits, find out how things got this far out of hand, and why the builder was allowed to continue development which has succeeded in letting the site go from bad to worse? We would also like to know why the City did not originally go on site to verify the original plans that were submitted with regard to the building permit(ie: grading,excavating, terracing,effect on the hillside,etc) and tree cutting permit (ie: number of trees, size of trees, trees outside of foundation area,effect on the existing neighborhood, etc) that the builder requested prior to actually issuing any permits? Is there a reason why the City did not or could not have told the builder that any permits) would be issued after the site and plans were verified? Is there an ordinance or perhaps some common sense rale that requires the City to issue any permit to a builder immediately on their demand? The City's written response will be appreciated. Thank you, Sincerely, c71,0-t.• Cc 146LC C /r `( Joe and Pam Wilhelm cc; Peter Harvey; Jim Colman; Dan Anderson; Jack Churchill John M. Grund/Lake Oswego Review f • Joe and Pam -t . Wilhelm , .. 2618 Palisades Crest Drive ?�:;?�a; . ..`t Lake Oswego,OR 97034 .':..:� , ,..�" ' �, .. (503) 638-7000 ;..: :�;�1 '�� •. :7 March 23, 1990 t�w•~; 'i Mr. Peter Harvey • .. ' . City Manager City of Lake Oswego r''0.1 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Dear Mr. Harvey: This is to follow up on the appeal filed on March 16, 1990, the issuance of Tree Cutting Permit Number 408-89. It is our belief that a number of gross violations of Chapter 55 "Tree Cutting" have already occurred on this site and any further tree cutting will continue to violate Chapter 55. We think it is reasonable to expect City Officials to uphold and ' • enforce the laws of Lake Oswego. It appears that City employees who are charged with and supposed to be enforcing Chapter 55 have not become thoroughly familiar(perhaps employees have been briefed by . developers or nursery owners) with all the intentions and requirements of this Chapter. 0 We call the City's attention to section 55.010 'Purpose". It talks about original forestation, early settlers who planted many trees that "have grown into sizable, attractive trees which enhance the beauty and contributed to the individuality of the City and its envirrus." It goes on to say that Lake Oswego is "now benefitted by large numbers of trees" and the "maintenance of the trees and wooded areas in the City of Lake Oswego adds to the scenic beauty of the City." It goes on further about how the "preservation of trees also tends to preserve the ecology of the City and to retain a livable environment through the filtering " effect of trees on air pollution and the providing of noise barriers." It also points out the fact that much of the City is on hillsides and sloping terrain. In that regard, the intention is - the prevention of"uncontrolled cutting or destruction of trees" which might increase the likelihood of"erosion"; "risk of land slides"; result in "reduced windbreaks and shaded areas" which will all result in "reduced property values through the encouragement of ,substandard development. and will result in the destruction of aesthetic qualities." It • concludes by stating that the City Council "finds it in the public" (not developers or builders) "interest.., to enact regulations controlling the removal of trees within the City in order to retain as many trees as possible." It is obvious to us that this "Purpose" has been grossly violated, infringed upon and ignored by the City: The City has allowed this to . occur lot 38 of Anduin Terrace but also on lots 25 and 26 of Bree Court. OExrIr , I ith/ . . • • • March 23, 1990 Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego Page 2 Section 55.020 "Definitions" paragraph 1 and 2 have been violated. Many trees have been cut that had a trunk diameter of 5 or more inches. At this point, we do not believe that the City has an accurate count of illegally cut trees. We hereby iequest that the City conduct a site survey and verify through aerial photographs the exact number of trees cut and hold the builder accountable and responsible for all illegally cut trees in the form of issuing citations for each violation and requiring substantial replanting. • Section 55.030 "Tree cutting on private or public lands without permit prohibited" has s , been violated. The builder has obviously cut many more trees than his permit allowed. As we understand, the builder has also cut trees without having any cutting permit at all on lot " 25 and 26 of Bree Court, The City issued permits after the trees were already cut. This has set a fine example for this builder as well as others. Section 55.050 "Application for permits" has been violated. The application is supposed to "contain the number, size, species and location of the trees to be cut, the time and f' method of cutting... a statement of the mason for cutting... and information conceriitng any proposed landscaping or planting or any new trees to replace the trees to be cue, We • do not believe that any of this was done on the Bree Court lots and whatever information was supplied for lot 38 of Anduin Terrace was grossly inadequate, insufficient and false. We are under the impression that supplying false information constitutes fraud. Perhaps it 'x • - is another minor, inconsequential non-issue to City officials? Section 55.080 "Criteria for issuance of permits" has been violated. Paragraph 3 dealing with "The topography of the land and the effect of tree removal on erosion, soil retention, stability of earth, flow of surface waters, protection of nearby trees, windbreaks and a desirable balance between shade and open space" were completely ignored. Paragraph 4 has been severely violated and undermined. The extensive(illegal)removal of trees has had a sign cant negative impact on neighborhood characteristics, beauty and property values. This violation is further magnified by the fact that this builder has probably removed many more trees than needed on lot 25 and just about stripped lot 26 of Bree Court. All three lots are in close;proximity of each other. We are not aware of any plans that the builder submitted outlining new trees to be planted as substitute for the trees that have been cut as suggested by Paragraph 5. • l P • 11111 • March 23, 1990 • Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager �, ;City of Lake Oswego V Page 3 1 '. Section 55.130 "Penalties" has not been complied with by City officials as we understand. �4 , This section states that any breach or violation of this chapter shall be unlawful and a civil infraction. It further states that the "unlawful cutting of each individual tree shall be a separate offense", The City has failed to cite the builder for each tree illegally cut as a "separate offense", The City has not even bothered as yet to accurately determine the total number of trees illegally cut on lot 38 as well as lot 25 and 26. As outlined above, gross violations of Chapter 55 have already occurred, Any additional tree cutting on lot 38 will also be in violation of Chapter 55. At this point, the City should make the builder do whatever is necessary to save the remaining trees on the lot. The builder should also be made to perform substantial and sizable replanting to restore some semblance of natural buffers and hillside characteristics thit he willfully destroyed. If a higher retaining wall is the only way to do this, so be it. Any argument suggesting thatcf saving the trees is too expensive or a higher wall would not be aesthetically pleasing to a 0 • potential buyer which may reflect poorly on the City of Lake Oswego is unacceptable. We have been sufficiently compromised already, thank you. It is our feeling that City officials are not performing an adequate job and are in violation of failing to uphold all the above cited regulations of the City. We pay far too much in taxes in Lake Oswego to find any official not willing to zealously enforce all City i'��1 regulations. There should be no question as to who's best interest City officials serves the i� -, interest of the community or that of the builders. City officials claim a need to balance the rights of developers and that of the community, It appears that such purported balancing acts have far too often tipped the scale (perhaps aided by political influence) in favor of developers. Developers by nature appear to be profit motivated and most are here today and gone to the next project tomorrow. Where does that leave community interest? In this case, a builder has been able to come in, go virtually unchallenged, and forever changed neighborhood characteristics: We do not think that anyone in this proximity or the community in general would have been in favor of this. We also do not think that City officials can do a good job at all by trying to serve two different interest groups at the,same time. We want officials in place that clearly stand up for the community's,interest not developers. \l 41 , S March 23, 1990 Mr.Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego Page 4 Thank you. Sincerely, , ("/2.472.i oe and Pam Wilhelm cc: Paul Hains; Bob Galante; Jim Colman; Dan Anderson; Jack Churchill; Alice Schlenker John M. Grund/Lake Oswego Review John Furey/The Oregonian • ,) all , \\ , . ti MAR1990 •; ' 41) RECEIVED I Jce and Pam Wilhelm2618 Palisades Crest Drive Lake Oswego,OR 97034 '.,,,- �y� (503) 638-7000 .�!,,`, N`^ f March 26, 1990 Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Harvey: This is to follow up on the appeal and protest, filed on March 19, 19'90,of tht excavation and grading that has occurred as well as any further grading behind the building structure that has been proposed. It is our belief that a number of gross violations of Chapter 16 and 45,600 have already occurred on this site and any further grading will"continue to violate these Chapters. It is our understanding that the original building permit(#89-1213)did not allow for a r vertical cut or excavation which ended up being close to 30 feet deep. Nor did the original permit approve the erection of a retaining wall over 10 feet tall. It is our contention 1110 (corroborated by discussions with excavation crew),that this work was the builders original intention all along. ,/ In reviewing Chapter 16 and 45.600,it has become apparent that one needs to be a licensed Civil Engineer and an Engineering Geologist to determine the full extent of the violations that have actually occurred, We are neither. The additional proposed grading work may continue to be in further violation. We also do not feel that we should be doing that which ` is actually the job of the City or be burdened with the cost of obtaining proper reports and analysis of the situation. The builder has deliberately and grossly exceeded the bounds of his original permits, as well as deliberately ignored and violated City ordinances. To be told by City officials something to the effect that: yes, the work was not authorized, was in violation and should not have been done, but now that it's done, we (the City) have to " make the best of the situation as it now exists, is completely and totally unacceptable. Meanwhile the builder is allowed to continue full speed ahead, What sort of common r sense is this? Where is the justice in this kind of attitude? Make the builder stop when a violation occurs, review the case and force corrective action to be taken immediately and prior to any additional work being allowed to occur, Either the City lacks codes to enforce such actions, which we believe are in the best interest of the community, or City officials , lack the backbone for such enforcement, 41, 4 EXHIBIT , R 9,f w \. ., f • 1 I) 'w III • I , • , March 26, 1990 . Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego Page 2 (f Since we are not civil or geological engineers and we feel that this should not be our job, we hereby request that the City obtain and provide written statements from certified and qualified independent individuals that provide answers to the following basic questions regarding this site: 1. Is it possible that the excavation that has occurred may have a destabilizing affect on the hillside in the future, thereby effecting the stability of our lot and safety of our home? 2. If additional grading on the hillside, especially behind the structure and up to the back property line adjoining our property, is permitted, is it ``• possible that the hillside may become unstable in the future, thereby ' effecting the stability of our lot and safety of our home? 3. If the answer to#1 or#2 is yes, what preventative measures will the City 0 ,7 require to prevent any possible destabilization of the hillside, that may have a detrimental effect on our lot, home, safety and property value? a. We request that the City investigate the original plans submitted by the builder and review it against each section and paragraph defined in Chapter 16 and 45,600 to see if all requirements equirave been nv�ola wer e ise e t e letter, If any sections were not originally satisfied or q requestthat the City issue a separate citation for each occurrence of a violation. We believe that even as of today, all paragraphs have not been fully complied with and,we request that a citation be issued each occurrence of all unsatisfied issues no matter how minor, With what appears to be City biases favoring builders and the City's lack of strict ordinance interpretation and enforcement, we question our wisdom in these , requests but feel we have little or no choice. ,, We have reviewed Chapter 16 and 45,600, As we understand the plans t , h originally submitted, the following sections have not been complied withor l n e been violated and may continue to be violated; r Section 16.020"Standards for Approval" has been violated, Paragraph l states that "all' vegetaionent shall and soils,"designed has clearly be� rand�e of ielated�Pl topography, � � � ignoredph2t "designs shall minimize bats and fills," '1 his has also clearly been ignoredae and 2 states tlidf' �, L g violated, •• , , . v ,/ , . , ..• II .. . . . , . ,, ..\. ' V r' _..... r ti * 1 ., . . f? . March 26, 1990 Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego Page 3 Section 16.025 "Standards for Construction" has been violated. Paragraph 1 states that "all development activity shall minimize stripping or other soil disturbance and shall provide positive erosion prevention measures." This was clearly violated, Paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) states that "no grading,clearing or excavation of any land shall be • initiated p;or to approval of the grading plan." This has clearly been ignored and violated. If the slope on the hillside is 20% to 50% (we have been told that it is), subparagraph (c) is also in violation. Section 16.030 "Standards for Maintenance" has been violated. Contrary to the requirement of paragraph 1, the builder did not provide any sod erosion control measures at all, until we complained about the dirt washing into the storm drains. This condition ,, existed for about six to eight weeks, unchallenged and uncorrected by City officials. • Section 16.035 "Procedures"has been violated. Paragraph 2 states that "all development applications shall show areas where... clearing or removal of vegetation is to occur, and shall describe provisions to protect soils during construction," This was violated. '� Paragraph 5 requires that "Erosion Control Plan shall be filed with the Development r • Permit." We do not believe that this has been complied with as of today. Paragraph 6 states that "all development proposed on land with existing slopes greater that 20 percent shall provide a survey showing specific contours, locations and types of trees, soils, rock outcroppings or surface rock, and drainageways." In clear violation, this documentation was not supplied. Paragraph 7 states that "for all development proposed on land with slopes greater than 20 percent, a specific grading plan shall be provided and approved which shows all proposed changes in natural terrain, including the following:" (this was not supplied with the original plans and application) subparagraph (a) calls for "site contours at two-foot intervals" we do not think that this has been provided even as of today; subparagraph (b) states that "location of existing structures and buildings, including • those within 100 feet of the development site on adjacent property" again we do not think that this has been provided even as of today; in all probability, subparagraph (c) and (d) have also not been complied with, Paragraph 8, requiring "all proposed cuts, fills or retaining walls shall be shown on development applications" was ignored and violated. • - In regard to Chapter 45,600 entitled "EARTHWORK AND EROSION CONTROL" we bring the following to the City's attention: • • ' r • , , i0 , l ` _ / - 1 March 26, 1990 . • • k^ Mr. Peter Harvey City Manager City of Lake Oswego \ Page 4 Section 45.605 states that "no person shall do any earthwork without, ,Et obtaining an earthwork permit." This was clearly violated. • ' Section 45.610 "Permits Application; Approval" was violated. Paragraph 1 and 2 requiring proper information documents to be submitted was ignored. Section 45.650 "Erosion Control" was violated. Paragraph 1 states that "all earthwork shall be prepared and maintained to prevent and control erosion." This was not complied with. As of today we are unclear of the long term effect or stability of the hillside that the illegal excavation may cause. Several violations of Sections 45.665 "Protections of Streets" and 45.670 "Site Requirements" have also occurred. Since we are not civil or geological engineers we probably failed to site other violations of Chapter 16 and 45.600, We can only hope that at this point, someone in the City will take note and demand a fullIII and complete investigation of this site and this builder, We would like to know City is accountable for allowingthis to happen? who in the in so called unaffected areas, knowing that Why is the builder allowed to continue on the further a project gets,the harder it becomes for the City to force the builder into undoing and correcting violations that have taken place. Who is responsible for holding the builder accountable? With so many violations of Chapter 16 for hillside protection, Chapter 45.600 for earthwork control and Chapter 55 for tree cutting, we ask again, where is the justice in City ordinances or City officials attitudes that say something to the effect of"We do the best we can,given what builder has already done." • Thank you, Sincerely, ,.1 , yi5. - zA—dilti..� ;'—et 1 7 t a c.., 1.„.„.„ , ,,.....µ Joe and Pam Wilhelm ^ a i cc: Paul Hairs; Bob Galante; Jim Colman; Dan Anderson; Jack Churchill; Alice Schlenker John M,Grund/Lake Oswego Review .. ti John Piney/The Oregonian N ali I, 9 b , ee • Joe and Pam Wilhelm 2618 Palisades Crest Drive �� AR ��G, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 MAR1,9go (503) 638-7000 Iv March 27, 1990 , ��� 'EO w ,o Mr. Peter Harvey `� . City Manager ``.` ,l(r r.� o, City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 d , Dear Mr, Harvey: We hereby request that the City conduct a site survey and verify through aerial ii photographic survey the exact number of trees cut on lot 38 of Anduin Terrace and lots 25 and 26 on Bree Court. If a separate citation has not been issued for each illegally cut tree, ,. we request that the City immediately issue such citations and investigate why such citations Were not issued as called for in Chapter 55 the City Ordinances. We hereby demand that the City hold the builder accountable and responsible for all illegally cut trees as well as require the builder to perform substantial and sizable replanting of trees on all three lots. The builder has willfully destroyed natural buffers, windbreaks, neighborhood characteristics, hillside beauty and undermined property values. Clear violations of Chapter 55. III We request that the City verify through on site survey to see if any violation of Chapter 10, fi regulating the maximum height of structures, has occurred on any of the above lots. We request that.,the City investigate the structure on lot 26 of Bree Court to see if any part . of the structure is on a permanent sewer line easement. If the structure is on the easement, was a variance granted and if so why was it granted? If no variance was granted and the structure is on the easement, was a citation issued and what is the City doing about the " violation? Was the sewer line broken into during excavation as we have heard? We hereby request that the City not issue any occupancy permit on any of the three lots until all matters are resolved, If an occupancy permit has already been issued on any lot, we hereby request that the City immediately revoke such permit until all matters are • , adequately investigated and resolved. The City's written response will be appreciated. Thank you, 4. Sincerely, ?&t,.. (,.0,42-LL____ 1-762 i).1 (.. t.L.,ti.,A, i A,.... . , Joe and Pam Wilhelm cc: Paul Hains; Bob Galante; Jim Colman; Dan Anderson; Jack Churchill; Alice Schlenker 1 ®- John M, Grund/Lake Oswego Review John Furey/The Oregonian `t r a EXHIBIT io d ) N o 1, . 0 . ., ;•} 'rl 1 111, I611IG I .gam bt a,,{ tdi,'o.. . oitiA.l 1 PFF ' I tAk. -th fit¢. at6 hrn J 4(.05. I N)& •f eel, 4'NiA, &I .• . '.) 6.165 (Skit ct,twyk, a,r4k (,ue. 6u) (Iv r kLepro, .. /I ' cLl"wJ 6tiG}JA•,t1u1l,td ,&LtS 11) I . cLA.4L Itvttirh, li 0 . uic eii,\)vv) km)vi,\:Lp -;vet. Uk1'`b P. ii`r el'iG S lct,p t,S5 t 6 i. -f , Xillit,e 1 . N1ri'L art cud= / . ruff a / , nl,v l(.W� ILA.A. x It 17ea 13 d . 1 .. T1a'S , U.i t fA 11' t'L�'I'' SO LUN) ID C1rDLL'w W dGr L u,;(6,' "h' tkojt. it. toor) u•-f 'Nu, KLit' clitt, it,4e\ s,i,t,. y, Itrti !t, 51°tovn) -1 t,.,l.v44-vi ltii. 'C''' iftil,S1 174 ALL . , ' i x NI • 0 • Ti ,f. ,,______iii• er - 1 ..'- a t • STAFF REPORT • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 11110 LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. DIVISION • APPLICANT: • FILE NO. : Oswego Properties, Inc. DR 23-8811I (Remand)/ PD 11-89 PROPERTY OWNER: ` STAFF: John Hebst„ Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lots (1700, 1800, 1900 DATE OF lEPORT: & 2000 of Tax Map 2 lE 3DD April 27, 1990 LOCATION: West side of 2nd St. , DATE OF HEARING: between "B" and "C" Avenues May 7, 1990 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ® GC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ' First Addition • ZONING DESIGNATION: EC I . APPLICANT' S REQUEST al The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 36-unit apartment complex with ground level parking below. The proposal was appealed to the City Council and Remanded to the Development Review Board. Testimony will be limited to reevaluating the Park and Open Space Standard to determine whether it was appropriate for the Development Review board to have • previously approved this project and allowed a fee in • lieu of providing at least 20% of the site as an open space area. II . APPLICABLE REGULAT1.NS This remand by City Council is for the express purpose of reevaluating the proposal ' s conformance with the DR23-88121 (Remand) Page 1 of 3 1 , , • �1 • ti • 3• m . • • Park and Open Space Standard [specifically 8. 035(4) ] . The review shall be performed in conformance to the procedures listed in LOC 49. 300 to 49. 335. Any 11 approval of the Board can be conditioned as allowed by LOC 49. 620, III. FINDINGS A. Background: On May 15, 1989 the Development Review Board '(DRB) unanimously approved a' request by Oswego • Properties to construct a 36 unit multi-family housing project subject to compliance with certain • conditions of approval. (See DRB Findings, Exhibit 6) . On October 17, 1989 the City Council considered an appeal (See Exhibit 5) submitted by the First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) . The City Council action on the matter remanded the application to the DRB " . . . for the receipt of, additional information on the application of the l ; Open Space Priority Standards [8. 035(4) ] as those • standards may apply to the subject property and " for the adoption of detailed and specific findings" (See Council Findings, Exhibit 4) . The application is now before the DRB to review that issue. B. Compliance with Applicable Regulations: 4111 E •• The DRB's previous decision found that there were no open space features on the site worth preserving and that a fee could be paid in lieu of providing 20% of the land area in open space. The • DRB relied on the tree analysis performed by John Herbst (Exhibit 21) which was submitted by the applicant along with-the original application. The applicant has submitted additional items in support of the original application. They are listed as follows: 1 . Request for Remand, Exhibit 3 2 , Memorandum from Bob Mazany, Consulting Arborist, Exhibit 7 3 . Letter from Gregory S. Hathaway, dated April 12, 1990, Exhibit 8 4 . Addendum to January 26, 1990 Memorandum from Bob Mazany, Exhibit 10 • 5 , Letter from Lans Stout, dated April 17, 1990, Exhibit 9 • D,R23--881II (Remand) Page 2 of 3 • • • e tb The new evidence supports the Board's earlier decision. No conflicting evidence exists. i The Request for Remand Exhibit( 3) reviews each of / , the items listed in 8.035(4) providing findings which demonstrate that only a Japanese Laceleaf Maple which exists on the site qualifies as open space. A letter from tans Stout (Exhibit 9) makes similar findings and, in the absence of conflicting evidence, can be adopted together with Exhibit 3 to support the DRB's original decision. C. Conclusion: The applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to support the application and has prepared findings which can be adopted to explain how the application complies with the applicable criteria. No conflicting evidence exists. III. RECOMMENDATION: . The Development Review Board can approve the request and adopt more specific findings to support their decision. ' * EXHIBITS II 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3 . Request for Remand 4. Council Findings, DR 23-88/PD 11-78-724 5 . Notice of Appeal (FAN) 6. DRB Findings, DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 7. Memorandum from Bob Mazany, Consulting Arborist 8. Letter from Gregory S. Hathaway, dated April 12, 1990 d ', 9. Letter from tans Stout, dated April 17, 1990 f 10. Addendum to January 26, 1990 Memorandum from Bob Mazany � 11. Staff Report of May 5, 1989 12. Resubmittal Narrative 13 . Survey . • 14 . Elevations \ 15 . Parking Plan 16. Grading/Utilities 17. Landscaping Plan 18. Third Floor Plan - 19. Roof Plan 20. Section 21. Tree Inventory ;r • • • o DR23-88III (Remand) • Page 3 of 3 ' . M A • • • .' O I j •J ti 'E 2 L.-,..._._1 E MAP so I IE, 304 • in 2sb°o z. ....?.2:!...:. . L_AY�-4: O • I M set r t 600 « 16 00'"�' y' ?4;hv.,.�fj�7 ,.j: 16 24e 18 ` ses 14. , 1500' 9�--- -_ 2 ` "• h �6 y Ila • r W 15 •15 _ .. id ° 240p.'.' , , 2' 1�-- , t I X 53s • I •p I i 14 543 sse = • f400 _ sgs `• � 0......J.10 31 Cr 1 4 ti ` I i� J 13 s5e ,; •lj r 13 SFn;1000; •5 1900 4 12 4 :' / iiod >0 q ts 11 0 2300 , 226b J :II 1301 1200 "ri 7 Ip 51s ti 245 1300 szo r� C $ o ,210010 A4111W44 0 155 « _='4 T , 0 'S 11 �I r 9 ti______:. �e� � .. ; q Oa ......._ • . 6 • y,2700 .. .,. r.r' J 2700E1 4 , 3900 �j° ' 141,, , L "—I f6 z4o zoo ; 4000'''.• 2•' "_•--..,. , 24z 1^ �. 14e 540d'° M 465-473 3800 N 1 445.461 2 15 y ',480 , - i`'� � o , Z ' ) 0 15 0 s 0 t .3700 • r 3 �' 14 b k470. —4. s1 , —« 2 4 W H 2900 3600 14 a s q 400 13 4 GO 5 4so �,1 �='.' ,ro -A td4E-141is1 3—__, k 350 0 L,N E $ 5.( 0.0 ) 4 42, 5 ; ,_...._ Ic NORTH 430 w; ,5• 12 50O ,8 _DUR4 —71 AM 4I ,30p0 4 00 I 13 ALEERT.., a .� 433 4ro6 II "x.. ti424 s II 3100 3200 i' I 1..__ -,, IG '300 I :. � 10 , clop fII _.ram g�;� zng 10 411 .a: " EXHIBIT 94.s° 41 J. a, , IP fr i'�` 81 r c151 145 1411e3 o 1I 1 9 149 i. 139: . • ... . , • , , • v / • . • . i '' • . ' t •• . . . ., , 111 . •,, ' 11 • 0 i1, , , ..4. • Li .. . , , 11 110 .., \ . p.',..,ileg;A' :',',_:.%:;'.•,,',.:,.0.,../ : ', v .. i ,,i 1/ ' ' \ V .i .'-' . •1".".-......^-*P ...e;•\.‘,..........,..,,,-..t 14 ..4 . ..p..?..'•a,...I.,....Vi•iiVi....bs .1. ^If) •••.•. ....••••...•p"..0........... ,, kittylit;•:1, Z•4,,,.11,!...•lit. ' 1-• '..,1 • :. 'P..t.±1.11 7"'51'Ye h 1/4;;.t...• , fil • '.r,. / ' \,• j.A01:'5.4.T..Att.•,•;40.:Aint51:.,..tr,rtztz..,1 ...•..p. it) 4'' q .,.. t,t'").e0:.1.Pi-21.'.11 .e••:t4:',§;:i.,.}..1,AI,....1‘-'r;t7A'• • 9 . st` , ?,,,..r, 5, 1 • w -.'et,11,:,.;,-.41p4)..11• it! 41'40-4,1'.. .1 .., ngr.04 ,, . , r i.,; . .• Apt. -,1......,,:sfiv.. -. 2.ul km I.111•••,. ... •.,_ , 44:: ••:•-•p• 11114.14 ,, , 1 1 . i ..1' ..#joistrthizrifftmcikk fi. ,......v, , ^r ••• It 7...,g e, ii .I A A Oct. frithijilargailli --•- . ' ' u•;CV . . •alma, far3iriltav• 111 1 , .1...'-'ir...4 -'- ' "Milmig'Alt rik.4.5.itikkill ''' • -tit•E a t• . .% tif. I • .. • S ' .14, . 1/411, , I) ..._ 1. .,-,•-,. -•, . :,,,,,;t&4 • . " er MP I 7111111WIlftr• • iiii. - - . s j ,...... tt a Dm n A Ell. • ..... ...... . . , , v ln re. • , 4.....----- h.:. .4 .. . .. . , / • „„•t'... • • — . ...,,,o. -- - •,., , , ... ,.. . .,..„, •._...44,_. i ,• . ,,,..... ..arr gv.... I be .c.2.14L•I ...416. A. 1.. vr " Sc 31 .... , ifir y, .,...,, ,.., N .0., 1 ' ., . ...,\.,1..., .• ,,) •Kr-es • . , -"•!e,,kb,.).fi. 1T41 • 1 • n., .1 -.....i;i:•-•••- • ••••_4i /.......;.‘,,,_ ...... ' ...W 4 • 4 4.te•.' 4%, i 4. .• . ..41., t i IRI.1 Valltd3iie. -1."'>..' .. T I. ..... , • PmEatte tEirEte. '-. 1 •,--. • -, irtilto;..„•,,,, 0 • f:RzliVirt,43iii A ‘,.11' 2 a -> r4t.V • -tittA• b 7`1"3 .., ‘• •-t-7.7.-= ., - .--ti, - --- ,i ,----- Jo 1 „ , : 1 t, -•-t'. , , ..... , , ::' irnin • ,.. • • ,.. . . . • • ..). ••..•it N., , . , • • .. . . • . • . . .. 4 VI I 1...: A 'c ,..,--I ''•• N., 1 - - -:-. -et, . • t* tt" ti itt• % ,,,,,,,....'L 4t.14., i....."."7.. i I -- I 1 41 lc ..' . ''''''' 14. ' ;z.. \1"):\'';:criltr.m.'"u"r-ift I L.t.1....„..t N. " I lain,...... 1111111 I ..., _ .. --v. 0.4itr f .,-, "7 • I VICINITY MAP ,i . I( 11 • 0 j. II*H11111T I 1 .z...— . .. ( , f. , . . / BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 4114 In the Matter o f the ) DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 Remand of DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 From the City Council ) REQUEST FOR REMAND The applicant for case file Nos. DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660, Oswego Properties, Inc. , hereby requests the Development Review Board ( "DRB") to consider the remand from the City Council for the �A aforementioned case files at its regularly scheduled public hearing of May 7, 1990. This request for remand is based upon the following information: 1. NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant, Oswego Properties, Ine40 t.s requesting 1111 approval to construct a 36-unit multi-family ho4 }lp'g facility on property located on the west side of 2nd Street, between "13" and sq. property is located in the East "C" Avenues. The 30,000 ft. �, End Redevelopment Area of Lake Oswego and is planned and zoned for y commercial development. The proposed multi-family residential complex is an allowed use in the commercial designation of "EC. " 2. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING On May 15, 1989, the DRB unanimously approved the request bymulti-family Oswego Properties to construct its 36-unit housing g project subject, to compliance With certain conditions of approval . This decision b}::"% the DRB Was memorialized by the "Findings, Conclusions and Orderfor DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 and e,tec�� uted and 1111 2 EXHIBIT Page 1 - REQUEST FOR REMAND \1 • 0 > signed by Robert D. Greaves, Chairman of the DRB, on June 20, 1989. (Attachment A) . 411 On July 5, 1989, Linda Simpson, Chairman of the First Addition Neighborhood ( "FAN" ) , filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal the DRB's decision to approve the aforementioned project to the 1tt City Coun:.�lil of Lake Oswego. (Attachment B) . On October 17, 1989, the appeal by FAN was considered by the City Council. The action by the' City Council was to remand DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 to the DRB " . . .for the receipt of additional information on the application of the Open Space Priority Standards 8.035( 4) as those `standards may apply to the subject property and for the adoption of detailed and specific f)iindings. " No other '' issues raised by FAN in its appeal were reianded to the DRB for further consideration. This decision by the City Council was 41, C. '. memorialized by the "Findings, Conclusion ! nd Order" for DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 and executed and signed by Mayor Alice Schlenker on November 22, 1989 . (,Attachment. C) . 3. F I CRITERIA TO BE EVALUATED ON ,EMANIJI The City Council has requested the DRB to determine whether the DRB' s previous decision that there were 'n.o open space ti features on the site worth preserving complies with the Park and Open Space Standard therebyjustifying that a fee be paid in p J y 9 lieu of providing 20% of the land area in open space. The criteria of the Park and Open Space Standard to be evaluated are: 4 . Lands Shall be selected by the dt City for reservatt i as open space areas or parks in 4111 , accordanwith the following priorities ! Page 2 - REQUEST FO{2 REMAND r U • 1 a. Distinctive Natural Areas ( including Rare and Endangered Species) identified in the /' Comprehensive Plan. b. Protection Open Space as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. c. Proposed Public Open Space and Parks including intra-city bike/pedestrian pathways. d. Woodlands, tree groves. e. Specimen trees. , f. Natural meadows. � - g. Topographic variations, such as rock outcrops, cliffs, extreme slopes, riverbanks. h. Conveniently located areas where recreation opportunities can be created. Examples include trails, nature study sites, picnic areas, or view points. • „,.( „ i. Scenic views and vistas. • . (40 j. Others. ; 4 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH PARK AND OPEN SPACE STANDARD . Based on the evidence already in the record as well as additional evidence submitted as arequest,,. part of this remand the following findings can be made demonstrating compliance with the aforementioned Park and Open Space Criteria there. legally justifying the payment of a fee in lieu of providing 20% physical open space as authorized by 0. 035 6 .e. Criteria l: Distinctive natural areas ( including rare and endangered species) identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Pinding 1: The only distinctive natural area identified by the Comprehensive Plan relative to this site is the Laceleaf Page 3 - REQUEST FOR REMAND 41' e • fl Japanese Maple. (Comprehensive Plan, Community Resource Policy Element, Natural Resource Policy Element, Distinctive Natural Area Policies, pp. 34-35. ) There are no other distinctive natural areas identified by the Comprehensive Plan relative to this site. The • , e DRB imposed a condition of approval to ensure preservation of the • Laceleaf Japanese Maple. (Attachment A: Condition No. 2 of Findings, Conclusions and Order . ) • Criteria 2: Protection Open Space as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding 2: There are no features of the site which qualify as lands defined by the Comprehensive Plan as "Protection Open Space. " (Comprehensive Plan, Protection Open Space Policies, General Policy I, p. 129 - Stream Corridors, Flood Plains, • Willamette River Greenway, Wetlands, Oswego Lake, Hillsides, Distinctive Natural Areas. Weak Foundation Soils, High Ground Water410 Areas, Slopes With Potential For Erosion Hazard, Slopes With Potential For Landslide Hazard. ) Criteria 3: Proposed publi+p open space and parks including intra-city bike/pedestrian pathways. Finding 3: The Comprehensive Plan does not designate any portion of the site as proposed public open space and parks or for intra-city bike/pedestrian pathways . (Comprehensive Plan, Public •• Open Space Policies, Public Open Space Map, p. 131; Intra-City Pathway System Map, ,p. 135) . Criteria 4 Woodlands, tree groves. Finding 4: There are nd woodlands or tree groves on the • site. Any trees on the site are from the previous residential 1110 Page 4 REQUEST FOR REMAND development of the property which were part of the residential ':,,i, ID 2'andscaping of the area. , Criteria 5: Specimen trees. Finding 5: There are no specimen trees on the site, except for the Laceleaf Japanese Maple which will be preserved as part of the design of the project as mentioned above. "Specimen tree" is defined as " . . . [P]articularly fine or unusual example of any tree specie, including smaller trees such as dogwood, cherry or Japanese maple. " (8.015 4 . ) . The applicant retained Bob Mazany, ASCA #133, a consulting arborist with Pruett Tree Service, to evaluate the trees on the site to determine their status and whether they were if specimen trees. Mr. Mazany, in his report dated January 26, 1990, concluded that either the existing trees were not "specimen" in nature or they were dieased to the `'r ` extent of recommending that the trees be removed. (Attachment D) . Criteria 6: Natural meadow. Finding 6: The site is not a natural meadow. The property has previously been used for residential development . ,. � There are no natural features of any kind that exist on this site which would qualify this site as a natural meadow. Criteria 7: Topographic variations, such as rock outcrops, cliffs, extreme slopes, riverbanks . - 1 Finding 7: The site has no unique natural features or topographic variation such as rock outcrops, cliffs, extreme slopes or a riverbed. The property is located in the East End Redevelop- . .h it Page 5 - REQUEST FOR REMAND _ , • R11, ment Area and has previously been developed for residential purposes. � '' ''•• . Criteria 8: Conveniently located areas where recreational opportunities can be created. Examples include trails, nature study sites, picnic areas or view points. Finding 8: The City's Comprehensive Plan does not identify this site as having any special value for park,,1open ' space, distinctive natural area, recreational or public uses. There is nothing extraordinary or unique about this site that would • justify the City requiring a portion of this site to be used for any recreational opportunity. Criteria 9: Scenic views and vistas. • Finding 9: The Comprehensive Plan does not identify this ` , site as having any value for either scenic views or vistas. The • Ao ' property is located in the East End Redevelopment Area and does not NI contain any scenic views or provide a vista for the observation of any view which has a value identified by the City. Criteria 10: Others. Finding 10: There are no other factors which could be • taken into account in determining whether there are any open space features on the site worth preserving. If the Comprehensive Plan ,. does not specifically recognize this site as having any special values to be preserved, and there are no other special features on the site worth preserving, then the City should not reserve any portion of this site as open space. 0 , . . , Page 6 REQUEST FOR REMAND , • - 5. SUMMARY On May 15, 1990, the DRB unanimously determined that the applicant had positively responded to the previous concerns of the 1 DRB regarding the development of the 36-unit multi-family housing project and approved the project as complying with all of the applicable approval criteria. Mr. James Miller, a member of the • DRB, commented that " . . .the applicant has worked very, very hard to deliver a project which meets the criteria that we established and which the City has established for high density housing in this end ` of Lake Oswego. " (Exhibit 3: Excerpt from the regular meeting of - May 15, 1989 public hearing on DR 23-88 Oswego Properties, Inc. , 0. p. 55. ) An issue raised by FAN before the DRB in May, 1989, and subsequently before the City Council in October, 1989, was the `'• preservation of certain trees on the site and that the applicant , provide a 20% open s,,,5ace area to save these trees. FAN recognizes that the number of units for the project would have to be substan-- tially reduced to provide the 20% open space, especially since the applicant has already provided as a part of the project design, 20% of the net buildable area in landscaping which has been approved by the DRB. The DRB specifically found that • " . . . the applicant had provided 20% of the site in landscaping, as required. However, the only ;gray the Park and Open Space Standard could be met was to require a fee to be paid in lieu of providing .. w : 20% of the land area in open space. " (Attachment A: ORB Findings, Conclusions & Order, Finding No. 4, ' d ,' �11'dvs. p. 3 . ) , - , ID '..) ,). Page 7 - REQUEST FOR REMAND J" 1 ;1 ' At issue before the City Council was whether any of the • 0 trees on the site were specimen trees which therefore qualified as a special featureon P the site requiring such trees to be preserved under the 20% open space requirement. Development Standard 8 . 035 • 4 .e. (specimen trees) . The only tree identified as a specimen tree by the ° evidence in the record before the DRB and the City Council was the Laceleaf Japanese Maple which was specifically required by the DRB to be preserved and integrated into the design of the project. The tree analysis by John Herbst, Landscape Architect, which inven- toried the health and character of the trees on the site, was • accepted by the DRB as " . . .credible evidence which they could rely upon in their deliberation. " (Attachment A: DRB Findings, Conclusions & Order, Finding No. 2, p. 3. ) The conclusion by Mr. Herbst was that except for the Laceleaf Japanese Maple, none of the4111 other trees were "specimen trees" or they were diseased and should therefore be removed. FAN challenged Mr . Herbst ' s conclusions on the basis that his analysis was not reliable since he was also the seller of the property. As a result, the applicant retained Bob Mai:,4;iy, a qualified professional arborist with Pruett Tree Service, to • evaluate the trees to determine their status and whether they are specimen trees. Mr . Mazany's report dated January 26, 1990, concludes that ( but for the Laceleaf Japanese Maple) either the existing trees on the site were not "specimen trees" or they were diseased to the extent of recommending that the trees be removed. "" @ - (Attachment D) . Page 8 - REQUEST FOR REMAND ,v The City Council has asked the DRB on remand to evaluate the Park and Open Space criteria, and in particular the criteria ' regarding "specimen trees" to determine whether it• was appropriate for the DRB on May 15, 1989 to approve the development and allow • the applicant to PP pay a fee in lieu of providing a 20% open space • area. The City has interpreted the Park and Open Space Standard at 8.035 to mean that if a site does not contain the type of ~ " features or characteristics listed at 8. 035 4.a.-j . ) , then there A are no open space features on the site worth preserving thereby requiring an applicant to meet the Park and Open Space Standard by paying a fee in lieu of providing the 20% open space. Development-, Standard 8. 035 6.e. In essence, that is what the DRB determined in May, 1989, i .e. , there are no special features on the site worth preserving in •I • open space, including no specimen trees (except for the Laceleaf • Japanese Maple) , and therefore the Park and Open Space Standard is met by paying a fee. (Attachment A: DRB Findings, Conclusions & ,;` Order, Finding No. 4 , p. 3) . a Nothing has changed on this site since the DRB review in May, 1989, regarding the Park and Open Space Standard, except for Mr . Mazany 's report (Attachment D) which confirms Mr , John Herbst ' s , report which was adopted by the DRB. As a result , the City ' s process allows for an applicant to meet the Park and Open Space • Standard b ' y paying a fee in lieu of providing 20% of land area which has no special features worth preserving . 14 Page 9 - REQUEST FOR REMAND s M 6 • y 4 d In this particular case, the applicant has not only demonstrated compliance with all of the applicable requirements, as previously found by the DRB, but is also providing 20% of land area for landscaping which has been approved , ,.. P� 9 by the DRB on the outside periphery of the project, which includes the Laceleaf Japanese " y Maple. As a result, instead of requiring the applicant to reserve an additional 20% of land area which has no special features worth preserving, the City will allow the applicant to pay a fee which can be spent by the City to acquire land that does have special features which should be preserved. 6. REQUEST The DRB should affirm their previous decision to approve '` r • this project, and adopt an order which demonstrates that this site does not have any special features worth preserving for open space 11'91.h pursuant to Development Standard 8. 035 4 .a.-j . DATED this Vitt/day of March, 1590. Respectfully submitted, GARVEY, SCHUBERT & BARER By: .� - ' /1,4 )‘t,c4-064.4-7/ Gregory S. Hathaway, OSB #73124 Of Attorneys for Oswego Properties, Inc. 0 + ; 5/GSH/AL5/2 4111 Page 10 - REQUEST FOR • f N �S 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OP THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A Request for Approval to ) DR 23.-88/PD 11-89-724 Construct a 36-Unit, Multi ) , `I 4 Family Housing Project ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER ' 5 Nature of Application 6 Thy?• applicant is requesting approval to construct a 36-unit 2' 7 multi-family housing project. (Tax Lots 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2000 of Tax Map 2 lE 3DD) , \i' : 8 Hearings 9 The Development Review Board held a public hearing to 10 ( consider the application at its meetings of March 20, 1989 and 11 May 15, 1989 . The Development Review Board approved the 12 application by oral decision on May 15, 1989 and adopted written , ' II 13 6 findings supporting its approval on June 20, 1989 . An appeal of , 410 14 ' that decision was filed by First Addition Neighbors (FAN) on July 81 15 S, 1989. The City Council held a public hearing and considered vx ' SSW 16 the matter on the record made before the Development Review Board lac.400 17 at the Council 's October 17, 1989 meeting. , g 18 Criteria and Standards `'' [ ZW i. � 19 A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: • 1 20 LOC 48 . 300 - 48 . 315 Commercial Districts u 21 LOC 48 <145 Unified Site Plan LOC 48 . 53() Vision Clearance \., 22 Be City of Lake Oswego Sign Code : 23 LOC Ch . 47 Signs 24 C. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • 25 Community Resource Policy Element, , , 410 lo t' Se 1 - FINDINGS , coNCLUsram AND ORDER i 1 EXHIBIT S . t. 0 . • 1' 1 Distinctive Natural Area Policies , pp. 32-34 • . Residential Land Use Policy Element,Residential Site Design Policies, pp. 78-82 • 3 Commercial land Use Policy Element , 4 • General Policy IV • s D. City of' Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: 6 LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval • 7 LOC 49. 620 Conditional Approvals E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:8 2.020 Building Design 9 5.020 Street Lights • 6.020 Transit System ' � 10 7.020 ' .020 Parking & Loading II Park and Open Space 9.005 Landscaping, Screening and 12 11.020 Buffering ,. . Drainage for Major Development '13.030 Weak Foundation Soils 13 14 .020 Utilities 18.020 Access... y 14 19.020 Site Circulation - Private is 20.020 Streets/Driveways • Site Circulation - Bikeways c z and Walkways 16 Conclusion ttz 17 The record and findings of the Development Review Board ' WG z hearing do not contain a sufficient analysis as to whyax y portions •• t 29 of the sub 'ect 3 property are not suitable for open space i 4+ t 20 designation, pursuant to the Open Space Priority Standard 1 ( 8.035( 4) ) . g 22 Findings and Reasons 23 The City Council finds that the evidence in the record before the Development , 24 Review Board rA and the Development Review 2.5 Boardts findings that the Park and Open Space Standard of t',he , 26 Devetopment Code could be met, only by regu i ri nq ei fee to be p. d ,,.4::,, k Page 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 4 -- , . _ r, 1 . 111) in lieu of providing• 20% of the land area in open space, did not 2 sufficiently address the Open Space Priority Standards 8 .035( 4) 3 as those standards pertain to the subjectproperty. The City Council finds it appropriate to remand this application to the S Development Review Board to allow additional evidence to be J 6 submitted and considered by the Development Review Board as to 7 the application of those Priority Standards to this property and 8 for the adoption of detailed and specific findings . 9 Order 10 IT IS ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO + • 11 that this application be remanded to the Development Review Board 12 for the receipt of additional information on the application of 13 • the Open Space Priority Standards S .035( 4 ) as those standards may i4 apply to the subject property and for the adoption of detailed 81 15 and specific findings . O 1G T. certify that this order was presented to and approved by • S o 17 the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. . 18 Dated this 22nd day of November _, 1989 . zW S Y le X ///// r R yw 40 Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor , `< Vote at the Council meeting • 21 of October 17, 1989 22 AYES : Schlenker, Fawcett, Churchill, Anderson, Holstein 23 NOES: Durham, Holman 24 ,A8STArN. - • . EXCUSED: •254V Page 3 FTNo1NGS, CONCIMSION AND r7ROF.:"k , ' ' Page 3 ci f 4 . • ' ?" I Vote at the Council meeting of November, 21 , 1989 4111 I 2 AYES: Holman, Schlenker, Durham, x'awcett, Holstein, Anderson, ' 3 Churchill NOES: 4 ABSTAIN: • 5 EXCUSED; 6 7 • • • 9 ,. . • 11 12 • 13 ' • 14 15 16 • 17 . a '1 18 ;c .. e :c` 19 <W 20 21 g 22 23 4 • 26 • tiige 4 - CZNDINuS , CONCLUSION AND ODOR ATTACHMENT C 1'ttge4of4 • , AP 89--5 ~s DATE ReCO. ..- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL PE'lE H. TLME,, ' �'�/ F jIM C. ��-- L�AIP.EN S. OF THE - • BOB G. CITY RECORDER 1110 CITY CF IAXE OSWEGO A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO )\ CONSTRUCT A .36 UNIT MULTI- ) DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT ) (Oswego P APPEAL s, 'Inc.) NOTICE Cr APPEAL 1. MATTER SUHJDCT CIE' APPEAL `a ✓ '' Appellant, First Addition� dition Neighbors, ("FAN"), appeals to the , City Council of the City of bake Oswego from the FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS • & ORDER of the Development Review Board of DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 entered on June 20, 1989. 2. STATEMENT OF INTEREST CF APPELLANT ' " r First Addition Neighbors is interested in the application as I _ , the recognized neighborhood association for the area in which the proposal is located. First Addition Neighbors participated in the 1110 bearing and is aggrieved•by the decision. ,iMATTERS R AISED FOR COUNCIL, RA CONSIDETION 0 The following matters are raised for council consideration:%• ration. A. FAN objects to FINDING AND REASON NO. 2. The applicant's tree :% , ( • analysis which inventories the health and character of the trees • ok the site was substantially outweighed bycontrary �/ g evidence as to the value of treepreservation beyond that recommended in the a + n y pplicant s tree analysis. Moreover, the applicant's s tree analysis is objection-1 able because (1) it was not prep ared by a licensed survep.)V aS . required by LCC 49.315 r C2) CF ) (iv) and (2) it was prepared by a pro • 'R •^ petty owner of part of the site who has a vested interest in the • outco me of the property development. Finally, the destruction of trees as proposed is contrary rS to the Comprehensive Plan Distinctly( lXHISIT Natural Area GenIIIPeral Policy I and Specific Pblic I-»2 / y Cp. 32) � and ����rr / the Residential Site Design General Policy Ia, Ib, and V, and SPoCit L r , , }sage 1 for 3 ``f • m. 4 . �/ r , r Policies I-1 and V-1(k) (pp. 79-82) . B. FAN objects to FINDING AND REASON NO. 3. While the Board found 111/1 that there would not be a substantial impact on the surrounding street (l_ system as a result of the project, the traffic report submitted by the applicant indicates tb the contrary. The study indicates that the trips generated from the block on 2nd Street between B and C Avenues in the r..m. peak hour would be increased by over 100% . The trips generated onto the same block in the -p.m. peak hour would also be increased by over 100%. This increase in traffic is contrary to the Residential Site Design General Policy IV'•and Specific Policy IV-3(b) (pp. 79, 82), to undertake traffic management with the objective of slowing vehicular traffic and reducing traffic volumes where feasible. C. FAN objects to FINDING AND REASON NO. 4. The statement that "the only way 'the Park and Open Space Standard could be met was to 1110 require a fee to be paid in lieu of providing- 20% of the land area in open space" is not supported by the record. The standard could also have been met by reducing the number of units:in the project. D. BAN objects to FINDING AND REASON NO. 5. , FAN agrees that more than 50% of the spaces were shown as compact; however, FAN objects to approval prior to the applicant's demonstration of compliance. Moreover, section 7.020(8) of the develop ment standard states in part that "a portion of the required parking for multi-family shall be located to provide for common or visitor use. 25% o the spaces shall be available for common or visitor use." The applicant proposes to have visitor parking beneath the building. However; these spaces � r will not be accessible from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. (ORB Resubmitial) 11111 • 2 ATTAC►►MENT II Page 2 of 3 li • 4/15/89), and will be in violation of the development standard for _ nine hours each day. 4 E. FAN objects to the DRB's decision to reconsider its initial denial of the applicant'sa�'p licatior.-which decsion to reconsider c c.1,I Was made after the applicant approached DRB at a meeting of which FAN was not notified. \ ' Respectfully sutmitted this 5th day of July, 1989. 14e4 v Sery„„� Linda Simpson Chairman, First Addition Neighbors 595 'D' Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 cc: John Herbst Greg Hathaway P 111/1 r I "v ATTAC1 MUT B Page 3of3 r.._. y , r • 1 • ii 0 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ' ' OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ' 3 4 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO • ) DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 CONSTRUCT A 36-UN1T, MULTI-) (Oswego Properties, Inc. ) 6 FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER ' 7 • 8 ;; • 9 NATURE OF' APPLICATION . . 10 The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 36-unit ' 11 multi-family' housing project. (Tax Lots 1700, 1800, 1900 and 12 2000 of Tax Map' 2 lE 3DD) . 13 14 HEARINGS 15 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered 16 this apjflication' at its meetings of March 20, 1909, and May 15, 1989.; 1( 17 . 18 ' 19 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS II . ' 20 Ai', City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code. 21 . LOC 48.300-48.315 Commerciall%stricts 22 LOC 48. 145 Unified Site Plan •, LbC 48.530 . Vision Clearance 23 24 B. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: • 25 ' LOC Chapter 47 Signs , 26 C. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: . 27 • Community Resource Policy Element, 28 Distinctive Natural Area Policies, pp, 32-34 . 29 Residential Land Use Policy Element, 30 Residential Site Design Policies, pages 78-82 31 Commercial Land Use Policy Element, 32 General Policy IV 33 34 • PAGE 1 DR()23-88 4 EXHIBIT ATTAC1*INT A --" page 1 or 5 • P ' r 1 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: 2 LOC 49 . 300-49. 335 Major Development Procedures • 3 LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval • 4 LOC 49 . 620 Conditional Approvals 5 E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: A 6 2.020 Building Design 5.020 Street Lights 6. 020 Transit System • 8 7.020 Parking & Loading • 9 : 8.020 Park and Open Space 9.005 ' Landscaping, Screening and 10 • Buffering it 11.020 Drainage for Major Development 13.020 Weak Foundation Soils ' 12 ' •14•.020 Utilities • 13 18.'020 Access . . r $ • 19.020 • Site Circulation - Private 14 Streets/Driveways • 20.020 Site Circulation - Bikeways 15 and Walkways 16 • • • 17 CONCLUSION ' 18 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 23-88/PD 11-89 can 19 be made to comply with all applicable' criteria by the application4111 20 of certain conditions. • • 21 • • 22 .FINDINGS AND REASONS . • 23 The Development Review Board incorporates the December 9, 1988 ' 24 staff report and the May 5, 1989 resubmittal Staff repor.t on 25 DR 23-88/PD 11-89 as support for its decision,. supplemented by 26 the following: 27 1. The Board found that the applicant' s revised plans (Exhibits 28 II-1 through II-9) responded positively to the concerns 29 • expressed at the March 20, 198 ) 9 hearing . The plans, • 30 together with the testimony of the 'applicant ' s 31 representative, illustrated that the massive and monolithic 32 appearance of the first proposal had been substantially 33 altered and that the revised design complied with the 34 Building Design Standard . PAGE • 2 OR 23-88 AVACHMENT A O -" raga 2 or 5 • • 2. The Board agreed that the applicant' s tree analysis, which w1 inventoried the health and character of the trees on the 2 site, provided credible evidence which they could rely upon 3 in their deliberation. The Board found that the applicant' s 4 plan .for tree cutting Was necessary in order to construct • 5 high, density housing on the site. 6 3 . The Board found that the traffic impact analysis provided by 7 the applicant illustrated that there would not be a 8 substantial impact on the surrounding street system as a 9 result of the proposed 36 unit apartment project. 10 4. The Board found that the applicant had provided 20% of the 11 sitevin landscaping, as required. However, the only way the . 12 Park and Open Space Standard, could be met was to require a ' 13 ''fee to be paid in lieu of providing .20% of the land area in 14 bpen .space. Condition #10 was adopted to 'insure compliance, 15 5. The Board found that some of the parking spaces did not 16 . comply with the dimensional. requirements of the Parking 17 Standard and that, as a result, more than 50% of the spaces . 410 18 were shown as compact. Upon testimony by the applicant that the structurai�s btem of the building would allow 19 Y . 20 modifications within the parking garage to comply with City 21 standards', the Board established 'Condition #11 to insure 22 compliance. 23 24 ORDER 25 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD_ of the City of Lake ' 26 Oswego that: 27 1. DR 23-88/PD 11-89 • is approved, subject to compliance with 28 the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this 29 Order . 30 2 . The conditions for DR 23-88/DR 11-89 areas follows: 31 1. Final signage shall be provided for the review and 32 approval of staff. 33 • 34 PAGE 3 DR 23-88 ATTACHMENT A t'a;' 3of5 . p 4 , I. ° ' it . % • • 2. An arborist (member of the American Society of ,. 1 Consulting Arborists) shall be retained to insure 2 preservation of the Japanese Laceleaf Maple. The 3 arborist shall provide a written list of 'recommendations " 4 for treatment and protection of trees before, during, 5 and after construction. The list shall be provided for 6 the review and approval of staff. 7 3. The landscape plan shall be finalized to illustrate . 8 •. planned paving textures. 9 4. An irrigation plan shall be provided for the review and 10 approval of staff. '11 • 5. Final drainage plans 'designed to City standards shall be 12 ' provided for the 'review and approval of staff. • 13 ' k 6. Building and sidewalk construction shall conform 'to the 14 ' recommendations of the geotecmnical analysis (Exhibit 15 11) . 16 7. Final street plans, including sidewalks', street lights, • 17 and utilities designed by' a qualified engineer and 18 supported by a geotechnical analysis shall be provided . ' ° 19 for the review 'and approval, of staff. 4111 20 8. The applicant shall conform to City Charter requirements 21 for road widening, as necessary.. 22 9. Fifty feet of sight distance shall be provided at the .` 23 garage exit. 24 10. The applicant shall pay a fee equal 'to the assessed 25 ' valuation of 20% of' the property in lieu of providing 26 open space. . . . 27 11. The parking structure shall be configured with no more • • 28 than 50% of the stalls designed as compact. 29 ' 30 31 32 • 33 • 34 PAGE 4 DR 23-88 4111 ATTACH TENT, A Pctgi4tad5 \ I CERTIFY. THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 1 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. = , ®2 3 DATED this 20-d day of , 1989. 4 �. 5 7 Robert D. Greaves, Chairman 8 Development Review Board 9 ( ” 10 • 11 S re ary 12 �. 13 ATTEST: ) 14 ORAL DECISION - May 15, 1989 15 • 16 AYES: Miller,' Sybrowsky, Ingrim, Swillinger, Starr 17 NOES: None11110 18 ABSTAIN: None 19 ABSENT: Greaves, Foster 20 WRITTEN FINDINGS - June 20', 1989 21 22 AYES: Miller, Sybrowsky, Ingrim, Starr 23 NOES: None 24 ABSTAIN: Greaves, Foster 25 ABSENT: None • 26 27 28 29 30 31 p�� 32 33 34 PACE 5 DR 23-88 ATTACHMENT A Page 5 or 5 1 PK1� i 1 1 TREE SERVICE Viir•'., The Tree Care Company Division of Oregon Tree Service Company ,1550 SW Rosewood • Lake Oswego • Oregon 97035 January 26, 994 411 MEMORANDUM , To; ' Robert Eskandarian /I President , •. Darian Inc. From; Bob Mazany, ASCA #13; ' • . • Consulting Arborist , , Pruett Tree Service Re: • . Proposed Development • Site and Plan Review • .. I have; .,.',•,t. ;1'J: ",:: ' ,• reviewed the site of your'proposed development as you requested This 'sits is located "This-'site ad)actent, to the west 'side' of second street, between and1707. streets in Lake Oswego,,! I have referred to each significant ',; .; tree;b i`,number as referenced in�,a letter' and `plot plan submitted yJohn' " �� ' He�bst'�(r •' ,t, t ,,•.t,« t..., „.r.;. . „ • J: by . �: , .. r` Landscape Archi ''" • - .; r,,�x, ;.�..,� tec�;�•dated��November• 2, `�988 :Jt• r �• � ';`;•� i'N,JI: . • «WS ! f rY?> t i 1 i, lF,•.' :.,% ,{ I;,,ML; r• '.Y a,.Ja'4. 'C'.%' P. , 7, j .r 4 r''. '". ,('µ'; ",� t 1 r •`1 _%tr' •Ltt J ,{,•� .1� •t .! f tl.J' �a.tj.•••:-.I �Si I�L�rzd•rii' J,.: f•.•...» t t tJ;%,1...• •e.'.rt;•+,e'i.A.. .,:t•'b.• f7' . • r .t�: •� , .K`. . .•, k• ,• ., (,�� pti' : •�'Y`ip�.:;,Y,.,.• .��I�n u.. .' �, , . r '•'..":' "I' w, �7^'�. ' ri'. .�• ;, Tree #111: Laceleaf Japanese Maple (Acer',paimatum 'Laceleaf),,. In''m VV ., Opinion� every effort possible should be made' to protect this exceptional nJ,V•spectman. It is singlet' the most significant and valuable tree within the t•J site �+i'''',1 i tl'h '; - r ",1 , u J t ., t ,,.. _ 4'. #2 •• . Domestic Fig (Ficus carica).. . This clump is in poor condition and .. .•4•v. does'not warrant any extraordinary effort to retain it as a landscape t speci tr; ,..,j . ,r J man, • .'�rr� • • �. ' Tree #3 - Mt. Fugi Cherry (Prunus serrulata 'Fugi'). This tree is diseased, in severe decline and poorly located to be retained. Tree #4 - American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), The central • leader has, at sometime, suffered serious storm injury causing the canopy. to form an un-natural configuration for this specie. There is decay in the ' old wound with signs of other structrual defects, The cost/benefit ratio of providing sufficient space and remedial care required to retain this tree leads me to recommend its removal, It would not survive any degree , f construction truama. 'If: 244•0848 63 •3916 + 693.0088 g EXHIBIT wemeim NATiosaa. BEAVERTON MOUND VANCOUVER 1 7 _ AR90RiST s s a c 1 r�0 Serving the entire Northwest. k ' . . , • . . . • (...) • ,_, , . . . . , . . . .... . . . . ... , . Tree #5 - 'European,Filbert (Corylus avellana). These trees are in poor to . 0 ......" fair condition and so located as to be questionable for retention as viable • , landscape amenities. . . , .. . . Tree #6 - Italian Prune (Prunus spp.) This tree has been growing under a %...,.." large Walnut and is in seyere decline with stunted, misshapen growth. This tree should be removed. . ' . , Tree #7 - California Laurel (Umbellularia californica). This tree was., uprooted during our most recent windstorm. . . . .. . . . . Tree #8 ,7 English Walnut (Juglans regia). There is a considerable amount ' , . of old storm damge and decay throughout. This tree has some hazard . • potential which cannot be minimized in• any arboricuitrually acceptable ... manner.........,!0..:.....; .• • . •4. '......!'.?`,._,...= -7.,—,7),;•t t;•,;%. `,..„„:... .: ...';',.;471,;,••,..„!,:.el:',`,4:f:, ::::„:6,...,%.1...c :.o, . ''•.::,'I r•••i;?;;"*.. ....,'.';i:'.: . .. :, ; 1;tr:f'"-/7 -.1:r•:..'". i''*Y." ..*,." :: t .'.t,'*AV, rr.'`F,'„ 1.:1-'.•°- '-';•.."•'1'..r.:Pi;.;:!"-Li ..' . '. ''''•'• "' ' . • . • ..' ' 1. ''' ' • :.'Is. •:' • . ., :. .t.,. .,. J. "' 'II English Walnut (Juglans regia): This tree is in a similar, state.... . .. .., ....,. .•.!•,..;•v,,..:.....or..,.;,..4./...--1"'. A..!,, ••••.1 a! . ' , •• ti,,,Cbi:•••. ,i'.,14i'*. ... ,.;.:',:•'• I:.1.' *,.. ' ,. • .e.11... 4F.144.,gondition,as tree.number 8:::"....'.. :....:.„,/„,' ,',":,..,:..:..:,:,'1!....!,•:,.,:1, .....:..'d,..: ,?*:$,,,I...:%.,.;.1448'!.1.'.v......;.,. =..p.ir.,..... .:;; .,' -'-„.-..- 14-.4..wroi'it' 4fi,4gtet'4 #'4','...'1.,.,?. ...::':i.:1...-.;,!,,.....:....,-.t.... ;".,......7..,•:,V..1•41.14:1•1-..cFfpe,it', ."! '' 0.4:.,,..4i.1".!' ;,,w1.;,p1,1:41,*i ., ,,:..i •, -: ",.4 i.'f•11:;"'Vi;*.10,10:1,1,;',?:‘,4014:".0:;;44414*Z1,71: :::.:%.0"*"• ,.%..'4.!.....Z1,!.4 .,''. . .4*t.;:q:lir,.:....;;:.:IJ::?:',7‘ ,"7.....j•,....j71.4.0.f7 ,Y::•:1;:i1.1'ill...!:','..nolr,:,tat... :...*:,.....!... :. '.' -':',..,,t :21::•Tie'ili.:;410,k7r;',rteatCli.‘ Pirie (Piriud a'sylVeitridii'g thiiiIreblehlijaiir7 ij3ecli=nan't.'''"'. •;.;'''.•'''' ' ...,..;?,...,,..,:::..,....,..,,,:,..,A.:,,,.:,...:..-.:, ....; . , ' ....2,r a,vitEr the' greatest percentage. of growth to' the north due to its proximity ....,..T.p,,,.,...0..„-,....:.:.., : ; .., . ;.. . - . , , "" : • ,r ,.;,'...... .:1, ,,• . ' ,": ' to.,. tne: existing nouse,......., !.... .2 ,,, ,,. .., .,,,,.. f„.*:t. • . ... , . ... :.:.,:"..;:, I: ........?.:.4"..:.;er,c,,.;••....... .......-... ,,.....i,:..,,,,c..1,,.... , ;. .. .,.,. ..,, , .,:. ,..., s ... ., 4,,,16,,,,',.,11.'„ ,, . • • ''. •*;.(,,I,r41::?TiPfeti'e.:1'*1;Y:;1 •1'.r-;::,; .:P.f.71Y.';•••%:''..•'.';'.'.' ` : !..',L;,.; .4% 4 **.•.*•:1+%J....:.,:: 1.0°.: `,:pi 0., , .' . .....;.ltr.*ti,V2. ...,;." ::lt,?*4 4%t s*,*!..I.; '';U' .:• . ''''''. 't".r., 14;;• ,' , " , ,. .t•,,` . 't' ': ''.,'T.,.:1',.,;'..,',1.;. ‘..t"A ,' '::•: ,-;•'.Tree #1t:4".Giant' Arborvitae (Thuja plicata)i•:-. The tree had been topped * . : . • ,.. .- .:..,..,-- '.‘-•,..../.:.,, .t. - • - • . ' ' ' • ' * . • ..:;••••.•,,:manyyeart'ago and has developed a' new multi-stem canopy:,. There is :.; • •• •...,1,::-.,,,:k....6i .lit,4,,,,,,e ,;,',, •- 7 ; decay' and'structural weakness within the 'wound area . Growth is one- .. , .•;*5 sidectio4*". ithe)•: iOuthwesti 'due.to its proximity to the adjacent. Maple .. -,;;./.•,. , ,. , . .,,.. :., . , . . , -; . .,. , .........i.' .',. .1.'• ' '., ,, . ,' VI.• .,.,'.„. 's: . .,, , ..• . .', Tree #12. - Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum). • This tree has•a*:' ' . ' '. .t• - :. considerable amount of deadwood and decay throughout typical of this • specie. It is codominant at approximately 6' above the ground with other ,4 structural weakness throughout. This tree has a high hazard potential. . ., . .. . . . . . •. ' . Tree #13 -. Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum). This tree appears to have . been a volunteer seedling with conditions similar to tree number 12. . . ' , . . ..... . III ,,_.. ATTACI1MENT 1) Page 2 of 3 ,.. " . • GARVEY, SCHUBERT 8 BARER A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SEATTLE WASHINGTON,O.C. TENTH FLOOR ELEVENTH FLOOR FIFTH FLOOR 1011 WESTERN AVENUE 121 S.W. MORRISON STREET 1000 POTOMAC STREET N.W, SCATTLE,WASHINGTON 96104.1023 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.3I41 WASHINGTON,O.C.20007 (206)464.3P39 (503)228.3939 (202) 966-7060 TEL[XS 32.1037(LEX SEA) CA•LE:LCX•SCATTLE FAX:(503)226.0299 PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE April 12, 1990. 7-/) HAND DELIVERED 13\ Mr. Bob Galante Acting Planning Director City of Lake Oswego Planning Dept. City Hall 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: Request for Remand/DR 23-88/PD 11-89-660 (724) Dear Bob: Attached please find supplemental information relative to Oswego Properties, Inc. 's Request for Remand which will be heard by the DRB on May 7, 1990. This information addresses the Park and Open Space Standard which is the subject matter for the May 7 hearing. It is interesting to note that the proposed Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan for Lake Oswego, dated March 26, • 1990, which was submitted to the City Council on April 17, 1990, recommends a neighborhood park for the First Addition Neighborhood. The site is identified as "Site 16" and the "G Street Site ( 3. 0 • acres) " in the Park Master Plan. The Oswego Properties site was not mentioned in the Master Plan report. As you know, it has been our position that the Oswego Properties site does not have any special features worth preserving for open space and thus the 1 applicant should pay a fee which can be spent by the City to acquire land that does have special features which should be preserved. Apparently, "Site 16'I meets this test and the aforementioned fee can be used to assist in its acquisition. Would you please enter this letter and the attached supplemental information as part of the DRB record for its May 7 hearing. i EXHIBIT Mr. Bob Galante April 12", 1990 Page 2 1111 Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, GARVEY, SCHUBERT & BARER By Gregory S. Hathaway GSH/lkt Enclosures 5/GSH/AM2/1 cc: Oswe o„ Pro erties, Inc. 9 P (w/copy of encl. ) Stephen T. Janik, Esq. (w/copy of encl. ) 1 na 3 .. / a MACKEWZIE/SAITO&ASSOCIATES,P.C. • " ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN 0690 S.W.BANCROFT ST.•P.O.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201.0039•(503)224.9560•FAX(503)228.1285 April 17, 1990 Garvey Schubert & Barer Attention: Greg Hathaway 121 S.W. Morrison 0 , Portland, Oregon 97204-3141 Re: Oswego Properties Project Number 290255 Dear Greg: • You have asked me to review the criteria of the Lake Oswego Code, relative to the delineation of "Open Space," and to offer my comments on the applicability of these I criteria to the site described in City File Number DR 23-88. Over the past 20 years, I have reviewed many sites in similar development approval processes, both from the public and private sector perspectives. Also, our firm has been involved in the design process on this site, and I have personally reviewed the property in question. The issue that 0 you have asked me to consider is the applicability of the Code i criteria, dealing with the preservation of open space, to the property in question. The criteria establishes the suitability of property for open space use, as opposed to the alternative of a park/open space fee which would be collected at the time of site development. The following are my observations and comments on the applicable criteria: "a. , b. , c." These criteria are specifically addressed by the City's Comprehensive Plan and " are already considered in the document submitted by the applicant entitled "Request for Remand." \) I' "d. Woodlands, Tree Groves" This criteria clearly was intended to apply to significant stands of trees which should be preserved as a unit. The terms "woodlands" and "tree groves" normally are applied to naturally occurring groups of trees Which have grown together in a generally undisturbed state over the years. For further guidance, one may look to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, which uses the term "wooded natural areas" in a similar reference on Page 32. The few trees on the site, with the exception of the Japanese maple, are individually insignificant and are not characteristic of a "grove" or stand: The impact of the site's past development confirms that these trees are not a "natural" area, and do not meet the intent of this criteria. n• 4110 1 EXHIBIT ) - • Greg Hathaway Oswego Properties Project Number 290255 1111 April 17, 1990 Page Number 2 "e. Specimen Trees" The Comprehensive Planspecifically identifies only the Japanese Maple as a • "specimen" tree for preservation. Also, the Code definition of "specimen tree" is confirmed by landscape industry convention. I concur with your arborist's conclusion that the Japanese Maple is the only tree that meets the definition. On this basis, preservation of the Japanese Maple ensures compliance with this criteria. "f. Natural Meadows" The term "natural" implies an undisturbed area of vegetation, similarly to the use of the term discussed in "d" above. The site has been developed for many years and shows no indication of "natural vegetation," other than wild noxious weeds. Further, the Comprehensive Plan map delineating "Distinctive Natural Areas" (Pages 34-35) does not identify this site, nor "jes it list "meadows" as a category to be mapped. This criteria requires an undisturbed site, eliminating the property in question from further consideration with respect to this criteria. ■ g Topographic Variation" Past development has also altered any naturally occurring steep slopes or rock areas. The overall topography in the area indicates that there probably never were rock outcroppings, river beds, or cliffs on the site. There are no site characteristics which meet this criteria. "h. tecreatiop Opportunities" Any property could be potentially developed far some form .of recreation use; however, this is clearly not the intent of the Code. The opportunity for a project to pay a park fee allows the available resources to be spent on worthy sites. The Comprehensive Plan (Page 142) does not identify this site as a potential park/recreation location. Notwithstanding the Plan, the site has no characteristics which indicate potential recreational use, such as views, trails, or natural areas. Finally, the site's size is such that a 20% land area allocation for park use would result in an area of substantially less than the commonly accepted 3-acre Neighborhood Park size and also less than the proposed 3-acre park on G Street in the First Addition Neighborhood, as set forth in the "Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan" dated March 26, 1990 (see Attachment A) . 11111 . Greg Hathaway Oswego Properties 4110 Project Number 290255 April 17, 1990 Page Number 3 "i . Scenic Views" • The site's location in a developed portion of Lake Oswego, surrounded by multi- family and commercial buildings, dictates the lack of scenic views. There are no view opportunities available from this site, and its development will not adversely impact views from other areas. "j. Others" My review of this property, and the Code criteria, have not indicated that there are any other issues or characteristics which justify reservation of this . property as open space. It is my belief, based upon my professional experience, knowledge of the site, and familiarity with the Lake Oswego Code, that this site does not meet the Code criteria for reservation as open space or park use. Please call me if you have questions or need further assistance. • Sincerely, J v"V r- (04& Lans Stou ° Planning Manager LS/ksc Attachment ?, 90-000255\17L1AIc j 9 IP 0VA • • .. 4 I • , • ' I , Site 14 Red Fox Hills Park *3 (.2 Acres) Specialized Area ALI ' W This site is a mini-park on.2 acres of land off Hide-A-Way Lane. Presently, the park is . fully developed with no potential for additional facilities. No recommendations are I made for improvements to this site. 1 Site 15 Tryon Creek State Park(600 Acres) State Park • , . 2 . . This 600 acre parcel is not a city owned park,yet provides a variety of recreational opportunities. The park is extensively used for nature study, hiking and riding. The I recommended Lake Oswego bicycle loop will connect to the trail systeni found in this park. The bicycle loop system is discussed in a later section. ' - I Site 16 '-' G Street Site (3.0 Acres) Neighborhood Park I This proposed 3 acre site is located in the 1st Addition Neighborhood, off G Street. I The site is a long narrow piece of land that juts into Tryon Creek State Park. Immediately off the street is roughly 1 acre of flat developable land that could be utilized for limited active use. The remaining land is primarily hillside covered with •I dense vegetation. This area would be developed with a trail system that connects to existing paths in Tryon Creek State Park. Suggested facilities include: .1 I o picnic area o children's playground area o trail system/trail head into Tryon Creek Park o multi-use paved court • o multi-use open play area 1 , .' 1 . • • k . 11 40 b p : • I VII • 15 . 1 • I ' , • • I . • u APR — 11 -- 90 WED 1 1 : 49 P . 01. .. CROU6i 47:44azany atui Q sodiatE$ to and randseeilm eoturittln9 c'EWL L j (, f , MEMQRAUQlliM . . 0: i;t ;; ROM: 3t ATE: April 11', 1990 E: Addendum to 1/26/90 Memorandum his addendum is in response to your letter dated April 12, 1990 equesting additional input relative to the proposed Dorian, Inc. evelopment 1n Lake Oswego. I believe ■y memorandum, 1/26/90, addresses he current condition of each tree on this site. I would further offer hat the `specimen tree' definition in the Oswego Development Code upports my opinion that Tree 01, Laceleaf Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum Laceleaf') is the only tree on the site which falls within the parameters ,f this definition. My condition analysis of the trees on this site Was ,aced on; a visual, and where necessary, a physical inspection to determine he then condition and health of each tree. I am enclosing a copy of my esume'which outlines my credentials and experience in arboriculture and elated fields. 'lease contact me if further information is required. I will, as he hearing if required. ndicated in our telephone conversation of 4/12/90, be available to attend J : . 0 I i ,,, . 4H , ,_. ,, 1 10 (. O i, 1 IPA, 0r,r ri ,,,ih,,b,s Y i .A.A.4 11 h/1r7 re A I;#.s. I Aw/li n0.n ;:iy 0 yam. I APR—. le - 90 WED 1 1 : 49 P . 02 • • _• Resumi • ROBERT MAZANY\ American Society of Consulting Arborias Registered Member #133 The'resum4 of education, training and practical field experience listed as follows is in support of Robert Ma4any'a qualifications as a Consulting Arborist, RO ERT MAZANY & ASSOCIATES Beaverton,Oreg'dn pal,1988 to Present Tree and landscape consulting services, TRFE &LANDSCAPE CONSULTING SERVICES, Ltd. Portland,Oregon j'tinctjat.1984 to1988: Arboricultural and Landscape Consultation and Contract Administration. TE RONIX, INC, Beaverton,Oregon LiinfItcs°tpe and Grpmd&Maintenance Manager.1977 to 1985: All aspects of maintenance of 600+acres of indi atrial campus. ARI ORICULTURE & LANDSCAPE CONSULTATION SERVICE Beaverton,Oregon ��1(( . 7117.4YASSIZS ltant. 1975 to 1Q; Consulting projects in landscape construction and tree surgery. CFI'Y OF EUGENE,DEPARTMENT OF PARKS&RECREATION Eugene,Oregon Horticulture& Forestry Divisto 1anagerA 1960 to 1975 IRi?.Sl1 I ERL& LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR:(Tent k956 to 196Q: All aspects of.tree work and • landscape design including installation. Y2EY TREE E EB'>SOIMI'wY,1948 to 1954 Ohio/Texas Ling clearing,,chemical brush control,tree surgery,and large tree moving. Msrnrt Prnnrpr-r4 CnnArpT,mr1n/Trt Mani rars4 i RVATION SPECIFICATIONS FogPUBLIC AND PRIVAACENCT�ATNTENANCE,TREE P."a.1:S • C rnmercial Property Management-I.andc'ape Maintenance Standards, Specifications and Contract A 1 t e .Nn.. ..w ....c; d rIrtcd prnl t: *f`thcu C p r tinr. _ Y�11 tMompony Vieth Rrmernirnn Associates,Condominium Management,•inc.,Jenkins Property Management,SiMMCO Properties, • Commercial Property Development-Standards & Specifications for Pre-Construction Tree Preservation Strategies -Specifications for Supervision of Tree Preservation Techniques during and following construction - OTAK, Inc., Walker do Macy - Architects & Planners, Lee/Ruff/Waddle Partnership, McArthur/Gardner Partnership, Mitchell/Nelson Group, CH2M Hill, Inc., Robert Perrin Associates, Ceccacd Associates, George Otten - Landscape Architect, Beighley & Associates, Fred Glick & Associates, Vteirra-Darrow. trity of Portland, Bureau of Parks -Street Area's Landscape Maintenance Specifications Preparation acid Contract Administration, • i$nsnrd Tree Evaluation-Cities of Portland, Eugene,Tigard,Tualatin and Forest Grove, Street Tree Survey,Inventory,Master Plan -City of Tukwila,Washington;Eugene,Orego n • Tcktronirt,Inc.- Landscape Construction,Maintenance and Contract Administration for all Corporate • locations worldwide, a `v aila Walla Veterans Hospital, White City Veterans Hospital-Site Survey, Landscape and Arboricultural Renovation. Y . Aw R - 1 £1 —• '90 WED. 11 : MO P . 03 1•', RbBERT MAZANY PageTwo MAJOR PROJECTS (CONTINUED) • ashington County,Oregon- Roadside and Median Planting Survey and Specification Preparation. • DS Temple,Lake Oswego,Oregon-Member of Consulting Team. • Ike World Headquarters Campus,Beaverton,Oregon-Member of Consulting Teatn. • entor Graphics World Headquarters Campus,Wilsonville,Oregon-Member of Consulting Team, c TECHNICAL EDUCATION . • • exas A k M University-Horticulture • egon State University-Horticulture and Forestry 1 • niversity of Oregon-Horticulture and Landscape Architecture • arious Chemical short courses and seminars since 1950 • ational Arborist Association Educational Programs • merican Society of Consulting Arborists technical meetingssince 1974 • nternational Society of Arboriculture wankel meetings since 1961 • estern Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture - Regional and annual technical . cctings since 1961 • acific Northwest Chapter Technical Meelings since 1980 • eople to People International -Member of Landscape Horticulture Delegation to Mainland China- • tuber 1985 ' t 41) PROr SS1ONAL MEMBERSHIPS `S 194i-Present Professional Grounds Management Society • . 19A-Present American Society of Consulting Arborists • 1971)-Present American Forestry Association 196I -Present International Society of Arboriculture • 1911)-1989 Chapter Representative to International Society 1910.1983 Pacific Northwest Chapter President(two terms,Founding Member 1980) it GUEST SPEAKER AND/OR INSTRUCTOR • • acific Northwest Chapter - Certification Review Beard Member ‘ • estern &PNW Chapter- International Society of Arboriculture • ortland Civil Service Commission Arboriculture Interview Panel Member • ortland Department of Parks&Recreation-High Climber Training • egon State University-Horticulture Classes and Short Courses • ekamas Community College-Apprenticeship Training. • ne Community College-Horticulture and Forestry Classes • niversity of Oregon Landscape Architect Department • C(Rock Creek)-Horticulture/Arboriculture • egon State Extension Service Short Courses a !' • hoof Districts 4j and 52s Science Classesit • +furthweat'''art Training Institute i ' • e egon Co(jnty Parks Association • owe and Newcomer Carden Clubs (, 11 ?Additional project or reference information furnished, if required or requested. 1 . . r STAFF REPORT CITY OF ' LAKE . ,,, LAND' DEVELOPMENT SERAL.... VICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NOc): Oswego Properties, Inc. DR 23-88(Resubmittal)/ PD 11-89 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: John Herbst Jr 0 • Robert Galante' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: r Tax Lo€s 1700, 1800, 1900, DATE OF REPORT: 2000 of Tax Map 2 1E 3DD May 5, 1989 LOCATION: , DATE OF HEARING: • The west side of 2nd St. , ' between "B" & "C" Avenues May 15, 1989 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ' u ZONING DESIGNATION: GC EC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: First Addition I. APPLICAN °S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 36-unit multi--family housing project. II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: LOC 48, 300-48. 315 Commercial Districts LOC 48 . 145 Unified Site Plan ''LOC 48. 530 Vision Clearance B. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: LOC Chapter 47 Signs / I° DR 23--88 (Resubm ,, Page 1 of 3 d EXHIBIT 1 II! , <. • i j '' 4 ' '' 4 . , ,.. ` .., . , . , . . . C. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • Community Resource Policy Element, Distinctive Natural Area Policies, pp. 32-34 Residential Land Use Policy Element, Residential Site Design Policies, pages 78-82 Commercial Land Use Policy Element, �� General Policy IV �� D. City .of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: J LOC 49. 300-49. 335 'Major Development Procedures " LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals "E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2.020 Building Design • 5.020 Street Lights 6.020 Transit System y 7. 020 Parking & Loading 8.Q20 Park and Open Space 9. 005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.020 Drainage f ,r Major Develop- ment • 13 .020 Weak Foundation Soils 14.020 Utilities 18. 020 Access 19.020 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways 20.020 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways III. FINDINGS The staff report of December 9, 1988 is adopted as . ''Findings" for the applicant' s resubmittal. In ,} addition, the applicant' s resubmittal narrative (Exhibit II-1) is adopted as support for the application. The following additional information is provided for review: • 1 . The applicant has revised the building design and ' eliminated the landscaped interior courtyard. The site now provides at least 20 percent of the site in landscaping which is visible around the exterior of / the building. 2. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the -0 Building Design Standard (Exhibit II-1 and II-3) ` DR 23-88 (Resubmittal) o Page 2 of 3 i , • . I. A .... • . 3 . A fee in lieu of providing the full amount of 0 required open space will be necessary to comply with the Park and Open Space Standard. The proposal can be approved with the conditions listed in the December 9, 1988 staff report. IV. ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS II-1 Resubmittal Narrative 11-2 Survey 11-3 Elevations 11-4 Parking Plan 1( 11-5 Grading Utilities 11-6 Landscaping Plan 11-7 Third Floor Plan 11-8 Roof ,Plan 11-9 Section III ,. • 0 I 1 ( • , \ 1 SI I . • ' ) V 'S 411 DR 23-88 (Resubmittal) \I i Page 3 of 3 . . , . , e li ' ,l > ° - o _.,--- 0 _ _. LAKE OSWEGO CENTER APARTMENT S Development Review Board .mResubmittal AV 111 , , ., . , April 15, 1989 J , OSWEGO PROPERTY INC. MACKENZIE/SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 0690 SW BANCROFT ST, PORTLAND, OREGON (503) 224.9510 XHIIIT 1, 0 , . • • • • • CONTENTS I. PROJECT TEAM II. ° PROJECT SUMMARY (In accordance with Application Check-Off List) A. Development Schedule B. Materials Description/Samples • C. Compliance with Development Ordinance and Standards, and LCDC Goals and Guidelines D. Other Inforrilation ,(Compfehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance) III. ARCHITECTURAL S• • �� S • • lr) I. PROJECT TEAM Owner and Applicant: Oswego Propeoties, Inca 17615 S.W. 5th • Lake Oswego OR 97035 Architect: Mackenzie/ aito & Associates, P.C. Attention: Jeffrey P. Reaves P.O. Box 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 • Structural/Civil Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated Engineers: Attention: Hamid R. Afghan, P.E. • P.O. BA 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 Landscaping: Mike Faha and Associates Attention: Mike Faha, Landscape Architect 11830 S.W. King, James Place Tigard, OR 97224 / r Geotechnical Engineer: Shannon & Wilson Attention: David E. Hilts 2255 S.W. Canyon Road Portland, OR 97201 p f . - - l ir .. • Cam' 1111/ 1/7 ,', II. PROJECT SUMMARY Oswego Properties proposes to construct a 36-unit apartment complex consisting of three levels of living area above on-grade parking. The parking structure will be lowered to, approximately 8'-0" below grade at the north property line to minimize visual impact. The building height at the northwest corner will be 39'-0" from finished grade. The character of the project, which fronts on Second Street, is carried around the perimeter of the site by facing the units to the outside and . accessing the units through an internal landscaped courtyard. A. Development Schedule 'Construction of the proposed apartment complex is anticipated to begin in June 1989 and be completed by February 1, 1990. B. Materials Description - A materials board is included in this submittal . Generally, the residential units are faced' with horizontal wood siding painted taupe (Ameritone 1H47F? to complement common materials utilized in the surrounding residential' area. Windows will be aluminum frame (painted white) with insulated glazing. Miscellaneous trim work (i .e. gutters, fascia) will be painted off- white (Ameritone 1H48G). The parking area below the residential units will be constructed of plit-fade concrete block, with iron grille work utilized in openings (see Section IIC, Building Design). Wood grille work will be utilized at the unit balconies. The wood and iron grille work will be painted an accent rose color (Ameritone 1U6B). C. Compliance with Development Ordinance/Standards and LCDC Goals/Guidelines - The following discussion addresses Titles 1 through 21 of the Development Standards: 1. Title 1 (Historic Resource Preservation) - None of the existing buildings on the subject site have been identified by the Cii:y as having historical ( significance. 2. Title 2 (Building DesiSL,) Complementary to Adjacent Structures of Good Design: Building Design Standard / 2.020 1.B. The location of this site within the fabric of downtown Lake Oswego is highly , desirable for multifamily housing of high density. It provides a buffer between the single family housing to the north and provides a solid economic , base for the adjacent retail area. The project is located on a 30,000 sq. ft. lot in the middle of the block. The surrounding development consists of two-story apartments to the north and east, a single story office building to the west, and a vacant lot to the south.! A three-story office building (Oregon Pioneer Plaza), across and down the street to the southeast, is the only notable structure of good design in close proximity to the site. ` 2 - l.. • ,. 6 ` /,! G • The proposed building consists of 36 two bedroom units located atop a parking plaza for 72 cars. The units are grouped into smaller buildings within the project to maintain the adjacent residential scale. The units'wvill be wood framed with cedar lap siding and will be painted in earthtone colors. The roofing material is, heavy composition roofing in a brown tone to complement the cedar lap siding. The building elevations, as shown in Appendix A, use wood siding, sloped shingled roofs, gabled porches, and stepped building facade to create a residential quality in the building. The colors of the cedar siding will vary among the same color range from building to building within the pr°oject, creating a subtle change between buildings within the project. The rectangular geometry of the units is broken up by the projecting balconies which maximize views to the outside. The design also produces visual diversity in the exterior elevation by grouping the balconies in a variety of configurations, Varying the roof profile, and staggering the units in plan. This combination of horizontal and vertical variety will produce an exciting three dimensional relationship. To accentuate the staggering of the units in plan, landscaping will be extensively used atop the parking deck perimeter to create an intermediate scale between the pedestrian and the units. Relationship to Adjacent Structures of Good Design: Building Standard 2..020 1.a. e 0 This building standard requires that a proposed project be complementary to //J. adjacent structures of good design with respect to material , (setbacks (for . retail commercial projects; this criteria not applicable here!), roof lines, height, and overall proportions. In summary, the surrounding development consists of two-story apartments to the north and east, a single story office to the west, and a vacant lot to the south. These structures do not represent good design worth preserving or enhancing through the requirement for complementary design in new structures. A three-story office building (Oregon Pioneer Plaza), across and down Second Street to the southeast, is the only notable structure of good design in close proximity to the site, •, The.commercial detail of this office building is inappropriate for inclusion in the residential character of this apartment project. Yet, the scale .of the office building, along with the three individual building units of the proposed project along Second Street will give definition and character to Second, Stee , which is ill-defined by the existing structures along the street. v / In our previous ' Designboard, concerned > review with the Review the Board was with the building efxtending from property line to property line. hi review of the alternates for the project, the design team concluded that the best ` approach was to reduce the original design to three separate units along . Second Street and to vary the roof lines and balconies of the building units • - 3 - r w 4 , . , , . , , i// 0 ,,' to create housing which has a g ater village scale and finer texture than commercial buildHgs. Due to thle' topography of the site, which falls 12' 0 from corner to ct9. r over 250',fithe enclosed parking area, which is required .0 to meet the City's • 11marking reqirements, has been benched into the site to reduce the height of� the project adjacent to the existing two-story apartment to the north, therebcreating�a stepping in height to the residential zone to the north. The sub surface 'parking at the. north then builds to the south to form a strong base,, where ,�it will touch the commercial district. he commercial zoning of the site/does not require setbacks for the project, but fa front yard setback of 10' to 26', along with landscaping atop the arking deck, have been provided alo�ig Second Street. In addition, the alley (west) side of the project has a 5' set!), ck with landscaping. The landscaping along the alley is far beyond anythinc' resently in existence at this location. The apartments to the north use the alley for parking and apartment ntrances, while the office building to the west has totally internalized its andscaping into courtyards, with the surrounding area being paved. ^ I Relationship to Drinking Fountain, Mailboxes Etc. : Bui;iding Design Standard 2.020 1.C. Building Design Standard 2.020 1.C. r requires the proposed elements to be complementary in appearance to,,—the building. This requirement is satisfied. ' The project will include: I A. Trash enclosures (sh)elded from view) located inside the enclosed parkingarea J/ B. Mailboxes located /within the lobby entrance too eliminate unsi htl � �' mailboxes along the street ii g y The enclosed parking structure forms the foundation /for the apartments above and is used to screen ,,the parking area from adjacent sites. Landscaping is designed to complement the site and provide a smooth transition from the exterior walls of the ,structure to the surrounding e'hvironment. In addition, a wood trellis system will be used along with the rusticated block walls of the parking structure to create a finer fabric of detail associated with residential design. ji ill Windows Doors, and Other Building Parts Complementary to Structures: Building Design Standard 2.0110.d The individual elements of the buildinghave been r illustrated designed to be complementary � ���; �� Windows in the facadehae ben r r " in appearance with the overall project, as in the buildingr, , use and location infithe facade. Mechanical units will be d according to their elevations. located on the roof, � 4,:-- screened • ,� mc9 ned from view, and will provide the best/location to minimize nois si rratton to the occupants and their neighbors. Downspouts are located within the courtyard space and are, ntegrated with the building facade. Chimneys , are integrated into the balcony elements to create roof line it visual excitement at the d miliffiziffismisgaissiiii - I' • A. N e t • 1 • The village concept is enhanced by creating two courtyards which provide light and air to the tenants of%the complex. Each courtyard has a visible connection to Second Street, and landscaping and pedestrian circulation physically link the courtyards and the Second Street environment. Horizontal circulation will be accommodated by a perimeter walkway on the interiors of the courtyards. Vertical circulation will primarily be by elevator, with secondary access accomplished by the use of stairs located within the courtyards. The courtyard circulation eliminates the need to have walkways and stairs at the exterior perimeter of the complex and allows the project to maximize the unit views to the exterior. Limited V;'ariety of Styles: Building Design Standard 2.020 1.g. The project provides subtle variations in design. Variations of balconies and building heights are used to reduce the massing of the building and to provide visual interest. The project will use consistent detailing of windows, doors, railings, and trim throughout the project, combined with contrasting trim color around the window openings. The objective of this standard is to avoid the mixing of styles within the project. • Screened Mechanical Equipment: Building Design Standard 2.020 1.h. Mechanical units are located on the roofs of the building units. Each apartment will be served by individual HVAC units, thereby reducing the size requirements 11111 for the units. Each unit will be screened by the 30" parapet around the building perimeter. Use of latural Elements to Help Define Building Proportion and Scale: Design Standard 2.020 1.f. The landscaping design incorporates a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to reinforce the residential environment by using variety in b I scale, color, and texture. Street trees along Second Street provide continuity with the adjacent development, while lawn areas behind the sidewalk afford an open feeling for the pedestrian. Landscaping design adjacent to the walls of the parking structure incorporates heavy planting and large shrubs to soften the building line. "r Trees and shrubs planted atop the elevated deck accentuate the staggered offset of the units in plan. Landscaping at the main building, in conjunction wi'th paving, is designed to visually connect the sidewalk and the main building entry. Access to Desirable View, Not Blocking Others View, Building Design Standard 2.020 1. i. Each unit is oriented to the exterior, with circulation located within the courtyard. This configuration maximizes the view potential from each unit. ' The existing apartment complex to the north is oriented to an internal courtyard, with its abutting south façade used as a service alley for the a tenants. The design team has minimized openings to the north due to the undesirable condition of the northerly apartments and has provided a 5' • landscape buffer, 5 - n • • Building Designed and Located to Complement and Preserve Existing Natural Landforms, Trees, Shrubs, and Other Natural Vegetation: Building Design Standard 2.020 2.a.-c. A large Cutleaf Japanese Maple, which has been specifically identified in the City's inventory, is preserved in the site development and becomes a focal point of the southeast corner of the project, The building foundation is designed to match the scale of the project and the adjacent uses by incorporating rusticated block walls with a heavy planted base. In addition, the wall along Second Street is given a finer texture by using a wood trellis. Landscaping will be encouraged to grow into this trellis work to soften the wall along Second Street. The wall of the parking structure along the south property line is prohibited by Code to have any openings within 20' of the property line. To relieve the effect of the blank wall , a patterned wall has been incorporated to provide visual interest, using rusticated and smooth block, as shown on the elevations. Building Design to Minimize the Personal Security Risks: Building Design Standard 2.020 3. Access to each unit is only through the courtyard, which is secured around the perimeter. All points of access to the courtyard will be secured against unauthorized entry by a keyed lock. The main entry along Second Street will have an intercommunication device allowing each tenant to verbally confirm who is requesting access and to electronically activate the latch at the main door (gate). Each entry will be provided with a keyed deadbolt and peep hole. Landscaping has been developed to eliminate areas of concealment. The project will be provided with lighted parking areas, common courtyards, and street lighting. To minimize the possibility of auto theft and vandalism, the parking area will have a secured perimeter. An automatic sliding gate will be provided at the driveway entry. The gate will be placed on a time clock which will close the gate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The'gate will remain open from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to allow visitor parking within'the complex. This parking scenario provides a secured parking area which addresses • the concerns of Standard 2.020 3. and also addresses the intent of Section 7.020, which requires that parking spaces be allocated for visitor parking. The need for commercial parking and on street parking in the adjacent residential areas will substantially decline by 11:00 p.m. Therefore, the need to provide visitor parking on site after 11:00 p.m. should be rare and should not affect the surrounding community, Noise Impacts Minimized: Building Design Standard 2.020 4. Separation of the parking area by the elevated concrete deck and solid perimeter walls to the north and south will protect the tenants and neighbors from noise generated in the parking areas, The building construction of double walls between units and 2" lightweight concrete slab floors will - 6 - • • 11110 minimize sound transmission between units. Mechanical noise will be limited by the use of forced air gas pack units on the roof. No mechanical units will be located within hearing of residential units, including outdoor living areas. Water Control : Building Design Standard 2.020 5. Storm water from the project will be collected by roof gutters and:: roof scuppers at the low point on the sloped roofs. Area drains will be provided • in the courtyards to collect all water runoff. Catch basins will be provided in the parking areas to collect excess water from cars and to provide for wash down of the parking area. Perimeter c. foundation drains will be used to prevent water from migrating through the benched walls of the parking structure. All storm water will be detained in underground storm detention pipes and released at a metered rate into the City system. 3. Title 3 - Stream Corridors - (Not applicable; no stream corridors on subject site). 4. Title 4 - Wetlands - (Not applicable; no wetlands ,identified on subject site). 5. Title 5 - Street Lights - Street lights will be provided to public standards, . if accomplished through a local improvement district, or as shown on the attached site plan if a local improvement district is not formed. Generally, street lighting will be provided at 120' to 150' spacing. The fiberglass poles will be 25' in height, and will include a 150 watt shoe box fixture with photometric cut-off (Average .015 to .40 footcandles) . 6. Title 6 - Transit System - A hard surfaced pedestrian path (i.e. , sidewalk) will be provided on Second Street to 'B' Street. 7. Title 7 - Parking and Landing - The City Development Code requires that 2 off-street spaces be provided for each two bedroom unit. The proposed project includes 39-two bedroom units, totaling 78 required spaces. Other standards of the City Development Code will be met. As required by City Code, 25% of the parking spaces will be designated for common/visitor use. 8. Title 8 - Park and Open Spaces - A 12" diameter Japanese Maple located on the subject site will remain within the landscaped area. 9. Title 9 - Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering- The subject site has several large trees and a Laceleaf Japanese Maple which are inventoried and included '✓ in Section III . The Laceleaf Japanese Maple will be incorporated into the site design as an amenity, and will be protected to ensure survival . ID 7 - • 1111 The perimeter landscaping will provide a softening of the grade level parking structure, in addition to providing a visual connection with residential units above. A variety of plant materials will be utilized in the courtyard to complement the space, in addition to addressing ,the specialized light and air conditions. 10. Title 10 - Fences - None proposed. 11. Title 11 - Drainage Standard for Major Development - On-site storm detention will be provided. A storm line will be extended to the intersection of Second and B Streets if the L.I.D. is not accomplished (see attached Utility Plan and Calculations). 12. Title 12 - Drainage Standard for Minor Development - Not applicable. :' 13. Title 13 - Weak Foundation Soils - The soils report accomplished for 'the Y subject project indicates that, generally, conventional construction methods may be utilized, and that soils are adequate for the proposed project (see Soils Report in Section III). 0 14. Title 14 ,- Utility_Standard - The proposed project will be served by pudic water (Second Street), storm (Second Street), and sanitary sewer (alley). Other utilities (electricity, natural gas, cable) are available (see Utility • Plan). 15. Title 15 - None. 16. Title 16 - Hillside Protection and Drain Control - The subject site is generally less than 6% slope. Therefore, no special hillside protection and/or drain control methods are necessary. 17. Title 17 Flood Plain - Not applicable. 18. Title 18 - Access - The subject development will provide only one vehicular access to/from the site, which will be located on Second Street. Based upon the I.T.E. Trip Location Manual (4th Edition), the 39-unit apartment building will producc'282 average daily trips and 24 trips at the P.M. peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Due to the location of the access driveway at the south end of the site, it is anticipated that a majority of vehicles will enter/exit the site via 'B' Street. 19. Title 19 - Site Circulation/Pavement and Private Streets No private streets are proposed, and the subject site is served by a public roadway. 20. Title 20 - Site Circulation/Bikeways and Walkways - A public sidewalk will be provided on Second Street to 'B ' Street as a part of the proposed project, 21, LCDC Goals/Guidelines - The proposed project will comply with City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance and Standards, as set forth by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1978 and amended in 1980 and 1982, is in compliance with LCDC goals and guidelinet. - 8 - • • • D. Other Information The following information has been requested by staff in addition to the information in the application check-off list: Comprehensive Plan Compliance - This project is within the East End General Commercial Zone ( 'EC ') and is a permitted use within this zone. Also, this project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which is to provide high density hot sing within the EC zone to support business in this area. ryJ Specifically, applicable gals of the East End Commercial District are met by the proposed project. The proposed project design provides consideration of both adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area, as described in Section II above. On-site improvements are provided to address pedestrian access/circulation, parking, and other development standards. Off-site traffic patterns will not be negatively impacted as a result of the proposed project. Zoning Ordinance Compliance 48.300 - EC Zone/ 48.305 - Residential use at 'R-0' densities is permitted. fill 48.310 - 1. Required yards are zero. 2. F.A.R. allowed is 3.0; the F.A.R. of the project subject j is1.72. 3. Lot coverage allowed in the EC Zone ��is 100%. The building footprint of the parking structure is 86% lot; coverage. 4. Vehicle trip - not applicable. 5. The maximum height allowed in the� 'EC' Zone is 60'. The proposed apartment complex will be 39 '-O° in height. 48.315 - The proposed project will be developed in one unified site plan. No additional special requirements apply to the subject site. (( 11110 - 9 - • H • i1 1.;i.1 ki „ r1i11,r• /i W� '' 'C' AVfNUF • . C] r 11 , ,..N. '11•,1.I, 11 ^ 31 ; �1;141,'!� m `;'* M ,S. i r R•M y�•y ••'4 y , 'y� .4, i I k % • `� f•mot y4� C'' !•.''. v i i ;, lJ d O C1 M• sYS/.I .. ijJ ;4#r *_:i t •1" f i/ 11 i),\ n in M \::::: .‘ ,.; 71 i . 1 • (Al , N � (1,I !i ./fir' 4' •,," 9 e • f„" '` ` '` it `, 1 y t,; 1 . 4 l y r rl . ill ' +-1/ 'il ' k ' F I if/./1'M'/ IMM' ''.• 1 A 1; q 1 •a sN ' 4M le 10 ,CS j.0 N.II 10 k ,, NI e,'"1'µyo: ...,r,'cr A . '• .r 1 ..,,? ,rr fJ : a i I,a�th r'• , �^ yr e I:' " v te Irii1 , � 1' 'I .. LAKE OSWEOO CENTER APARTMENTS v a r II Y• TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SECOND AND 13'STREETS b 1 . n d 4 'f 1A3111S.S.ONV ONO3 S e N • SINIDVVIdVdV W31N30 r : �d V, l 4 OOiMSO 38111 SNOIIVA3't ONIO'1IA8 i OIIVS JIZN3A '. l'' i ao P L.Lr \\ ; 0} o A.... r-la ll .•: a •• a , al m I PIcm • ■: 1 Imaim N I i , •••111 111111• 1 El ID 9 )i 14 NA. ';i4ifi 1/441 i. mi l: J - ,1 _.I `J 0I P _ t ' lid j ;•• �1 II 1 I .� ® y 1 •liii4 �� . { D r ^S_ 3 F. , ` 1F. , { 17.-- foil i!'-I 6 , mr. 1 r , , t i ,, 1 , li i ,, I • .Mu A III II17 le .., i ir"-r"7*A 0 it li* , ,,r.....„.. liii iii-fri, t.- 1.., - El �1 RIR , 1- 'fir f" 9 '-ilillibitioe lt �' 1 ir1 I , \`ice 'SSi W�r 11I .I, gli 111:u ra t ' + j , � rr .r a ' 1 ,�{ 'tI'r l I� y 0,74 Die, E E 2 li it, Bec.,,,, i: E.-....• 11 il la -a .1.• A L_ 4. t . . ::fir d , -I 1 tiliii C e Ci. ;� riiI !1r, �, Imo. 1-: : " I ai I : , ..-- 133NiS.Y.ONV ONO03$ f S1N3W1UVdY N31N30 j 1I.; ~ / DelS3IV'IOOSSV N 003MS0 3NV� NV 1d ONIfINVd OLIVS 31ZN3�IOV N NV'Id 1fOAV1 31IS I,i', , • q in /001i MS.IJM 1 I ,.. 1 i /1104 0 � � o 111 $ 11 L, . // „...,,...„.. . ........, , . \ , i iiii .,.... . i . . 1, 1 II' \0 :J.-0 3 il ell I gl +t .r—�..�"=', NI a s'Nn N. % u t , \ , • Y X ,, E e ? 1 I 4 II 1 —. 't X g °p g i _____, '0 \s<1 'N,---.. 7 -M' t� •1 > R it ,Illlitili x wilt. i `., w 6/ ' '''' , 1 ro r.-- 3 , I. —fl pil p t '#!1 cr, !"'i 1 1 1 li �.♦. I 1.f� .a, pa de.,..de.,.. �7";Ih �T� t,.w.r�sn y �M.I.�r•V•nn ttr.••••r•r w •u rf.e' rFlitC i } .. rTii 11 I '1 r --Pli, i 0 ....-...r.---., "el 1.41 dii-XISTItillr."*".""'" * 9 .4 EXHI 111T_ , H . • 1. , 0 133U1S.Y.ONY ONO038 d M` S1N3MI1tlVdY N3lN3� S r o , •IS 3d S3 VI3OSSv 4 I I OLIVS 3`, NOVI 003MS0 3HY 1 ,p' I±' 1 tamAl11LLf1/ONIOYYp 3115 I;I I \� u or �_ 1 At vi uI o� i _ a p �t E. � . �: a I tP"�: 1 \ ins ' • 7. / ,i ,� O� �, "ef , it ! ;r� ;1 L , V i 1 t • ,it 1 r '. a / ,.. „..,..._ ,!'IL � 1 ) • , ,,/ � It r�.. rr� • f i i s / / ' ,°ei r tat 1 1 tQ= .� .✓ II r i/ ... t r 1 R 1 �� ��� 1 rA L �r� J F 8 1 14/, ->' \. i 1 • 11 r�1 z / \ r�. , r:),,,,d 41 i 1I I s ` I g 1. �\ t .� � y, .._'. : 1 ....... /i ; ;VA, ..' \N\ •'' 1 ! eY N ! l / , it \ �/ S .II i I, �/ r t i ! I i I ,'• II I nAh I iel -yT' `•"F� I' L s 3 it r. u , . , rk iW, . 1 �1 r�A;r •,` � . 11s ,r � � r5 Inel � � � r A 1' a-" I x / 'I .. o •�r ' I,' a i s 01 I I I T II At f r I r , .A , - 4 • r , • // �� � % ' f1H3UL3.B,ENV ONO33S 5, o ^i OO14' SIdSiN31N1NVdV H31Ni0 / 1 + 2 ,NI d 3dr SONV' ;, / ,II �dSSVIZ.:35-•4'a 003S0 3NVT , �� co clj/' , 41 i �� 1 L 0 1' in c) C1' 3 ' ........., r. , ,..,..„ , ..t pi- , ... ,......, , . , .. , :„,..„-.., ...... , o,,.... �� °' g , , / ..., ur-41.- - , ,,i , I a I iq [ij ray.... r.4.. > �; I ' CI 0 ,.., —1.4 :F. ,..?-r 'ZIT-it,-1-..):44' A .IV r.. P li i i )1. tli i.f., cl a , il ! • . „ 1 0), 4. i ,. itel, .., .t 1 -it.: , g , , Pi itit 11 ii 01 . V I • _'- ' ' ( ,awl ,j� - ;.u" 1 12.1- Pig § o il id J �. 01 pi � a � t)L1 / t � .. '' yg ;., --411144:1M10 r"..C't � H • _ IN » c^_ --- °•• :r7i •'• o r.•-,.l; i 14,, G 9 4 @ E a#:S p Yt a4 iii - f. , 1 ' g P (I�a,I - ,,, J �'► tI �.,i 1,. � '' � 9-" 3 / , OS j1. YY-- �--7•'z'''I'� ��, ` gyp • ,'l ritil. - i lji E Ma r ' to �I t .! $ 3 11� ! 1 i i 4 9 ! e e C m .C s • li 0� . __. rr .- , 1. a �� JF / .......1.11.............. � I ♦ ♦ • 133Y19.B.ONV ONOJ38 -----"r,. • 81NaW1UVdV U31Na3 I, �% (1,.. b3,rIJOSSV A OO]MSO 3NV1 NVld UOO14, A R'I idn :i07 31ZN]NOVIN � la." .' at o-,ou } . _ __ _. 4 t _ k\\,,, g � 1 of , . �. r .1. c_ ,; . II 'i11111111M Ii tI lui f. r o d • 51t al o V 1 g r s 4 '', NH " i t. t ! • 1 � 1 a S A 1 q .. I A ill HMI [ i I ■ rim l'i .-J , 01•• ' � 01 IIIM .. 1Lir' In i3!tion IiIJH _ IIIIJ II. • . C III o o alb , o A U M ,M M • M tir fianl ~ Off. • e " ::i; � ru +________ 1, '1,,,,,,.,,p,ifl __Ler , . ,, . ./ , '; . br , \ • . 0. ,. , , .' * . .. • , . . ' , • r • • % 116 ,_ ,. . . 0 . ';',/ • '' ' , r 0 ' ''."...'..... AIMS.11.CINV°MOODS ••• , • ••3 g , A 1 • i . SLOW/AVM tillt430 ^ 1 ,* ' , • ))3:1 S3LVIDOSSN 9 r 093MS 0 3)01 NVidCIOU 1 A ••• . . I, OLWS 31ZN3sIOVV1 ,. 4 . . , . . M V , or+.• ' MP „ • • • . NI, IL'.--r;-.':::,LZ..-- -'.. • II , = MN ,, .. ri . .. 1 Tomo , '1O. • , ,1,1 • vm.„....;.4 , • , .. :41 NE . , . ,,,,, • I ,,4, i„;,; • . .i., . ,,• ,.,,, . , . , k .,., . ri II . ._ •.. -_,,,---4.7%: MZO ... --,-,-,— .rn , I , . , II , 1j. 'l ---"''—.T.All ,. • ' .13 . , , 7.5','.-P.,- --,4 • .:7-rallia 1:'i; • , 0 ...„.,, . . . . , ......,,,, i T-S.7 ii7.1111111 . I , a a. llE '- , , , o i , , • 01 7.-_.---- ----,-7-3116.. joirA „.,C-,:,-- r1.',14].1-.T,..„,...,..__'•,7-„!;-.., , , • , . ' VC? MI .• a • , I ., , v ,, Al#101M"111114' i .., . ; 0 c„, , • /NM.' EXHIBIT ii • . , . 1 I t . mo., , . ------ -1\ , . . / , , I .. ' 4 / , v• • l' . • • f� 133d1S U.ONV ONO3 s SAN3wid11dV HilN300 11 II " R 1 , Od `S3IVIOOSSV 4 003MSO 3)IV 1 i�'' u P. \°WSf 3IZN3NOVW OUVAlt1000 1Y NOLL03S I �. 9 \ 4, i tr: 0. It tI f 0 ' in • I ke r� W 2 1 j 4 � ., �� , — ram—' s i � a� N Ian,•, � et ) ' ; 1 ;' -! a;ii I:V rNR- i t , Al B , ® B . Q;'e B r �- C i �- itB B 8 l ,1 8 8 8 0 fi 1 ) ut iC / di nt 8 9 9 0 \1a B e �1 , gi, ..,, , _ ii., . 1:42, . ,_ , ._ , ... _ ,41mikos/ , . s - :,,,Hk., — ,..... , tr"cir 1..amm..' ". t. r , uIai tittl r. _....._ _,....., , ) 1 ' 11— n KHi . 4 • 4 r I / • 0 al , on �r \ . • • • • el \ . 0 \ • Existing Tree ` In I • i/1 /, , II • M. H EXHIBIT • . y2 u .� 4 ..i� � �1 • .s � r � , r 6. JOHN HERBST, JR. AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 410 7610 S.W.17TH DRIVE PORTLAND,OREGON 97219 24G822e November 2, 1988 it Nate Pool Sales Associate The Equity Group, Inc. 6443 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy. Portland, OR 97221 Dear Mr. Pool: At your request for an opinion regarding the flora on tax lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, Lake Oswego Block 32, please refer to your topographic survey where I have numbered the trees clockwise starting with the Cutleaf Japanese Maple in the southeast corner of lot 7. The trees are identified by botanical name first: 1. Acer palmatum Laceleaf (Laceleaf Japanese Maple) This tree is a good specimen of its kind and is worth saving if it can fit into your landscape plans - it is about 85 years old and originally came from the old Pi]ki•ngton Nursery. 2. Ficus carica (Fig) There are a clump of dark and white figs on the property which can be easily moved, if so desired. However, they are messy and would not be desirable in a carmercial development. 3. Prunus serrulata Mt. Fuji (Mt. Fuji Oriental Cherry) This tree has been suffering for the last fifteen years from a root disease and the branches die a bit more each y :ar - it is only because I kept pruning off the dead wood and fertilizing it that it is even still alive. 4. Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweetgurn) This tree was terribly injured in an ice storm in 1980 when the entire top of the tree broke off. It has been topped about 12 feet from the ground and what you see largearbranches are now very vulnerable to storm damage - it Willnever be adecent t tree and certainly not one to try to save and work around. 5. Corylus avellana (European Filbert) There are two clumps of filberts on the site, but certainly not worth saving or working around. 6. Prunus (Italian Prune) This is a small old tree, but is not worth • l) trying to save for landscaping purposes. • 7. Umbel].ularia californica (California Laurel) This is an old specimen of what is known as Myrtlewood. It is a native tree from southwestern Oregon. to northwestern California but has a bad wound on the backside and .is dying. ii 0 i JOHN HERBST, JR. AND ASSOCIATES lbLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 7610 S.W, 17TH DRIVE PORTLAND,OREGON 97219 246-8228 November 2, 1988 8 & 9. Juglans regia (English Walnut) There are two of these - both old and in very bad shape - the wrong kind of tree for landscaping purposes even it they were in good shape. • 10. Pinus contorta (Shore Pine) This is a native tree from the`ooast but requires more sun than it is getting next to the old building and, consequently, it is leggy and not a good example; you will find much better specimens available in the nurseries in almost the same size. I it 11. Thuja plicata (Giant Arborvitae) This is also a native tree, probably brought down fran the mountains. It is also known as Western Red Cedar. This particular tree is an old specimen that has had its top cut off about fourteen feet fran the ground at some prior date and has attempted to grow a new top resulting in a bushy conglomerate as an upper structure. Definitely not a specimen tree nor worth the effort of working around. • 12. Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) A native tree, probably a• volunteer and, even though it is of considerable size, would not tolerate being graded around or paved around because its roots spread out over a great distance and it would just die over a period of time. It is a very messy tree, producing great quantities of seeds which create a real maintenance problem; definitely not the type of tree for any kind of commercial or residential development. 13. Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) A double stem - See #12. 14. Ulmus americana (American Elm) An old tree with a double stem, the original seed of which was probably blown into the alley and rooted. It is growing too close to the alley to have been meant as a specimen . • tree planted by some homeowner, It is too big, leggy and messy to try to work around. 15. Ilex aquifolium (English Holly) This may be a seedling r'.eposited by same robin but does not appear to be either a particularly good specimen or a special variety - much better material from Teufels Nursery in Beaverton. • 16. Pseudotsuga taxifolia (Douglas Fir) A forest tree is definitely not ry the type of tree to be around building foundations. This particular tree has had its top cut off about thirty five feet from the ground resulting111, in four new tops of which two still remain (the others have been cut off) . 7!• is not a good specimen nor worth trying to work around for any 4 new development. • 11 t G •• i JOHN HERBST, JR. AND ASSOCIATES \+J LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 7610 S.W, 17TH DRIVE PORTLAND,OREGON S7219 246.8228 November 2, 1988 17. Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) This one is a half dead ten inch tree trying to grow in the shade of the larger maple. It is probably a seedling from the larger maple. 18. Castanopsis chrysophylla (Giant Evergreenchinkapin) This is a- native tree from the inland mountains and in the coastal mountains of Oregon. Probably collected by a former homeowner. Although this is a relatively good specimen of this type of tree, it is readily available from several native nurseries and could be planted elsewhere af this tree's location does not fit into your plans. Hardly worth Aking a major effort to save. 19. Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) A clump of three stems 8 - 12 inches; see #12. 111/1 20. Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) A clump of three stems - obviously a seed blown against the fence of the apartment house and at some past date, someone cut it down and it grew back in three sterns of which the old stump is larger than any of the stems; see #12. I hopethis will helpI'mdoesn't you and, sorry but, there seem to be much w . th saving on these five lots which you have chosen for your new development. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to call. irL „Respect'vely, Jo Herbst, Jr. dscape Architect • I . • V. • •• Oc', Ow p�� ••� s4 s% c rw: 7 7YM 'l id '?N�? Via+. 14 '",c • t"'' '4// I lo �� .... 1 or'N r 1 S, y•0�\ a� �o �� • *,• ,;.. ti I ``:�35 +' lei �Ir 3.� r ��1\ n ^�• c. y • b / o," ,, • et I v. 2 ,• in • io. 1 .. a • a ,,,, , Iw Qa 0.O p 4 ,'� 2 i;�., ! ham ��, h, 4. • '•4 v . 1 ,n c 01/ Z O v p 's'• 1 Cr) - i n o� V/` CI, N o m o4 t r� • kl 1 V , O / ,� / x , r o °b %4%ID I ;• • .n •CI t�� X,' obi �'�• :sue /eI"/'d• �'�' h n • •r �.d l� •�'i .. ��p I �.se 7 ..' (-1734 , ip gyp+ OW : .,, ~ • ^ \/ A o,•4h'h 6� a : + C' o �•:r I, $ ! , • • j • q•ob � +0 GI Wfi s % 'd , r • i o .,/ I'�' oill oc+ °•c+� °a+. of ON \5 '� 0 I1 o 4,4 b' hb' o f o —• 0 \ , \h-�0 0 0 ow t et o 3 1 J '+i. ter^,)uo fA �. 1 % •4 4 y p \tit ._ , �, ,, V. .° • • �►, Zt • j'� 1 CA \ �h +41 °. ' y 1511 Q 1 •O r:/ �/ k •�`� ` \ '' 1 V 4-.0",... . Oa th. .... • ~j'�� I °.I.. � Go tt o�.Itt ►. I. ro d• o 6 ii 1 `� �• mac+. �� i° rj'. on d ��a„ f62 r�" b e- —. , . 0 . i '( li • ) .. • '.11.J. •••,.... ft. • 0 0 ...0 ..r• .1.1•CI ;" " . tt'S • C•1 •10 CI • ...ct • • ., 4r• • C•1 •4 •••• '.P...„ . .••• ...• •c• XI sCs 4'1 cr , ,s1 4•i •In ••• 770M (142Y •0 NO9 4, -- 1 0 -- -- 4 k...val.__ i .-1, • 1 r o 0 o _ . er% ci.- 15, 1(14•). ‘?..- . - • . 4 „iii %.1.• ••• • • •‘••••••••A...... ). 4-% . • O. -it. o .... •„0 •••0 4't ...I. % ' • 1 1 di , 6 \ 1 1 i /41: 4, .;.5 0:4. :,.... i 0„. CD I • 4 I • ' 4 6 • 44 4 •••) X' 1 V' •10 I , I cr .' •4-, 'c4 i e, o ( ....s. . • \"r'k ..,, .0 ....• a ••''ailia 41 IZ) LI ... in 4. . ..' 1...2 / , 1 • 4 i •C' 44.6.• " • tr• ', •da . o • CP • ' cr. ,, ,"5. I 4' . . . . . .. ' 4 • ' ......... • . '>•Ni• 1 lbkv •1 0.i IA , • 4 • 514 ' •-./f-" 4 — a .../ .• • 4 . • • •4 ..4 1 ,4 Q44 ,r, /, . • • ' • 6 • et • /6' • • • . •1: I•• 4 4 . • ••'• V• ...•" • •\ •t ' 6 '. .• : l.) 4 •i • j • • le' " .• 4. 1 , • oo 1 — -.. iii. -I,,...., . . 41/4„,, --„„. .•,., , ..II • ••••:0 41 • I i. . • kr, • /Z1 ••41.V..• • 0 • . • a • 11C 1 k Z•rl •: k. • ..• t j •Po,_ ) 1 i 't,..'0, 1 '' •1/4.--e , ,t ••-• 1/4. . . ., .. 4.\ .4.1/4 . s, V. . • 49 N. ••••••"'•TO 1•••• ej L.. ) ''''. . N • "• : •• 4 a% ,, „....• 0 ip to , \ . ., , .• 4 .. , . .1, 0 •gi 4. co 4.1 I .&-, t; s „ . • • .. • , „ l.) o IIP 0,1 ,, la•-• -. • trl iv! I 470 . , ',. . sk k$ I 0 a r'' •r• ••••• ' ...e.' ••1 .4..I"="..' E CI •• _ • i I 1.L en . :t , • .,,. ., . 4-, 6 6 ' , , .., .. • 41, t cr- c•-% i .. k) $.. ..: . . • • ..- ..a...0 ge• CC • r. . . ..4 , , ,, 6 t. i .3 • 4 • 41 • .;) • ....• k to ,..,1 B1:0, ,e. i 1 ' el_ ••% II. =4.1) 0 ‘ • ... ) . di kr e. •t..) •i . CI 14 , . .. .• ' i 41..... ..... •4 • . 44 .4 4. • / • ••••••1....t.‘9..... ,• Y4 '66 0 tX 43 . 0 • .." / 14) 11* (5). 4 ..,•.• 41.. •••• t•• .... —o),/ k a •••1 CI •••J 11 0 11 4141 is. o 0 ..4 *-1 o n N-.. .ci V ler ..... 0 0 0 . •P. , 01 c13 c° 4 •••• " t•J . 1..) V• \. ''...$ di 4-% i t• ' ..c, l't .:1) U.: Q /t •et ,..)ci ,1 C‘i I- *I — ..- ...„„(...---- .., • • ..- —...0 • 1. , 2 / 1 i.t .$.• 1.-./tila), 0/./....-... 0 e- 0* ..s.,0 ..• ..c% .... A ‘')1••'I\ • / (...:1 4"....:\***-2.A.. ,...."/ . • irs , 0, • e ° °O,1/40 0 .... ..‘ •11''' A'4,1 ,..,....t.re., , Al I It. 4. ..,.. _ 13-'41 ' • i, i ,„ct .... 0 al . ...di ' ,r1 / . ,.' A.:74110 11%.$1, en.-% ,5 V• • •P (Ai , • •••• „.•• • .... ;/ \j \ 6 ..- 3 2 1:n1-1 , tr) 4 • 4 4 4 4 4 ' •CA OC "." 5 6, \ * 0 ti (.4•3 14. 4••• '44 • ••••••'•At ••1 "-V 7teeft '.3N0.2,.....A 1 1 .. I • C) ' .r..LP t, .,0 0 I .1. • 1, to it 41 '"--- '• 1/41 •;' o" 0 % 4, - • --' ... 1 t' to c 6' 9 ..". ..., 0 , ,.... I '. ..• i 4 . • ..0 a .' ••-•'. Ae."'... ea.. \ ....,s I i'• ti.. 'PS li.' ' \ I 11 ,.. .' // tih f' INV. . if s . . _ , A 1 . , . . • cS . STAFF REPORT n OSWEGO ' CITY OF' LAKE 1� . -- LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : ,, John Kyle, Architect PD3-90/SD 57-89. 1 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Kirk Johansen Michael Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: / , Tax Lot_100, 201 of April 27, 1990 Tax Map' 2 lE 11CC DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: May 7, 1990 7 ' East of the Headlee Lane, f/ east of the Green NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: h COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: None R-15, R-7. 5 (Respectively) ZONING /ESIGNATION: 0 R-15, R-7.5 (Respectively) I . APPLICANT'S REQUEST t , The applicant is seeking approval f a two-parcel . planned development, each parcel o�E which will have portions in two zone districts (R- .5,y R-15) ; also the • applicant is seeking approval for a Lot Line » ' Adjustment between two existing parcels. Each adjusted parcel is proposed to exceed the minimum required lot size of the zone in which its largest portion is located. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake OsWego Comprehensive Plan: . Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III , . y,� PD 3-90/SD 57-89' Page 1 of 14 1 ( 4o. MI . } W . 1 Impact Management Policies ' General Policy I, II • wJ.. . Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I • Potential Landslide Area Policies • General Policy II, IV Potential Erosion Area Policies • e , General Policy II, IV Willamette Greenway Policies General Policy I • Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I, II Energy Conservation Policies , General Policy II Residential Site Design Policies " ' . General Policy V . B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: 4110 C.C . . LOC 48 . 085 (3 ) Interpretation of District Boundaries LOC 48 . 195-48 . 225 R-7. 5 Zone Description (set- backs, lot area, lot .... • coverage) ",� , ' •^ .. LOC 48 , 430-48 . 436 Greenway Management Overlay ). '' LOC 48 . 470-48 . 490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48 . 815 Criteria for Approval ` y:m, C. City of Lake Oswego Develor mPht Code: LOC 49 . 090 Applicability of Development . .. . StandardsF LOC 49 . 110 Concurrent Review of Permits LOC 49. 130 Classification of III "1..'..' ', . ''' • Development LOC 49. 140 Minor Development LOC 49. 200-49 , 220 Major Development Procedures LOC 49. 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Procedures LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval • PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 2 of 14 , II . lF, • D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: III 2.005 - 2. 040 Building Design 6.005 - 6.040 Transit System N 7.005 - 7.040 Parking & Loading Standard . 8. 005 8. 005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space • 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11. 005 -11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development . �+ 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development - 14.005 - 14. 040 Utility Standard 16.005 - 16. 040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 1 19. 005 - 19.040 Site Ci •culation - Private Streets/Driveways "„ E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005 - 57. 135 F. City of Lakebswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: •. LOC 55 . 010 - 55 . 130 ""' III. FINDINGS N INGS A. Existing Conditions: 1. The site is composed of 37, 821 sq. ft in two tax lots. Tax Lot 100 is 0 . 5 acre (21, 742 sq. , ft. ) and Tax Lo+• 201 is 0. 37 acre (16 , 079 sq. ft. ) . „ r 2. The site is located on an east racing slope with slopes ranging from 28 to 200% (2' rise/1 ' horizontal run) . , 3 . The easterly 15 to 55 ft. is located within the Compatibility Review Boundary of the Willamette River Greenway, , • 4 . The site has a variety of trees on it. An inventory of these trees is shown on Exhibit ' 3 . • • _ a• 5 Tax Lot 100 is located in an R-15 Residential zone; Tax Lot 201 is in an R-7. 5 Residential y \\ * , t zone, • 6. A dwelling is located on Tax Lot 100 as shown on Exhibits 3 and 4 . PD3-90/SD5789 Page 3 of 14 , It B. Background: The applicant provided a completed application for the proposed lot line adjustment (SD 57-89) on November 3 , 1989. In December, 1989 it was determined that two variances were required for construction of a proposed dwelling on the steep slopes of one of the adjusted parcels and an additional variance : , ', was sought for a proposed p garage structure. The applicant provided a completed application for these three variances [VAR 1-90 (a-c) ] on January 25, 1990. The Development Review Board approved the request in its order dated March 19, 1990. ' ` ` Progress on the lot line adjustment was being made t during this time and a decision was nearly complete on March 13 , 1990, when it was determined / that the parcels resulting from the adjustment, which would no longer coincide with the R-7. 5 and "" R-15 zone district boundaries, would require either a Comprehensive Plan Map, amendment and a ; , Zone change or a planned development approval to k,'.,`; remedy(1this matter. Due to the difference in the time required to process each respective application, it was decided that consideration of 4110 ' ,, a planned development would be a simpler route. C, Proposal: ' The applicant seeks approval of a two-parcel Planned Development and proposes to adjust Tax Lots 100 and 201 to result in two parcels as follows : 'b1 . . Parcel 1 - 22, 267 sq. ft. • Parcel 2 - 15,554 sq. ft. G , D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: . '� As per LOC 48 . 815 (Zoning Code) and LOC 49 . 615 (Development Code) , staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating a planned development (major development) and a lot line adjustment (minor development) . ` 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant peeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 4 of 14 O «h . i 2. For any development application to be IIIIP " approved, it shall first be established that • the proposal conforms to: 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 manae 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 14, (the City Council memorandum of . December 5, 1989) 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. 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 cost of public facilities. • These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected • from erosion, trees will be protected from • removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. :r, ' Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval ' y will be imposed when necessary to assure ~ '; compliance. Wildlife Habitat Policies These policies require q protection of upland ..; U habitat in the form of preserved open space, PD 3-90/SD 57-89 . • Page 5 of 14 �° • • natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related • development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. • Potential Landslide Area Policies ':These policies require designation of areas of potential hazard to severe hazard as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measure during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development :Standard. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of applicable Plan policies. These policies also require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil. Conservation District mapping • indicates that the site is in a potential landslide hazard area. A soils report is required a ' to address this condition and has been presented in Exhibit 5. Potential Erosion Area Policies Thes ;policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open ' Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. • • Development is subject to the Hillside Protection 4r - and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related • development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Distinctive Natural Area Policies g; ,i„ These policies require the Cityto preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55 , the Tree Cutting Ordinance, and the Stream • r Corridor Development Standard. The related ` Y y development standards are reviewed in this report �" 'following an analysis of the applicable Plan '-' ' policies. PD 3-90/SD 57-89 , ail, Page 6 of 14 ", n 1 Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation .6 0 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. Willamette Greenway Policies • These policies require protection of the Willamette River Greenway. The policies are implemented through the Greenway Management Overlay Zone (LOC 48 .430 - 48.436) . A portion of the site is in the Greenway. Review of applicable :- requirements is considered later in this report. Protection Open Space Policies • These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable Development Standards. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. Residential Site Design Policies ' 41) , P These policies require the City to provide for • innovation in residential building types and site planning, including attached units, drainage 4 management, and special measures to preserve trees ' and natural features. These policies are implemented through the Building Design Standard, " '" a Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard, -,, Greenway Management Overlay and Tree Cutting w . Ordinance. The proposal is revised (,,;A;,r compliance with these regulations later in Section III .D. 2 .C. of this report. . : , b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. � a�1 6 Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter '`'` 48) Tax Lot 201 is zoned R-7 . 5 which requires a minimum lot area of 7, 500 sq. ft. per dwelling �',. ,' unit; required minimum lot width at the building �, line is 50 ft. ; required minimum lot depth is 100 . ' ,. ft. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is '` 35% (interior lots) [LOC 48. 210 (11 , LOC * Y 48 . 225 (1) ] . PI) 3-90/SD 57-89 /' Page 7 of 14 • a r ' • r n 6 A a .. ,�►' - 'n '. ` ,•. .r 1. r Y �.. The R-7. 5 zone requires the following minimum al ' setbacks [LOC 48. 215 (1) ] : Front yard: 20 ft. Rear yard: 25 ft. Street, Side yard: 10 ft. (20 ft. - collector • ► streets) a Side yard: 5 ft. Tax Lot 100 is zoned R-15 which requires a minimum lot area of 15, 000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is , • •• 80 ft. ; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. ' Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% [LOC 48 . 210 (1) , LOC 48. 225 (1) ] . ,' ' The R-15 zone requires the following minimum set backs [LOC 48. 215 (1) ] : Front yard: 20 ft. .ti. Rear yard: 25 ft. Street side yard: 10 ft. (20 ft. - collector streets) Side yard: 10 ft. The proposal complies with the density requirements of both underlying zonr_ss as evidenced in exhibits 3 and 4 . The proposal complies with all provisions regarding planned developments [LOC 48 . 470 48 . 490] . No reduction in lot area, setbacks or lot coverage are requested as a part of this application. .. Development of both parcels is subject to, the . variances approved earlier in VAR 1-90 (a-c) . Variance VAR 1-90 (c) was granted for a zero-foot side setback for attached garages on the proposed, adjusted parcels. All other setbacks can be met during development. The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area Width Depth w Parcel 1 22, 267 sq. ft. 116 ft. 190 ft. ,,• Parcel 2 15,554 sq. ft. 77 ft. 178 ft. n Both parcels are of sufficient size to meet P .. required setbacks. The existing dwelling s`0 - maintains a nine foot setback on the south which 4. .. does not comply with the required side yard gip, , q. PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 8 of 14 .. - - v y fir. d•. , t setback. The dwelling is legally nonconforming in this regard. Both Tax Lots (100, 201) have portions which are currently within the Willamette Greenway. + The applicants proposal will again result in portions of each parcel being within the Greenway. This development (the lot line adjustment) will • not adversely impact the site, relative to the purpose of the Greenway Management Overlay. No construction is proposed as a part of this , ' application. No future development is proposed within the Greenway. Compliance with the �• provisions of LOC48 .430 - 48 .440 will be required upon application for a building permit on either '' , parcel. w Development Code Requirements and Analysis ' ,;; The proposed lot line adjustment is appropriately being processed as minor development. It is being processed concurrently with a two-lot planned - _ ' ,/, development, which is a major development [LOC t ' t 49 . 145] . ,ther than the density calculation . required by LOC 49 . 315 (14) , satisfied by applicant' s Exhibits 3 and 4 , and the applicable Development Standards there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this ' 9 . „ request. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57) , 'o The construction of a dwelling or accessory structures on the site, or the planting of non- i • solar friendly vegetation, must comply With LOC 57. 050 - 57. 090, the Solar Balance Point 5 , provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance. Because the proposed lot line adjustment will not ,M' ;+ create any new parcels, the provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance are not applicable. ' Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) These ordinance provisions implement the Wildlife Habitat, Distinctive Natural Area, Protection Open °�, ° ' ' Space and Willamette Greenway Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. No tree removal is proposed ,,, as a part of the proposed lot line adjustment. PD 3-90/SD 57-89 • Page 9 of 14 r • �'di 1 . I, h c C. The applicable Development Standards `� Building Design (2. 005 - 2. 040) 0 .. . The The applicant has included Exhibits 17 and 18 r' ') demonstrating the appearance of the dwelling and''.' proposed garages to be complementary to neighboring dwellings as required by the standard. Exhibit 13 demonstrates the appearance of the • existing dwelling on the site as complementary. Transit System (6. 005 - 6 . 040) r, V The nearest transit facilities are located on Highway 43 . These facilities are not adjacent to the site. There are no hard-surfaced paths along y ` Headlee Lane. No transit developments are • required to serve this site as a result. • 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 or carport. An existing private drive serves both existing and adjusted parcels . Adequate space for required off-street parking is available upon both adjusted parcels. This required parking shall not be allowed to be within proposed access easements. Compliance will be a condition of approval of this action. Park and Open Space (8 . 005 - 8 . 040) wa This standard requires that all major residential development to provide at least 20 percent of the . gross land area of the development in open space or park land+ The proposed planned development is a major residential development. Land in open space is to remain in a natural • condition and shall be permanently reserved by common ownership among owners of the development, dedicated to the public orb "other appropriate � '' means. " y 19 The portion of the site which a3 within the • • , Willamette River Greenway amounts to 7, 103 sq. ft. ' or 18. 78% of the site. This land is heavily vegetated and is in steep slopes draining to the river below to the east. This land should be preserved undisturbed to meet a portion of this Standard ' s requirements. 0 ..-,. PD 3-90/SD 57-89 •Page 10 of 14 ,.�a xa r . 1 ti I!/;. /// w An additional 461 sq. ft. would be required to be F0 preserved in order to achieve 20% of the gross T 7:.* site area. This would amount to an area 2. 25 ft. • wide along the edge of the Greenway. This area could be preserved through conveyance of . : a conservation easement. This would be similar to the open space tract to the north which was ' established when the plat of The Green was recorded (PD 3-83) . This will be required as a condition of approval of this action. i Drainage Standard for Major Development (11. 005 - • 11. 040) • This standard requires that drainage alterations, ,, • including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The applicant ' s soils report (Exhibit 11) 1 recommends that storm water be directed to storm sewers or other approved disposal points. The report' s recommendation precludes dry wells or • allowing the water to free-fall on the slope of s'` the site. No grading is proposed as a part of the requested lot line adjustment. Compliance with the Standard ' +;', and the recommendations of the soils report will • ' be required upon application for a building permit • for either adjusted parcel. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16. 005 - • f 16 . 040) : .:r, : " This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater • than 12%. No grading is proposed as a part of this lot line adjustment. Compliance with the Standard will be assured upon application for a building permit subsequent to this action: , The applicant has applied for two Class lY variances to this development standard, particularly With regard to the position of a proposed dwelling on Parcel 2. These variances [VAR 1-90 (a) and (b) J were approved on March 19, 1990 by the Development Review Board, with two • conditions: . 0 PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 11 of 14 1 • • • 1. The applicant' s soil consultant shall design a 9' • ti storm drainage disposal system suitable to comply with their recommendation Number 10 (Exhibit 9 , VAR 1-90 (a-c) ) , and 2. Approval of VAR 1-90 (a-c) is contingent upon approval of a lot line adjustment (SD 57-90) and satisfaction of all conditions imposed therein. Additionally, erosion control measures are required by the State of Oregon, regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality. These measures will be required upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action. 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 existing driveway will serve both adjusted parcels and meets this requirement. It should be noted that required off-street parking shall not be located within access easements for the respective parcels. This will be noted as a condition of approval of this action. ' d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS ° There are no such plans which affect this site. E. 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 . III. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this proposed planned development and lot line adjustment (PD 3-90/SD57-89) , subject to the following conditions: 4 . 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. 4110 ' PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 12 of 14 .' 1 • 14 - .�., i 4 a. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in II 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 project into compliance with then current law and compatibility 1 with surro►(.nding development. The final plan shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. PD3-90/SD , 57-89. 2. The final plan once approved by the City, shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor ' s 1 office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks ' s office. �> , r 3 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer for recording with the Clackamas County Clerk' s Office, shall be provided to City staff for 411 approval . Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However, when recorded, the instruments for the parcels shall reference this land use application - City of Lake Oswego, Land Development Services Division, File No. PD 3-90/SD 57-89. 4 . The final plan shall be modified to indicate the ,' location of off-street parking on Parcels 1 and 2. Such parking shall not be within easements dedicated for ingress and egress to either parcel. ` } 5 . The applicant shall provide a conservation �` easement over the area of the site within the Willamette River Greenway plus additional area as appropriate in order to comply with the provisions , of the Park and Open Space Development Standard. This area shall equal 20% of the gross site area of the project. 6 . Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested , subsequent to the date of this approval. PD 3-90/S0 57-89 Page 13 of 14 • 4# (• 1 c M "' 1 • 7. Thee` 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 1111 comply with LOC 55. 050-55. 080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance) . ' EXHIBITS P 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative 3 . Residential Density Calculation, TL 100 4. Residential Density Calculation, TL 201 5. Site Plan showing existing Tax Lots 6. Site Plan showing proposed easements, exiting structures 7. Survey map by R.A. Lawrence showing trees 8. Map of Survey by R.A. Lawrence, dated October 2, 1989 9. Exhibit A (legend) , Reference to page 29, Engineering Geology Section, L.O.P.R. I. 10. Exhibit A (map) , Reference to page 29, Engineering Geology Section, L.O.P.R.I. 11. Exhibit B, Soils Report by Northwest Testing Laboratories, Inc. , dated December 28, 1989 12. Exhibit C, Existing and proposed structures and ' photographic references 13 . Exhibit D, Photographs 14 . Council ' s memorandum regarding schools, dated December 5, 1989 15. Exhibit E, Survey Map by R.A. Lawrence, dated January 29, 1990 16 . Exhibit F, Site Sections 17. Exhibit G, Elevations & Floor Plans, proposed dwelling on Parcel 2 • 18. Exhibit H; Elevation, Floor Plan and Section, f proposed garage on Parcels 1 and 2 � • 410 r , PD 3-90/SD 57-89 Page 14 of, 14 11 11 I Ir 1 IM r'. 11 11 1 ♦a F 0' '11 I 1 11 1 11 11 + 1 O. • • 1 1 I • � 1 ,01 >6.�.. ( D L C R. I E. W. M. No... •Y • �►�,�;COMMON AREA �,, `�0 F. A, COLLARD NO. 45 �, BULLOCK NO.46 0 ol* 234 41 ' •c4. TRACT °C° �, N JESSE 3' 229 • ' 0\ 0* str , 5;Pr 3 C . 1 3I v . • �,.4 T'i L• s ' �. s,r_'er w ` ) r �'.v'32 .. s ' 228 0 c• .., >,,, s., o . g 0pp y t f �� /�r•��!pSll� off,'' W�yY'9 `01 1 !r' o 4 II. r � . 27 9 A. ,9 N. R.g '2 t. 4' y ,/ • 226 91 ; 1 i l iio• u ap' i� 225 -•/ %R_A - : L. 2 2 4 "% ,19� �' i 1 • ��_,../223 ` 9� b ;� \•,v O. 133, I I • • \ t'`•.11 r4 a �19IS I t-� fH el r 151 1 4t gteIle' 41 ' ei.i° 222 w • 1�, ' erg: ,a ow S' ds.` +' ' c 1t0b ���r .y• 4-1 : 5OO 4�` 1 i.,111 /� 1 / A o i. 02 40 /� a k` /10 .. \ I11 jl, /4• 1,4'1 • , Su o #'2 fie, ,7q°lI'3d""; IIII�O j0l+.s '!y" „0.\ , toi tl " �S' °� u rµ 11 N I ��/db'"I 0/44'0y N �•ba t 11 ,f°� "u�` D. � '•' rt, i 1 ,,h 00 o" + J�•Aw e!•, �bq .i Z a A 4 EXHIBIT ' �N • ��?��� Aloe t, I\-J th e re''� ) $ b ,i °' °1 ` �4Mr, \� `e' Sy j 11 +y hl w 1• `G 0 O 3.1o/�p ••� �►V� 40 t 'i. V� 'r �. Orr .r ► ri r .1.1 yr y 4 I111- w 1 r 1 ' ,q• _ ,,,,, is /` l) • • w PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 4110 Kirk Johansen Property The subjed - roperty is"currently, designated Tax Lots 100 and 201, see Exhibi . Both lots are zoned R-7 . 5. Tax Lot 100 has an existing single family residence on the property, located as -shown on Exhibit 3 . Tax Lot 201 has no existing\buildings, but does have an existing driveway which provides ac 'ess to the • existing residence on Tax Lot 100. This application is for a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 100 (Parcel 1) and Tax Lot 201 (Parcel 2) . The existing and proposed lot lines are shown on Exhibit 4 . Proposed legal descriptions for Parcel band 2, including proposed easements, are listed on Exhibits 5 and 6 Proposed easements are shown on''' Exhibit 3 . The area of Parcel 1 would be 25, 37.1-'dquare feet and the area of Parcel 2 would be 12, 450 square feet. Each parcel wotld' exceed the minimum lot size of 7500 square feet required in an R-7 . 5 zone . • NOV; 31989 111 EXHIBIT ,�3 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY tC,'?LC"t_1LATI `I" per. aft , �. (�.4 ) t p7r.<..F1 1,—Tax Lot 100. 7n)„'I0 P,_i Gross Developable Acres ,0 . 50 Ac Less Right of Way ( Driveway Easement ) , 0 . 02 Ac:'. Net Developable Acres 0 . 40 Ac Less Min . Area Rer}uir.ed for. Existing Residence ' 15, 000 SF / 43, 560 SF/Acre = e0 , 4 Art. . Available Developable Acres 0 , 16 7\ • LeSs Density Transfer Acres Flcaoclplair► 0 Over 25% Slope ( = 0 . 1 r '.. Landslide 0 ir. 'r:'am Puffer 0 Pub 1 i r. O ll o r ri!pa r•e� 0 . Soils Report shows entire_ site i� develui�,.,b1-` U 1 11 entire site �� 1 r if an engineered solution is used . Therefore ID add density transfer acres for over. 25 slope . 0 , '. cc:� Total Developable Area' Allowed , C r , Allo'.•)abl Number nt Units : • Total Develfdpahiu Arco Al1owol - 0 . 15 x :1/ ,'r,r1 0 . 1 rt1,11,,.: P'-15 Zoning 15, One r' • E:;i; ting Res idenci 1 ft ,t. lizel . I-- Total Allowable Number of Units ot, Potcl• ,l 1 1 . 4 tin t= r rtia'_ uni' _ rlct "'' 1. '0w,, e! 4 TI.,F;"- ,E, * :" .. 1 --,1 " , i 1 1/. III (,,,,. . FM1 3A P p ii.79' ' . . • • . .. • . . .. _ ' - • RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS per 49 . 315( 14 ) : , 4111 ,17,, f_., s parcp1 2, T7)y Lnt 201 , Zoned R-7 . 5 OrOss Developable Acres .,'. Less Right of Way (Driveway Easoment ) c, <0 , 0.1..-.ALI. , 3 Net DeVelopable Acres ' 0 . 33 Ac Less Min . Area Required for Existing Residence 0 . 00 Available Developable Acree 0 . 33 Ac' . . LPss Density Transfer Acres Floodplain 0 $ . Over 25% Slope 0 . 33 Ac Landslide 0 Stream Roffex 0 . , ' Public Open Space 0 Subtotal '0 . . : ' . \ Soils Report ..11,ws entirt site ir:, dovelopable if an engineered solution is3usud . Therefore . add density transfer acres for over 25% slope . 0 , 23 Total Dove Aroo Allowed 0 , 22 Allowable Number of Units on t'arcel 2 . . Pr!+-.11 Dr!Vr)10111h1r, A ,N1 701,-)wo..0 - 0 . 31 y 11 . 56;(1 .:. 1 , (.1 R-7 , 5 ,'.7/inIng cno .. . . PaY. tial onit:', HO'. .11lowrl . Th,. f-ro, A1101,41h1P !.1..111-:, ' • . . .4111 4 PR , . _ g OXHIBIT A 0 L tA . . , •A , 4 • . ,.. ' . • hY: . . . ,0 4. .... . . 4-,,to• • 4 0:1141. , 4 . ... PAN pr.C., ....L. 2. . .. . . . E.X112T1 NG 0.37 *C. PROPOSEI7 0•34.6..C. • ..----' ....--- " t . ..----. 1 PARCE,L. I E.xt.t7rii-Jc. oe50 AG. PRoroc, E..7 cD, is,1 A.c.,. ... \ /*/ Lc:3T Li t--IE.- , F-Al 1-7 71 KJ r ' . • 1....OT l-I E..'5 Ilk, \\)111pir Afelk . 11' •'. :Z01.4 I 1-.4 Ci FC.-)1.-11-4124.1Z-411. • . "(4° c,AI PLT P I-•AN ki - J 0 HA 11 . -7 ".-1.1 PROP8-KT'e' 0 = 40 I,c)t? 0 4 EXHIBIT APR . /sos-r-en . ..,...., .. . • . . . , • • „ /0 0/ l e? 0°)e ,CC�_/ 1 ..... • . .... --y. ..i.vs,,.._ ..... ......, c, .N. Nt ...... ,., _, . i •�,. .,.... `, ,,p, 4.1..1„N 1.1. , .a 4 .,) , . \ ..„.. • t... (\14.L. "..4-1\\ , , ,, , • 11, LC) . • i ' .... 0 Ns ... ti t< , \ �� tc%) Lo A ,i) 4 • } C\I • a 1 0- - . . oo,S) \ ,, 2 2?44 i8, ...,....../ .5.4- z )9 eq• / „e‘IC/ / il / + ,,... , hypo ; i-.-§I N, /Z / Q in t CV 0 , \;......,,..L.....,../....................._,„,...........i Ck 1 I 18" -N 4 4 8° . a A a z 0 2: 1 et 'd rn'« e mrp►r��d cc) 2. < n-4,-8, 0 ,................ grzi 30/ 8 ‹ . . LI . 920 • T .—II ( a) ii T r gc, : C‘1 �tr.)Il § 1 w 1. . . • . . • . , • \ . , . • , . , , , . . . . , .. , • . . . . . •,, • , • , , . . .. . . . .. — ---.— .... . al xis— \\ 0 14 c—w . , 0 \I . . , •nroomoort.rolti . . . . 1-- Lu , 0 1 ill . L.I.i , \ z \ , 01 .--) . \ x , „ . „ a 2 ---- ---z4.—==x -(--------) . I , 13 . \l,. ,. . , 1 . • :- 1 1 . 0 -wl'.1 . i a ..g ',,\ , kl•,t . . ., (1? .,....-- --...... . '\• On ' 5°''' ID 14 • t4 06130 a' II ".6 ........k 6 \I ° s s s to oo 4.w.dk '.,?..• / \ ; 1 5, 6 ° :P la \ i Is 00 6.140 0;Nox n, i , bo \ g k ., k 2s• .- t. ....), 00 ei.0 0 o fa 1.13 •4 0 \ •Ci 0 e. • di I. \ \ ,, t-b au .\ 1 ' V.0 . 14! \ \ . . 0 .-.. . , , , 1 . . .. ,. _.„. ., , . I. E i 1...,1 &I x-, or • , . . , ,:, , . ,4 ...... , 0�- L'v Q V w • i1 CS 9';„to W L.) -, < �J' V) Q o °'`f I W d ctii pG C N. F-->-- LEI g i N �' - W U r.. r .... J tY as an. • .. U 'i I' Q w eII 1pij w cS a .' "..z--.7 „........C± , tA. 1--1 i' .c, q L...71 1-- • , ,,,n-i.1 -J /".\\ < 0 z fjC)/ 4.,"Aci, Z m g 2 . \\66\>>LPV' fil ff) El. 0 . 4N a; u 9 ?al tl, 5 CI o r. 0/9 4 Li N. �,Z2 `NO 7.00156'5 w /i • •• / 1398—��' 3\49 \ h —�to a` W .-i d'CO eo c^. II 1 L,i-• 1.� t'� a. a ui ra y y m N�. f N / o i Oa dO< I: II 03 CL t .-.lL LOW ^ ,, tac;'q, i N i Di1� QU L7 cl lL x� P.4 s2 lG•i— v) S t - t . , . . . co ,_ INS=EV ,■••••I l - .... t .. r 0 / 4 . 0 0 i ,. OEM 0 ).... . & 0 ... •_ ' ,•..!,-' ' ONSI ' iil uj 1 g , ' t ' I:f.•.4. . , • al 0 , 0 ,) .., •' ' • • 0 ''7 t /M. 7 = Ali-'''4..„ 1 • [ s ..,. ....:} , ' '''.... .. 0 • •• • • '/.. c 9 Ili • a • ' .4 ..' i• ! Z. .• la • 0 ao 10 til 0 1 1.. "'`I • L. ': 44* 4:11 aello N * i ,, ' Z.1: 6 a tii • if.;1•.. - i -": • e . To r. 1 so ; .:;:l ;,:. . •ft 4 • 73 ''`,•- ''. 1. 13 • .0 i kr 4,.. $ . ., -. li •>, . ... 4 4.4 • - s•. ,1 • •_ in .fit ••tr i• ,g . ,,k) 1 .J., 0 .., , t -- • , $ T . .ii:7° ,_,_.; N ail • ---, ...% (fir 1LJ immumr I".* 0 ,7 13L.V-i 1 \an 0 Vj I I ill 0 ill. r. MI in to x i l'i • 8 I te. r N ItIUOAMOYN3d . 4 Soma 110 .... , 03 1 lhommiminswor tz.,„ --, --- I p>. I1J. s4 1 , . . ) . ..." .... ,. . i . . .1b: 10.. 1414001 r• MD tin II 9 L. -**\..:. I 1 a 0010441 1 0..--MJ L . it ...NMI Woo Yam 0040 414400 0 1 I E • ......" I i .t I . I IMMO NOWT k•OW / 0 . ' l 4 .......""), 11 . . . I i ,..., ,.. I. . . • • • ..P./- , kr 4‘....... rm. 1 i i • It-. 11 eir • l ! I . � ; rr _ I a'rr ._.... L -qt. I... ti LJ fr ^,, t _ t' .....` .:. v4-" ;c ' r' . ; • .�.. .ram.� v :f�0 170/ ; ',. e4v'� Yam. �,^" . ::,•`, ' .'i•S..•";... , ]Fry II"' ' lb\ *' .'... ‘ klit .,ik44\C.."•'—'1.1 Tor/ . 1 I \.�/ '�.�` .r .' 'sae, g•y i I. ,„N I . ' •„.,„ , � + < . Erg: % ..'"4"".. '\''''.4.;" , A ‘` . ,ie I ......",,..• /..\../........•,.............L.1.1 "" i , ---7 I) 1.: 11 M • „...,..y; ifi : 0• proof 't \ Mr--.11 fia f -- J . I r'•,....,`----Y4�: O u i II KS / `� .44 c., 11, /<, . l l� • l • jile(f.........• , • l y • \ r • 0 -. 2 EXHIBIT rr ' ry ' . , 1,, •° 'NORTHWEST TESTING LA►B )RA,TORI ES, INC. 5405 N,Lagoon Avenue • y:=,NSTRUCTION INSPECTION NON,OESTRUCTIVL TESTING mlv.TCMA•LS INSPECTION P,O,Box 17126 - WELDING CERTIFICATION )4„''s;m ICAL ANALYSIS Portland,Oregon 97217-0126 SOIL TESTING M mN3,CAb TESTING ,., ASSAYING Phone:(503)289-1778 r-V December 28, 1989 1 ' Mr. John Kyle, Architect 519 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 705 Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. Don Trotter Subject: Reconnaissance of Soils for Johansen Family Residence Lot 100, Block 201 • Headlee Lane J EXHIBIT Lake Oswego, Oregon 1 ! (rvias) L3.4gbiso51-1,1 Gentlemen: At your request we have examined the site proposed for the construction of a single family dwelling at the above location in Lake Oswego, Ors:g We present herewith a report of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. ® b Site Description The proposed construction site consists of a northeasterly-facing slope falling below the private drive, the declivity of which is approximately 1 vertical to 2 horizontal except where broken by basalt (bedrock) outcrops at two locations on this slope. This slope falls evenly beyond this 0. 3 acre lot • to the Willamette River. The site was generally brushy and covered with developed fir and maple trees at the time of our field investigation. Some 48 to 50 feet of overall vertical relief is noted from the edge of the paved drive to the river. tr`� Soils and Geoloc#y Soils exposures in the area consists of a structureless brown to yellowish-brown mottled silt to sandy silt. The Underlying geologic unit (miocene age Columbia River Basalts) consists of bedrock of volcanic origin. It is e.tposed in the • immediate area; and is believed to generally underlie the project site at shallow depths. Results of the test borings conducted onsite are presented in ° tabular form and attached hereunto along with a site location plan, figure one. Proposed Construction We understand the construction will consist of a single family dwelling with a garage constructed near the • level of the street. • M AS A MUTUAL PSOTSCTION TO CLIENTS THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES.ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY Or CLIENTS AND ARL INTENDED FOR THE USE Of OURCLICNTSONLY NOOTNCR►ERSON OR ENTITY MAY UTILIZE THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THCPCDr WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION c Mr. John Kyle, Architect December 28, 1989 _• Page 2 Conclusions and Recommendations ' From our examination of the project site, we draw the following principal conclusions and recommendations: 1. We conclude that this site is stable and that it may be developed for residential purposes in accordance with the methods and precautions outlined below. 2 . The structure may be supported on the underlying basalt unit by means of piling (steel H) driven to refusal. Piling so driven could be-loaded to a stress level of 10, 000 psi. 3 . Lateral earth pressures on foundation walls, retaining ( , walls, etc. , may be calculated on the basis of equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf for level backfill and 60 pcf for steeply-sloping backfill. 4 . All backfill, retaining walls, foundation walls, etc. , should be made with select granular material (sand and/or gravel) . We anticipate that onsite material will not be suitable for this purpose and that it will be necessary to import material to the project for structure backfill. 1111 5. Temporary earth slopes (for retaining walls, etc. ), may be cut near-vertical to heights of 5 or 6 feet, above which " height lower declivities will be required. We estimate that slopes of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal may be used for slope (, heights of 10 or 12 feet. 6. Permanent earth fill slopes should be dressed to a declivity of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal with vegetation { stripping left to an absolute minimum. 7. An adequate surface drain system should be installed behind subsurface walls. Surface run-off drains and the subsurface drains should be carried to the storm sewer or other approved disposal areas. 8 . Foundation Preparation Inasmuch as the soil units which will provided support for the main structure are extremely sensitive to disturbance in the presence of excess moisture, care should be taken to protect prepared bearing surfaces until footing concrete can be placed. Precautions to achieve this end would consist of 1 covering) of prepared bearing surfaces with impervious membranes or granular blankets (4- inch maximum thickness) or (2) cessation of work during rainy weather. 4110 1� Mr. John Kyle, Architect December 28, 1989 Page 3 9. Under no circumstances should fills be constructed C:> anywhere on the slope. Surplus material (other than the small amount to be removed from local excavations) must be removed from the site to a remote disposal area. 10. All roof, yard, and other upland surface water must be directed to storm sewers or other approved disposal points. )Under no circumstances should storm water be led' into a � subsurface drain system (such as dry wells, leach fields or foundation drains) or allowed to free-fall on this slope. 11. We request that the final plans be submitted to .us for review of the foundation design prior to their submittal to the Bureau of Building. We also request that we be given an opportunity to inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of concrete. 12. We request that all piling be driven under continuous inspection of a representative of the soils engineer to verify that they have been driven to satisfactory baring. We will be available for further consultation and inspection during remaining design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully, NORTHWEST TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. ,`,#0I @ PROF � �s�� Charles R. Lane, P.E. � �' muks gip y Vice-PresLdent Report Number: 330064 OREGON 0y < r 14 \� L �'��ES R. - 111 • • • & II • L. .� . ..� ..,. u • ^ • . o / i.a N ,.'1�' , 0%o . 0 I ,-, , vdo 0 o 9 4 A v.,st. _____, ...\\ ....; \ _:' __ �._ /•' \ 'IJ. af --� , �1 4. rh f de' 1 .4• .tom, �►' .--j-- �i� \ 1 R___.;�,""�014 ^ 1 \ ".� �-�/ DUI Al` v f 4 O .� I. 't•\i ,/ / /011,4 /1/ p n 7 tit 7044 ‘ ry Al 1 ' y Yt (I'C1 ,. 111) •i ... illa -.7'-•`z; - . 4 _...-* ' _.,, mg "777.1-1..-.S______ .., /'',,,, , " "'" %. V ,,,/ 0 / 0, 0.# , . n r 5 @, ti t AN ... . , . . r. j IV .,. M 1 n t : 1 ^ q 7A 4g 6 �i. \ �1 Z: i...- . 1 2 g 0 tinl ill . X $ V: Itl!ftl k C) in x ° ' 1 f , DAILY REPORT O P E X P' L O R' A T I O N �, INSPECTOR: Curtis Ehlers HOLE DRILL TYPE: Sirnco E NO. : B-1 ELEVATION: Jam: John Kyle, ;Architect DATE: 12/22/89 , SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA DEPTH OF SAMPLE DRIVING LENGTH NUMBER OF ..,�, RESISTANCE OR SAMPLES FROM TO BLOWS/6 INCHES SAMPLES SAVED 0. 0 1. 5 8-10-7 14" 1 ," ! 2.5 4 . 0 10-8-8 18" 1 .5. 0 6. 5 �''? 8-12-16 14" 1 7 .5 9. 0 8-11-16 16" 1 10. 0 11. 5 21-24-50/4" 16" 1 . A 1110 DEPTH FIELD LOG OF BORING 11, FROM TO 0. 0 1. 0 ' Gravel, Fill 1.. 0 ' '11. 0 ' Brown to tan silt, rooted 0 11..0 ' 11. 5 ' Gray weathered basalt, hard, friable A r ' GROUNDWATER: r } (,` z DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION INSPECTOR: Curtis Ehlers DRILL TYPE: Simco LV-ELEVATION:T B-2 az: John Kyle, Architect DATE: 12/22/89 1 SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA ......_ ic................ ............ DEPTH OF SAMPLE DRIVING LENGTH NUMBER OF I RESISTANCE OR SAMPLES FROM ,I' TO f BLOWS/6 INCHES SAMPLES SAVED 0. 0 1. 5 6-6-9 12" 2. 5 4 . 0 3-6-10 16" 1 1 ,,5. 0`; 1, 6. 5 12-12-15 8" ^`"E� s 7 . 5 9. 0 9-6-8 18" 1 1 10. 0 11. 5 8-8-8 12" 1 12 . 5 14 . 0 50/0" • . 11 ii I DEPTH 1 FROM I FIELD LOG OF BORING TO 0. 0 1. 0 ' Gravel, Fill 1. 0 ' 7. 0 ' Tan silt, rooted 7. 0 ' 11. 0 ' Tan sandy silt ,. 11. 0 ' 12 .5 ' Gray weathered basalt J GROUNDWATER: r. 1111 0 +/, f� ij • s L W TM**AU c) 0. ., wido4 LL 1 hI . , ,. , , m fl .A. +\r___ & „ ilg '''' i4 oz ____T\ _ \_________/ ul I , ..• / i u '''' cif„,...---------- 1 g I V / a 1 fl.• 14 1/7)., 1 -A, u i, N c • ' 2 ;e:A\,. . . . - , . i : ii• I .. , 1:1:31,1 Q.:00 , 0 I_______ '''Z'' :2„..........j; iii r Z i. 1- ta A ,i • 0 , I! i n aWl Iwl.q • �w4 I ... ,4 G . ,t, r „� �. '1 p�,: ..•V a I .r • y I •�. ti U i ] . ,..,.., l • ,,+,,(��' -E4 �'i' I t. LK m• r 1 17( N u". ..A;• Yb• • . , 1 1 P••yh• r 1 - .i - :4'.'44' • ' . • 1 �' , ' 'tit a 'Ili �'; r r;- .� •- • 5 4. lT} . S ia ,,�... .1. .c,• • * r '71cL.4.* . '"'t4'''''' 54. ..-'r 3 t ..-___.-,. 'i 4� Ia.. ,, •, i ,, :�I" _ , ' x , per— y tr... w .,^. J •{� _ ., f ^`-•,,,• w +n •- f' 4-j t •q;• -e,a.--. -- .- , ,�, ;,ry, , : `.'�e'« • �IYIy ''' ��... s7 r %.L L ,�7 � 77k ,n•%r 1 , •I t ,,�rf.� •.., 4 rink.•. .*. •.•'"�"_ �4t• 1 U.1a V ' N • / I.e.•..♦.a..,w-•i• ..i:.ar,+r. ... ,:Ir rW. rc,.MIA,tra.'Y al 'tr 17..bN>.)w. r..+Ys Y rg EXHIBIT R 2 13Cl ) �HIr i -r c r'10/goo7-a, • ,vo'.,, • 1 r. n .• ., - O J iif• ,• ,• he' •• litk; 1 „.°, k ". ; 3. C�i', • • • —.1 ^1kt.. ,f .YQ • a�y• f II / • C la ('' *."tilli"••••.: . 'I:'127 1,1 '1,1-4! :''''.1/4,__,t4 a1. 4.,%:..1,._ ,_ii''111q, ''..,.,' ',t1:7-' 4.'4.',,,,"i' 4P..1. 4. ''. .1' "4' ' - ' ' r. 7$ ' Si �t� ` 4. T=i?:s./ �a .„�v' ,--•--If-^r A' I. •4 r . . '1(i...iv ' • % i4.1..,' -•••,,.r•t N. - • ' • ::' . ' 1:. 1•mow. a r' •• i' t,•.. •�.'^�`!� • �•h „1, � �,r.'r.a.','�7,• C'�i✓ Imo. . 11 , 3 1110 1� ); . . ,' 1 . ,� 4 '7.'4 s v . , I. !t1 •,. t..4,.., . ii, ..i....„,4.IL;k,,„ ' littliM1 i 1 .,,.. ... , ...�„ ' 1 ' .'ail..; ry C YI.• 4.4R '.,N, • '' ;�.'( " 'I `„"` e r 9t i�s. k 'rrw n .. t I,, 0 • ' • , 'Qrr+�y«rT�--•... �� • � R•, ka, J ` '� r•.!'� �p` e.:�yP y� ! `r•'1'f r�4-. tla , 0 , . d'';'$ ‘,; ,'.,„, -r ..r., 'si ! l Y F r{1 f4f r,rN�� 1.�� �'• , A � , iS1F' • w <C `v I�i:;:i s . ) ,., � '.� '1 • r {,1-1-.4. 1, 7,_13..� it.L.: 1\ , t . r � t. ` ., r 1 1 1 ; 4it,• `,11 ,'.11r11�. p • ; :•1a;-.,., + ,9..21 44 r, `s o- F • • . ` 1.(-1 A. y, 4" IS N• it44 :Ice', "rri xµ�e'? . • kottt.o . � t2 'i. t 1 r �� . t�, _ `I •' _ �ti 1( �'J.'1 I' I �`I '�^ ;'�•N ,•` ,'er - '(�1 -+ / • �1 r +� No..- ' I, ....... - 1• .'.•�, 'I^` 1i'.. A'''N!\e�\•r`"tii',_Ji)Mtn ' V, ' '�...w '. 1•' "tk4 il. • .i.'{, J• • , -•- Y_.V i r...'k i .n,.n . , �I • • •,'+%.fSAO,4 �1+� =' �.r w 'rat L - y�.:.' � •:(�; 5 A+ • al J4..' i• •, •,••. L .-• +,S,:r. /�N,'�' "'7•,. s•"'1s"I+•. x`, +f i",.r • • �:� y. f'• 1;'y` • ,1 K mod• .• `�/ .l:r. 1 !.. . f' r� ` .s vy. . .tr i 'r' t 4.,,ft.:,•,1,1,. 1,1•,..i. , ,y,..:,,,,. .,..:e.,• , .„..,,..... : ,.....,.,....4-41-41,,..„:.,;!....0,„ • !. .yr '-.i. ••••••„+ ••;A: ..`«4•14.144. AIL'ett 76: • .,i •, 'tr..r•M& .� �^+ti+"•T«Irle.�,. , +n "7,•• if,.;.•' N 1s•�"z;-1.7.t+; A+e� ` ^»�'0\NIA ':sit A.er.y*�3 -' r' �1 • ..• •..'e;• ,;' •. A�,,ssi.�� t�;01%.*'•�►w "."`.1�:�'�'{1•••�44'::w1.6,;.1 b z' !j' r'•f I' ,ter;, r , • r �Y + `''. e • 6 • '44 • ' 7f,(� k n. r� a r •.•+' a`�'. r • ,•11 ° i4� rti 4w •,i1" r'i� -lilt 1. ' • * 451: •'ilk '13, " I .„)/.4,4441416: ii... 4. • * * / —7 ' • —�'t yy 1�"� ... Hrf�; i. iM` n •��.1 r1. • .". 'r ...4I.�/*:Lh .� rf . 1i:i • r c !f • +t'', 1 1f It i' '',J.1' * 1,!�!' jr ��I��1r L• .�Iv;4'�iFl .h�::�l��l r��,��''7`4 •y •f �, t /i 1✓Rl� l1/[dR f �k����Ms#'nR'T L c t .r.�. , 1 J r n {+'t+ 4 1. �.. '�"; •f. ' ^ i i' •++ :�! t re1Pr. r. ,* "l••' *.3). ►��1��r , sf,. 1m ' �r`..'y .1 • '.4 4�74' .,! .t,�� ���r�' r I v yl '. -1- f n 4I py'01,4 qqr`.f 1,,.: S.S . f'i r• • „ _ ,`+ fr .'c _ ; i. b _.7► �{ Fes. ,•\ �, ,, [4q {(' f� i � k; h 7 . • 1 f •.r 1 Q��,`,(�,ar .{r r •G �..t y =l' .11! ''. t ! ..t + "_,i •' y� ,1.1,E• • 'y Y . S•� . '.firs � J•La1,1, , '-r % , �.I 17,.aljq ; ' 1 e • v �M ,, 7 .-," r ,. , ,. L...,. .,, , k ' . _, It4 %,....,.. , .t.• --- 1 ' , 0 r. .i, •1111. 4 . , . 4''N .4 .i M r iti ti - 1 . • •r '`1 \ `T.• 1 1. Allitt0.111111 .• • 1 ti '' s 414k . • ..• .., ... . ,,,s ,:. .• .,..... , Iht.‘ „,,,, . :,, . ...,. .,,,e. .1:c,-, , ,),) • �3 S 11 ..,,. . ;i • 1• riiiii, ..... '4.:1 IN•-• `* ram,,,V')'•'' ! •'>►.t'a . ,...407 -- t. .* ,,1 ). ' dil: ,it" ' .b-trt, ,,„.‘,,,,I,w31. ,- Y ....,:- .•• , ..."7...T. ,, ),, .,...,,,0„.,„,1444. , . 1,,.4 4,0 0.••.__,.1.• . 1) • • .• 'Wt. 4 t it r ,�,1w + !•1.`•' , L 4_ •.i•lv RhAI$4,?t +w, � - •, r' ' lt�' o • ry'i qt ,V' +`i t: a x t,,1°w' 1 .s: r' u h .� V- ell'i C�.� 4.LjfY�1 s1• ) ‘i..: ''�e M �.W„+_rr'• L .}.Y` ..> .AI.,",1 ; ' .4 0 . t �V.:--.7.t.t1..,,...(Y• r a ..t ty. �f .-1;i f r OMt,1,,_y ....r..l ti'4{ F"t',,,,.SWYl ,,1;,y?w 1 et.1u 1,' 8 v , V e n , . ,.! • J 'I`"4 .14' ,I , 0 !•••.,•tivA ...., t„,,,,,,......,...„„..42411: .„ .*110. :11k1 . ' ' 4.3111111ve... z • .i it, .., ..,•:. .,f- ,. .. .,, .._,,, ..,, . , . • .,k, :44,404 .. , . . • ... . . . ..„..„.,,,.. ,,:. •., . , •. ' :" f, l• • , . • ..• ,,, , ...., 't . i • A $4,..,),7 T ••• ..„, il111 l c • t •' rib �i, i. , • • {` • r lR 1,i fir % l,J. / f, •, " ill w a-•ries � ... �J , 0lr x �• ;�L fi4f �y $� y1+�� ' �r V rSn , � , „ci z ; A , , f• r,r : • • 110 - r:.o• y,` 'f' .'.,.7 I ...• ,.� , 9 • :- , ••� �, ', ,.4 t 4� �, ;rr ` i' '' e. ; .4., !I• , dit•it' ••#-1;•' ,t";..";*• "-- ' al,2.::r; i .4 • ' 1 7 ' 1,. • •.• �•.v wV. /�� .r .I. ' r • 11 -. ,t'[ itia41:•V4'' a* r, , , , u •a i i.l, ,;�� 4j I �T 'b �`M ` Sly ,. '�� rt! h, 'i" r • Illr`t• wf ` • •4v�. r r a ? r.rr ,, l 'r �tt#r ,y� ••• r y�. , ,, '4,* .. .7•L Iktitte:ttb•J•...49 • •_, ,,, ,10..I.Nz..1.10. • ,�,,1 v i ;' 11j lam{-,, h �~' ^w V • •.. , . ,.k r31K.i. ..ate�. ,..+'. 'it �t 77jj ,..., J , 0 ii.:4*.i) Ftlr'' '1/4-•,,' A.. .,r . ....• .•,,,. ,44,, Zr. , i,i,,-.4) ;Z: '' ,:'..'ii,'‘Li,,,t,I.,. . .. "v....1. I t 10 V ., .4.`,,7S44;. Tiiir,,sr,..,4Le.t,;••:.,.,zt.;Alegi:. i . ..* ',...tifertR;3_;,) . ...214./..;b1,%•)*„:•4.{,,.4 1.1••,;44..41.0..../.1.":"..,017‘.74. ,..4.;,);../....v...14,,,,,,."-.:..i.,:;...4„.11,..,•,..ii.,"%ir,„, 11 V. . . 0,:filP• w, ...M. .. w ill ,0 fir'.. 1~, ••.rt ,� ...e., e" +cam. ,•-.% I. J,ti;. f ti I G �lt. R't1'�I �, , I 4, "• '•• i• ,• �.''. ttrJ.114� (. ''..1 I, ir'• • sM�- t';... . &. FI a G;,• •ISs• •r f r f`'," �!� ili �r p �:r , `� , . .,F.. i• 1 .fir ' .Yr / • f"• � • ._1 A• . ""/ . w1 d�-••'♦.4) (•i„✓•r r, fit• �� t. 1 , -}•r -'_; y;,. ,/\,.."6L':.1,,,"�4 +.try ‘i v� '••r_- -• ,,• \.,n,y 17 1`. , •t`/ . r�•^ .`v + :,';ham tr, ' - j ( . .y ,,ib lg..� \:; 1 r _ — ( +r :•i • 11 ;) 0 \ t tits: ,r ,� .. , v , , `�t, l`'•y f .... i 01 it 4, •.• ., Nr ..• d $ eJc •'' ^r ri Y� '., , .mot :":'k.. . . ; ts_t t• ) 't, ai +sir , • {� - ; .i,yl.• ,,_ /�• .•1,.r�! ~- ..�'1 e�7 + 1 r 4.r •;..el �"S t :'RAL. + ,•" 1 r• -�(t-i i.ii i+ • T•, ,l• „•• . l','t • V� y y,tA�y�.. `•`r 4-. . C.K.i •.!„ 47 Z'+ a. ;ty:'1; ...� I `yt.•.1 ,,-• i 1 J • t. ♦ r•I'��..4.. 1 ♦••r0:",I y�.el A. - ii cKz.r.....z. •\ •r•.,�-w •.Y t ..j., , i1 +,•,.t• �� 1 . N]•/ r •ram . �1 t•,] ••` 1P It ' ♦ •`Y 4 , +mil - beVea Mt:*.lr*tit.s1"gi • leed'''•4 1 ^ ."me 71/11i.17.11:404..,,,, .rt.k 15;e411....'44 .11q..1174 44 l•-•'1"1.. 4 ill tryiel:/„...._11, ., ,..., .,r' ,k - , ..., •- ii,.. . .,t. . 12 1 4 1 • :i.' • . .:111V i .17i ivw ? ,... t , II Z,.•":1. 1/,'...r.7'..t: ;WITreell075/,41411ko t . J' tIVITF4A....,� 4 "' n"Sy t / 1 ,t J 1' � Y � r" '. FIA 09-,f f hp .'If ,' ' ' ' .•4'--/ r- � +�4, t a K � ��_; �� ,1 /,. 1/w ),ti I L 1,t ��t ,, r. ,,.,- 4,42,4•;*::t J.,?.4v.----4cf et, k, giq- .-...0.1,,,. .• I. \,,' / ("ii,; y',.....,, •,!,.-e.s,.. ,^r...,,,..q. , . • 44.Z., 214' "r4. .tSrl Cip:j il;f7-0..''t. , ,, ': Iv ' •' . . 1 : q :I:, , '.'1,.,...1,1,4,,,ii.,••N,t.t • / \,�.rt,,� �'�!y,/Y" ( 4T ; .K tii/w�: • •'. �x{+'• : • . t'• �'1. •1/irF��.;�5,›"�1%�•�-N�i1 \ r '-.._ i,,.t. 1fi"te-..1 1•','� . ti . ,,its ^Y Na'4 IA, t`t1 ' �s.1.V ._:.iv,r --- }. • • �'..r -�"`�„��' +�, �. •' `•.•• .'�v�im',.•✓ray ,' � z;„,.• 'pf• ,' -,• , • ' _� ,qt+," •r,iotlJ `., 11.,(•''wY �• 4 •' 1 o-��,.,.7..4`5yn t1 •,ri E._ .I• iL'�lfl�Fi' f'MM41tk'1 131 , • ��� A : *,a,N., ..1,14ii,k, " ,'' ,' ".1, . ,t,'"..,7".$ ,„ .. „ , .• .pK.,•.--` ,4.4.,. .. :. , . •••: .?„ Yi4,iit, .\:4, 1/ '; . • • S. 1 a +, 1��e r( I ,1',tom.,, Y•' �� (YY'Sj}•y • �,�-_Q��7f1••, Ci7+J /•` `l�?''1 + .''�`tt: `-Y,� `'-+V• Ii'tl•' Y _ ''�"+•i".+.1'S' 'S,. y -r•+•� yy ii J•. + u ,,,y\' '`t N.:./,7 +,g 'rP. N,"7• .•c� 3-rr % 1 ~.' ? ' ,'1'' "';. tea .;1 v , • , tAi. :, � • 'J. ..'( , ' T:' .+ C.'("gr; ., .-, . P.,e, C , r' c ;, .A,t 2+,i t r b+y • . •. • it zi t I,,!., •f+a I,y' ,j ' ,;, 1r?�.7 7r 1. + i M:y• Tp}-.o I '.9 { or,, ..";,1'-07.-,i4:.-f• • ., 4 . ' .-- • ,.i if '' V!ill.,,,•:V-t.',;,,;d ••,......,•:e ,g, ..4,,,..40• ..• • i..---,,,z, .• . ,,.. (y 1�•,. Y Y y 1 `, '� •' ! p .^:v �-�;•^.'�' t.0 + �'�r' •1,. V. I', •� F'ro • r� ," •..1. �0. v k'„�. + {..4, • ..`7 . f•- .•'•'`'Yy` f•1''»,T f" "• .4» 1 a-y -.ia",',t 1 • i. + ',l191.,.,.,- _ ' #4'-•(max' . �'+. r.h.s t. „ •" „ik r 4"j •'.... pti„••,,,,.,:p.;.:144.•rrvi-ii A•• • e '- ii,,re. "''' .--- `4,,..W-• a ' .4•JAAIIC-A2i, ,- . ,., , ,,,.• .4 jiwogoltit f •u ,ro• ' , r, Y .' .4'.44.; .' t: •• '..'.4",'•I: [#•••fr•*, 't4Sf4t Itig_ d ed . ,...r? ,.00•••f* Ell iiC:rMiwt. f4 , 00 IA' • ,t Itl' 1 WN" + 14 • 1 Update to the October 17, 1989 Memorandum (which updated the August 19, 1989 memorandum). Adopted by Council December 5, 1989. MEMORANDUM III To: Development Review Board Members • Planning Commission Members g EXHIBIT From: Mayor and City Council ,14 G") Date: December $, 1989 3•1 0 / ?5+.� _� Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity P This memorandum is an update to the City Council's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17, 1989, memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on October 2, 1989. This memorandum contains updated information and data relating to voter approval of a $17,800,000 Lake- Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989. As a result of recent determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential 0 development that ,.\there is a lack of elementary school capacity, the, City Council has conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential development, in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197.505-197.540. A pattern of denials of residential development applications is defined by j state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of the exclusion from that definition of actions "in accordance with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of the City Attorney, concluded that the exclusion is not applicable to the current situation. State law does not permit the adoption • of a moratorium without the City first making the findings requited by the statute. The inquirycwasion thatftheof the 7 Council facts currently existing atbers the end of that inquiry g do not provide the basis for the Council to W‘ke the findings required by state law to justify the need for a moratorium. The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the 4. Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium) , and yet the Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the required findings under state law that are a precondition to-the enactment of a moratorium. \I V NI 0 It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the r r, • Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity; It is ._,� necessary to have consistency in decision making from application to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council. / .' p, r J p Ip Memo: Development Review Board and, Planning Commission�IMembers 4111 December 5, 1989 Page 2 These interpretations reconcile the apparentv'inconsistencies between state and locale law in a way that gives deference t6 the superior state law white giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that hasi1historical precedent. These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set forth in Attachment No.1111. The interpretations proVided in this memorandum will maintain a consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan policies, with regard school capacity, will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factua0 . ` preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular \, basis, in coordination With the school district, and keep the Council and District awe're of the changing circumstances . Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when addressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that 0 if Comprehensive Plan cojmpliance based on the school capacity issue is raised during a, hearing on a residential development 4111 application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be with us for the foreseeable future. The Council is co mitred to improve the current data exchange efforts between the District and the City. The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving development approvals are aware of the current school capacity situation and understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if justified by the facts. The Counr.,il directs staff to develop appropriate language to be included in the approval orders, to be reviewed by the hearing bodies, to accomplish this purpose. Attachment No. 1 provides, the factual findings of the Council with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these interpretations are based. Attachment__No. 2 is a listing of the , factual information relied upon to support those findings . Attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies. The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members Of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great 410 concern for the community as a whole. Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 t ATTACHMENT NO. 1 �� FACTUAL FINDINGS l ,'. 0 ( 12-5-89) The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact of developrc� It on the ability of the District to meet its ,, legal obligations toeducate the children of the• District. A significant portion elf the School District lies outside the city limits and the City h s no control over thejmpacts of growth , occurring outside its E�oundaries. The City: has received no communication from others jurisdictions served by the District that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due to school capacity problems. • The District has provided the City the ;following(Ifacts: 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Ljke Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacity the DilstrkCt determined necessary to provide an urban level1of service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary School population has been reduced for the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1, 1989 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2, 1989 iS 530 students. 2. The District has short term plans in place that address ' the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . 4110 0 By implementing these plans, the District stated it will continue to provide an educational experience to its students that meets District standards. n 3. Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3,726 elementary students . 4. The District as of October 2, 1989, had an elementary • school enrollment of 3, 157 students. Based on maximum ° '• capacity and current projections, on October 1 , 1989 the ;r District by implementing the short term plan will have ,t unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 578 additional elementary students . 5. The District has a long term plan to provide capacity in addition to the 578 seats to be made available through . the short term plan. These long term plans include an additional elementary school and remodeling existing i facilities. If` �A,' ' , rq 6. The maximum capacity of 3 , 726 ,students, assuming a i' " continuation of the Current rate of growth, will s • accommodate new students into the 1991-92 school year. �� 0 A . ' CI Attachment No. 1 • A December 5, 1989 Page 2 • 7. The earliest completion date for the new school authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities, to be funded by the bond issue will ''be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats. The new school will have an idea], capacity of 500students. 8. The District as a practice does not construct facilities in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet a current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. 9. The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses. Projections are compared with actual student counts. Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer program factors are made if warranted. The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been 4111 quite accurate. The physical counting of children in the district on a regular basis, as the data base for projections, does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth in school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school • population and those 2 factors that will assist the District in making short term student projections. Other factors such as market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon econori and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes also affect the number of new children in the District 's population. Based Upon the present level of sophistication of the City and District planning processes, it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty how soon after approval children from new residential developments will enter the school system. 4111 " r ♦ " Attachment No. 1 December '"5, 1989 410 Page 3 The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base by an approximate 2:1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542,310. The new tax base is $29,975,000. The new tax base contains levy A authorization above that levied by the District in the current 0 fiscal year and is intended to fund growth and staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the , November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of. support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. • The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by growth. During the middle 1980's , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students. The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was0 delayed. The growth was anticipated but the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the provision of the District 's solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts, enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197.520. The District has the responsibility under state law to educate the children of the District. The Council views the District as an expert in educational matters. The Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District , standards. 1Q �) Atty/Correspond-7 00 . II j 4 . /' // ATTACHMENT NO. 2 // � . 0 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL (12- 5-8 Q 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8, 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: - Building permits by year, single-family, graph - Building permits by year, multi,-family, graph Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July`' 1, 1989 - Number of lots recorded from . 7/1/83 to 6/30/89% ;, `;- - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 i - School enrollment K-6 from, 1983 ;to 1989 C:J 3. Class size and public policy: ,Politics and Panaceas, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, IIJune 11, 1979 5. Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, July 31, 1989 6. Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5, 1989, with attachments 7. Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting, July 31 , 1989 8. Proceedings o1' City Council meeting, August 8, 1989 9. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development, dated August 8, 1989 10. Handouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent 1 a. Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, service level, and short and long term solutions 11 . Lake Oswego School District: The Facts, submitted by Nick Bunick 40 12. Transcript excerpt from August 7, 1989 Development Review Board meeting (tape including excerpt also submitted ) n ti • Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 1111 Page 2 13. Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14. Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24, 1989 ° 16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989 18. Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, Chamber members, dated July 28, 1989 19. Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Comr .crc ! 0President, dated July 20, 1989 20. Letter fxom William T. Ryan dated August 8, 1989 ° 21. Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989 1110 • 22. Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5, 1989 23. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, <'dat ►d August 6, 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25. Letter from Lynora Saundirs, Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 $1. 26. Letter from D.R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989 27. Lettel ,. from Judith D. Umaki , dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles Hales, Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs , Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14, 1989 29. Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated August 13, 1989 30. Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14, 1989 31 . Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 14 , 1989 32. Carol Webb letter, dated August 14 , 1989 4111 • a: • • S Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 Page 3 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 34. Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989 38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989 39. Robert S. Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13, 1989 40. Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13, 1989 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 42. Toni Smith letter, dated August 13, 1989, including attached newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach's memorandum dated July 5, 14441. Deborah B. Feldsee 'letter, dated August 14, 1989 44. Steven M. Berne letter, dated August1���4, 1989 45. Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14f/, 1989 46. Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989 47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 48. Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989 49. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10, 1989 50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11, 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14, 1989 52. Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11, 1989 53. Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 54. William ,Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 � 55. Marci Nemhauser letter, dated August 10, 1989 56. Charles A. Mansfield letter, dated Augustg 10, 1989 P Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 1111 Page 4 57. 'Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 58. Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989 / 59. Stephen Swerling letter"( dated August 14, 1989 60. Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, dated June 20, 1989 61. Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13, 1989 / 62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, 1989 63. Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14, 1989 64. Letter from Patrick F. Stone, dated August 11, 1989 65. Map of City and District boundaries 66. Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted by , • Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers: How is the School 4111 District Coping with Growth. " (Presented to City Council at Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2, 1989. ) 68. Bond issue information, November 1989, prepared by Lake Oswego School District. 69. Election results,4,November 7, 1989, Lake Oswegd _Echool • District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond. Atty/Correspond-7 • S y , s ATTACHMENT NO. 3 A1110 „ PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS It ( 12-05-89) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the ' framework of a quasi-judicial hearings considering specific land use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications at the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III. A few other policies have also been raised. Before stating the Council's interpretation of those policies, it is necessary to restate the rational for the City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are the regulatory language of the F;lan. The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdiction to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals. A "comprehensive plan" is defined byV' state law as : , " (A) generalized, coordinated land use map and policy 4 statement of the governing body of a local government that S interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs . 'Comprehensive' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated' when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. 'Land' includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. " At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in nature , is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines are; " (S]urr)gested approaches designed to aid cities and counties 4n :preparration, adoption and implementation of comprehensive Lans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation of plans, programs and regulations in compliance with goals . Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies, cities, counties and special districts to a single approach. " 4 1 • • Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 • \\:-. Page 2 Y.', The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives, Genera]. Policies and Specific Policies, in the following way, "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which %are short statements of the purpose of the policies, General 'IPolicies, which are major methods of achieving objectives, Specific �` Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry ou General ' Policies, . . ." 4 There are also strategies for carrying `out the plan found in Volume II, which is the background information and supporting documentation for the plan. The language has historically been applied as follows: ' The general policies of the plan `are the portions which a ,�I re "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy /� • statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by� , state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application./ must conclude that the applicable general policies of the �� comprehensive plan have been followed. Each land use decision/ must identify and explain why the requirements of the applicable general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not [all general policies are applicable to every decision. Iolic reaching hearinglbodynwillcben1m�niance with a general policy guidedits decision making by the specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element. In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . ' ( If the specific policies are given the same regulatory weight as are the general policies then each provision of a specific policy will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an application or project to be approved. There is no provision for the granting of variances from the regulatory g y provisions of the Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of one of ' ' the specific policies for the general policy, the application or project as a whole must be denied if the specific policies are " construed to be regulatory in nature. All regulatory standards must be complied with in order for an application to be approved. 1111 if ', ' 0q Attachment No. 3 {) '1` . 0 December 5, 1989 Page 3 The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a ` project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a 1 . specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be 1 provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point. This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level effort and scrutiny that went into the original plan development. �v Each of the applicable General Plan Policies will be discussed ', below. No General Policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval pproval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies become applicable in the review of a development application. 0 1. Overall Density General Policy x The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3: r The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered. " 2t6F This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such that the, planned densities do not result in land uses that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available or ' planned. This policy recyulates Comprehensive Plan map densities _ and is not applicable ih the development review stage. The appropriateness of the plan map designation or zone designation on a given site it not an issue ih, a hearing on a development application. ' • ,, 0 /, ' ‘ • , I, w a 4 .. .. „i • i �) Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 ' �' Page 4 2. Impact Management 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'. <i Specific Policy 60 Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information on school capacity to be taken into consideration ( in development review." This policy is ' the one most directly focused upon school capacity in the development review process. This policy requires ,.that a detailed review of projects take place and it directs that the City seek capacity information from the District. The development review process and the development standards insure that this review, takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the 111 ' District to provide the City with school capacity information. , The July 5, 1989 report from the District and the July 31, 1989 Ill and the October 3, 3.989 joint meetings are examples of this coordination and "encouragement" . Because -of the variety of factors that impact school population F it is not currently possible to predict with a great degree of accuracy school , populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population. However, , ' \ once a building rmit thas the structure been issued will bedoccu� ie in the becomesreasonably certain hat near time frame (3-6 months) • BY monitoring actuald t school populations and outstanding building permits, forecasting over 3 6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degreeof \A reliability. If this coordination results in the development of data which supports the findings required by the state moratorium statute to ,establish a capacity shortage, a moratorium on building permits studentsdistrict. a the inflow of new n be enacted in sufficient time to minimize to the ditrict. , 3. Impact Management General Policy V. " The Citywillplan andprovision program for the provision of adequate • public services and facilities. 410 ' ,, N . •• •,,, 1. Attachment No. 3 0 December 5, 1989 Page 5 , , . k Specific Policy 3: \ . Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of public services except in instances where the developer pays all costs of providing additional required capacity, subject to City Council approval.'r The General Policy requires that City to plan and program for the provision of adequate facilities. This City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the city to plan facilities for the school. Through the enactment of the • • moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis due to a lack of school capacity. The moratorium statute .s available to temporarily prohibit on a system wide basis land uses which exceeded the capacity of! the schools. 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy %.II The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban - Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic • . services: To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services \ Boundary as follows: (1) Lands suitable for near future developre,nt (IMMEDIATE 4. GROWTH) (2) Lands in long range growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . I. / The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. r i Specific Policy 4: New development shall be served by an urban level of services . , of the following: �`J . • a. Water • j b. Sanitary sewer " c. Adequate streets$ including collectors d. Transportation facilities ./ e. Open space and trails, as per Open Share Element . f. City policy protection g. City fire protection • fb h. Parks and , recreation facilities, as per Parks and ANIRecreation Element t l I. • • ri 'i°• Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 6 4111 Ll i. Adequate drainage j . Schools . I , 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 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.' The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define the future growth area for which it intends to be the major provider of public services. Within the ultimate growth area, General Policy III 6,trects that basic services will be logically • extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizable areas. The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of 4111 the General Policy. . The Specific Policy almost seems misplaced, • and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above, which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that General Policy do not require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in Specific Policy 4. The most relevant language of this General Policy to the issue at hand is that the City will 'manage and phase" growth with a • "logical planned" extension of "basic" services. The School District is logically planning,. to provide new facilities to serve demands generated by' growth. The District, like school districts • " in general, provides facilities in response to demand--not in anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and identifies schools, along with police and fire services , as responsive facilities. The Director draws a distinction, for planning purposes , between these responsive facilities and transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities which III her words "must attend, rather than follow or respond to, ! , construction. " e , #! • • r fy Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 . � Page 7 , Specific Policy 4, on the other hand, directs that schools be available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If that has not occurred, the Specific Policy states that schools may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development. " The Specific Policy contradicts the language of its General 4 Policy in that it is illogical, and inconsistent with how schools function in this ,state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this Specific Policy. A defacto moratorium resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. to summary, the three General Policies listed above which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth, coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and evaluate applications and determine impacts. School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact the school system is not precise. A quasi-judicial hearing on a single land use application is not the appropriate forum within which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity. There is not reliable data concerning future impacts that will result from a single application or the timing of those impacts. The current level of coordination and planning, with continual monitoring of actual school population changes satisfy these policies. If it is determined that school capacity will be exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities while the District implements programs to correct the problem. At ty/Correspond°-7 /, m a 5 to U $c u o '. i�8 11 q o ►- • o O �` Q a tiIIh It'C y 1 ti C ^ p ,r J 3 ii y' if / _ i" /' Z It / ~ 2 i'" ' / / 'n e `�' O !�_� Cq ,z y/ 4 • v r '' a • ��, a"/w t, //i J/ ' i , 1 / //��_I � / G/ . 0 /I rs' ..t.....', ZZ �'y / 0 , "0>7.. i / k ,/ / I '• w0. \\\\\Q\\\\\ , ► �)M !9 A al.i/h/kty," „„..1 , ti ......,.../......„/ . , k /2,1 . • ..„-: ,. _....- \-.44-.1,!•,...•'''. *"--' • - ...-----",- '0, \`% Ihec,/7 ......- ,..• • \ I. /:i .vo6r ��..' kl h :2004 ..,....„,.. t..........c \ 4 r 44 h r tl y b Ti J ,r t '� ` h tl / `.. , 'ia 1 ` It . 4'V\ 1' . ' 5... ., ,A ,/ , I, r✓4 ,, \ 4 ��,. t'" \ / 1, b E` 'ko 4.w b / ,. -A �� 1 n 01 r L /_ R4 I n / l i7 9F aF r x , 0 a: Imo!�► • 1 , a% r . M,, ./ • . 5 c. X --- t /— 1 , W II e Ol I W 'I"N 'i /r ,, I! y m . i} i i M4 ~ Fj S 4 7.4 \-4 1,..: ,,,N,, . n, !. , c it \ i/ i' 11 II it �i lirriinumillma I II II II II 'i i/ I, -- .. i , i „ „ J (i "o•yl' �I II r J ' il II i \ II II I (1 . / I I pp II I Ii JA ,)'� It II X ,� : t I I • \ J I II II t ! II 0 7 ..:1' j1 II II I\ 5 2 I 1 II I g D \\iL .i1_. __I._ .jr St t t i,� Cc V ..,1i' i h • id I t t L______/ t al I I/ ` < it m o , I. 411 a 7 J y I r $ C\5 5, il -r•-... . , . • . , I . • , i • . .... 1 . m 6 If) 4 rt6,• . , o 0 , , 'Al 9„ ....wwwlarout4 t . CA //' ,.._...g. , ,i I .• I.r 1 A rtilkorifflruvure. r 1 .7.-..7 !'.1E1; IF' ti « 1 r. u I 1 — iiiiiiili I, • .., , ,J.LI.Ir:11 j 7 1 ‘ li t, „t nit ;„1:-1: * •.1\qi•1 1 1 1 < q 4. 4 4' 1 . I fli 4 3 1 .. : 1 I L'.__..._i I ,• if. Ai i i 11 1 ,-- . I I 1 , ' f.. : 11 1 ii,• - c f • 1 ',. il 1 111 , • r, yi 1 . ri! .. ,, II I 1- : 1,11 11' .1 , N._ _ , ,, , , ,„ i 1111 , .-.6-i„,- L__, ; ,. . ',1 , 1/11 ,'. N. II 1 WICI • 1 r. . fi::: 1 1 ,,. ...\.li ,,,-. "will _ 1_:.--, 1 Ti: 1 r---1 Er piiii:ii AJAR if 3 111111.-- 1 1 1 1 1 ,, 1 i 1 1 .•\ 11 i 1 .,.....11 w i 1 a. ......J q—L i. • ' %.••... '----. • . , 1111 • i .r. ..: t II,'.'I. , „ . , .....• - , ,,i pi.1.,.1 r•,. I. 11 ,-, R, ,. • - - ...I: 1= .,1,1011,.„,11111, , ! _ 1 ---' 1 olu .41 011,11 ' 1 ••01.11'11.11',1" . N.•..II J.11111;,l'—I i,'' • ^ .1...... . ;41 I, 1 ili, I I :. •'.= IMO I , ,,•1 •111 Er !.9q 1111.11. 1 4 um 'MI ' ' 11111111' MI ..; It N--t1 , / - ._.•,.- i• -E • 1 1. 1 Mil , li r— — . 1-21 F-11'. . a - 1 , i. 4 •.. klEll t.-4- : - - --- - ,,!,_ .,..... \-IV — ,,1 "----L .- iur•tt i 1,41$1 .- ., 0 =.:::. r:•-.: +. —11 l' li 1 , ,,,,ii: = :,:i.i..,, ii,' , ..../, i ,, 111, . — , - ,-- : , ,, 7,--, ..: i , , lmo' 41, ,,11.1 , , ,,, .,.iter: , IN ...,,-.14----''''"1" 111 il.: .,1 = ....,...ro•,,,, It, I 1 • 0 toll •11 , I I ti I • f.) 0) I.:0 i le = ••' cn J . . ' = ' '1.li '1 1'i _a it;„1„• ,,, ,I,., ,ii.1 h 1 ,1 -•,, 4111. , ' IP1.. .. i. , .. III < v 1 1 I r . 0 1 11 . , . ,.. --,.. ' , I , . 4 • , , .. •• . , • I i ._. ..__ ... . ,. -. .... it . .... .. .... .. . . _ ...,., , , Al) I I ,........., ,,. w I P ,..-• : "31e r... . ,. it �� '� W A 4 'IN lum411111,1Vtd „, I I . I- 11 1 — 2 I i I ,i I I 1 I, , "c": . 1 .lj 1 1 r I• -I `T 11111111. D ! • r ,: 1 (r l i I j�l �I j 1 41 . I .,,t th Ali'ill ;lir ocs:i t Ii , I r- I ,�I'i11 �l'1 1 i� 1 I i I 1 1 TIII t-I 1lI r I, I 1 111d. I� � o 4 [1111 " 01 ' 3- ,'6 ''- I ' 1111111 EtL L +5:.•'.0s — -� f I gI41 0DO 0 2 81 ' ' II11ana I11- 1 1 1i1 �ui II ! 1 1 1 nII1 .yr11 .y �ll��'i� I II1LII 1 ...y-_ __w : liTfrr,i ,ji ril F 1Pj 1 11 1 1 )'. N 111' I1�rr1,r14{{1l o STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEO LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : „ J Nick Bunick Custom Homes, SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 Inc. • STAFF: PROPERTY OWNER: Michael R. Wheeler Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. DATE OF REPORT: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: April 27, 1990 Tax Lot 2700 of DATE OF HEARING: Tax Map 2 lE 9BD May 7 1990 LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: West end of Twin Points Road None t! COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: • R-15 R-15 I. ,� APPLICANT' S REQUEST J The applicant is seeking approval of a minor partition to create two parcels, each a minimum of one acre in size from a 2.19 acre parcel; also, a Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 ft. Neither parcel is proposed to abut a street. II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of. Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III • SD 60-89\VAR \ 43-89 Page 1 of 15 f, o . • , 711 1 , Y P Impact Management Policies ., General Policy I General Policy II 0 . General Policy III Wildlife Habitat Policies • General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I Distinctive Natural Areas Special Distinctive Areas - ,/No. 54 - Oswego Lake Potential Landslide Area Poli6les General Policy II General Policy, IV • o' Potential Erosion Area Policies . General Policy II General P- licy IV Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II.. II• Protection Open Space Policies , General Policies I General, Policies II III Oswego Lake Policies General Policy III General Policy IV B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48. 195--48., 225 R-15 Zone Description (set- . • backs, lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535 (3) Oswego Lake Setback LOC 48.535 (4) Special Street Setbacks . 0 • C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: Pl LOC 49. 025 Interpretation, Regulations & Procedures LOC 49. 090 Applicability of Developmen , Standards LOC 49. 110 Concurrent Review of Permits LOC 49. 130 Classification of •° Development '> LC)C 49. 140 Minor Development ' t.oc 49. 145 Major Development LO ' 49 , 200-49. 210 Minor Development Procedures • SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 Page 2 of 15 ci l9 A `✓ • 1 LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager iv III LOC 49. 300-49. 315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications LOC 49.510 Variance Standard LOC 49. 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Procedures �� 1 LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2.005 - 2.040 Building Design 6.005 - 6. 040 Transit System t) 7.005 - 7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 8. 005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor • f Development ` 14 .005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 16. O05 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and • Erosion Control , 17.005 - 17.040 Flood Plain f 18. 005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19. 005 19.040 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways a IlkE. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: Ii LOC 57. 005 - 57. 135 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cuttin Ordinance: FLOC 55. 010 - 55. 130 III. FINDINGS � . A. Existing Conditions: ~ 1. The site is composed of 2. 19 acres in an irregular configuration. t \' 2. The site has no portion which abuts a public right-of-way (street) (LOC 49. 015 ( 1) ) . 3 . The site is adjacent to Oswego Lake. Oswego Lake is within a flood plain. The Flood Hazard Zone is A-7 the base flood elevation -, is 101 ft. (N.G.V.D. ) . . 1111 U SD 60-89\VAk 43-89 Page 3 of 15 o o • :, • 4. The site is composed of steep slopes, including a bluff along the northerly property 4111 lines. These slopes range from 12 to 100% (Exhibit 6) . 5. An existing dwelling is located as shown on Exhibit 5. The dwelling has been recently remodeled by the applicant. 6. The site of the existing dwelling is located on slopes of between 0 and 15% in an area composed of more than 15,000 sq. ft. 7. The area of proposed parcel lA which is less • steep than 50% slope is 16,042 sq. ft. This area has slopes of 0 to 16% in grade. B. Background ' 1. On October 24, 1988, the City of Lake Oswego t ' approved a minor partition (SD 43-88/VAR 38- - • 88) leading to the creation of three parcels. The site which is the subject of this new request is Parcel 1 of that approved • 'f• ,�� � partition. The earlier application included a . • variance from the Access Standard which ' 4 requires that each parcel abut a street for a ` 4 ' • minimum of 25 ft. The parent parcel had no street frontage. g The three resultant parcels did not have street frontage. The decision on that prior application cites the reasons for .' ' grantingr the variance (pages 5 and 6, Exhibit 8) . The site which is the subject of this " "': , bg application continues to lack an abutting street frontage and also requires a variance • to the Access Standard. ,b. The variance granted in 1988 (VAR 38-88) was a •.Y Class I variance processed as minor development. On March 28, 1990, the City Manager, interprercu, that a variance to the Access Standard i,, excess of 11. 5 feet is to be processed as Class II variance. :-Y _-� : C. Proposal Y. The applicant proposes to create two parcels from w, , a 2, 19 acre parcel which resulted from an earlier C., '•v'; partition approval (SD 48-88/VAR 38-88) . The parcels are proposed to be 58, 373 sq. ft. (Parcel • IA) and 37, 023 sq. ft. (Parcel 1B) . An existing ' , • access easement serves proposed Parcel 1B over Parcel 2 of the earlier partition (Exhibit 5) . • SD 60-89\VAR 43--89 ' Page 4 of 15 ' ' . X p . 1 - Parcel lA is proposed as a new homesite; Parcel 1B is the site of an existing dwelling. D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval.: •As per LOC 49. 615 (Development Code) and LOC 8 h 48 . 815 (Zoning Code) , staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development (partition) and a Class II variance: 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 F approved, it shall first be established that to proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Ppplicable policy groups are: Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies requjre the City to manage and • phase urban growth within the Urban Service ' ''a• ' Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specif?,c 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, includi1s4 ;schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 26 (the City Council memorandum of December 5, 1989) 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. 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. ID SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 Page 5 of 15 °: e ,n. 1 a _. .6 _�y o ° , ' J 1 ;. The policies require assurance that distinctive ,' areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from 4110 '',. . removal, and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below , will assure conformance to; these Plan policies. ' Conditions of approval will be imposed when • necessary to assure compliance. Wildlife Habitat Policies , . , . These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, • natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards 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 and LOC 48 . 535 (3) , 4' , Special Setback for Oswego Lake and the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard. The related requirements are reviewed 4110 e in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Landslide Area Policies r' These policies require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the • degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation Service District • mapping indicates that the site has a potential for landslide hazard. A soils report is required to address this condition and will be required as a condition of approval of this action. Potential Erosion Area Policies e) These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open • ' Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. , Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report + ' following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. 4111111 , .�" SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 • Page 6 of 15 .f r . • Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy gy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site' s natural features. These policies are now implemented through the .t City' s Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) . $ Protection Open Space Policies • These policies further prote?ct` the natural. resources identified in theyNatural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable Development Standards. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. • Oswego Lake Policies , These policies are intended to protect the natural • and recreation resources provided by Oswego Lake. • These policies are implemented through several of the Development Standards and LOC 48 . 53e(3 ) , the Oswego Lake Setback. Through the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard and the required 25 foot setback from the property line at the lake, quality of the lake is specifically • protected. b. The applicable statutory and Code . requirements and regulations, including: � • �a i. For variance applications, the standards found in LOC 48. 650. •• Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 48) The site is zoned R-15 which requires a minimum lot area of 15, 000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is 80 ft. ; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. • i Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% [LOC 48 . 210 (1) , 48 . 225 (1) ] . The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48. 215 (1) J : Front yard: 20 ft. Rear yard 25 ft, Side yard 10 ft. 0 , , • SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 r Page 7 of 15 • I r . . . 1 • ," i . ti • i( The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: �. Area Width Depth • . Parcel lA 58, 373 sq. ft. 210 ft. 360 ft. Parcel lB 37,023 sq. ft. 200 ft. 180 ft. • The maximum height allowed in the zone is 35 ft, (LOC 48. 220) . , The applicant' s proposal complies with all applicable zoning requirements. The resulting building envelopes are shown on Exhibit 10. , Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57) This ordinance requires that 80% of new parcels 'e created be oriented for solar access. Despite the absence of actual street frontage as discussed • earlier , this site is well suited for solar access. Solar access can be achieved in one of „ two ways, at the discretion of the applicant. By prescribing the location of a Solar Building Line, `�� "~� north of which solar access is protected on Parcels lA and 1B, both parcels would be solar lots. Alternately, by imposing performance ' requirements on orientation of , longaxis, both glazing or , parcels may achieve the same '� result in compliance with the ordinance. One of ' ' .' these alternatives will be required as a condition v of this action. , Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) i0 This ordinance requires that only those trees whose removal is necessary in order to site the proposed improvement may be approved. A tree survey is not required in application for a minor partition, but is necessary to meet the .. , requirements of the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The applicant has illustrated the location of some of the trees present in the vicinity of the proposed homesite in Exhibit 31. The location of other trees present in this vicinity have been shown by " , - , , City staff based upon a site inspection. Development of the site will result in the '• necessary removal of five to six trees between the. existing driveway and a line measured 25 ft, west of the shoreline of Oswego Lake, A complete Sb 60-88\VAR 43-89 Page 8 of 15 t; ..:•; ;.,; - survey will be required as a condition of approval d , p i of this action. The applicant shall position the proposed dwelling and accessory structures so as . . 40 • to minimize the number of trees removed in compliance with LOC 55 . 080 (2') . Development Code Requirements and Analysis LOC ;, Chapter 49) , , This minor partition application is appropriately being processed as a minor development. However , as per Exhibit 29 , the applicant' s variance from ' the Access ecausepthetreductaion exceedsa11.5lfeet) variance (becaus which is classified as major development. As such, the proposal is required to be reviewed as major development. Development Standards applicable to major development will be reviewed later in this report as required by LOC 49 .090. 9 . The applicable variance criteria are reviewed next in this report. As per LOC 49 .510 (1) (Development Code] , the ' Development Review Board must consider the ' �� �'' ' following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class II variance (Development Code) : . r. •' ' a. The request ne • cessary to prevent unnecessary The site does not comply with the Access Standard >' .,,, because it does not have any frontage on a public street. Instead, it is served by a private easement for access to Twin Points Drive, which is public. The request is necessary to further use Or the property as allowed by the R-15 residential zone. b. Development consistent with the request _, will not be injurious co the neighborhood ::• in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; • • The developable portion of the site lies below a • " I t (: . steep bluff along the northerly property line of • This developable area is generally flat _; the site. ,:.. ,,.: � . to moderately sloping. Secluded from view except •• yzA, r :-. : SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 ' Page 9 of 15 4. r • -•.i p icy ♦ _ . - , I • . from the existing dwelling on Parcel 1B (which is owned by the applicant) , the proposed variance to , the Access Standard will not be injurious to the0 .; .. neighborhood. The low level of traffic generated } ' " from an additional residence can easily be accommodated on this private easement and over the local street, Twin Points Drive. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; • Due to the inability of the applicant to comply with the Access Standard in order to develop two parcels of greater than 15,000 sq. ft. , as required by the R-15 Residential Zone, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of this 2. 19 acre property. ' d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no Plan policies with which the applicant's PP proposed Access Standard variance conflicts. . 1 6 c. The applicable Development Standards 0 .: ' Building Design (2. 005 - 2. 040) While this standard is applicable to all major development involving a structure, this application is major development only because of the inclusion of the Class II variance. Staff ' • • concludes that the single-family dwellings • . proposed or existing on the site are minor development, as is the proposed minor partition, � . • ; , . and that this standard is not applicable. ?'' ' 1' Y Transit System (6. 005 -_6. 040) The nearest transit facilities are located on Iron Mountain Blvd. to the north. There are no hard • surfaced paths leading to the site at the end of l Twin Points Road. No transit developments are • .� ' required to serve this site as a result. Parking and Loading (7. 005 - 7. 040) ' .b This standard requires that each single family ' dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport. • SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 Page 10 of 15 • > Both proposed parcels provide adequate building envelopes with which to comply with this standard . • Park and Open Space (8 . 005 - 8. 040) This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space or park land equal to 20 percent of the gross land area of the " development. Since the applicant ' s request is considered to be major development only because of ' the Class II variance [LOC 49 . 140 vs. 49. 145) , and • because the minor partition, existing and future single-family dwellings are minor development [LOC 49 . 140] , staff concludes that the Standard does not apply to this request. , Landscaping, Screening and Buffering (9. 005 • - 9. 040) • n • The existing and proposed single family dwellings are not included among the range of uses required to provide plantings, despite the fact that the standard is applicable to this Class II variance, which is classified as major development. Staff concludes that the standard is met. "' Drainage Standard for Major Development (11. 005 - 11. 040) I, This standard requires that site grading not `' adversely affect neighboring properties. Roof and foundation drains are required to be directed to •'•, engineered drywells or other approved locations. No grading is proposed as part of this � •� application. Compliance with this standard will * be required upon application for a building permit . for both parcels. Utility Standard (14 . 005 14 . 040) .. This standard requires infrastructure improvements to be installed underground, where possible. This k • j. SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 , • ' Page ll of 15 • ,. •.r' • . V . will be required upon application for a building 0 . permit for both parcels. Though Parcel lB is developed, this standard will apply to all subsequent building permits requested for ti',,at is ' ' parcel. ; a° Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 - a_ . 16. 040) `' This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. ' There are severe limitations on development of slopes greater than 20%. Based upon City topographic information, the slope of the site is between 12% and 100%. Compliance with the Standard in areas in excess of 20% will be ' reviewed upon application for a building permit for both parcels. The applicant is advised to become familiar with the requirements of this standard. An erosion control plan is required by this standard and newly applicable State Law (OAR 340-41-455) . Compliance will be required upon ' o, ;"� ' application for a building permit for both Al,' parcels. Flood Plain (17. 005 - 17.040) The site is affected by a flood hazard zone whose base flood elevation is 101 ft. (N.G.V.D. ) . New ._ " development will be required to elevate the lowest finished floor one foot above the base flood elevation. Compliance with this standard will be required upon application for a building permit ' for either parcel. Access Standard (18 . 005 - 18.040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. 1 The applicant has requested VAR 43-89 from this standard to enable the creation of two proposed parcels. Compliance with the standard will be • required beyond approval of the requested variance. ' The City Manager has interpreted the Development ' Code to require a Class II variance to this standard when the variance requested exceeds 11.5 feet of reduction (Exhibit 29) . The applicable ID SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 i . Page 12 of 15 I •' '. . • . • ..•. V 11 w criteria have been reviewed earlier in this report (Section III.D. 2.b. ) Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways o. (19. 005 - 19. 040) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% � . '• slope. The existing road (private aeasement) crossde nor 5% constructed at approximately15% grade and becomes : , less steep moving east to west. 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 . r III. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of SD 60-89/VAR 43-89 , subject to the fcllowing conditions: • 4101. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 4 and ,. •', modified to illustrate Conditions 3 and 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 Cit Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year y extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the • project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. The final plan shall reference this land use • application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 60- 89/VAR 43-89. 2. The final plan shall be registered With the Clackamas County Surveyor ' s office and recorded K , el with Clackamas County Clerks ' s office. SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 Page 13 of 15 •" - - 4 • •• ''• - • 1 ~ 1 • , 3. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with `. ' the Solar Building Line Option [LOC 57. 020 (2) ] and ID - show the location of the Solar Building Line on • the final plan map, or the following notes shall appear on the final plan [LOC 57. 020 (3) ] : ; a. Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis and at least • 80% of their ground floor south wall protected • • from shade by structures and non-exempt trees; • Or, b. Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected ' from shade by structures and non-exempt trees, 4 . The following note shall appear on the final plan: • a. Development of structures and planting of non- exempt vegetation on Parcels lA and lB shall • comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57. 050 • - • 57 . 090) . This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers • of Parcels lA and 1B. 5. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. 6 . The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory ;, • structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 . This removal shall comply with LOC 55 . 050-55. 080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance) . The applicant shall provide a tree d. survey upon application for a building permit for either parcel 1A or 1B, illustrating the location, type and diameter of all trees in excess of 5 inches on the site. Development on Parcels 1A and • 1B shall avoid as many trees as possible. . 7. The applicant shall provide aoils report for • Parcel 1A. This report shall demonstrate ', compliance with the Hillside Protection and t Erosion Control Standard (DS 16. 005-16. 040) . An • erosion control plan shall be submitted in compliance with this standard and as required by the Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance • Handbook. SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 ' ' Page 14 of 15 ; o R • •'..:i EXHIBITS • • 1. Tax Map • 2. Applicant's Narrative, Minor Partition 3 . Applicant' s Narrative, Class I variance 4. Site Plan ' 5. Site Plan; existing and proposed dwelling • positions 6. Topographic Map, 1 ' =200 ' 7. Notice of Decision, SD 43-88/VAR 38-88, dated ' October 24, 1988 8. Staff RJ port, SD 43-88/ VAR 38-88, dated September • 16, 1988 9 . Soils Report by Iry Cooper, dated January 14, 1989 10. Setbacks, building envelopes 11. Flood insurance rate map 12. Letter from Duell and attachment, dated January 16, 1990 13 . Letter from Roberts, dated January 16, 1990 14. Letter from Briede, dated January 15, 1990 , • 15. Letter from Porter , dated January 17, 1990 16. Letter from Davis, dated January 17, 1990 / . 17. Letter from Bunick (applicant) , dated January 18, 1990 • 18. Letter from Harlow, dated January 19, 1990 19. Letter from Cabot, dated January 22, 1990 •. 20. Letter from Williams and attachment, dated January • 22, 1990 • 21. Letter from Johnson, dated January 24 , 1990 22. Letter from Hall, dated January 29, 1990 23 . Letter from Bunick (applicant) , dated February 15 , • 1990 24 . Letter from Roberts, dated February 22, 1990 • 25 . Letter from Cabot, dated March 4 , 1990 26. Council ' s memorandum regarding schools, dated December 5, 1989 27. Letter from Bunick (applicant) , dated March 20, 1990 . ; 28. Letter from Peter C. Harvey, City Manager, dated • March 28 , 1990 29 . Memorandum from Peter C. Harvey, City Manager, '77 • dated March 28 , 1990 30. Letter from Bunick (applicant) , dated April 4 , 1990 31 . Plat of survey, by OTAK, dated February 2, 1990 32. Letter from Bunick (applicant) , dated April 26, . 1990 (with two attachments) • 41111 SD 60-89\VAR 43-89 • Page 15 of 15 1 _ . . ' 1 * • • '^ O 6, W d�a \ r 1i_ • • � a '' 1I " 0 , , .$)1,� 'no' F r ` y ti I • e %�. I•• O' • J�i. It-r� \ / , • 1:' Ce cl) eii IP:. A sg\. .ts c,, r.. I C o � / - n.. ; .Nf � ` -' -.. •5,I ''' '' t,C� s<t'.. . `., Oil. m '. s \Gt�j J•'''.1.; 1. i \ 4 •' *1 • 1+tea Z N/.1%/.' \ o : •`off�i , h 1 •�•�sk �OV Qo" \ Oi/ 4: •.,. ,q O�. *;, •�� ,4 0 ..--• s ...-1 I.‘, o `1:r ''\ ' yI •� �� 4 1•� �Y '� II•' .•, e (p .0 ‘ecr '•ctt,�tl`r p�" I y9 al 4 • �p4. v\`� ^q� c: 0,+ of0, / ty, „, X.7.,Zs 0.qt. ,..., �. CI • ^. .r. . rt. 1. u t1�A lyA 41 e ` " ` e . , 1` �,o1A1 uU a't+y/' IdS' • `` (`��� q d• /�, #,. A pi 4/ '7S I rt r70- V L �:I 1`Ka•1. b� /04/. �C1 \y" fl.r �s +1ti CJI f i ' 4�7 .� ` • ..� a5 -N 0 . , by h v »Ilo% 4,, 01 • I. �.^•f d "t ",. ttt„_y� CJ. aril ^ • � ^tj 7.77, .<4 „,.., 4" „›. .„ r �1 dl� I�� r�" . T r•s a ►t 6 i` �� . n 1• N 4 ,• i� •s :e1• w/S / s�il�� L sky j4 �� Ar: { =M 1`• l .1 I. TWIN POINTS LOT ONE MINOR PARTITION J. EXHIBIT , O Lo41 /aWOM There presently exists parcel one of Twin Points Estates in Lake Oswego which consists of 2 . 19 acres and is known as tax lot 2700 . There also exists an approximate 5 ,000 square foot home on the western portion of the property and is shown in the enclosed exhibits . • This partition is being submitted to the City of Lake Oswego for • purposes of bisecting the 2 . 19 acres into two very large residential homesites . The northern most lot would be referred to as parcel 1A and will be in excess of one acre in size . The southern most lot which presently has the 5 ,000 square foot home on it will be referred to as parcel 1B and will consist of just slightly less than 1 acre in size . The property is zoned for 15 ,000 square foot lots . 11111 A large portion of parcel lA is located at approximately 5 feet above the level of the water on Oswego Lake and this is where the future home will be built as shown on the exhibit . The northern portion of the property slopes uphill at a fairly steep elevation and is very wooded . None of the trees on this northern slope will be affected or will require being cut for that portion of the land will stay natural . u The southern parcel , which will be parcel 1B , which already has i the 5 , 000 square foot home existing on it , has been completely landscaped and will require absolutely no modifications to the land or the terrain . ' ' The partitioning of the 2 . 19 acres into two homesites will result in homesites far in excess in size of the zoning surrounding Twin • Points . The community adjacent to Twin Points is Village on the Lake , which was also developed by the applicant ' s company , Nick Bunick and Associates , which is a 15 , 000 square foot zoning . The ' southern and eastern boundary of the property is Oswego Lake and provides the parcels over 600 linear feet of shoreline of which approximately half would belong to lot IA and half belong to lot 18 . Although zoning would allow for a subdivision consisting of �t> >e applicant would be substantially more than 2 lots , the partitioning these two lots so that it is impossible for there to be another homesite available on these parcels . Appropriate standards will be met in that each lot would have at least two paved parking spaces per site on the side of the garage . , Earlier this year , the applicant had already constructed all the utilites to these properties which now include 8 inch sanitary sewer lines , electric power , telephone lines , gas lines , water lines and t . v . cable lines . The applicant also proceeded in providing a 4 inch fire water line as was requested by Fire Marshall John McCauley and the City of Lake Oswego engineering 410 department . This fire water line is located at the entrance gate of the property and all the way to the bottom of the private road and will accomodate the water access needs for fire protection for these two homesites . Fire Marshall McCauley also has previously confirmed that the width and conditions of the private road is more than adequate to accomodate fire trucks . The access to the proposed lots is over a smooth, hard surface blacktop road of which the applicant is planning to repave and apply a new surface in the late summer of 1990 . It is a private road in which there is common usage easements that have been recorded for tl a three estate parcels that are presently existing as well as common maintenance agreements having already been established for the three estate parcels . The only difference would be now there would be four estate parcels that would be4111 sharing the common ingress and egress as well as the maintenance requirements . 2- . ... . .............. . • o In conjunction with this partition application , the applicant is 0 - also requesting a class one variance to the 25-foot street • frontage requirement . The class one variance is for the access standards regarding lots abutting a street providing fo,r 25 feet of public street access . Lot lB would not meet that requirement . (Please see accompanying variance submittal . ) This application does conform with the LCDC goals and guidelines as well as the Development Ordinance . It is consistent with the land use planning and goals 3 and 4 do not apply since this is within the City Limits . Regarding goals 5 through 7 , the area containing steep slopes on the northern portion of the property will not• be in the location where the homesites will be built . d The lake is recognized as a natural resource of which the ho/ntesites will be built in order to provide a "view benefit" of the lake . The construction of the additional home will not affect the views of any other. homes . The site has access to the ' lake which meets its recreational needs and the partitioning of the 2 . 19 acres will not have any negative effect on the economy in the State of Oregon . This minor ,partitioning will provide an additional homesite but at the same time would he done so at such a moderate density in that the two homesites collectively would share approximately 2 . 19 acres . • -3- z . g EXHIBIT . CLASS ONE VARIANCE REQUEST z (�' , ® TWIN POINTS - ESTATE PARCEL 1 i°"90r4443411 IP In conjunction with the request for the minor partitioning of Twin Points Estate parcel 1 , the applicant is also requesting a variation to the 25-foot street frontage requirement . Enclosed is an exhibit to this variance which is the narrative which has been submitted for the minor partition . This narrative provides a description of the project as well as addresses the Development Ordinance and Standards as well as the site plan , tax map and other pertinent information . This class one variance is in conjunction with the Access Standard regarding lots abutting a street providing a width of at least 25 feet . Lot 1B would not meet that requirement for there M is a private road that will be servicing this lot which varies in width. Therefore , the applicant is requesting a variance where there are narrower portions than 25 feet . 11101 It is important to note that there is a home already existing on . parcel 1B which was built in 1972 and has just been completely renovated bC=� the applicant . The variance is needed to prevent unnecessary hardship since it would be physically impossible in many locations to create a width of 25 feet . It would also require the removal of many trees that are presently located on hillside slopes which would cause an erosion problem. Also , the increases in width is not necessary for the existing road is a sufficient width for the accessability of cars and service vehicles as confirmed by Fire Marshall McCauley . In addition ,. even if the private road were 25-feet wide , technically parcel 1B will still not have the 25 feet of public road frontage because the frontage is obtained by way of the private road , IIIThe variance would hot be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or the property to be established by the request since there is only one home on the 2 , 19 acres and is part of the partition , This same applicant is the owner Of the CI ..,,.�..,..,.:.. ..,.�.,....,. ,„ M w ' 1 1 s R property as well as the home . The site is secluded . There is 7 practically no visibility accessible to other residences . This4111 !( request is a minimum variance necessary to make use of the property and the request is not in conflict with the o Comprehensive Plan . 4 The property is currently zoned for 15 ,000 square foot lots , but the applicant desires to accommodate just 2 homesites as opposed to substantially more if the property were to be approached as a 15 ,000 square foot lot subdivision cr PUD. If the variance were not requested with the 2 . 19 acres , in today ' s economical world one homesit,e on the 2 . 19 acres of lake property is not a reasonable use of the property and is an economic hardship . The 2 homesites can not be addressed on the property without the variance . This variance will not have any negative physical impacts on the property and will provide protection against potential erosion1111 and landside hazards . ' •r 1111 • 1 . t 1. • • SEE MAP ; 2 IE 9 d.fG < 4 - - THIS MAP IS FURNISHED S Ole ia500 A$A 0 7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,...,.. 300 ,, STEWART TI L►1► TITLE „••,,: THIS MAP IS NOT A SURVEY AND DOES NOT III►�� . �•'" tri.r SWONN THE LOCATI "'")� �_ I/ S� OF ANY IMi'ROVE•�� 1 `5 (r.... NIENTS. THE COMPANY ASSUMES N ' . Q,1 o? v r,r tour?FOR ANY(:RgORS THEREIN, CIA• r•`f •v •Mil•+r.., '00 r % IN � IM 6r�, r•' ,.� •°a�' l 1 {\4.6 '..trnrmelOrt74431.1/11T)rr"4‘,14, . � , % ., 1 ,�' T... q1' li �r � ��! i' a E 1 101 �rt, Z � �Jr' ,�!► •...• • ‘� �4 'S % 2 3° F �' tip. I. % tl �,,l,/+•- \% �' ;1 1111 �.y • b M r, , • ted,„c , 1/r f�� "�' Y 'j.i 8E ►'� ti`O\ M 1oyh��. i Jr,' 1.\ . , \ I ;de 0 a6 • �t0` �� C `� \-'•, ° • ti'�°ti tiro�� `�� ,y ,;. 0 4 J,� f .oi . • �1' ry r' • Id'I'r +/ „1� 4 w' '4 ti\4 ai II 1 1 i ) if. . 4/ ,,L. I ..,/0 , 0 $41 ,t4 OP II � j t ids' 2700 .' jii. ✓r/ l,1 O J•A J�!•, �f' �I •• 4..1N•f1...a• 10es,••.. bA1f.w,N, ' .'J �� •Z +( A �� 14 oft,Afwbv.. INIII,r ,!6•...re.." . 1 • .;► l,e !zli►y s? ), 6 "� Z , who e��+� M•�`��,�n f r,\r # �,t' P� / AD 1 C ,. •Ir+ 'il° 2708,' VV �40 1 ✓' ur tit /'1Y ea• 1.4,664,•9r • ;t;l0 4 •v.y rile I , IPI ' . `'4,.... • \r4.1_,..... ,..,#1,04"•' `•,.,., _ 41 "4'Iri,Aj,.. 164 .•I • 4110 0 5 W EGO L l� EXHIaIY 15900 �` it , SEr MAp 2 IE 9 1• r • t, H may,. • , J 11. v CC Q �4 P., N ••� ,,, v.. \‘...1 N... •-•• 4 i'' 14_ + II . *1 61 6pitk4. 71 ) g Atg %teks otl'A., 1,, ,_ NO if v ;ftgA:g,,4"- ,ivbv.. AQg lull' ►\ /' ; 1,6" ". tr) _IS1111 Tjgag \ g% il . / .. NI '..1' f.‘.L 4,,z‘i.041Le .155g \ .v.,.. JQQ ,,' t) . $ -.., NO M j yy� )gi .g iii .,.. 4414 . \,1 �• .,+j w.o,.., w..'� ; .A '}(. -b.4.) `\X i tex.,fly, di .. Ill+14 bill'./ '\ •'.•'' • .040.11;7;:a.1.. 4'.1.:4,,"i4e‘d' .l -i'- J pr , h " i 1 f.n 1 ..y4 0 3 je 1 ,,0 '='A Krl bJ! .ii�� ` \,^ e. \.` v W1 T T 1111 `.i,. �! �$o�ti ..�F,� ' : r....r' o a s... .., \\ ,, .."' a q \, ‘1"" 'i 0 "! d.:4t7 � �^� ',lei , \sae 44, .. i 4%.4 [!-t' .''' A i k: C•X• GS. e a. y�1 1 i:� frf �� t�O r`� .C IC. I iri 1.0 ,.,, \ y'`. ' 4 ti ri oo . � Q { a °` V 15 nthO 4 7f^,) (^)i '11 ,6r ^°o. 4i �nQq4; , 1 , ' , •`; ...cam.r ,.i r 44, r ., w t w / 1( t n•' r ,tr i• et: .� 1Is , Z`•+,.a i' . t*xF{.` P a • _ Yr` •�.., t'1. i,t t + c. rl �' >f<1 `r1,L.v. a Y / \\ ,__. .¢014 4. "r 1.+~.. j k ,., t�� ,.;,,. h •igt�ti rt,••• .. y• 7 ,. r In a• • • �.7� : Gwy•!`�N,��� ��• �. � • 'tZ • ' YI ";.'d'r•^'j w "^• f ;VI"'�`ir,t, 'z m ,�. t,Ls Fripii 4.i a 1 �• \ \' 1.• / • \ �3 1r '•I� � 7�' t r+eJ flM 1 + hh r• 1,.. ` /' J� P. '_ rrlt:1 ..,,;,� 1 + t + i^- 11 L: " vI "' r!e, '� ,rt R+f .,".1,,,t. yd , y,♦ i � \ ,�Y ' F 'r• .! .r Rr 1G 1l ll. 1 41..^ I\ ,r,," ' ` 1' ( le •1•V4 'Fr, •4" M,-4•f h 'I,Y !'',+,q 4`' 'rw;1.' ua $ ' Yr .9 �rq t.+ ^,• . 1 ,''‘I''' { J..•'g. s �I,,,roc ,l$ ,}{C,y'ui,rr'•'�:4, ,. •, `It" •r Q �VQ . I�r 1 ' \ rt, '�s#t�j x « i � y 1 j `,N „1 +}r}+T` �s.+1 1 l• t o Mluok9 QMJIP�d - ' ��� \ F r n�y� . ,r� }�I�i•4„r(4'�� 21'�I•l•i'�' l� t h•, 1. , +f. y. •, V , ,ti` ,. �}r'''wl+.,j ,1►i a I�F�, 4•'fr;vl p•. n a,r 'i . 1;}.p 1vv'"}{. A r, 'F , G �1 ,.11 Fk fX12 r`+r i r �• "r� i irr •ti �— • ,wit, ,!jr + 11�r ^"•1 [��..S• t,,�14 . : 4^ ra rl+,it.`yh {� J .r�4,Irt �.. ., �..�\ ,9 tS �r,n �.�� try ,� {, . .4 .ti � '�(�, V i • + \.. \�\, , ( , r, '1`.'4,. ../' „A, , tett,, ,?�„,,, `,,II,`�ti e e 1:, < `at 1. t \ Li.�ay;Y/ ' P11i 'I, � `. 7 \' • \I1 ,' ly ► '. 1� r t�f �Ti��IT 'di �;,?�0 •tiF A x, T �•'r` 11. P I i. J y f 1,.y yY.f �. t' ) ,i M.16 1 IL '1C, ., yrf D tP' dd w f 1 I t 6< > ft� br S� r "�•';yh, �1t, ,i1t } ti� „ ,. ' •f i+.,j• 'i • ''- r / ._• `�♦ . 1 ,(Ih ( a 1 l+ 1 l044,i'rjti e'1'r:3" • ,)1(. . $P/41.P‘ .S'., .. lS, s' , 1 >,y, ''!� ' 4 i 4,„ T • .,1 9 ` �� /'/'IJ f '~, t.• ^/,d'S "• "� "Lt , •ff,,,r••4.4i •.'1 - r r o } ,) ,.• �` ,. f• ll! •tom \ , -, 7I 4'- ,Q!�•'• ,.4 ;, #,1,.a d. 1 1P .• `1 1. , ,''r .11 •,, f t{' �' �'f* 4P •t41 , `}�r I , O t \` '° %h p ltt.r, 4. IC .f. „,. , 1. 4. ..t,.,,t_. .f1i \\•.t,..:, li, • vii/Iiii ,4,4ik, ,' ( -, ' : Nt, ' '' • , •r• • • AO.10, . I:T.'it, . *\l'A.Ltt•Jt.,••••*;KX\litkitt, '„ ,, ,,i)•• I ', .,61 . ,.,. , A-.....,, . 40, , ., --\,i- , , ,..- - .. , lr •'� �.` Y"•r,,ry,.w,r,arai ' •` J �' r ,r p h . \ 1• -... • " 'r✓',•� `f I �' 1r J� ,,Pt• • � .. • h r` ......--__J//�! '�, , 1 \�`` a �'i .a �^ fa�i1 .1�_ i•r , •.y T rr'. r.Y'D•� 'a• �/'r• \, 1.. `\ y . ,� /•;{r► ice/4, ` 1 i + Kh r '�• y.•,I r ; r 1 • \. s , „ ' .. 1ktLk\ S0 II +II I I t y~' `� • 4 � O�• r1 /i \�•'��,. `\ 'dd •1 1 \`,1 ft I f a • AL.— ,•�• ,+.ti'1>'fil• /� 4R v, . ,,,,,,y,�',+Z 'fY,' `•f`,« + \''�,.. .r''1} 'Y 1 �" • r _ „+` �;� M Y.. ,I` b�*,.vt �,,'11 �4, r • •� t-- rr;,�ti�o / , 1.Ise 1`�, ,( , / / y7(' I) .r• :.4. • 41 I ,.I ', \1 ,r YA ..1 4 h (, y 1. „,• r r_'u ( 'r! h. . r tivlr A' °'/ ,--- } rq\ �- y.• w 1 .1,. '6' w r \ r ; . ... :, .14;1.4...4'c 'ik.,:4:\d,: I - li,t, , --t 7.,,li\‘‘.‘‘‘.‘t'‘ ',4\ . ' , . allitr 'f ' ''\114 NO 11'. 1, ,, . \,) . ' \ •". 4k 1/4 4;4_,v; : kr' ', 1 11' , �, • f' Al•..(},' ,.. ` I( i dy ,�'.��.,\`9. l yam. r�+ h�, rr '° -y 11j �, r r!' ! / �' 'i A . i , r�` . , 'r �� � . A�' 4 pit �1 I• (!� . • . / ` ter. ' • , ' 1 ((/��// vy. �\�.` Sj`,� y' \ ik 11 .s,++ 1 t' ?� .1.. 1,, 11, ,(1•'\J ,',� ,4 •;�il ` �� I 1)\ �04, :, a ,+ A,\ ; „.Or- / �J , // •,\\_,_ „.. , , . r• y e h L 4,, r ! c ri p 1� C r Hilt: OSIZ 4 ' • NOTICE OF DECISION ON [1111:::: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DATE OF DECISION: FILE NO. : -.) {. Otober 24 , 1988 SD 43-88\VAR 38-88 LAST DATE TO APPEAL: STAFF COORDINATOR: November 8, 1988 Renee Dowlin APPLICANT: LOCATION: Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. 1900 Twin Point Road / m OWNER OF PROPERTY : LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sid Ferris Tax Lot 2700 of Tax Map 2 lE 9BD I. PROPOSAL: IIThe applicant is re uestin to partition rtiition a 5 .5 acre parcel into three lots of approximately pproximately 2. 37 acres, 1. 55 acres and 1.58 acres . DECISION: The staff approves the proposed minor partition and Class I f' Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of app 'oval 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 the . 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 modifications to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County IISurveyor ' s Office and recorded with the respective deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office as noted in Condition No, 3 , . i 3 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on • :, -ilegal instruments for title transfer for recording with the • Clackamas County Clerk' s Office, shall be provided to City staff for approval . Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However , when recorded, the instruments for the parcels shall reference this land use application - City ofLake Oswego, Land ,,, Development Services Division, File No. SD 4.3-88/VAR 38-88 . 4 . All new utilities (including power and other cable utilities) shall be underground. Compliance with this will be reviewedat building permit review. 5 . A soils report by a registered soils en ineer 1��,® geologist be submittedg or engineering . prior to issuance of building permits , 6 . An erosion control plan for each lot be submitted prior to issuance of building permits on the respective lots. 7 . The setbacks of the R-15 zone be met: 25 ' rear (Oswego Lake) , 20 ' front, 10 ' sides . 8 . The private access be a dedicated fire lane. , 9 . The utility and access easements be provided for Lots 1, 2 4111 and 3 . The reciprocal easements must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permi ts. p its: 10 . That the applicant provide adequate fire flow to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal . 11. That final Water line design to serve individual lots be approved by both the City Engineering Department and City Fire Marshal, prior to issuance of building permits . If you have any questions about this application, please contact the staff coordinator , A copy of the Staff Report is available for your review in the Land Development Services Division ' at City Hall, 380 'A' Avenue. �s-' This decision may be appealed by any aggrieved party within fifteen (15 ) days from the date of decision, must be filed with the City Recorder , in writi ,Notice ofi appeal the appellant ' � g, setting forth , .� objections. Such an appeal would be heard either by the Development Review Board or the Planning Commission,d ding on the nature of the original application to staff , Ren e L, how nf)\1_ /0/ /b0 Associate Planner Hate fi, r STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ' 0 '' ' , LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : . Nick Bunick Custom Homes SD 43-88\VAR 38-88 ' PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Sid Ferris Renee Dowlin LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORTS: t,; �;�'�` Tax Lot 2700 of September 13 , 1988 Tax Map 2 1E 9BD LOCATION: , 1900 Twin Point Road • / COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: . • R-15 R-15 • • • I . APPLICANT' S ,RE9UEST The applicant is requesting to partition a 5 . 5 acre parcel into three lots of approximately 2 . 37 acres, 1. 55 acres and 1. 58 acres. A i foi)r II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS , y A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48 . 195-48 . 225 R-15 Zone Description B. City. of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: LOC 49 . 140 Minor Development LOC 49 . 200-49 . 220 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49 . 500-49 . 510 Variances LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval e ' J EXHIBIT �it 6 SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 (106,.../140.46,1Page 1 of 8 ki - . r C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5. 005-5. 040 Street Lights 7 .005-7 .040 Parking and Loading 4111 , 10. 005--10. 040 Fences 12. 005-12. 040 Drainage for Minor Development 14 . 005-14 . 040 Utilities 16 . 005-16 . 040 hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18. 005-18.040 Access 19 . 005-19. 040 Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • y Natural Resource Policy Element - PotentialTandslide Area Policies: III . FINDINGS A. Background: 1. The site is 5.5 acres and is zoned R-15. 2. One residence exists on the southeastern corner of the site. This residence will remain. 3 . A small cottage exists on the proposed Lot 3 . 4111 B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: LOC 48 . 615 - Criteria for Approval 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted Exhibit 5 in support of this request. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan; Natural Resource Policy Element - Potential Landslide Area Policies General Policy I - "The City will identify areas with a potential for landslide hazard, indicating the degree of potential hazard. " 4110 SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 2 of 8 • Y General Policy III - "The City will develop 111/1 standards to gu.ide development in areas where careful engineering and site development can safeguard public and private owners from identified risks. " General Policy IV - "The City will regulate land use, density and intensity of activity in landslide hazard areas, in accord with the degree of hazard and the limitations imposed by such hazards. " The City has identified areas with potential for landslide hazard. Further , the Hillside Protection and Erosion, Control Standard has been adopted to implement this Plan policy. See discussion of compiiance with this standard later in the Eltaff report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis The site is zoned R-15 and requires 15,000 square feet of land per dwelling unit. The applicant has approximately 5. 5 acres of land and is proposing to partition the site into 3 lots of 2. 37 acres, 1. 55 acres and 1.58 acres, respectively. The zone requires a minimum lot width at the building line of 80 ' and minimum lot depth of .100 ' . Setbacks • tl of the zone are as follows: Front - 20 ' minimum Rear - 25 ' minimum Sides - 10 ' minimum The proposed parcels meet each of these requirements as depicted in Exhibit 2. Development Code Requirements and Analysis The propc,)sal is considered a minor development and the review of this type of proposal has been delegated to staff by the City Manager . Other than meeting the applicable approval criteria, there are no further requirements of the Development Code to be met, • SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 3 of 8 c. The applicable development standards. • Parking and Loading (7 . 004-7.040) All 3 parcels are capable of ;providing two required off-street parking spaces per single family dwelling. This will again be confirmed upon application for building permits . Drainage for Minor Development (12. 004-12. 040) No alterations to the site are proposed as a part of this request which would adversely affect neighboring properties. Compliance with this standard will be • reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. Utility Standard (14 .005-14 .040) Sanitary Sewer: An 8" sanitary sewer line exists within a sanitary sewer easement, as depicted in Exhibit 2. This system is w1 adequate to serve the proposed sites. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must provide the reciprocal utility easements for review by staff. Water System: An 8" water line exists on Twin Points Road. Final water line• design to individual lots is to be approved by both the City Engineering department and City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. 14 . 025 (8) requires a fire hydrant shaL1' be. located no further than 1000' from anj1 of the lots created by a minor or major partition. In order to comply with this standard, a new fire hydrant must be installed at the entrance gate within the public right-of-way. Note: Utilities are to be provided underground from the nearest source (to new structures) . S S 5 43-88/VAR 38-80 Paige 4 of 8 / f Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16 005--16 . 040) qllIl .? The site is identjfied as' a slide area on the City' s map. Prior to issuance• of, building permits, a soils report by a - 1' registered Soils Engineer or Engineering. Geologist must be submitted. Additionally, due to the topography and location within the potential slide area, an erosion plan —. ust be provided prior. to issuance of bu i l'd i ng...pe•rm•i is. 16 . 020(7) restricts development of lands with over 50% slope. The applicant is permitted to build only within areas of slopes less than 50% and within the setbacks of the zone. Access (18. 005-18 . 040) The applicant has requested a variance to this standard. Specifically, the requirement that "every lot abut a street for a width of at least 25 ' o LOC 49 . 510 - Variance Standards • A variance may be granted from the development standards if it is established • that: (a) The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and, (b) Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, (c) The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of ) the property; and, (d) The request is not in conflict With the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has provided Exhibit 1 in support of the variance request In -\\ addressi►i'g the criteria , the applicant has cited several points. These points include: 1110 SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 5 of 8 • n. 0 y The existing tax lot do not have 25 ' of street frontage, but accesses off of a private easement (see Exhibit 3) . « o Without any street frontage, it is physically impossible to divide the //' properties and provide 25 ' of street frontage. • o The topography and location of the lots results in the lots being virtually secluded from view by surrounding lots. o The overall size of the parcel allows substantially greater density than the proposal. Without the variance, the economic impact of not being" able to • divide the 5.5 acre parcel would be,. substantial. Staff supports the variance request based �1 on the exhibits submitted by the applicant and a site visit., Prior to issuance of 1 any building permits, the City must review the reciprocal access easements. ,, Additionally, the private access must be a dedicated fire lane. While the Fire Marshal has stated the existing access is i of sufficient width to provide emergency I access to new lots, he has also ~ recommended the installation of � residential sprinkler systems in the newIII q residences. /j d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS. No future streets plan or ODPS is j associated with this site. ii IV. !i,. CONCLUSION ' ' Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal can be made to ��" comply with all applicable criteria by the application • of certain conditions . �I ' ACTION I Staff, approves the propcsed minor partition, subject• to the following conditions: 1 . A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for r. reviewsignature approvalwithin one year of thedatesofnthisedecision. Upon written , ,.. , SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 6 of 8 , `4'•` 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 the current law, development standards and compOtibility with development which may have occurred 41 the surrounding area . The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modifications to bring the project into compliance with then ourrent law and compatibility with • surrounding development. 2 . The final plan shall be registered with the • Clackamas County Surveyor ' s Office and recorded with the respective deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office as noted in Condition No. 3 . , ' 3 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer • for recording with the Clackamas County Clerk' s Office, shall be provided to City staff for approval. Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However, • . when recorded, the instruments for the parcels shall reference this ,land _use application - City of Lake .,Oswego,'.-Land-Development Services Division, File No. SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 . 4 . All new utilities ( including power and other cable •. utilities) shall be underground. Compliance with this will be reviewed at building permit review. 5 . A soils report by a registered soils engineer or engineering geologist be submitted prior to • issuance of building permits . 6. An erosion control plan for each lot be submitted prior to issuance of building permits on the respective lots. 7 . The setbacks of the R-15 zone be met: 25 ' rear (Oswego Lake) , 20 ' front, 10 ' sides . 8 . The private access be a dedicated fire lane. *`°.; 9 . The utility and access easements be provided for Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . The reciprocal easements must be reviewed and approved by the city prior to tl issuance of building permits . 4 II SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 7 of 8 4 o • 0 p 10 . A fire hydrant be installed at the entrance gate within the public right-of-way. . 4* 11 . That final water line design to serve individual � , �' lots be approved by both the City Engineering Department and City Fire Marshal, prior to issuance of building permits . Pre aced by: . // . .L U\ „„=,___ ') : Renee L. Dowl Date g Approved by: \?C-...-.4..*„. 9 /l1 _. Karen M. S tt (� Date 1111 Assistant City Manager Planning and Development ,, Exhibits 1 . Applicant ' s Narrative ,; 2 . Site Plan ( too large to reproduce) 3 . Access Easement Agreement for Tax Lot 2700 4 . Tax Map / k. 0 SD 43-88/VAR 38-88 Page 8 of 8 1 ,, IRVIN A. COOPER CIVIL ENGINEER January 14i 1989 OrrIct 227.4123 i51gT[At01 - WILLAMETTE GUILDING ° G1IEGGN PGIITLAND,GA GQN R7204 , WASNINGTGN '' Rim, 246.3453 Nick BUNCK & Assocs. 4 1618 S.W. First Ave. Suite 316 Portland, OR 97201 Proposed RESIDENCE SITE Minor Partition 00 McDonald Tract Parcel 2 (1.78 Ac. ) - Extension of Twin Point Dr. L< ke Oswego '" C ,ackamas County Subject: Site reconnaissance in identification of property limits, as surveyed by OTAK, Inc. (Project 2245) • Ascertain geologic features with respect to structure foundation, including assessment for erosion control. PARCEL 2 comprises an irregular but roughly rectangular shape, 375 x 200 feet approximate overall dimensions. The Westerly 0 half of the property entails access roadway (extension of Twin Point Drive) and site for a proposed RESIDENCE. This portion constitutes superior river frontage; the remainder is steep hill- side terrain, intended to remain in its natural tree and vegeta- tion state. Geology of the area was readily noted as typical of- water frontage: BASALT rock exposed along Lake Oswego shore line and adjacent perimeter properties , much of Which constitutes steeply sloping and vertical rock faces. The proposed Residence will be positioned at the lake frontage area. The latter possesses surface irregu- " a , larity, inducing excellent drainage runoff. Structure support on • ' exposed rock may require reducing high points, or FILL of low " a .• areas with on-site excess stone. The property development, by ` virtue of its rack "bench" above lake level, presents no problem with respect to erosion. ♦4 EXHISIT `�.0.5 P AOFFJ• � ci �21'ss • IAC:CC GIN fR �O$ . A. Cooper 60-IFI Ma4a-e1 c.c. : 1 q1 , 1,," onsulting Engineer w / Soils=-Foundation '4:, / -017 n srnucflaAL 4 , 1 t h u,tnrAa�+.lh l I sad`crloN5 kutINi�A'IVUN 3,o 5U t INVA'STlt1,iTlUNS \ Sai.it (,)gits�, t gd 1 el // h. � /�,.1,„ , ai ,�. -. ) . o ' a�oo•o✓i tr. c)�tu F. t fit .Z1. t� .M p +.4 o V • ...b ... ie t ti cs 004,64, \\, ,:.)%k „9' . ill illi teat •••••%., •E.Y...`,. 1 it': .. l ei. pi ICI 'y'9• Le r" + ` . ill9 C ,,{ 0 ,� W . I:hta r • • ,bhy^ yb••1." 111Whets k . . . fil:': .# . bQ� o ti ,.... 4!S.4.14a . p://>%.„.4....x. ...K4' ' ‘b°;.4' 6,..v9,.., 8 ''SV-.4 ' ..„,'" :7''' tt.' . - R tel.._.6;_ ,„,..,v,e, \ .14 - .4r. 1 N.A.••':(2.).,. S:,)1 \ . S :./ ,„..•.":41 17<t. i .t..3 q4, "i? ID % °° `, Q It �� b 1t qi CO in �� 1 ce... . lb'40- t d:.4, 1 g . 1 1 • it g/ Wq ,1., Ww i7 Q. J , , V1 4 - t hh' l N. H ±+�• �•2r �b' roc tt " �� 4 '�� i J3. 4 W ',, t �� ` •+ tiM)J it P, �\�• N f ' ".' ‘.t...'“ I I) rY's\ , / ,r1 rii /) z. ••� t, , m�adt fig r,+ _ .a N ?' -`�� Yl'J B:EC�6C,Oq N-^'it`r r --.�., ;' o'j'' re, ,' \+ Wit` .,t �yy /O"IL ��� a Steil /f yL ✓ 1: �l �aW,/ Jrl / ;dam{ ` i t4 • I s •' .hBA/ �' i o U 4 ,; I s „, SEE , MAP 2 t E 9 B f 1 '1 i • a C'ew I w i •V.., !7 la'w o M +,',t ;? r D, r . IN• wrVI�N 1 +1d' s•ue. „w �DR• `n'� 7 '.� ', rD .{S ✓.' • , J .N" .I •Jdh• 4I, S k'•1.1. .1 0 16\ 1 \i3 1it''• Ia 4 'L;eie .1 1 w• ,10\ y - t's.'..• .J// q .'0, qv* 1.,..,. %..., ,,,,„,....m. ,, 1... I //�' •,$ •����*•+ v (7 '� Mh• o 0 • R' ti`e�� ; r �0Iw w •,/, G. �' A, v 'A' 1 )tied 1/4 qlNih t • V • ti �/ V• v.,••,�V `2c1 c v c s' ` Oo h ‘0. c • \eyu f•,r \11, A° b •+) �'� °2 2 2240 :i. \ Q ey 'tom �' ; ' et \ � \ n . ' 'r 4. . ' 4 0 I4 al 03 3 „aw . hyr w • 0 Ne ('')\f ;e •, L 1 O �� i� ��` ' fe'e+' 2'19 Ac• ' ♦ Ndo..pre �� ' 7 I°.°°:-.-- --.... / `"•/' + ` .1I'1 0,�'/, .` 6\ �7 if J$10, d.,"Id' i OC..r.ar 1 • 11� • r' 2 7 '>. / ... ' J �' b ��,• •, 2709 ./ / c e ` • qt oto 1,46Ac, / / /' �,: 1 ,,..,. .'. '' \"...\, \ '1. t \ , 1 k ? r 0 ( \ • `IS.4"1.d i fa it lye. x/� .`' . . Iii. ..... t ��'!„V... A•a„ '.. ��•",�..,.'•��"py�—''.am. ...tr.., •` r 3 .+'d,.,,, .. EXHIBIT LAKE W F GO.i . . e P .Mf o .. KEY TO MAP _Q•Ycar Flood Boundary • ZONE B • 1•.I)-Year Flood Boundary ZONE Al • I,ne Dcsignatlorts ZONE A5 ' 0•Ycar Flood Boundary ZONE B )•Year Flood Boundary • is It Flood Elasatlun Lille SJ-j- •--.-- •. V, th Elevation In Feet" (sj tt.se Flood Elcsution In Feet Ec.0371 1; toe Uniform Within Zone", I. rsation Reference Marl, R.17x • / ne D Boundary ^ R ,er Mile •M 1.5 "Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical D,:tum of I9::• EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS • ZONE EXPLANATION A Areas of 100•year flood; base flood elevations a'd flood hazard factors not determined, AO Areas of 100•ycar shallow flooding where deo:1s arc between,one (1) and three(3) feet;average dept.s • of Inundation are shown, but no flood hazard fact7's 'N arc determined, AH Areas of 100•year shallow flooding where depths are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flo;.d elevations arc shown, but no flood hazard factu•s are determined, A1•A30 Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations a^d , flood hazard factors determined, A99 Areas of 100•year flood to be protected by flood protection system under 'construction; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. "\-----.. B Areas between limIts of the I00•year flood and . ',)- — �_ year flood;or certain areas subject to I00•year flood- ' ing with average depths less than one t 1) foot or whe•e the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flood, 'II" (Medium shading) ` -,"a6 .P C Areas of minimal flooding,(No shading) ���. � � D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazaras, '�4�`;�' V Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (ssa,e action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors 1 not determined, s ZONE A ` �i31 V1•V30 Areas of I00•year coastal flood with velocity (Na,e .', action);base flood elevations and flood hazard fact,•s p rb determined, • 'i4 lr1y.W•'-.4' ; 44.1.... , NOTES TO USER II ��. •,. 4174• 4 . ,J«�,(, ..y (,e,ufnl areas not Itf the5p1L1111 IIUUd ILIldr41 dll',19,IUIIIY A Jlld ,t_ ��ttSi ,'�,5 nsay be protected by flood control structures, • ZONE A21 .. . A .v.v..... f'Is map is for flood insurance purposes only; It does not notes, 7...„......„..........7„......"--',......„.....„....7 „...... '''• . � v -wily show all areas ,subject to flooding in the ea1t1111ltttltl or ��rJ 39 planimetrie features outside special flood hazard areas, �i_ 1.,r adjoining titap panels, see separately printed Ilide:. To .`,lap A 1' nets, C�1 :4:, 4 LEXHIBIT ZON E B .,,i, I CZtr�) 1 !' ROCKY (rm.: 40411S-91 °k.,• INITIAL IDENTIFICA 41. 1 + ` ,, \ JUNE 14, 1974 tk .', f'LOot HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP REk ISIUNs: . , -`" �. JUNE 11 199 . e 11 .- (: - \ + l EP; .. .e ' Att3'.'"g4..�1 p r htl t)'r�.'F f.4Kr •r J' 1kl Or^{ `1t r•p rr, t ;,!?! !t. {� Jai }c .ry r ' `.} �r'. rh'd q4 -y° �.,)}` y";� �y Y t, rl r 1 � ;tt f ' r a e OAK KNOLL .� , . 'f 4124"�F��pL A f�R� �'it. It �, v,,y Y fit) 1� 1 1 't 1ai41 i y ,r /COURT t.{c 3ti.1t k ` 'yk+�i• +��r1ffNrJn "�yl'tl � M� N ' 1 F �'r. ntr rYSY F ry • rt.x ZONE C V: uM r '" t �9ir. kF4twh� '�rj j, �,I: . " r, " y w°,• , t:r a• r f , ,t� ( t 4, Tikvg t f. lt,ti , 4 ,,; 1Ie"!('�n7% ,4 ;, t +iu r'•4, • ! Z E . ;r,i ,;F44.v, -4. IA7 �,_� �t,,,�����:f1 ; 4� ► 1:;; :,c r. 4 ,� ,e.� , ' r rT`•aw l: it, tee.ioi) `f,. ', 42 r ''''' 1'''d ri4't' {I 44$' 'r '+r. p�j.44' ,+164 it #aAi d^:)t1,) 7.)it4� e• 4 V4tfil,rp• "$, r,s �+ 61,:it Par,;•r ry A u, w .. }, q L ;1., �.'•J' trh ' 4 i v lam. ',y„ F,,*•a.ik f' ,1. • . '%'+ >i� 2 , .•fig N1}r,y ' + ' lY `', '• un i,1 'X ,y , 1. , ,-,n r4.f I. p'+•'19 `� I i L�g7���.'�9�.�"�.� a ' ,„�?1 45 • ',,, 13' At,""i4�',l•.- . .f t 0 .�4 °Ili . 1)„ d it a .ttql �Y• 2:41t 0 1s, . r,3;{i 0, v Y • r Uf .q, � i ..1)'y 43� ' iyy((4t rky p r tip, ,¢ y, ,7 w� I�{�',,, ,t ,-4, t '' 't "1 ,.1j "S,V.1 , V,. .«j ai4 . . ` .µ1_'44 4f'V`` y t>••,G A ;Lxt x/.„rA k ..14 ,4 Q' i''I`1..,11 ' rt db'��,. .'r• !` 1,6`1 (i{`�4;t ' A` lr icy pd rl y t:l , f r r, Vt4 , i 13rl1 1 'r,ww,0. r',a t .,,, ' \ + . Y r ,,a'41C ar y."jl, t ),`st7xt S .,,� i`tr '. r �� av 9 r,a,. G ' ',,.01),P• lt ' lt""r'CP,'c,..l ',,,t'',„. tY �R� F • .s""h'a 174.4 '{ "' fir. <* ' w /%ZONE C • wary 49 1krh54. �,, "I' ..'\. —, • STREET r ,PPO `/ TIIIII1 ir `� III �� ila a °� tZONE Oy N. S OJII O 4' ,� • y r �yti �� c" tit cCL Pq )� o° Rt I- 3 Ry5rDRIVE Y 2 CpFFp KBE y COU T * /� LIMIT OF • / \\ STUDY 1� 1 e $Od-6.f6-58G8 a. gm)," t� /854 SeY/ Om!Xedreett t n AN 1 7 1O9C ppl�yy/� / .. (e Amer, OIL y*n 97 1 January 16, 1990 0 Mr. Michael-Wheeler Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ( ', Re: File No. SD 60-89/VAR 43-89 Dear Mr. Wheeler: My wife and I are residents at 1854 Oak Knoll Court; Lot 2703, Twin Point Estates, which property adjoins the subject property for which a variance has been requested. Bunick's property at Twin Point is truly a gorgeous piece of land, and when he announced last July (see enclosed sales pitch) that he was sub- dividing it into three parcels, we neighbors were disappointed that this one of a kind location was going to lose its natural beauty and many of its spectacular trees. It seemed a significant loss to the City as well as to the neighbors. However, having lived in, and loved, the neighborhood for fourteen years we really could not complain should others wish to live in and enjoy the area for reasons similar to our. ice•3 Bunick's "Village on the Lake" which includes 100 homesites of which two thirds are either under construction or already occupied has caused con- �. siderable neighborhood traffic congestion, particularly at the very narrow railroad bridge crossing on Suvnit Drive and also at the now busy and dangerous intersection at Iron Mountain Boulevard. I understand that another seventeen homesites have been approved for that congested area and others are contemplated. Enough has been done to this lovely city and particularly this neighborhood area without granting variances to existing standards to further hasten its deterioration. • g EXHIBIT . �i p Ili �� ' Mr. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego, - 2 January 16, 1990 di P , You will be interested in carefully reading Mr. Bunick's sales letter to me which is enclosed, and thereby see clearly how his objectives change when a chance for further riches are at stake. As long as there are variances to be obtained people of greed operating only on the principle of self gain will be continually requesting them, trying to circumvent the rules and push the system beyond its limits. 0 Of real concern to us, and I am certain to you as well, is fire control access and protection., On two occasions we have reported fires directly across the Lake starting near Lake level. Such fires, although they were on the shady • South side of the Lake, raced up the steep cliffs and hillsides in the trees and brush at terrifying speed, and we cannot help but wonder what our sunny, drier North side might encounter under such conditions, especially with time delays getting fire fighting equipment down a very narrow only access private ,' road. We respectfully request that you weigh the merits of Mr. Bunick's variance III request carefully against our objections and reach the logical decision. Very truly yours, "GARTH A. DUELL . / GAD/vb Enclosure III a i p • NICK �.JNICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC. 5285 SW Meadows Rd. Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503)639.1676 I . • ) I „Yl . July 25 1989 olf r,•••� , ,, ° Garth Duell " 1854 Oak Knll. Ct. , Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 SRN 1 7 193 Dear Mr. Duell: "They ain't making any more. " Will Rogers could have easily been talking about the Twin Point Estates properties when he made that ` famous comment in 1929. This splendid acreage, nestled among the trees along the shore of Lake Oswego, is the only one of it' s kind. Nothing like it has " ever been available before in the Portland metropolitan area. • Imagine you and your family living on the shore of one of the most beautiful PRIVATE lakes in the country -- just minutes from downtown Portland and surrounded by majestic trees and private gardens, with breathtaking views of the lake from virtually every vantage point. ID Last year, my company purchased the last five acres of undeveloped land on Lake Oswego. Although the land was zoned for 15,004) square foot lots, we instead divided this magnificent propGirty into three estate lots of approximately 1 .8 acres each. One of the properties includes an estate home that, was built in 1972. The two estate lots -- each with it' s own private bay and scores of beautiful trees •-- are now available for just $900 ,000 each. The estate home, currently Under complete renovation, also is available for sale upon its completion in September. This ., stunning estate home, with incomparable views of the lake from ,:, every window will be one of the metro area ' s most outstanding homes when the renovation is complete, . Imagine entering your property through the private security gates at the formal entrance, down a gentle private road with magnificent views overlooking the lake as well as your property. Twin Point Estates prestigious property sinn the 1Portland metropolitanng and most area. This opportunity to purlhase one of these estate properties is truly a "last chance" offer. Once the estate lots are purchased, you will never again have the opportunity to own your own custom ° home and spacious acreage on the shores of Lake Oswego. �" N ` a' / � t If you' re interested n hearing more about this magnificent residential real est ate, simply drop the enclosed information request card in the m.40,1, or give me a call at 639-1676 so that we can arrange for a pril,,,,La tour Of' the properties at a time that ' s convenient for you. Sincerely, . , )) 1214;04- A51/4414;,*-d . 6 ' • Nickieunick /1 President 1i i ' ' P.S. Don't miss out on this "last chance" opportunity to build �� custom home for your family on. the breathtaking shores of Lake j '' "Oswego. There are only two estate lots available. Once they' re sold, you' ll never have an opportunity like this one again! w Reply card copy . , • • 1 • 1y x JAN 17 1030 January 16 , 1990 0 Mike Wheeler Associate Planner• • City of Lake Oswe;. o P.O. Box 369 • •u LakeOswego, OR 97034 ,', RE: File No. : SD 60-89/VAR 43-89 Nick Bunick Custom Homes , Inc. Dear Mike, I want to forward my comments to you regarding Nick Bunick Custom Homes , Inc. request for a Minor Partition of Tax Lot 2700 of Map ' - 2 lE 9 BD. I oppose the granting of this Minor Partition for two reasons : 1 . ) The property does not abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Before I purchased my property at 1870 Twin Points Drive, it was my understanding that the property below could support three homesites. I decided that the traffic levels generated by those homesites would be high but acceptable to me. Now Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. is asking that a Class 1 variance be granted to add an additional homesite at this time. I see no reason that would prevfnt three or four additional homesites from being developed on the remaining property as well , with variances being "granted at each request. It was obviously the cities intention to limit this kind of development by enacting the Access Development Standards . Granting a variance to this standard would infringe upon my rights as protected and understood,,by me as they apply to this standard. IIr a .XHIVT a Cams) 0 • • As an abutter to the property in question, I find myself in the 1111 undesirable position of having the access to my located property just outside the gates to the Nick Bunick Custom Homes property. Because a reasonable turnaround is not provided, our property does sustain damage when cars are turned away at the private gates at the entrance to the property below. We expect that additional traffic created by additional development will result in additional damage to our property. Additional traffic will also cause the gates, which serve only one car at a time, to be a point of congestion. When visitors, delivery,, vans and trade4people are waiting for access through the gates , we could be blocked, as we have been in the past, from entering and exiting our own property. Any additional development will only serve to create more problems for us. 2 . ) Utilites to the development below are not being placed underground. Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. is requesting additional development on the "west end of Twin Points Road" as you describe it in your notice for the Minor Partition action. In fact, the public portion of Twin Points Road ends prior to entering the gated community Nick Bunick Custom Homes is developing. There are existing power poles and power lines that were in place to serve the original existing house, but as more property is • developed, additional lines are being carried by these poles . These lines are located directly in my view of the lake. I contend that the development starts at the point of the private gates and to serve the intent of an ordinance requiring underground utilities, the additional property should not be developed unless it is clearly established that it will be serviced by underground utilities. , It is for these reasons , and others , that I will reserve my right to appeal to the development review board if this action is approved. Sincerely, if/cLZk Mark A. Roberts 1870 Twin Points Drive P.O. Box 5134 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 1111 cc Bob Galante Acting Director of Planning • • . , • . / I/We g6B ;a-iterti6142 Gs who own property located support Nick Bunick in his request to seperate the 2 ..19 acres of Twin Points property into 2 seperate parcels . Respectfully yours , S gnature OW r D e 'm) gnature c/inp___. MO • 4 • g. EXHIBIT 14 toca.:. '1641 JAN i, ed 1990 • . • • • RECEIVED JAN1 7 1994 • I/We j3), Cr g14"" who own propCrty located at iS7,i 7 U./j 4. • • support Nick Bunick in his request to seperate the 2 . 19"acres of Twin Points property into 2 seperate parcels . Respectfully yours , Signature /• Date / Signature Date • IXHISIT 1115 , , (1° 40. • J 1'.t\ 1 e 1990 • 4 „ 1/We 32.4 *w4 . 40 4.1 DPW who own property located at • support Nick Bunick in his request to seperate the 2 . 19 acres of Twin Points property into 2 seperate parcels . ' , Respectfully yours , ( Signature 1/ 2?••• C1°‘f / , . Date • • • - • . • --. 0 Signature Date 4 EXHIBIT 1(a Go.111/VAR.4341 111 Ati I. 9 1990 • • e k , • NICK -JNICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC, 5285 SW Meadows Rd, 4S Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503)639.1676 • January 18 , 1990 Mike Wheeler City of Lake Oswego Planning Department Dear Mike : In reference to your question about slope , I am providing you the following information: .1 . Enclosed is a copy of a map in color showing the breakdown of the parcel ., that I submitted to you for partitioning which is a total of 95 , 771 square feet . 2 . The portion that I have colored in lavender represents land which has a 25 degree slope or more . It represents 28 , 172 • square feet . • 3 . Also, there is 13 ,785 square feet of land which is sitting below the water of which I have painted in blue . 4 . This leaves a balance of 53 , 814 square feet of land thnt would not fall into the category of either being a 25 .degree or greater slope or being under the waterline . As you can see , thure is a substantial amour , of land representing the two homtesites as you had ant: icipatee,�t- If you have any questions please feel free to call me on the phone . Sincerely, /,0 ,� ur.�•tsiB� Nick Bunick g EXHIBIT NBbla 17 (2.41) r _ . 1JAN :C. 8 1C J„ • Ire . . 4•4 1 4:. •-:...t, • • . • • . e • . •2 •., . . . .dc , �� t 1 36'ACCESS`" .... • • icit/triq .2•14:La.406i, r I. Y Nrd •V VVV '� • t` ,,;IIy l'.7 ,. 'PAILS 1h6N. ,�ro,tq)'♦p. T/16 REFEREMCE LJAIE WA9116W 48 ter,®a'', � �tt,o• .,t �r ' Lf 11fEPROP0660 66'QCCE98/4NUX/411Y \�ti',, g.A A. ,1' �' .144, 4., , • • \ E3M'l. /T,4PlaEAR9 tNAT T1I/8 LINE AM7 76/E 4o a��, s c {c�naE&w.& ER M? ARelivor "Z' , r .•.,:i ii,,-17 .• • ,e TNE'64ME, '�� •;` � :, ;S, �1'x ',..7,, : ;',: • r aV 00 U,i'l p.deco /?'/.R. : • 20p'Ap 5.1 ;. t. ,fir r 0 •>Ir a d•� .r yy))jjpµ,�i�, b ati• And Week f '� a '. i• •/„••7 O. 1 • �' gee W I p /1'LP.IlELo a yh�� ': ,:,..61,,,1)..., r\, .-r.. 18, 9tz<.,':s.F..•.'-'' 4yfOr7utrieb11� . , • l9 sat,,.s.Fi>•, ,,.:.,Q)Lkrt, t. ) 0 Q' ei • r� r, ;•)'44#T.',.‘cr,k,',:vx,e1.1.;61,:\ iz,....,. '137 ,-,,./er rffle/"4 r ' 4 •T. . , Qogs:'� • � + ;ao7E % .+ ti• 7y✓. t"u�'a:w,d a+t Ae 196r NV 41) -,/3E. I tt le,,,t4:r.L -:�J .t 4. ��.^...., r. �r't�.• f y rfi'•''., tars. .iv, Y"' '.1}•'1S, ,'- - III IDtf.1 It js� 44- •'� •'', 1(S.IJ_„1: i�- " r.:,i14: M i/PROXI' , - ' , % S , �r .,aRet.ne ire �a5r5 '' •I 0%, • t• "- J I .1t m* . • iv.:. ; 11 f erg ' • 'f '{.7i t ...0 -7t' ""fir ; . • �; , ti S(k 4, llil ' >- ,f. q , sy "Ora,' 9 �,'• { ,Y�r .•!,•a't�✓''�Il',�•-�^.'�=1,�0 ♦J��� �..g,ry �y1.•'��� i �• h �j/� fhi! ..i'-'.�.;, ' .-Orr V ,, -� { re) the Or'fl 11 1J ' dl, �;, 'Z•h�r' � .y..� ' atV, rf:t !�(,�1,s VL i n," 0 .J 11 �t� , r `'%`+•• ` .�/; .. ...� „ '� R ,.j"r0,:.;ye.1 r , .L�y • "3 •;->•4 ' 1,e, '1•r 1 J'f t".fv.;;t?,;,�,"4,le ' ��'{} D • r J .J La "i ' 610 r '' •� V -t.,',3,^5 � '4'••i t,�r :...!' o �,Mt .P� • 2: t fi ii•' i;,' ! .1 J • r • ♦pper .. ,,,.. • v,.1 +.,,,1,,At�r� VI��' 1" �•, ff 1 1,. Q rr...ir.,:,. > y,•„!�^'k' .oi '' „ . Itrd✓•,�rerli . ••:�ij .� a • ,� Ft rti it *i-/1 t1'�{ , : 'l.I I'Q � ,t '�.S� rj '•.r .;'ati ,r;* .--r- * l,.r.�:07 w'. : ;�,, ,�yf,, 121,0 ;y? ;.,t Lal�A 1+ do'1746 1 PI i.J. ,,',,ma�yy 4C ., ' ,.��pp ,.'�r ��4' ,Ili . .c •It �'� hi•' J "*. L, 4: ; . • .‘4 I,4 .,. AT ',p..", ,.: .471) ,.... .41;CotAtt . '^S , f ii r 0 11". / C";,',": ' t RAF A V �u• ,'' t ttt1 k t*3+,1 r{,,r , tIir ` dy. e> /1�..t J`'/� , 0400 OOP V" M ,:' t.S, .h .`IT „ •, W t ';‘,,,•,:,,. ' 11'Eby ,�. I' `ri�'+ 1�1 i. :t Fi '•' ' ` 1 • r:{'i•� r, ri' 1,'y.+? ,, '• Nll� f ev % a To i ,,. !, 'M'1. /ro„"*r'1',,,d,J.: +146 ..Tii li., 4• :,, 1' t �if5 "It 'r . J V..,,• - •,,,JQ t� �J1 4,.r` ri3:. .L,:' ^, A 6Q ''Y 1t� i t: r r �' .0+J 111�• 1. .�♦ 1V 1 a l �, �� �` r.. ,.: ' S B2'S6'37"E i S i E 1 I d , \I i 1, 1‘ 2 1838 Oak Knoll Court Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • G • January 19, 1990 Mr. Michael R. Wheeler a Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: SD 60-89/VAR 43-89 Dear Mr. Wheeler: u `1 Please do not approve the variance requested by Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc. 0 Mr. Bunick is supposedly a professional developer. As such, if he intended to create a speculative subdivision, he should have requested that in the first! place. There are numerous considerations that should require a public hearing with regard to access , preserving trees , drainage, etc. Lake Oswego' s laws regarding minor partitioning should be carefully administered and applied to the permanent residents . The manipulation of these procedures by speculative 'builders should be forced into the open hearing process . Sincerely, I. 1 i 4 John M. Harlow EXHI•LT lb(00AM A►a43•n w , • • • 'JHre es •yU io:,:1r HUOIU 11rr,tCeaiON J V V . ' �.upro Richard Cabot P.E. ~h: Aw y * r ,, 145 SW.102nd Ave. , y', 'PorIldnd,OR 97225,6954 a 503-297-7263 o Mr. Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner R X H 10 f T 19 c�M�•) pity of Lake Owego • Lake Owego, OR 97634i;046-911/41t11-111 • I am the owner of lot 3 on Twin Points Drive, Lake Oswego to the request for comments on the F�xr,uant p.,.rtition request by Nick t'can,i:,k Custom Hetres Inc. I must object to the partition of Twin Points Estate Lot 1 based on several grounds, . Need for a variance_ Reduction of property values Safety Lack of economic hardship , i 1 The Original Twin Points estate w , na was divided'into three estate parcels under a minor partition during the fall of 138, The development was \• " marketed as a highly exclusive residential area whose generous lot sizes, sense,of seclusion and largely natural setting high property values. Mr. Ptinick,, as developer, made thisd st a constant ► _ theme of iris marketing effort. He indicated dux f '� land that the z�cni �' the showing of theng ordinances would allow 15000 square foot lots, but �' that his Firms were for a very exclusive= tyre of reside: ' the �iraftit of the restrictive covenants I had ntiai area, opposed the allowance Of any further subdivision of property, At that time Mr, Bunick s+ �, s �88estad that placing restriction on future c�ubdivi. on would be a fteise because the property values on the lake might riae over the years to a point where such large estate lots were not ec;onrrmic;ally feasible to maintain. I had keen that to refer to a time many Seers 'stl „ , °the future. I was not given to understand. that he raas lanni subdivision before even sellir malniri lots the re P such, .e + ROADWAY VARI • VARIANCE The partition will teggire a variance to applicable codes. significant There ate .si fi cant questions in MY miI � I the '�lbl:1;V t y a r t i�a . ,11� d;l�f;:iaL F?�J•n� traveley � carsa to park on the property wi theUt interfering with . on the e istjng right Of w•s. :l to the 'ether lots ere Twin Feints. i/ ? ,E[t `Y vALCFSltcuna`xt=.i. z�oz an e:ditione1 heuse + n lot I tiJ isi significantly -e�~� ys ��n.+sf seclusion and privacy, with therrsult resultant _ff ct of lowerieg property values for the remaining two Iota, However, sie$t Mx, Bueidk still towns the second lot his intere t-.s c1eat!y in � ;macimi a_rg the combined value of lots 1 and 4; If the • ll decrease in value of let 2 is rr,re than offset by the Increase in value P oVided by eertiti'ania g lot 1 Mr. g+.niek will not , uffer the tame ids ,tr'r, v l+te as met lot t+o+.ild, The redudtioft iti rtcperty vale bill be ��� exec era tit Iv he :old ,i t ;�,fthelot n iant III �:c ..rLz�. i t, and *hA4tt�- .s n she :enauUcti..ri :f e eai•i 'llini ern the ubSivided .r'. I i S�1 f Consulting Engineerfr g ;� TechrncoPWrHing i cNOrdc ai tleI s Acoustic:; ° EiectcioGr�u3tcrs ` — n a i A JAN 22 '90 16:57 AUG I 0 PRECISION , " 56R P03 • �� Dr. Richard C. Cabot P.E.E, 145 SW,102nd Ave. Portland,OR 97225.6954 503.297-7263 SAFETY It is unlikely that a practical house, commensurate with the / • i quality of those on the other lots, could be constructed on the rather .' odd shape lot which would result from the partition.` The house would be ,f l sandwiched in between the shore line and the crormxn access roadway. The yard for recreation would be extremely small, causing significahtspill- over of the residents recreational activities into the neighb,ring• lots or the common use roadway. This would cause safety problems from the presence of children on the common roadway area and would create the significant potential for trespass problems with neighbors on lots 2 and r 3. IA. OF ECONCHIC HAfDSHiP The I(petf.tioner has not shown economic / hardship if`the request for variance and partition is denied I have . estimated costs and revenue for the petitioner on his property at Twin , Points assuming the partition is denied. Since only a few of his costs and revenue are public knowledge this is to be considered a rough estimate. However, it is \ ikely that the numbers are significantly in error. original estate purchase price $1,650,000 • ', renovation of original dwelling 200,000 utility line improvements 20,000 1 interest expense 11/88 to 9/89 190,000 lot three sale (800,000) 1111/ real estate commissions on lot 3 56,000 balance as of 9/89 c.) $1,318,000 construction of houses on lot 2 500,000 interest expense 9/89 to 6/90 180,000 repaving and other improvements 30,000 N I balance on 6/90 ,, $2,026,000 Selling prices of two houses, must exceed $1, , (assuming 100 000 to break g��en r ng' sale of the houses in June of 1990 with a 7% commission) , + Sale of the houses at an easily achievable $1,800,000 each would give Mr, Biuiick approximately $950,000 profit, A higher price or a quicker sale would directly result in higher profit, The asking 1,rieJe for each ho'.,se is currently around $2,000,000, There is clearly a, 50% cUsh,i.on in the prices being charged, I understand that due to your absenJe from the office this week that you will accept further comments when you return. Additionally, my a,ttcLneys at Lindsay Hart Neil and Weigler will be faxing comments on my behalf today, you additional Sincerely, ,.z.c,... .---V„ c____,,,('-'-#........::,25,e74------ onsuting Enginoering technIcal Writing EleCttoiilCs (' v AtOUStics EleCtoacoUsticS "" • , .' ..... M...I'... 1 ' i a 503 226 0079 LHHR. i i, • LINDSAY, HAUT, NErL & WL"IOLEIt • LAW vane . Ont1t YnurrsAVa•vt PLAZA Qvtrie•ROO ,i uN PtAos 'SWAM Anal.Smile 0On0 p00!{.W.COLUTtstn tl00 Nh OTQ,MOT,'♦nq `SWILa.NA/11t:IPTON 0111�,4 PORT:A?O),Oaaoon 971401 8918 tlous.!DAuu 0070u ., • MOM 0110.47 t TituerKora(OOr)1114041O1 10004 3O .UU44 '— T■ime01.111 MOO )00) 00A•0070 tees HITI STRUUT.NAV, TrLrx 404•70013 \ 041}CALWUM dLM STRIPIT WIT"COO $U(t4 Olken) WAIIZIGTOW,D.C.11011110 MAN PNANq&NUO.CALUPO11N1A D41f)J ,1ms MM•4400 t•►I )4814.11804 January 22, 1990 Michael Willer . Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego Planning Department P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: File No. : SD60-89/Variance 43-89 Nick Bunick Custom Homes, Inc . (the "Applicant" ) Dear Mr. Willer: On behalf of Richard Cabot and Barbara Cabot, we submit this letter in opposition to the above-designated applications • for minor partition and variance of Tax Lot 2700 of Map 2 1E 9BD, and otherwise known as Twin Points Estates . The applicant' s request for a variance to the 25 foot . street frontage requirement should be denied because it is unnecessary to prevent hardship and the proposed development would be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located. Moreover, the applicant' s requist for a minor partition should be denied because it is unlikely that it will meet the density requirement. In addition, it is unlikely that the ° proposed development could be set back a minimum of 25 feet from Oswego Lake. Section 49 , 510 of the city of Lake Oswego Development , Ordinance and Standards (the "Development Code" ) requires that a ' variance to the 25-foot street frontage tequirement shall only be ' granted if the applicant establishes, in part, that ( 1 ) the • request ii necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship, and (2) development consistent with the request would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or the property ` establi.9hed to be affected by the requeEEt. First, .the applicant ) has failed to prove that the variance 1.4 necessary to prevent , unnecessary hardship, The applicant' s mole support for this . e Y " 9 d1W\mlm72 I If EXHie,iT 20 4P� . 01/22/90 17110 ., 23 503 226 0079 LNN W OS .i I. LINDSAY, HART, NEIL et WEIC*LnR Mike Willer • "'• ti January 22, 1990 Page 2 V requirement is the statement contained in the Class 1 variance requests, as follows: "If the variance were not requested .with the 2 . 19 acres, in today' s economic world one homesite on a 2 , 19 / acres of lake property is not a reasonable use of the property and is an economic hardship. The two homeeites cannot be addressed on the property without the variance, " In September, 1988, the applicant received an approval for the initial, partition of the same area of which the proposed developmenttt':+is a part. At that time, the applicant sought a variance to`\enable the partition of 5 . 5 acres into three parcels , As support for the requirement that the variance requests must be necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship, the applicant stated: "If the variance were not requested with the 5 , 5 acres in today' s economic world one homesite on 5 . 5 acres of lake property is not a reasonable use of the property „ and is an economic .heWdahip. The three homesites IIII cannot be addressed on the property without the variance. " YJ In lees than two years, the applicant now proposes to, '` , substantiate his request for another variance by. agair:. citing to "today' s economic world. " 'We submit to you that the economic world has not changed so drastically in the Lake Oswego area to now e�upport the applicant' s request for a new variance to the 25- foot street frontage requirement, Simply based on the above, the applicant has not proven that the request is necessary to prevent "unnecessary hardship. ' •cond, approval of the applicant' s variance application' would substantially injure nearby property owners , me, and Mr$6 Cabot purchased the property from the applicant with the understanding that for, the near future, the private road would be used to service only the three homsites which are presently located on 'twin points Estates: The proposed , development would be located near the entrance of the private road and 'therefore increase the amount of traffic which the Cabots would have to contend with upon entering and exiting their • property, At present, portions of the private read are`- less than 0:14\nN72 i t r e 01/22i90 17110 LHN&U 8 303 2.b 00, 04 4 r .LIN] AAY, I3'hRT, NEIL & WI:ICGLnR . . Mike Willer January 22, 1990 Page 3 25 feet in width. This presents a problem for ,cars .attempting to exit and enter concurrently. Permitting an additional homesite would greatly increase this problem and increase the likelihood of traffic accidents, especially on rainy nights as each driver attempts° to navigate on the steep roadway, The additional traffic problems also necessitate that . the applicant' s request for a minor partition be denied. Moreover, due to the inherent limitations for development on the proposed homesite, it is unlikely that the applicant would be able to meet the stringent development standards for the property in particular, Much of the proposed parcel would be located on land which is either to steep or located under water, The City of Lake Oswego zoning ordinance (the "Zoning Codes' ) provides in Section 48 , 210 that the proposed dwelling unit must have a lot width of 80 feet and lot depth of 100 feet. Further, Section 48 , 535 (3) of the Zoning Code provides that the dwelling unit would have to set back a minimum of 25 feet from Oswego Lake, its ' bays and canals . Although Section 48 . 535(3) provides that such 25-feet requirement shall be measured from the property line, the , intent of the comprehensive plan requires that the measurement 4should be from the water line, The proposed measurement in Section 43 , 535 (3) must be read in light of the intent of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the applicant' s- request for a minor partition should be denied. Further, we understand that it is the policy of the Lake Oswego Corporation to require, as a condition of membership, title to a strip of dry land along the lake shore ( bee ." Exhibit -A) , As a result of this requirement, it is unlikely that the applicant will be able to meet the density requirement for the minor partition, For the above reasons , we respectfully request that the applicant' s requests for variance and minor partition be denied, We also reserve the right to provide additional comments upon review of the sole analysis and erosion plan to be submitted by the applicant, Ver truly yours Divan evil ams, U I,IA,111, 42: DJW\mlm] Ilt e ! r rt i, n 1' a a m o __ w _01/22/90 ;17311 $ 303 226 0079 LHNC 03 rr.• " . ' (� ke Zevo woe egtomp,*noel on. , � � 13.0.Soot 203 ego 003)636.1427 CORPORATION • - August 24, 1909 Mr. Nick Bunick REC CI 141g 2 Nick auniok i Associates, Inc. 163,p 9w First Avenge Portland, Oregon 97a01 Ras Twin Pointe Dear Nick: Wo understand that you have purchased Bid Ferris' property or1 Twin Points (the "Property") , have partitioned the Property into throe lots and plan to sell one of the lots in the near future. Lake oowego Corporation ("x+OC") records for the Property P Y show 410 , that the Property now has lake privileges for only one residential lot. Provided lakefront lots comply with certain requirements, DOC has the authority to r®co ise lake 9nprivileges for additional lakefront lots through the issuance of boat permits, approvals for waterfront improvements and issuance of LOC stook. As you know from our prior dealing®, however, LOC requires title to a strip of dry • land along the lake shore in connection with the recognition of privileges. In addition, each lakefront owner and lac stockholder will be responsible for the annual LOC aelseesment for the lot, Accordingly, if your privil,cgas or conetr ct waterfront improve ants you should Yaks with your sale negotiations with TOO's requirements in mind, pr©�aaod Please give us a 0a11 it you Would like to ditecuss this matter further. X look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, i / 1 '' '" Ziil . , . al sr N. drabs, President take Oswego Corporation imam 23232 bYL i . !! r . „ . • • . . . . ,, • , .. . . ...I . . . . G, - . , ., , . „ 0 I/We _ CAA.A fti"4— . -31147tija". : .—_ .,............0.........._ , . who own property Iodated at 1114e.';_MIIEML4L1.0414 ,64r—, . . support Nick Bunic , in his request to seperate the 2 . 19 acres of, . Twin Points property, into 2 seperate parcels . . . . , . , Respectfully yours , 6444 ., Signature ' . • 4,',i 1 _ ,. ,. '!. . . . , , . Signature , .. , . ,Date „ . , S. . " C:', . 1 IXHIBIT . , . 2.. ( iota,. 541 JAN 3 1 193 . , , . " . . 0 , , • , - J. , . . , • .• • • • , • r ,41•4 • I/We D ti PA--to?. 114 Tk, who own property located at jfirgr ./4.4) 0.,SWE4D support Nick Bunick in his request to seperate the 2 . 19 acres of Twin Points property into 2 seperate parcels . Respectfully yours , ( Signature . 1 , Date () Signature • Date f•-,) 4 EXHIBIT 1150416.91,414,43.811 • - < I JAN 3 g 19 ) . , ., . y �� NICK ;NICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC, 5285 SW Meadows Rd, g ye Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503)639-1676 . February 15 , 1990 Mr . Michael Wheeler Associates and Planner Department of Public Works , 380 "A" Ave . EXHIBIT - -- Lake Oswego, OR 97034 „ , 'FEB i' 6' 1990. _ Dear Mr. Wheeler: 1.02., I0.16141 The following information is in reference to my application SD 60-89/VAR 43-89 that is before you in which I have requested the separation of 2 . 19 acres into two homesites . There is a home already existing on one of the sites . , You provided me with three letters from opponents and I wish to address each one of the three at this time. MARK A. ROBERTS LETTER OF OPPOSITION - Mr. Roberts objects to granting me the approval for the minor partition for two reasons . In his first paragraph, "Before I purchased my property at 1870 Twin Points Dr . , it was my understanding that the property below could support three homesites . I decided that the traffic level generated by those homesites would be high but acceptable to me . " " Mr. Roberts purchased his property approximatley last summer , elThe three homesites already existed. Mr , Roberts comments that "the traffic that will be generated will be high" is odd in that it is not a through street . The only property that passes Mr . Roberts home is my approximate 5 acres of Twin Points Estates which I am requesting be changed from 3 homesites to 4 homesites , This means that Mr , Roberts would have only 4 homes located past ' ' his house on a dead-end street . Considering the fact that there are thousands of homes in the greater Lake Oswego area which have more than a maximum of 4 homeowners pass in front of their home, I find it extremely ludicrous that it would be categorized by Mr , Roberts that the traffic levels "would be high" , He further states , ''I see no reason that would prevent 3 or 4 additional homesites from being developed on the remaining property as well , " We are not requesting 3 or 4 additional homesites , but only one , I do not believe having 4 homesites on 5 , 5 acres could be described as being excessive, particularly when the property i3 zoned for 15 ,000 square foot lots and the subdivision which Mr , Roberts is located in, I believe is a 10 ,000 square foot lot: subdivision. Mr , Roberts continues on the next page in stating that he is in an undesirable position of having the access to hisrapei.ly. ,; i located outside the gates to my, property . He status that hip property sustains damage when cars are turned away at the private gates of the entrances I' it _ __ _ Mr . Michael Wheeler l_ February 15 , 1990 Page -2- Since I have purchased ;; this property a year and a half ago, approximately one year ')prior to Mr . Roberts purchasing his property, I have disconnected the gates . Mr . Roberts continues , "When visitors , delivery vans and trade people are waiting for access through the gates , we could be blocked, as we have been in the past , from entering and "exiting our own property. " Again, the gates have not been operating since 1988 , August to be exact . .. He purchased his home approximately 1 year later , I have great concern over his allegations . The second complaint that Mr . Roberts states is "There are exisiting power poles in place to serve the original existing house, but 'as more property is developed, the additional lines are being carried by these poles . " . Again, these statements are false. There have not been any new lines constructed since Mr . Roberts moved into his, home , The utilities which I installed prior to Mr , Roberts '`purchasing his home included gas lines , cable television lines , water lines and dry fire lines which have all been placed underground to my homesites . 1111 As you are aware Mr. Wheeler, Mr . Roberts has contacted the planning staff a number of times prior to his opposition letter , with inquiries regarding his seperating his lot into two parcels in which the eastern portion would be seperated from that where his home exists . Perhaps he has now changed his mind regrading pursuing the seperation of his site into two lots , At any rate , I am greatly disturbed over his misrepresentation:, in his letter , GARTH A. DUELL LETTER OF OPPOSITION - I have tried to understand what is the actual objection of Mr , Duell from a fautu,al stand point and have had difficulty doing so , Mr . Duell lives at 18,'.4 SW Oak Knoll Court , He cannot see my homesites or the properties involved in my application from his property , Mr . Duell ' s letter states , "Enough has been done to this lovely city and particularly this neighborhood area without granting variances to existing standards to further hasten its deterioration , " Considering again, that the subdivision that Mr , Duell lives in , I understand is a 10 ,000 square foot lot subdivision , I hatdiy consider my seperating 2 . 19 acres into'. two homesites a ' contribution to the deterioration of the neighborhood. Both my 1111 . Mr . Michael Wheeler February 15 , 1990 Page -3- homesites , with homes on them, will sell well in excess of $1 ,000 ,000 which should have a positive impact on Mr . Duell 's h home and not a negative, . Mr. Duell further states , "As long as there are variances to be obtained people of greed operating only on the principal of self- gain will be continually requesting them, trying to circumvent the rules and push the` system beyond its limits . " Apparently, Mr . Duell is not fmailiar with the purpose of a variance. Regarding the seperation of the' 2 , 19 acres into twb parcels , one home is already existing which my company completely renovated and have for sale and my company would .be building a " home on the second lot . I do not consider my working as a builder for a living ,a position of greed anymore than I would /J look down 'aeon the wage earning of other people that are invulved in the design and construction of my homes , including engineers , architects , framers , carpenters , and many other individuals who rely on gainful employment in order to support themselves and their families , JOHN M. HARLOW LETTER OF OPPOSITION - I truly do not understand ® Mr . Harliow's comments other than it appears that he feels that a "speculative builder" does not have the same rights as a permanent resident . Again, in the case of Mr . Harlot, his home in Oak Knoll Court cannot see my property or see the two homesites that we are referring to . The Village on the Lake subdivision is immediately adjacent to my property that I am requesting seperating . I developed'` Village on the Lake in 1985, which includes 99 homesites , I live in one of those lots a very short distance from my Twin Points property ir► which I am requesting the minor partition, It is important to note that you have not received a single objection from a person, in Village on the Lake. As a matter of fact, we have received letters of support from most of those individuals who live: In Village on the Lake and are within 300 Ceet of the ptc. tl y the application , Thank you for giving me the opportunity to rend to the three letters of opposition , I must acknowledge to'' you that I am disturbed by some of the comments since they range from false statements and unwarranted personal attacks even though I do not know any of these individuals personally , Within flue judicial system in the State of Oregon, there is a process ' to protect Ihdividuals in which allegations without merit ate mad by one lJz: ty against another party . A Role 21 Motion can be filed with the court requesting that the court recognize that Fl,e allegations are without substance , The court then determines whether the allegations are honest and m.`ealistic or whether they ® . „ r \; „ Mr. Michael Wheeler4110 February `15, 1990 Page -4- are just designed to create hardship, delays and aggravation from , one party to another . If without substance, the allegtions are dismissed and the innocent party is not required to, defend his a�)ions against the false or prejudice complaints , 1 I truly believe that I am in that sane situation. I request that ' the City of Lake Oswego proceed in processing my application, .>" approving it on the merits and not require a public hearing be held based on false allegations and prejudice remarks against Illy profession. �, Respectfully yours , Nick Bunicc ', o NB;bla w , ti ,,-' 1110 ' 11 ,., , . • . (, \ f „ , ( : • . , ,_ ,i ) , ., , -----e, .. v , •44 1 d • q • a r.2s. ldytJ 11t1S I F. 2 ' ' ' • ICI A 1 • February 22 , 1990 ' Mike Wheeler Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego . ' P .O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 7' ei p. REt File No . : SD Sb .09/VAfi 43-89 Nick Bunick Custom Homey , Inc. ' ;. Dear Mike,' , . I would line to correct my previous statement, which may be in error, submitted to you January 16 , 1990 , concerning the. above r ,, ti� act ion. In my comments to you I staled two reasons why I opposed the 4- granting of a minor rtrtiticn. Reason 42 regards the requirement - / for underground utilities. . ' I observed a large silver cable that was laying along t'' c r(f • 't�.,ay f leading to Nick Bunick Custom Homes Development . I havv beer. y' unable , at this time , to determine why the cable was on the ground and if it represents a new cable being carried by the ' existing poles. ,. have now been informed tout the horn wi' . be . , supported by underground utilities and that no additi.. . 1 cable was installed to support any of the development below. . My statement to you Was in no way intended to harm Nick Bunick , custom Homes , but was made to provide you with information try be looked into regarding this natter. I stated that the property , should be serviced by Underground utilities and if it is , I hale no concern. o, ` since you have nut. yet made a determination concerning the request for minor partition, I would like to retract my second statement in its entirety . • ' I still oppose granting a minor partition because thw proport,' ' . , does not abut a t public street for .� minimum of 251 , SI nnerely, , , . Mark A. Roberts 1870 Twin Points Drive ' a . P .O . Box SO4 • , Lake 03wogo, OR 47034 0 . .. cct Bob Galante • g EXHIBIT Acting Director of Planning 101,4?E___, A 1 S 1. Dr. Richard C. Cabot RE. 145 SW.102nd Ave, 40 , . „.. Portland,OR 97225-6954 503-297-7263 • 11 March 4, 1990 Mr. Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego. '.. a Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • I am the owner of lot 3 on Twin Points Drive, Lake Oswego OR. Pursuant to the request for comments on the partition request by Nick Bunick Custom Homes Inc. I hereby withdraw all objections to they minor partition of Twin Points Estate Lot 1. Further I have no objection to _ the future issuance of a buildirr` permit should such a permit be ` requested. Sincerely, .,..„ . Z av •'� i• 11111 r Dr. Ric C. Cabot y , n • • 4. EXHIBIT 2 ,„.,.,. •4 (w'8'i VA,4 81, •, ., ,. ,. ,, L . .. . •„ ..,. , . . . • „,.,.,.. A , r MAR 6 19 J :ow 40 • ` ' Consulting Engineering Technical Writing t, . Electronics Acoustics Electodcoustics ' .., • i 1 •,. , • Update to the October 17, 1989 ti Memorandum (which updated the August 19, 1989 memorandum) . ` Adopted by Council December 5, 4 1989. MEMORANDUM ,., To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members ' EXHIBIT From: Mayor and City Council 2(008 ) • • 4w419 Y60106 Date: December 5, 1989 % ' 49 Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity This memorandum is an update to the City Council's prior gp memoranda of August 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council's initial • "• determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17, • 1989, memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego • School District Board held on October 2, 1989. This memorandum contains updated information and data relating to voter approval of a $17,800,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989. 9 •. As a result of recent det 'rminations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential development that there is a lack of elementary school capacity, the City Council has conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential development, in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197.505•-197.540 . A pattern of denials of residential development applications is defined by state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of the exclusion from that definition of actions "in accordance with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of • M the City Attorney, concluded that the exclusion is not applicable , ^ to the current situation. State law does not permit the adoption • of a moratorium without the City first making the findings ' required by the statute. The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law to justify the need for a moratorium. The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of '" school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a , pattern which state law classifies as a mo+ atoriurn ) , and yet the 4. , ,.:. Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. s, fa ". It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity . It is i""' t necessary to have consistency in decision making + orn application to application, and between the hearing bodies anu :. 1e Council. • . ' Memo: Development Review Board apd Planning Commission Members I. December 5, 19890 Page 2 . These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the • superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precedent . These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set forth in Attachment No. 1 . i/ il l'.:2'/ The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan policies, with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied '' • unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning • Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual ' preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular . basis ,, in coordination with the school district, and keep the • Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . . . .. Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when addressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set • forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be .' with us for the foreseeable future. The Council is committed to ' improve the current data e,tchange efforts between the District A + and the City. The Council wants to insure that applicants redeiving development ` r approvals are aware of the current school capacity sitt.tation and understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if justified by the facts. The Council directs staff to develop appropriate language to be included in the approval orders, to be ' reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish this purpose. • Attachment No. 1 provides the factual findings of the Council with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these interpretations are based. Attachment No. 2 is a listing of the 'r, factual information relied upon to support those findings . ' Attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies. The City Council sincerelyexpresses its members p gratitude to the of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the ' difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great concern for the community as a whole. i Atty/Correspond-7 ' Attachments 1-3 ( • ' Y ATTACHMENT NO. 1 4111 FACTUAL FINDINGS ( 12-5-89) ` The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact, of development on the ability of the District to meet its legal obligations to educate the children of the District. A significant portion of the School District lies outside the city limits and the City has no control over the impacts of growth occurring outside its boundaries. The City has received no ,if communication from other jurisdictions served by the District : ', that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due 1 to school capacity problems. The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary l School population has been reduced for the 1989-90 • school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 is 530 students . • 2. The District has short term plans in place that address ^° the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . ; !.' e!+3, . , , 410 By implementing these plans , the District stated it will r• continue to prob,lde an educational experience to its ` students that melAs District standards . 71,'' • 3. Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 ,726 elementary • students . 4 . The District as of October 2, 1989 , had an elementary school enrollment of 3 , 157 students. Based on maximum "' capacity and current projections, on October 1 1989 the District by implementing the short term plan will have unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 578 additional elementary students . ,1• 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity in addition to the 578 seats to be made available through the short term plan. These long term plans include an additional elementary school and remodeling existing facilities . ' , 6 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 726 students , assuming a '" ° ! ,. continuation 5 t growth, y . , accommodate new � currenthe a ofte tudentsintothe199192school ear. ,e } 9 } 11 t ,'4Y,.`fit. .. .. 1 Attachment No. 1 December 5, 1989 • Page 2 • 7. The earliest completion date for the new school . authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election .' is Fall , 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities, to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional • seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students. 8. The' District as a practice does not construct facilities . in anticipation of P growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet a current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. . • 9. The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to °; project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses. Projections are c;)mpared with actual student • »• , counts . Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer program factors are made if warranted. The . District 's projections in the last 2 years have been IIIO quite accurate. The physical counting of children in the district on a regular basis, as the data base for projections , does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning . \ development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth in • ' - , . school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there Is not a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school population and those 2 factors that will assist the District in making short term student projections . Other factors such as h. ` market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon economy and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes A,, also affect the number of new children in the District 's population. Based upon the present level of sophistication of the City and District planning processes, it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty how soon after approval _' children from new residential developments will enter the school system. 4 , fill e .' • . I , Attachment No. 1 December 5, 1989 ;' Page 3 The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax k)ase by an approximate 2: 1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542 ,310. The new tax base is $29,975,000. The new tax base contains levy • ,;. authorization above that levied by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to fund growth and staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989 eu facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. • v The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by growth. During the middle 1980's , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students. The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was delayed. The growth was anticipated but the community dsbate over how to best address the impacts of ' p growth has delayed the provision of the District 's solutions . The CityCouncil may, r ' at anytime when justified by the facts, 4 " enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 . 520. • y ' The District has the responsibility under state law to aducate the children of the District. The Council views the District as a r an expert in educational matters. The Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards . . • ' Atty/Correspond-7 y ,, N.„ - a r% •k tl� •1 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ( 12-05-89) 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8, 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: • • - Building permits by year, single-family, graph ` - Buildingpermits by year, multi-family, graph - Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1, 1989 - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 3. Class size and public policy: Politics and Panaceas, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S . Department of Education 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11, 1979 5. Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, r . '; July 31, 1989 , o �'- • 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5 , 1989, with attac;lments 7 . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting, ' July 31 , 1989 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August 8, 1989 4,.. • . 9. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development, dated August 8 , 1989 ,ti, 10. Randouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent ' " a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, service level, and short and long term solutions "4 11 . Lake Oswego School District: The Facts, submitted by Nick Bunick b 12 . Transcript excerpt from August 7, 1989 Development Review Board meeting ( tape incl, ling excerpt also submitted ) • 9 % ,.,tip',.F . ` • , v . Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 Page 2 13. Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14 . Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24, 1989 16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989 18. Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, Chamber members, dated July 28, 1989 19. Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20, 1989 20. Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8, 1989 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989 4110 - 0 22. Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5 , 1989 • 23. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, dated August 6 , 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25. Letter from Lynora Saunders, Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 t" . 26. Letter from Dt•R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989 • 27. Letter from Judith D. Umaki, dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles Hales , Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs , Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14 , 1989 b ' 29 . Gregory D4 Meadors letter, dated August 13, 1989 30. Cel'eSte Ward letter, dated August 14, 1989 • 31. Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 140 1989 32. Carol Webb letter, dated August 14, 1989 • • ti r 1 a h ' •^ ry • Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 Page 3 • 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 34 . Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14 , 198) 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 • 37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • • 38 . Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989 39. Robert S. Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 40. Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13, 1989 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13, 1989, including attached newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach's memorandum dated • July 5, 1989 • 43 . Deborah B. Feldsee letter, dated August 14, 1989 44. Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989 45. Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14 , 1989 46. Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989 • 47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 48. Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989 49. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989 • 50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • • 52 . Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11, 1989 53. Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 • 54. William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 55. Marci Nemhauser letter, dated August 10, 1989 f 56. Charles A. h4ansEield letter, dated August 10, 1989 • • Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 Page 4 57. Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 58. Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989 59. Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989 60. Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, ., dated June 20, 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, 1989 a 63. Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14, 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick F. Stone, dated August 11 , 1989 65. Map of City and District boundaries 66. Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 4110 67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers : How is the School District Coping with Growth. " [Presented to City Council at L Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2, 1989. ] 68. Bond issue information, November 1989, prepared by Lake Oswego School District. 69. Election results, November 7, 1989, Lake Oswego School District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond. • Atty/Correspond_7 1111 • 1 1 1 : u ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS ( 12-05-89) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearings considering specific land use applications , one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban • Service Boundary General, Policy III . A few other policies have also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of . those policies, it is necessary to restate the rational for the City's interpretation that the Ger'ieral Policies of the Plan are "- the regulatory language of the Plan. • The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdiction to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals. f' . A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as : . " [Al generalized, coordinated land use map and policy �r. statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural _ resources and air and water quality management programs . 'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the _ • plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and ‘ • proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily • indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of governments , semipublic and private agencies and the • citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. 'Land ' includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. " . At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in nature , is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines are: p " tS)uggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties • in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive 0 .. plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and • /I• , special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation of plans, programs and regulations in compliance with goals . • Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies, cities, counties and special districts to a single approach . " t.. . ,a_ • • Attachment No. 3 ' December 5, 1989 410. Page 2 The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the h following way, , • r,i,- "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are shc? fr statements of the purpose of the policies, General Polici c • which are major, methods of achieving objectives, Specific Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General Policies, . . . . " There are also strategies for carrying out the plan found in Volume `tI, which is the background information and supporting • documentation for the plan. The language has historically been • • applied as follows: • The general policies of the plan are the portions which are "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy • statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application, must conclude that the applicable general policies of the comprehensive plan have been followed. Each land use decision must identify and explain why the requirements of the applicable general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general policy the hearing body will be guided in its decision making by the specific policies for the particular general olicy narrative language and strategies for the policy element. Inhe many cases the specific policies for a general policyare 1l extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations f�• to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections. If the specific policies are are thegeneral given the same regulatory weight as policies then each provision of a specific policy will need to be complied with to the letter in order' for an application or project to be approved. There is no• the granting of variances from the re ulator the for Plan. When an application or project g y provisions of the conforms to the general policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of one of the specific policies for the general policy, the application or project as a whole must be denied if the specific construed to be regulatory in nature. All regulatoryorisias are standards must be complied with in order for an application to be approved. . • • Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 3 (C. The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is ,n}onetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. , - This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point. This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level effort and scrutiny that went into the original plan development. • I Each of the applicable General Plan Policies will be discussed below. No General Policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies) become applicable in the review of a development application. 1. Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3: The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered. " This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such that the, c lanned densities do not result in land uses that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available or planned. This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan map densities and is not applicable in the development review stage. The appropriateness of the plan map designation or zone designation on a given site is not an issue in a hearing on a development application. A • p , • Attachment No. 3 ,r December 5, 1989 ." 1 Page 4 •i U, 1.- � %t 2. Impact Management Qer r'al 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,\ • ei,, approval is, granted. Specific Policy 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information on school capacity to be taken into consideration . in development review. • This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capacity in the development review process. This policy requires that a rn detailed review of projects take place and it directs that the City seek capacity information from the District. The development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity information. The July 5, 1989 report from the District and the July 31, 1989 and the October 3, 1989 joint meetings are examples of this4111 coordination and "encouragement" . Because of the variety of factors that impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict with a great degree of accuracy school populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population. However, once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it becomes reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in the • near time frame (3-6 months) . By monitoring acti, al school populations and outstanding building permits, forecasting over 3- 6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of reliability. If this coordination results in the development of data which supports the findings required by the state moratorium statute to establish capacity shortage, a moratorium on building permits can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow of new studentato bhe district. 3. Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate public services and facilities. " e Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 5 Specific Policy 3: Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of public services except in instances where • • the developer pays all costs of providing additional required capacity, subject to City Council approval." The General Policy requires that City to plan and program for the provision of adequate facilities. This City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the city to plan facilities for the school. Through the enactment of the moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis due to a lack of school capacity. The moratorium statute is , available / o temporarily prohibit on a system wide basis land uses whicy exceeded the capacity of the schools. 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban 4110 Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services: To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services Boundary as follows: (1) Lands suitable for near future development (IMMEDIATE • GROWTH) (2) Lands in long range growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4: New development shall be served by an urban level of services of the following: a. Water b. Sanitary sewer /r c. Adequate streets, including collectors d. Transportation facilities e. Open space and trails, as per Open Share Element f. City policy protection gr City fire protection h. Parke and recreation facilities, as per Parks and Recreation Element m ,a M • • lrft • Attachment No. 3 1110 . 4 December 5, 1989 Page 6 i. Adequate drainage j . Schools 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 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." The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define the future growth area for which it intends to be the major provider of public services, Within the ultimate growth area, General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizable areas. The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of the General Policy. , The Specific Policy almost seems misplaced, 1110 and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above, which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that General Policy do not require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in Specific Policy 4. The most relevant language of this General Policy to the issue at 1 hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a "logical planned" extension of "basic" services. The School District is logically planning to provide new facilities to serve demands generated by growth. The District, like school districts in general, provides facilities in response to demand--not in anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and identifies schools, along with police and fire services , as "responsive" facilities. The Director draws a distinction, for planning purposes, between these responsive facilities and transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities which in her words "must attend, rather than follow or respond to, construction. " • 4 'l . ram • • Attachment No. 3 ID December 5, 1989 Page 7 • • Specific Policy 4 , on the other hand, directs that schools be , available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If that has not occurred, the Specific Policy states that schools may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development. " The Specific Policy contradicts the language of its General Policy in that it is illogical, and inconsistent with how schools function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of o the language of this Specific Policy. A defacto moratorium '° reSulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratoriumpursuant to state law. The current level of school , plaining and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. In summary, the three General Policies listed above which are , . 4110 applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth, coordinate with the School District on capacity issues, and evaluate applications and determine impacts. School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact the school system is not precise. A quasi-judicial hearing on a single land Use application is not the appropriate forum within which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity. There is not reliable data concerning future impacts that will result from a single application or the timing of those impacts. The current level of coordination and planning, with continual monitoring of actual school population changes satisfy these policies. If it is determined that school capacity will be exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities while the District implements programs to correct the problem. Atty/Correspond-7 • ) 0 y. • 4 NICK NICK CUSTOM HOMES', INC, u 5285 SW Meadows Rd. 4 Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 March 20 , 1990 (503)639-1676 'N, +y.,'. Pete Harvey., City Manager City of, Lake Oswego g EXHIBIT • Lake Oswego, OR Q.7 t;21 Dear Mr. Harvey: 6*_9q q7. In early December of last year I submitted to your planning department an application for a minor lot partition. The petition represented the dividing of 2.19 acres on the lake into two approximately one acre lots. One of the parcels has a very expensive home for sale (in excess of a million dollar value) existing on it. The application also included a Class I Variance regarding the access standards for lots abutting the street providing for 25 feet of public street access . The property is zoned for 15,000 square foot lots . Approximately a year and a half ago I 'received an approval for exactly the same request regarding this same property, when I did a minor partitioning of 5 . 5 acres which was the original land size. , This morning I was informed by Mike Wheeler that the city is considering that my application may require a public hearing 4110 rather than being resolved at the administrative level . Because of the unreasonable amount of time that has gone by since my application was filed in early December, I have already lost one buyer for the property which has caused me substantial economic loss. I am talking about a total purchase that would have been in excess of $2 ,000,000 since one of the parcels has the home on it which I have just recently renovated. I am referring to the blue tile Japanese roof home which I am sure that you are familiar with, which is located on the, lake. I am now working with another family regarding their interest in purchasing the property, but only conditioned upon my being able to partition the two lots, so that their children and grandchildren may build a home on the other lot and they would live in the blue tile roof home. I am going to lose them as a buyer also, becau se of the unreasonable delays. I was originally told that the approval would take approximately three weeks to process my application which is consistent with the past . It has now been over three months. Having done a number of variances over the years,,, I am very familiar with your code. Has there been a change in code? I do not understand what the problem is . Whatever it is , it is causing substantial economic problems and financial hardships as a result of the tremendous delays my company is being exposed to regarding this application as well as apparently, someone trying ID to change the rules of the many years , programthat has been in effect for 1 A , J . , ,. • , . ,, Pete F erveydo March :0, 1990 Page - ,- Pete, lon't we have enough problems regarding due process with 'applictitions in the City of Lake Oswego, without , creating additional ,problems by trying to transfer items that should be resoled at an administrative level instead, to public hearings? I believe that we are way past the time element that is allowed by lah regarding the obligation of the City of Lake Oswego to have p •ocessed and concluded the request being made in this applic •tion. ( " ' I nee : an immediate answer. I cannot hold these buyers any longer Also I am losing credibility with them because of the unreaE nable time delays. My application meets every requirement for tF justification for the variance that I am requesting. • Theref re, I am requesting that the ( 1,p1ication be immediately approv d and allow me to proceed in a ' professional and business like n nner without any more loss of time and hardship that has been c used by these delays . May I hear from(Iyou immediately? Respec fully yours , o Nick E nick NB;bla cc: J m Coleman E b Galante - ;I,,;; MAa1990 J r R '��1 CT, r . P . wo II • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE March 28, 1990 Nick Bunick Nick Piinick Custom Homes, Inc. • 5235 Meadows Road Suite 377 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr.Bunick: This is in response to your March 20, 1990 letter regarding theprocessing of a minor lot partition. This application also involved a variance to he public 410 street access standard. o Your letter prompted a review and interpretation of the language of the ' variance section of the development code. Attached is a copy of that determination, which can be appealed by anyone if they so desire. Because you have submitted your application, and it is my understanding that the staff report is virtually complete, ft should take no time at all —other than satisfying the noticing requirements to get this before the Development Review Board • ,, Please let me and the planning staff know how you wish to proceed with this matter. l P • % Very truly yours, 040.......; , / ie---4-., Peter C. Harvey City Manager PCH/sms , 4 s. EXHIBIT or26 , 0.,v, . , , l4tl .,, •1\f\( f ,,, ,,I , JI l it I lit)\ li,n t \K.I t)„,„..t) t)RI(.t)\ 'i-l w „,,1i i .It.l i h` ,. . , . , l� b i of-0) 110 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY,MNAGER'S OFFICE �. MEMORANDUM g EXHIBIT TO: Planning Staff and LQ1 City Attorney's Office en FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager 4341 SUBJECT: Interpretation of Minor Change to Variation of 25' Street Frontage Requirement (LOC 49.5J0(1)(B)l DATE: March 28, 1990 A request has been received for an interpretation of the language "minor change" in LOC 49.500(1) as it pertains to the 25' street frontage requirement. That section further states that the City Manager shall determine whether a request is a Class I or Class II variance. ® y The City Code (LOC 49.025) provides for the City Manager to interpret all terms, provisions, and requirements. These interpretations may be appealed in accordance with LOC 49.630. For purposes of LOC 49.500(1)(B), an interpretation of the language, "minor change" needs to combine the wording of the introductory portion of 49.500(1) with the wording on the 25' street frontage requirement. This combination would result in a phrase as follows: A Class I variance is a minor change to vary the street frontage requirement. The next question is, how much of a variation is "minor," thereby, meeting the requirements for a Class I variance; and how much of a variation would exceed the "minor" change, thereby, becoming a Class II variance? It would seem logical that a lot should have sufficient frontage on a street to provide at least one vehicle travel lane and for emergency acess. On vehicle travel lane is 10 feet. Some additional distance on each side is needed, The width needed for the operation of fire department emergency equipment is 13.5'. It is therefore my determination that a variation from 25' to 13.5' of the street frontage standard would be considered "minor change" and a Class I variance: and a variation to less than 13.5' would be a Class II variance, • <cmo .planning,st.variance 380"A"AVENUE/POST OFFICE BOX 369/LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034/(503)05.0215 • , NICK . JNICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC. . 5285,SW Meadows Rd, • Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503)639-1676 April 4, 1990 APR 4 1990 Mr. Mike Wheeler Planning Department City of Lake Oswego �lr> P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 4 Dear Mr. Wheeler: 1 I was in receipt of a letter in which the City Manager, Mr. Harvey, is stating that he is interpreting your code for class one variances to be of such a nature, that my application that is presently before you must be processed through a public hearing with the Development Review Board. Although I am in total disagreement regarding the interpretation, I have no choice at this point but to request that you immediately proceed in sending out the public notices and schedule the DRB hearing , You have informed me that I could appear before the Development Review Board for the first hearing in the month of May . 11111 Considering the fact that I submitted my application to you on December 15 , 1989, I am requesting that every effort be made to move that date up to the month of April . I would appreciate any help you can give me in this matter. I am trying to minimize the damages I am being exposed to . Please call me regarding your response . Sincerely, Nick Bun.ck NB;bla 4 EXHIBIT ' 3t� boPa►wv,4 b1 oo 1 • d r.. f 11 Iff,,, acG(JL�' -'I 0 ' , q•Cii f11, \ 04 1 cf'e# .�1'r a< / / c , \ a::i • 1411 y u I �•' h. 1 ,, • ��, .� , `� ' � - - �� ._- �1 'k, ' 1 V �' ` . \+h. , ,;;.may /,,. , . \ •tIkt:L:4,„„:„...3.:**--............ -----z_..._,.,_.e.........Tso ' ci i i , v V ' \ \V \.. f Oa / W O N 1 `4 11 U I O • , SS,R' ttrg. .ilt.•\,:',..\\ '', '\,'\\\ Nil 1, 2 �66 \\•%` a� a" aN41 ! /J,o / -5. . I • ` s/.. I� a}, i r .Z . • \ tee` `\s,- ,`.r ,,� `\ !y�✓ 1 \ . ., 4. 1/.) M \\ la •••• ‘ ‘ ‘,/,:,j-• 'P'N' 6 / ' / \...Sk...;_i , j • . 0 . A . • • NICK BUNICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC. 5285 SW Meadows Rd. * Suite 377 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 (503)639-1676 41110 April 26, 1990 Mike Wheeler • City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, OR Dear Mr. Wheeler; Enclosed are two documents that-=i , wish to include as exhibits regarding the hearing that will be held before the Development P Review Board on May_,7 , 1990 . One is a letter from Fire Marshall McCaulley confirming that all the roads are acceptable that are`' involved in my application. The second is an 8 x 11 map showing how the 2 parcels will look upon their being partitioned as well as designating that part of the road which is located between the public road and my property by way of easements . I shall be referring to both of these documents in my presentation to the Development Reveiw Board and will bring • copies of those documents which I will distribute to each member „ of the board during my presentation, so that they may refer to • them specifically. Please show them as exhibits having been received so that they are not challenged by any potential opponent ar being new evidence. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, &,,� z, Nick Bunick NB;bla 4. EXHIBIT Encl . �p (P-ii *Air`+ 1 ry r �A 'APR 2 6 140 • • 1 Jv,.' ., a it Q ONN • r •o 4 . , rs 04 w t 04, i Q I\ Si M 0ac „ ce -, : ' 0' 4 tO 4 40 gi:Vs a AlQ , g RiftL : IMil I % eecl 1.7 ti l‘'.1 1 ., . ibc • q ,,A , . \ 1.1% 1,,,�,"11/ Jam` / -,-- -__/,tip itIliM11 14 4- '' .7'/ 7.4%.7. 4 4. .1, 4 ,,,,. ,,„.fra. ... tni ,...„, ., , ,,,p,„gt.it . . . , 1.44 ,„ , ,41 9 pi, -•A .., , \ 'NA, -2-11-4.> .400 :ZIT ''', . r =s,�� r $ i ri ' ?!'., 1. eery •,4 �. ��. ,i • . • ,, f N451 ,, s :tom a .)0...,\..Nhil kr.:11 '' 4 ..„... ,, --.1 ' 4 \�'•' y Vc ,.,, . .... ''''''. .1' , .1 • �7 t fir' y I i ko k�, �Y) % ., (a::ij , ,, 3 ,• ,.fir �s; � $ �L, re y ' — .1 \ r ' \ \---. s-- 'cl 9,9.A '' 7p,,,,, ... • -,d '1, 'R ' t, .?s1.0,.. \ ,,,,A . ..e.._ „ .1.74. "..,,r• ' N iR \,,\. t& .. o • ..N 4.., e,0."V 4.1 ..\ t 0 •t‘a v. ,N,,, f..; s X X :0� il'. ••• ... o k. Ti R ao 44oi. �.- c � .4)'0, reor M A4A 2\ .Q l%?,PZtzAV; ),9 l'a� '~WU/•Tic0Al asy 6 1.--41 —..,—_.._,•,.. :. ` jt f} .e Lam . , r,) i yLL.O • 0 'nr�,. lt�� ��� `''`1.4 Y. O ` J r (:(11 ) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO April 30, 1982 4.4 4. APR 26 1.Vvv Fred McDonald ,, Burton Goodrich AlA 1030 S, W. Timberline Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Gentlemen: , As per our conversation this morning, the Fire Department will accept a drafting pit so designed as to have available water even at times when the lake is drained. This would be an acceptable alternative to providing a fire hydrant. The size and exact location is to be noted on the plot 8 plan at time of Design Review, tf Chief Morrison drove all roads on the site this morning and found no difficulty in manuvering any corners as they presently exist. All roads are acceptable, as to widths , as they now exist, if this office can be of further help, please feel free to call . Sincerely, )77 E-t- 14 l 14 p-i n,E hipAs u( /0„/__044!4*5; r John McCauley "anic24 )11 +• Cl.1'1-is y Oat) /ivy /D /ycr - Fire Marshall/Building Official `� JH/bw v .EGA PR,1 P 71//� .A h� ' wig cc: r, l e GD/� .n, pi v-7D 7-4T.T ` - - I • •'' NO f ` 1CM/ 9aPA +dy T,,as, s e ?G , 4 y h � � ��ayce � • 1 ,1/4 IEXFiIgl >r• (( \G 51) SZ, 348 NORTH STATE STREET / POST OTFICE BOX 369/ LAM OSWEGO,ORt ON 97014 / NM)616 iU 1 // n , STAFF REPOR T • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : Schaubel Trust SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: 1: Blue Heron Development Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: '`DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 800 (portion; April 27, 1990 a Parcel III, SD 31-89) of Tax Map 2 lE 17CD , DATE OF HEARING: ' LOCATION: May 7, 1990 1 t " West of Hillshire Drive, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: south of Westridge Drive Westridge COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: 4111 R-10 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is seeking approval for creation of ' , three parcels from a 1. 20 acre parcel. Each parcel is proposed tokbe in excess of 10,000 square feet; also a Class II Variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet. Two parcels are proposed to have . no frontage on a street. Instead, they are proposed ' to be served by an easement for access. ,i II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS , A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Ur..ar, Service Boundary Policies Gen.\�ral Policy III Impact, Management Policies General Policy I, II, III, V ." , ' 4P SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 1 of 15 t , 1/ • Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy I, II Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I` Potential Landslide Area Policies General Policy III,, IV 4 Potential Erosion Area Policies General Policy IV Weak Foundation Soil Policies General Policy II, IVf • Energy Conservation Policies yti, General policy II b ProtectionOpen Space Policies General Policy I, II M Transportation Policies General Policy IV B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (set- 0 . backs, lot area, lot • coverage) C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49. 025 Interpretation, Regulations & Procedures LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49. 110 Concurrent Review of Development LOC 49. 120 Future Streets Plan LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49. 145 Major Development LOC 49. 215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49. 220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49. 300-49. 315 Major Development Procedures ' i LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications • LOC 49.510 Variance Standard LOC 49. 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2. 005 -2. 040 Building Design • SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 2 of 15 a • , o 5.005 - 5.040 Street Lights 1 6.005 - 6.040 Transit System ® 7.005 - 7.040 Parking, & Loading Standard 8.005 - 8.040 Park q(nd Open Space 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening" & 0 Buffering 11. 005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 12.005 - 12. 040 Drainage Standard for Minor 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 E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005 - 57.135 .; F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.010 - 55.130 IIIII. FINDINGS A. Existing Conditions:' 1. The site is composed of 52,314 sq. ft. or 1. 20 acre in an irregular configuration. r 2. The site is located west of Hillshire Drive between Westridge Drive and Sherwood Court and drains westerly. i1 3 . An 8 <,inch sanitary sewer line is located in Hillshire Drive. An 8 inch line is located in Bryant Road at Melrose Drive. 4. An 8 inch water line is located in Hillshire . Drive. • 5. A 15 inch storm sewer line and catch basin are located in Hillshire Drive. A 10 inch storm sewer and catch basin are located oh the west side of Bryant Road, below the site to the west. . d ' 6. Hillshire Drive is a 32 ft, - wide paved street, improved with curb and gutter on both 1111 sides, in a 50 ft, - wide right-of-way. SD 7-90/VAR 4-90` Page 3 of 15 is ' • 7. Street lights are located on the east side of Hillshire Drive. B. Previous Actions: A planned °development was approved for the site in w1' 1987. An extension wasgranted until June, 1989. The approval has lapsed, with the knowledge of • applicants and owners. The case is known AS PD 6- ;: 87. A lot line adjustment wa; approved for the site in October, 1989. See case file SD 29-89 for details. A minor partition resulting in the creation of Tax Lot 802 (Parcel 1) , Tax Lot 803 (Parcel 2) and `Tax Lot 804 (Parcel 3) . See case file SD 31-89 for details. The current application concerns the further division of Parcel 3 (Tax Lot 804) . A • companion application (SD 6-90) is being processed as minor development. C. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create three parcels from Tax Lot 702. The parcels are proposed to be ' • as follows: Parcel A 19,239 sq. ft. Parcel B 13,900 sq. ft. Parcel C 19`;1.75 sq. ft. The applicant is also requesting a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcels 2 and 3 are proposed to provide no frontage on Hillsh1re Drive. Access is proposed to these parcels by way of an easement. D. Compliant with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. 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. 111 SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 • Page ,A of 15 • J. j i e 2. For any development application to be ''' approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: • a. The City's Comprehensive Plan ' Applicable policy groups are: (( Urban Service Boundary 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 11 (the City Council memorandum of December 5, 1989) 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 a school facilities. giImpact Management Policies I', These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review II • of development proe osals, and payment of an l/ equitable share of the costs of publid facilities. ' These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. q The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development • Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. Wildlife Habitat Policies These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related 0 SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 5 of 15 c• N development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan F- policies. 1111 , , . 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. `°\The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report ' - . . , following an analysis of the applicable Plan ii policies. Y ' Potential Landslide Area Policies These policies require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the ' degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation District mapping indicates that the site is in a landslide hazard area. A soils report is required to address this condition and has been provided (Exhibit 10) . "`k Potential Erosion Area Policies These policies require designation of areas ))f severe potential for erosion as Protection 01S.en 4111 Space, and require erosion control and drainage • measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. • . Weak Foundation Soils Policies . These policies are intended to protect development 1; from damage caused by weak foundation :;coils. A soils report is required to assess the soil , condition of the site and to suggest recommended ' construction methods to address those conditions. These policies are implemented through the Weak Foundation Soils Development Standard. 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 Sic ' SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 6 of 15 It . , 1 r., • 0 ' R r City's Solar 'ceess Ordinance (LOC Chapter.; 57) . 1110 which will be''reviewed later in this report. 'Protection Open Space Policies p p These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources • Policy Element. These policies are implemented by a variety of applicable Development Standards - which are addressed later in this report. ' kTransportation Policies , These policies require the City to plan a residential neighborhood streets system which '' provides access to abutting land. These policies ° are implemented through the Access Standard and , °'• the Site Circulation Standard for Driveways and • ; Private Streets, reviewed later in this report. f b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. 1 Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter , 48) The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; 411111 required minimum lot width at the building lines is 65 ft. ; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. r Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% •\ rIl1OC 48. 210 (1) , 48. 225 (1) l . ' The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: Front yard - 20 ft. ; Rear yard - 25 ft. ; Side yard - 5 ft. each [LOC 48. 215(1) ] . The applicant proposes the parcels to be the • following sizes: Area , Width Depth Parcel A 19,239 80 ft. 108 ft. Parcel B 13 ,900 110 ft. 135 ft. Parcel C 19,175 100 ft. 155 ft. Development Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) The proposed minor partition is appropriately 1 being processed as minor development. However, as per Exhibit 13, the applicant' s variance (because ° the reduction exceeds 11.5 feet) which is SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 ` Page 7 of 15 c, ter, classified as a major development. As such, this proposal is required to be reviewed as major development. Development Standards applicable to major development will be reviewed later in this 4111 report as required by LOC 49.090. The applicable variance criteria are reviewed next in this report. As per LOC 49.510(1) (Development Code) , the Development Review Board must consider the ii following criteria when evaluating 6 request for a `' Class II variance (Development Code) : a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; # The applicant suggests that a hardship exists qI because of the steep slopes and overall distance between the existing rights-of-way of Hillshire Drive and Bryant Road. The applicant indicates that the hardship for this site is due to the presence of the Access Standard itself, which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. The applicant further notes that higher, yet undefined, costs would result for the dedication and construction of public streets necessary to meet the standard. . 'I 0 b. Development consistent, with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property , \ established to be affected by the request; The applicant notes that the proposed parcels will be similar to those found in the neighborhood. The proposal reduces tle amount of pavement that would be necessary fora public street to serve this site. It should be noted that two public streets were proposed and approved as a part of the earlier planned development (PD 6-87) , but were the ' subject of neighborhood opposition due to ._,..,.. appeal o anticipated traffic impacts (noise, appearance, proximity to existing dwellings) . An the approval was averted by the applicant in that case, and staff has worked closely with this applicant and the neighborhood in approving SD 29- ,,, 89, SD 30-89 and SD 31-89 to address those concerns. There has been no concern raised regarding the curront proposal or the variance in particular. 4110 ,,„ . SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 ' I Page 8 of 15 ,)t; • . r c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; The applicant has not specifically addressed this • 'criterion in the narrative. Based upon the applicant' s arguments for hardship, coupled with the anticipated cost of public improvements, the applicant has concluded that the request is the minimum necessary. Reasonable use of the property has been addressed previously in case files PD 6- 84, SD 29-89, SD 30-89 and SD 31-89, and the overall conceptual partitioning plan has been granted approval. This variance is necessary to proceed towa,r.d completion with'this phase in the series of partitions. d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal does not conflict with the policies , reviewed earlier in this report. Adequate access to the proposed sites will be provided by way of a paved access easement. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57) The applicant has requested an exemption from the t design standard, LOC 57.020, as prescribed in LOC 57. 025 (1) and an adjustment to the design standard as prescribed in LOC 57.030 (1) (a) and 57.030 (1) (c) . An exemption is in order for the portion of the site below elevation 180 ft. Ten percent of the site as shown on Exhibit 12 is steeper than 20% grade and not subject to the design standard. The westerly portion of the site below the 180 ft. contour is in excess of 20% slope in a westerly direction and is therefore exempt. Plans on file in SD 29-89 illustrate this topographic condition, and are stamped by a licensed professional land / t. surveyor. This complies with the requirements of LOC 57. 025 (1) . Of the remaining site, only about 10% of the land area is on slopes of less then 10% grade. These areas are at the middle of Parcel 2 and the southeast corner of Parcel 1, They are so small as to be impractical for consideration as solar lots, but are not exempt from the standard. Though suitable on the basis of the grades, this area is prevented from conveniently meeting the 1111 SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 9 of 15 • design standard (LOC 57.020(1) ] due to the north- south orientation of Hillshire Drive. /) All three proposed parcels have land above the 180 ,; ft. contour upon which to develop dwellings. Compliance with the Design b'tandard can be achieved by use of Solar building lines [LOC 57.020 (2) ] or the performance option [LOC 57.020(3) ] . The choice of which will be used may be left up to the developer, bu.t must be reflected on the final plan map. " Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) ;r This ordinance is intended to preserve trees. it implements the Wildlife Habitat, and Protection Open Space Policies. Only those trees which must be removed in order to site proposed improvements • will be granted tree cutting permits. A tree survey is not required in application for a minor partition, but is necessary to meet the requirements of the Tree Cutting Ordinance in this regard. Such a survey will be required as a condition of approval of this action. The applicant shall position proposed dwellings so as to minimize the number of trees removed in compliance with LOC 55. 080 (2) . • c. The applicable Development Standards Building Design (2. 005 - 2. 040) While this standard is applicable to all major development involving a structure, this • application ia' 5major development only because of „e the inclusion of the Class II variance. Staff concludes that the single-family dwellings proposed on the site are minor development, as is the, proposed minor partition, and that this standard is not applicable. Street Lights (5. 005 5. 040) Existing street lights are adequate for Hillshire Drive. Transit System (6. 005 - 6 . 040) The nearest transit facilities are located on Bryant and Jean Roads to the north. There are hard surfaced paths leading to the site from IIII SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 10 of 15 M / 1 Westridge Drive to the north. Sidewalks along the frontage of the parent site were required in SD 30-89 and SD 31-89. No additional transit developments are required to serve this site as a result. 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 or carport. All three parcels are large enough as proposed to accommodate this requirement. Park and Open Space,. (8.005 - 8.040) This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space or park land equal to 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. Since the applicant's request is considered to be major development only because of the Class,, II variance [LOC 49.140 vs. 49. 1451 , and because the minor partition, existing and future single-family dwellings are minor development [LOC Ji 49.140) , staff concludes that the Standard does not apply to this request. LandEcaping, Screening and Buffering (9.005 - '� • • 9.040), The existing and proposed single family dwellings are not included among the range of uses required to provide plantings, despite the fact that the • standard is applicable to this Class II variance, which is classified as major development. Staff concludes that the standard is met. • Drainage Standard for Major Development (11.005 - 1. 0,4 0) f " This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. No grading is proposed as a part of this application. Compliance with the standard will be required upon application for a building permit for each of the proposed parcels. Installation of an engineered storm drainage system is necessary to serve existing and proposed development. Design and installation of this facility will be required as a condition of approval of this action. SD 7- 90/VAR 4-90 I, Page 11 of 15 . , / ., Weak Foundation Soils (13.0015 - 13.040) The Comprehensive` Plan and Lake Oswego Physical 1111 Resources Inventory irdicat4s a potential for2weak foundation soils bisecting the site north to south. The applicant ha ,submitted a soils report, Exhibit 10, which illustrates that no weak foundation soils exist. Development may be proposed which meets the recommendations of the applicant's geologic consultant., o Utility Standard (14.005 - 14.040) , This standard requires that infrastructure ' improvements be installed underground, where possible. All three parcels can be served with • water, sewer Arid storm drainage facilities from either Hilishire Drive or Bryant Road as shown on Exhibits °4 and 6. Parcels 1 and 3 can be served from water and sanitary sewers in Hillshire Drive. A system for storm water disposal but must be designed to accommodate connection to a public system. This will be required as a condition of approval of this action. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 - 16.040) This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. • Slopes on the site range from 7 to 62%. Cuts and fills must be minimized during site development. No grading is proposed as a part of this application. When actual development is proposed, no more than 65% of the area in slopes of 20 to 50% shall be graded or stripped of vegetation. (See Exhibit 12) . The applicants ' soils report indicates no presence of landslide hazard on the site (Exhibit 10) . Access Standard (18.005 - 18 .040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel A is proposed to comply with the standard; a Class II variance has been requested for Parcels B & C, which was reviewed earlier in this report. II ' SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 12 of 15 , • , n • rs U , • Site Circulation - private Streets/Driveways , '(19.005 - 19.040) ' This standard requires that driveways for single family ` iellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. c-- j��e access easement to serve each of the " three pro��osed parcels is capable of meeting the ' ' standard \Exhibit 7) . The grades of the site in the area pposed for development will enable compliance_w).th this standard. ,, 4 d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS1 Tax Lots 1000 and 1101 t'o the south a1h'e underdeveloped parcels. As a result, a future , streets plan was made a part of SD 29-89. The proposal complies with that future streets / approval (Exhibits 5, 7, 8 and 9) . C. Conclusion: �. kr 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. III. RECOMMENDATION ' . , ile 0 The staff recommends approval of SD 7-90/VAR 4-90, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 4 and modified by conditions 3 , 4, 6 and 9) 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 maybe granted or denied and if granted, may be ' conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and • '° p . compatibility with surrounding development. � A r it p The final plan shall reference this land use / :4. • application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 7- 90/VAR 4-90, Ay ' o SD 7-90/VAR 490 Page 13 of 15 1 � • • A • 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas Count Y Surveyor' s office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks's office: 3. The following note shall appear on the final plan: Development of structures and planting of none exempt vegetation on Parcels A, B and C above contour 180 ft, shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance '(LOC 57.050-57.090) . This requirement ,> shal1 be binding upon the applicant and subsequent pu \chasers of Parcels A, B and C. J � 4. The applicant shall design solar building lines for Parcels A, B and C according to (LOC 57.020(2) or, the following notes shall appear on the final plan: a. Habitable structures built: on the lot will have their long axis orientated within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees; or b. Habitable structures built on the lot will 4110 have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected shade by structures and non-exempt trees. 5. The applicant shall design all utilities necessary to serve Parcels A, B, C and parcels approved in SD 31-89. This design shall receive approval of the Public Works Director prior to final plan approval. , 6. The final plan shall indicate the location and width of all utility easements necessary to serve Parcels A, B, C and parcels approved in SD 31-89 ri-2 as required by Condition No. 5 above. 7. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested " subsequent to the date of this approval. • 8. The applicant shall install all utilities necessary to serve Parcels A, B and C as a condition of building permit approval requested subsequent to this action. 4111 , SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 ;. Page 14 of 15 4 A 9. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory structure on Parcels A, B and C. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050-55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance) . 10. The City will require the use of private street names for future streets approved by SD 29-89. Such names shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Police Services and Fire Departments of the City of Lake Oswego. Street signage shall be required to conform to City standards and provided at the expense of the applicant. 11. Sidewalks shall be constructed according to the plans approved in SD 31-89 as a condition of building permit requested subsequent to this \ action. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant' s Narrative, dated January 24, 1990 3 . Site Plan 4. Utility Plan [Present Phase) 5. Future Street Plan (SD 29-89) [Ultimate Lot Pattern & Street Plan) 6. Utility Plan, Future Partitions 7. Driveway profiles for Future Street Plan (SD 29- 89) 8. Future Street Plan (SD 29-89) [Option B; not approved, for reference only) 9. Future Street Plan & Profiles (SD 29-89) [Option A: approved] 10. Soils Report 11. Council ' s memorandum regarding schools, dated December 5, 1989 12. Site Analysis, from PD 6-87 13 . Memorandum from Peter C. Harvey, City Manager, dated March 28, 1990 /ba [SD90) ) 11) SD 7-90/VAR 4-90 Page 15 of 15 1 ro,,, .1\ a, io . Ai 4... . p.., .., , , / ._ ..„: . .4. ,:. (---.) ,. .,. . ., . . „ ,o rs • Q y ) J. My t0 .t.1/4 ��a �1 W f_ . , ....e.:,..0,,, 0 ....--, k/i Twaluolatal OR a a d' �- Ct 0 A % Lt.) AN _ • Q '} w • y r' gad~ r,h'� ) Cr v ,11 4.11*rj-" ifil . t- — 0 0° ° h.•L. ��J0� // � '�� I ' b p t o? t tilQtri , /00.1JO N t i ' • NA ti • • ' . t�ID N In 4 �, t r 4g li,0 r4 ci\ V rV •n' I N 6 d t"• ' .".ASP 'I ►' (9 M 61' O cM '' • <s (s fn • J • dOr tt,Q al- L:,, %4N • '44 HILLS ' -. IV . ' •• E• C. ` - J.M N f 1 • ' \ `c�r�l(\ M ` • 3 j �� I N y N a`v, r. Cr.� r ' 0 In °` 1103 z • on a,1 1 OcJ... .. v. \ . -‘ Tr, At 1 • 04 . \ \ Willi... ' . Ilk IN.i,a., s,'1,.., 28.650; ' • �•odl t,lik) . \ r.., ., . I "ii J S'On� � .., . r. ....-- .__t_._ .. ._ n j/ 0 .44, , ..$ _ 0 o r leaAll0 0 ..).,- 04 . . . . Ii--_--' _-1.", , I "ra"•c., .......... Nis <1 . eJJ I: ... ..4..... 0 ; — v o ` I a IA e' -.' '!.%0E. S� I '— -~. -.......• • 9 I - I , N • a3.Z1 31 dbW , 33S i Ii ' 4110 APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT • HILLSHIRE DRIVE . MINOR PARTITION CREATING 2 LOTS FROM EXISTING`'ACREAGE REMAINDER TO BE PARTITIONED NEXT YEAR TAX LOT 700, PARCEL B, MAP 2 lE 17CD v (FEE #89-57649) AND ' MINOR PARTITION CREATING 3 LOTS FROM EXISTING ACREAGE WITH CLASS 1 ACCESS VARIANCE (2 LOTS) TAX LOT 800, PARCEL III, MAP 2 1E 17CD (FEE #89-57653) /1• OWNERS TAX LOT 700, PARCEL B o ETHEL SCHAUBEL 3300 SOUTH SHORE BLVD. LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 fa TAX LOT 800, PARCEL III SCHAUBEL TRUST APPLICANTS:, ETHER SCHAUBEL 3300 SOUTH SHORE BLVD. LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 AND t BLUE HERON DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 99 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 PREPARED BY ., ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC. 1750 SW SKYLINE BLVD. . PORTLAND, OREGON 97221 297-1458 I 1 2 4 1.990 • . 0 MXHCK�`} Idsp_2 7-'hi1a1 4AO , Ca t i ,. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , • Land Use Designation The subject property consists of two Parcels created by r prior partitioning, File Nos . SD 29-89, SD 30-89 and SD 31- 89 . The primary lots included are 700, Parcel B and 800, Parcel III, Map 2 1E 17CD. The site is located in a low density R-10 residential neighborhood . -' Type of Application/Action This application represents a joint application for two minor partitions, creating a total of sip: lots , A Variance . to the road frontage standard, Section 18 .020 (1 . ) is also requested . ZONING Zoning District The subject property is currently zoned R710 by the City of Lake Oswego . IIZoning Standards ' Zone lot area/unit slot width lot depth R-10 10, 000 sq. ft . 65 ft . 100 ft . All of the proposed lots comply with the minimum lot width and depth standards for the zone . All lots do not, however, have at least 90 feet of north-south depth consistent with the solar access standards, see Section 57 . 020 . ' The proposed lot sizes are as follows : Parcel B Parcel III, Parcel 1 10, 423 sq. ft . Parcel `A 19, 239 sq. ft . ' �r. Parcel 2 390210 " " Parcep. B 130900 " " Parcel 3 10, 230 " " Parcel C 19,175 " " i ' Setbacks • front side street other side rear .' 291 20 '.art./col . 54 , R-10 251 • 10 ' 1ocal combined 15 1 „ , �.. , . , .I . „ . • ,.,, • . I• , e 'j • i U , n O P The proposed lots are of sufficient size and shape to IIII accommodate typical housing styles within the standard - setbacks: Building Height „ Lot ,Coverage 35 ' _ R-10 30% n All future buildings w11. , be designed to meet these height / and lot coverage standards . . Density Calculation The gross site area of the original parcels was 591 acres ` , ,; ,,.,/ or 257, 439 . 6 square feet . Since no roads are pro'posed the - net area is determined by subtracting 20, for public facilities . This equals a net area of 205,951.2 square feet. When divided by the minimum lot area for the R-10 , zone of 10,0,00 square feet, the allowable density equals 20 .59 units . The prior approvals of SD 29, 30 & 31-89 authorized a total 6 lots . This application requests a combined total of 6 ' additional lots. This equals a combined total of 12 lots which is within the allowable density. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.005 Historic Resource Preservation: There are no designated or significant historic resources on , this site . In� 2. 005 Building Design: . TsThis standard applies to major developments involving ctures . This application is for lot development only, , no structures are involved . Further it is a ,minor development, 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 wetland . , , tl i1 YY 5. 005 Street Lights : Street lights will be provided consistent: with City standards for res1;dential streets . There are no public pathways, accesswayS or parking lots associated with this development . Them are, existing street lights on Hillshire Drive . A private access easement is, however, proposed over Parcel IIIA for access to Parcels IIIb & C. Lighting will be provided consistent with the standards . 6.005 Transit System: This standard applies to all Major Developments . This applications for. a Minor Development. Therefore this standard does not apply. 7.005 Parking and Loading: This development does not generate a parking and loading need. Parking requirements per dwelling unit will be met on each lot as it develops . 8.005 Park and Open Space : � , This standard applies to all Major Developments . This `' applications for a Minor Development . Therefore this standard does not apply. 9 .005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: This standard applies to all Major Developments . This applications for a Minor Development . Therefore this standard does not apply. 10.005 Fences : All fencing will be installed by lot purchasers in conjunction with construction of homes . Such fencing will be designed consistent with the code standards . 11.005 Drainage Standards for .Major Development: This standard applies to all Major Developments . This applications for a Minor Development . Therefore this standard does, not apply. 12 . 005 Drainage Standards for Minor Developments : • f This application is for a minor development. This section applies . Adequate storm water drainage will be provided 3 consistent with the standards set forth in Section 11 . 025 . 1111 Development will be conducted consistent with the conditions of approval for SD 29, 30 & 31- 89 . There is an existing 15" storm line with catch basins in Hillshire Drive . lJ 13 .005 Foundation Soils : There are no weak foundation soils in this area. See Geotechnical report by John McDonald, Exhibit A. 14 .005 Utilities : 1. Utilities Required a a . Sanitary sewer see Preliminary Utility Plans, 8" in Hillshire Drive . b. Water - " " " ", 8" in Hillshire Drive . c. Sidewalks and special pedestrian ways - Provided as lots develop, 5 ' on Hillshire Drive per SD 29, 30, & 31-89 . d. Street name signs - Does not apply. j e . Traffic control signs and devices Does not apply, f. Street lights To be provided consistent with City standards and served be underground power . Existing lights on Hillshire Drive . g. Underground utility lines - All utilities will be provided underground as required. h. Streets - Does not apply. ` i . Underground T.V. cable - Underground T.V. cable wi711 be provided in a common ditch. 2. Require&' Easements All required Utility easements will be provided. A utility easement will be provided adjacent to the private street for Parcels IIIH & C. All utilities have been designed by a registered engineer . They have been designed consistent with City standards and ` ? in consideration of subsections 14 . 020 3 to 8 . 16 .005 Hillside Protection and Erosion control : 16 .020 Standards for Approval 1. The project is designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation and soils . 4 • , ` , . . / / ' C.? F-'\ _. �/ 2 . No public streets are propos/ed. A private drive and ' access easement is proposed fps Parcels LIIB & C. See Variance request fcr street frontage . f The private drive/,easement v��i11 be 00- feet wide, with 24 foot wide paving. Erosion control measures ' consistent with city standards will be employed during construction of the access drive . 3 . All cuts and fills will conform to the requirements of LOC Chapter 45 . s 4 . There are no landslide dangers on this site . 5. Cuts and fills are not proposed . 6 . Roads no public roads are proposed . Lot development will be managed so as to provide adequate erosion and drainage control measures . ' 7 . There are no slopes over 50% on this site, therefore this section does not apply. 17 .005 Floodplains : Thee are no floodplains on this site. Therefore this section does not apply. 18 .005 Access : 18 .010 Definitions , Access : Area within public right-of-way directly affected by the traffic generated by the particular development and necessary to provide !k . safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property. 18 .020 Standards for Approval : , 1 . Every least 25tfeshall abut a street for a width of at The subject site fronts ., Hillshire Drive . Under this �.. ' partitioning, all access Will be from SW Hillshire Drive . 11 All lots, except)/ Parcels IIID & C will have at least 2t feet of street frontage . Parcel I was designed and approved with a 30 foot 'wide it will serve as a private drive Which will be shared 0 , ,, �� , �. ' , 5 , , '6 } With Lot 1000 and parcels IIIB & C. Each lot will have ownership interest in 25 feet of street frontage as, required by this Section. See also Section 19 . 005 . See Variance request .• , These three lots have been designed to share reciprocal interests in a private drive with a minimum width of 30 feet. This design functionally provides each lot with ownership of some frontage on a public street . This results in fewer driveway connections to Hillshire (/ Drive . This meets the private street standards set forth in Title 19 . 005,= 2 . Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography The : topography along Hillshire Drive allows for adequate and safe access and egress from the local street to each lot. b . Traffic volume to be generated by the development. Traffic volumes from the first and second phases of the development are estimated to be up to 60 vehicle trips per day to Hilishire Drive . 4111 Full development will generate up to 120 trips per day to Hilishire Drive and 100 trips per day to Bryant Road . c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential, collector or arterial) . Hillshire Drive is a two lane local residential street. 0 A d . Traffic volume presently carried by such street. Traffic volumes on Hillshire Drive are not available e . Projected traffic volumes . Projected traffic assignment is 3500 ADT, as shown on page 158 of the Comprehensive Plan , 4 This development will provide safe and convenient access . •t�r The traffic impacts Will not exceed projected volutites or street service capacities . 11/1 6 A CI I C, �• r r ID 3 . Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available . A temporary access may be allowed. There will be no direct access to an arterial fro this development . 4 . Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available . For lots accessing Hilishire Drive, each lot will have direct access to a local residential street . 5 . The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to preyide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. This development plan does not create any road extensions . It does, however, provided for a shared access drive . The shared drive serves to minimize the potential access conflicts of the proposed lot pattern. It provides for safe and convenient access and egress to and from each lot . 1 • 6 . If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available . Satisfactory access is available and provided for from a public street, so this section does not apply. 19 . 005 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private ,, Streets : r;- 19 .020 Standards For Approval - Major Developments Only Ordinarily this section wouldinot in is a minor development . Under the code, a minor apply. However, the staff has asked for a future, lot partitioning plan. The ultimate r plan w equal scale impact so to conform to a ma3orde\ elo ment Fthe , � appication includes a request for private streets through a variance , ' rr a 1 . Private streets within a major development shall conform to the following requirements : a . The minimum Width shall be 20 feet for two- 0 way streets and 15 feet for one-Way streets , t r4. Tr�r-gre. t. ' .. % 7 _ 0 " / A a i The proposed private drive will be designed to meet the minimum:, 20 foot width requirement set forth in this Section. III They will all be designed for two-way travel . It will be a 30 foot wide easement, with 24 feet paved for travel ,la.es : h b. In those locations where a fire truck may be expected to be positioned at the time of a • fire, leaving no room 'for passing, minimum street width shall be 24 feet. Appropriate provisions for fire access will be designed into the pavement width as determined by conditions of approval. Twenty•-four feet of, paving will be provided . c . Where conditions outlined in b, above, do not 4' apply, and where conditions such as street alignment or traffic volume do not dictate otherwise, the width of streets may be ` reduced. This reduction of width must be • specifically approved by the City Manager . To be determined through the plan review process . d . The width of streets serving as an aisle between garages or parking spaces shall be governed by Parking Standards . Accessways in parking lots are allowed in required yards . Does not apply. e,. All private streets shall be declared fire accesses, either in a deed or on a recorded map and shall be so signed. Vehicles parked . t within fire accesses shall be subject to towing away at the owner 's expense . The private drive will be declared and recorded ab Fire ' r Access on the partitioning map'. The map will be appropriately signed . E . Thn layout of development shall , be such that , fire trucks will not have to back out. Deviations ' from this rule must be specifically approved by the City Manager prior to the final design of the development. Adequate turnarounds will be provided so that fire tr' 'cks will hot have to back out . E g Except for cul-de.-sacs where fire trucks are expected to turn around, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided : III % i. . . 8 y. a 1� outside front wheel radius of forty-five ( 45) feet; inside rear wheel radius of twenty- five (25 ) feet . Where cul-de-sacs with unpaved areas or * . islands are - used, the following minimum turning radii shall be provided : outside front wheel radius fifty (50 ) feet; inside ` rear wheel radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Where cul-de=sacs without unpaved areas or islands are used, the outside front wheel turning radius of forty ( 40) feet shall be • "-' provided . • . Fire trucks will be expected to use turnarounds provided. ` Radius for the private drive will be 43 feet which exceeds , . the minimum standard of 40 feet . h. Dead-end streets., other than where fire trucks are expected to turn, must provided for either passenger vehicle turnaround or a • • delivery vehicle turnaround . The type of the turnaround to be used must be approved by the • City Manager . 4 • The layout of the turnaround must comply with the current standard details available from • the City. , r, 1 Does not Apply. i . A dead-end street of more than 300 feet in length shall be designed with a turnaround unless otherwise approved by the City Manager • prior to the layout of the development. Does not apply. J . Schools with over 25 students enrolled shall provide an on-site driveway for the . continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading ,,and -unloading children. Does not apply. 2 . a . Only one driveway per lot is permitted unless the lot frontage is greater than 75 feet , . 40 . . e( . , 0 . t, • a + 0 For those lots, a circular driveway may be approved by the City Manager upon a finding that the additional intersection will not cause a traffic hazard. There will only be one driveway provided per lot . However, many lots will actually share access drives . This will reduce the number of curb cuts to the public streets . b. Driveways on corner lots shall begin a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet along the property line measured from the property corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City Manager . Driveways to each lot will be located consistent with this standard . In most cases it 'does not apply. 19 .025 Standards for. Construction-. The shared private drives will be designed and constructed consistent with the standards set forth in this Section. 49 . 500 Variances; Classifications . (1) A variance which would allow development not in ` conformance _with the requirements of the 1111 development standards may be granted. A Class I variance is a request for a minor change from the r ' requirements of , the standards which will have , • little or no effect on adjacent property or uses, including: A. Variations from maximum fence height restrictions . B . Variations to 25 foot street frontage requirement. C. Variation to maximum grade of a private street or driveway. D. Variation to 300 foot limitation on cul-de- ` sac length. E. Variations from driveway width requirements . F. Repealed, G. Variation from the requirements for distance of driveways from intersections . H . Omission of curb requirements . I . Variation to requirement for fire truck 7 access . w � 1 �� J . Variation in type of driveway. K . other similar variances . 10 41° In consideration of this development ,pl.an, it will be necessary to apply for a variance to the minimum street frontage standard . Lots III B & C will access from Hillshire Drive Via a shared driveway. Each lot will have ownershipf'in substandard street frontage . The private drive will, however, be designed consistent with the standards set forth in Title '19 .005 for private streets . AL 11'' 49 .510 Variance Standards . " (1) The granting authority may grant a variance from thatthe :development standards if it is .established A. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; avid, B. Development consistent with the request will",'; • li;,, not be injurious to the neighborhood in which v the property is located or to property • established to be affected by the request; and, I\ C. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; and, . 0 D. The request is not in conflict with the ,.. Comprehensive Plan. , (2 ) In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority shall consider 04 the following, together with any otherl, relevant facts or circumstances : A. Relevant factors to be considered in det 'rmining whether ' a hardship exists include : I . Physical circumstances related to the • piece of property involved. , The existing lot pattern is irregular This is further complicated by steep slopes to the west. The steep slopes are heavily vegetated and are to remain as dedicated open space . , Given the slopes and the existing lot depth between Bryant Road and Hillshire Drive, there is only a three lot depth. This does not accommodate a typical design with a four lot depth, with a road serving the two inner rows of lots . , - if11 N •( o ^1r • n I S This slope m1 vegetation line splits the property tor 1111 development purposes . In the future, the lower portion of will access Bryant Road . The higher portion ( ubJect ,site ) will access Hillshire Drive . Given the density allowed and reasonable R-10 lot dimensions, this leaves the middle portion (6 lots, part of subject site ) of the site without street frontage. $` Within the code standards there are two options for providing street frontage for these middle lots, which consists of 6 new lots, plus Lots 1000 and 1100 . One option is two public cul-de-sacs or one looped public street off of Hillshire Drive . The second option is to provide flag lots with 25 feet of frontage for each of the middle lots . The first option is to develop a secondary public street system to serve the middle lots . This creates a hardship by adding considerable cost to functionally duplicate access from Hillshire with another public street or streets . This is an unnecessary and burdensome cost to access six to eight lots . (if It is noted that Lot 1000 already has a flag access to Hillshire Drive . It is only Parcels IIIB & C that need the frontage, but not necessarily for access, since each lot does not require 25 feet for its own access . It also creates double fronted lots for those already fronting on ' Hillshire Drive . This substantially increases the cost of each lot while reducing its market desirability. ` The second option is to create flag lots, each with 25 foot of frontage on Hillshire Drive . This is a hardship given the narrow width of the total frontage available along Hillshire Drive . An additional 150 feet of street fontage would be required , or a total of 150 feet would have to be taken from the five lots that have frontage . There is not 150 feet of additional street frontage available . The reduction of the frontage on the street-side lots creates an undesirable lot and access pattern. It would negatively impact the five street-side lots by • % reducing their frontage up to 25 feet . It would 4urther result in at least 6 curb cuts, even with shared driveways . lie Whether a reasonable Use similar to like properties can ;;:be made of the property without the variance . Reasonable use of like properties must include conoiderotion of topography, ity. Strict; compliance wihs��the� frontage anrequiroment would result in a 1111 12 0- I , - * / loss of quality or quantity of lots otherwise allowed by the ID ,. land area . This is an unreasonable hardship when safe and convenient access can be provided as designed. iii . Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance . The hardship results from the code standard as applied to this particular lot shape and size . It was not created by the applicant . iv. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request ' is denied. The economic impact on the applicant, if denied, would be a substantial loss in income from fewer lots; or substantial increased costs of duplicating streets to provide frontage; or loss in income from less desireable lots; or a % combination of these factors . B. Relevant factors to be considered in ' determining whether development consistent 7 with the request is injurious include : i. An analysis of the physical impacts such ' development will have, such as visual, 0 . noise, traffic and the increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide. hazards. The proposed lots will be similar to those that exist in the neighborhood. The site is below grade from Hilishire Drive and the lots fronting on its east right-of-way line . Visual impac+.;s would be related to the number of lots and/or the . number of driveways accessing Hilishire Drive . Noise : impacts will not be substantially effected by the lot 1pattern. Traffic impacts will be reduced with fewer curb cuts . Drainage impacts will be reduced by less paved q . streets and, more pervious surface . ii . The perceptions of residents and owners i of property in the neighborhood concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance . , The perceptions of neighbors are not known. They will,, , • however, have opportunity to comment on the proposed , development : Although, there were no objections raised during the review and approval of the prior partition . r / . i II ' 1 7 ALA Al A i • y w I� 1. ; • • m C. A determination of wh<;;ther the standards set forth in subsection (1) are satisfied 1111 necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests . The considerations listed in subsection ( 2) A and B are not intended to be an exclusive list of considerations. The considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's deliberations . 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 street frontage, even if less than 25 feet. The minimum frontage will be 15 feet. The applicant is served by an economically viable development with quality lots . The neighborhood is served by a quality lots and reduced access points on Hillshire Drive . D. Prior variances allowed in the neighborhood shall not be considered by the granting authority in reaching its decision. Does not apply. 20 .005 Sit e Circulation, Bikeways and Walkways: Neither Bryant Road nor Hilishire Drive are designated in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to have a public bikeway. This Section applies to major development so is not r-..~ applicable . LAR ACCESS f 57.020 Design Standard. At least 80% of the lots in a development subject to - , fty. LOC 57 01057•040 shall comply with one or more of the options in this section. In order to be included in the 80% requirement a lot must also comply with LOC 57 . 035 . 57 .025 Exemptions from Design Standard. 1 . Slopes . The site, or a portion of the site for which exemption is sought, is sloped 20% or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey Aft by a licensed professional land surveyor . 111, 14 rr , x -71 57 . 030 Adjustments to Design Standards . l .a. The portion of the site for which the exemption is sought has a natural grade than is sloped 10% or mare and is oriented greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south based on a topographic ,, ,, survey of the site by a professional land r, surveyor . l.c. Existing road patterns must be continued through the site or must terminate on-site to comply with 9 applicable road standards, future streets plan, or public road plans in a way that prevents given ,- streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access . 1.d. An existing public easement of right-of-way prevents given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access . Ari exemption is sought from compliance with the solar design standards for the following reasons : The' subject property lies between Hillshirc Drive and Bryant II1 Road. Both streets are aligned in a north/south direction. The proposed lots will access from Hillshire Drive resulting ® in frontages facing east . This prevents solar orientation Consistent with the basic design standard . Further, the property slopes to tho west and the lots are nearly 90 degrees west of true south. See topographic mapping for slopes . Compliance could be satisfied through the Performance Option, Section 57 . 020 3 . , if necessary. Condi0ohs attached to the prior partitioning required compliance through the performance options . 1 C 11 c1� r r," '-r'-"N i''''''-'N 010Ma M/ 0•04110d Nbld J. F%d'1 ,S-O� ,�,et u M. 1.y '" e,um W7 r+tu0 r MI NN10M�•Mf G 1 swv44anwMln•0010•001004ae- •pM Z00.8it'a+u�W V Mj n ddW SN011ilddd dONIW b o ' 7rn'ONmsNloHI VHdl, / 66 Nvr:oro ariC Aiw«.ww N ( u !I06 NO 10 AYu'tq 3O V EJbJ.L 2EHHS11II Y h memo) •-\ SNOWThVd 0661. , rf 1 ri _J AT /•W 4 in / I } NCI'' rill . lilt/ I '" a '' . /. I f - I ItI I I I\ ..-: i ... • '-,-) i / ///° 1 / //// / 1 1 f ‘ ' p ;I I \ 1 " ' / �th Y u l a) Qo ,•�E MI4 • / ) j i d% ;eel I 1 x r. C. 3/ it / / if) V • , ..7..iF,/1 (t ,wuare•UvoN3d 7 / • c;I r....v" , T/2' i • • ^usc I ---". ,tC;,: '' 1 Vn �/ ur—: 0 \ k,�; Mich( "' ,'' ," , e I ' `ac • ,I • LT}" ( ' \ \ : ; IIIL " / I ¢: a I' : rzr, -.(''. i : � f II/J rh f ! I C� � � _ � I / si� W , ! Wuxi i -}��� ��� + '' Ity 4 � , I tgHJ, � ,� , 1JI ►y ,` b I 1S tE__---'--• iaa • , ,, \ 77 ,,, . 1 \ t ., f 1 JI., / /���./mot 1 ^ 1 �71 �vot kO MI MIA* IV V Id /�iI�I�1 1 V IAI.Mt)DIVO 0411110.11 lteV M.L+s a,.n.w1.,1ou, NMOHS 'In ot&M/1•.>•Wilvo.4,U,M•o..,..a.1 AU Torn oNpNyd dt/W SNOIIII8 /d dONIW a $ **Mt•ONIIgANIONA VH491/ 06 NVr nn0 air-AOwwiwtl -°� (� u� OS Nvr'oc air-''AS UM.,a , 30\E1 131 QII-'1S1 1IH e = g , s—_, ',.... SNOIlIlEf`dd 0661 / -. t tk, tor* ... on Is 1 ° 0 Mil o?..,* . en / ir- ..:. ,.,,x„ . , Li in � �� \ \• 11114 • ,,,.. /it !4 TVOlwdAAeS., o i d/ / / \ \ i \\ /111/1 / 1 /1// 1 \ DV.% I I ' III //// / • /1/ ,. P 11\k/ . 10 IA:/(( i A( / I/ I k 1 //fif///i \ . / /9 11( 1 / ( :4%\ _ . A , CC l'i: / lll//, , ,1i; I( t) ,(N. oo�fJ ( a ,. c,, I ( ,... r iii4 , r. , ,, ! , .� + f (\ a / '1ITW I 4 06 / 1 \‘c, ii.41 (.. .,, W..15 OAd.910 JI J t I _(. I ( S90PObE� I a. . j I ` AN M , . ...." I I I , \ 1 , i 1 i . •/ e ■1 r J14 I j. . ,/11- I ; ►t / , , . I PROPS- ' :'1. / , / , Y W 'sue —', s I �, � / I �' I /Pi I ' I ( I ) t °+ I i , A / 11 , d 5 i e ' /11 0 9 a I #. • • al 1 o r , . » intrwrir+ «rralmrl 006 9£09'ZOO'009 '004 9109 XVI ��� UM4.77illd BNr11YD1 3 w.IWf i dlli iWlrMiM iaw, .e• �., NV-Id 133a»LS dN'd a ' NNW/v.count nwrNw•gwrnvn ntl ibbT� 'iNtwla,d •- ._'ONI'DNIM3HNIDNH VHrnY-7 se♦m ma —air AB W«wwtl N1L .L1Vd .LO'1 3.VWllin " srcvR:ina —ar—AB�.q I , i . ,rn „i Aaa,biiq ��d2��131 ��J)HS�`11N M n«,s f \\ cM • inA„1io• coos,blUh qrt nay \ Jrr Isom mints„ 4I'i a tc !! 1I1 y • r._I �- i li .1. �� \\ \ 11\--r • 1 1 I •• .. .. rd: : • 1 { 1 • . I ( I .\ i , , • `� 1 I. 1II1 1 III IIII " ll/1A//// �/l1 / i/ /,fir 1,EL" `� - tr �// III/ / ���/// I / / 1 0 , -4\j • ` �.e. ' ►III //�fy/// //I��l/��/// ,/ 1 / I I �'w �� Y � r 1 A 1 0r,, // ///////i l/ // / 1 I I 1 1` iB, m I�1 : III ( ' 0 / .. — i �� ..1 1 II- 4 i. I .1I IIIII//4 ill/ PO/ I /,/ / •r0I - \8i �1��» u (•� ' ,1I rl I 1 r";I rll� ' /II///M/ /%�/ / ,I J// i1 J /�/ / /))/ a I 'd �y 'k w e , i / 13 1 1 1/ 1�I //I �4l/////, f// ii I I 1 I 1V�\�,mP4 'f'N'outmAmovON • d rS i .9 �` �� '' }I��llllli��II I�� / �Ij_; ,.1� ,� �mr= ( ��� ���, �� , . Y Irllrli I l . 1 .�, ) t I c tI I 1, I /1.91/1//11,4‘.11 Ill / IFr ~t` "�:Jr)1 2></ / ` / • • r i 1 iiYn'I/I/''l.'`(I//II I11// II 1 if. •,� ,. IlY/ /�.I ' , I ''"..`.� �. 1"' 1I ,;111IIiII ' 1 I ' //� / , ' i,/:".......,i "��I`'1 . 404r l rI ,,, I III 1>—I 1 ,'r i I /r_ \ '.-.)1() I I` I' I / I 1J,4 ' f,,r llrl 1 I 1 ! 1 ‘ I,A✓'✓//1. / /J \ \l / I I t 4l1 / $q 'I', II111I1 I 11r o ‘. \ I1i. , j' f ' I I I I ! , .!, I i 1 ;,f w / / ' ' �' , , I I1'Itkd I I I I I ( % . ,■r 1,y' ,, , i 11 / I v I7♦`" BW 00 COURT H�•lilt; 1 :. (�;� k• III I j nip ", �� l 1r l 'I �17 ~,._ 4, 11 7 I I f / i / �- 1 "1i . 1 1Iide11i I I i 1 i,d.il Y I ! 1 \,, '; I 1 =t. �%1 y/1 -.i 1, � " • I 1i 1 I a ., , iiifr�.11d4 V5SI�3W L �'' 1 .1:w 1 �d�I{ / I q▪ �'' I )oo�.! o —._ _.--� ,I,p ' I" ,� <''' 1 I' I • • ' 1 . It :.!III ? 'I' /'/ ///i1 IyI ., ,¢�3 'I I ,1 ,1,, ,/ i011r","+II /II ' 1 I i . t 14 ib°`.4 1"^ 4 ' ' 1 1 '' 1 , F jlbl L'y f' I I ' I t I / 410 4. . el i „9,�; I I yy11A • I I 1',A 4 11'I d (p i Y. rr.4p, I di `t r I , 00: Opic t� Fey"" I ,. t b ' 1 IliiLi 0 I � } I/� to I N® II , I O J� 0 or 7• I 4 I '°. ', VVi , } • . .. • ' , ' ' ••M, • ' d ' V . . P. 006 9 609'Z09'000'00G. S101 XVl 1_IA'I , um .1 Wf W11 Y/U7Q M1041v7 ..' —.00'T VMS V ... ,. ....o.n. ..•w... 'ndr 04 Nb''ld �ll1-111f1 r 'TI'ON11[D3NtDH7 dHdlY ppJ"nn0 ":4i''•Aao'-' ' N2I311dd 101 31VWIl'1f1 ° B 8 *i'` , 1 3," 30VLI�l313ZIIHS11IH d—I .. ' r. \ I \ \ 71;4) ' ._- \ .--- Al 1 \ ° �\ \\ : . ' ' . a1/ ' T'N . \ • 4j/1/ l i iiii r///%///// ,10// I// ' l 6,14/�/ r / /0 /I• ////// 1/ /l �` 1 '1\`, \ - I l //l 1 / / l ;gat, „ "'- A lll'/7 ' ,,. ,i //i // ' '� � / 1 ) I sI / > /Nl , ///// //// b / \ ' \/ l l/iir � 1� I I ' 11 ./ .6", . -////////////1' 11I; I I' I 0 ` r—/ I. / I I lIllll 4I , / I i L, 1 -- / 1 1 )3 ` ,/ 41111 ' / 4. I l! / 1 oI // / Z/ I it �i i I ! / l 1 / 1 f I IIIIn ��� rill � , , ,, , , z -,- 11111111/III1/"i • , /"/r i / II I1 ! I � I Ii' �III11 sIli /� , I IIIIII ' [1, 1 / / (,a\ I1 ; ' I 1'/1'milli '1 I I_I / i// '� � I 1Illll I �_ I II(��q � 1. 1II , I I a I l ��I I �� -- I 1 ' 'I I , I I � � I m fI( IiII I I I \ I .. --. I I I I I I I ! l I •� e I 1 1 11 „ j`�----. _ `-- ~1� I ll I I I I �. cal t f COURTI Ii I I I �211 � 1 t I / I r ill( � � I °'' _--`1 I IIIJ1pIII)I" I I I I I - I I y `.� 1 v v v` I " • 3+�0 rssn 1 #' t' 1� a ' '''ll; / I I I it I I i 1 I ryt I1..i1 if ....\......,.3„.......y....r" 1 1 , f1 '"1" . , 111 I I I I I � V ' ry � �-,_ I 1 Kr • `tto,\;'111 III I /, '1 • 111 ``` �1 1 I I 0wa4 ,I, '\1 i \ ..� I1 ',II'I ' ' p , %1 ,z) k!.i ,, \ \ ‘t, �I i I i II) I I hh�_ A - - •, t r , e • e —� e — au,lanr, en 1YIlotl F.Mr- '06 9 WO'ZO8'OOe'001, Sl0'1 XVl •� '' f•—'1 MO M1u1110 001111001 4 y 011104 0nM WWI M/0411 bC•J•Zami 'Pin d ' Nu 13 Sti Fi'aa nNad S314aad AVM3n1aa Y�� V - (W[ �bWR•tgW111MnA1N10.0ryY1'MDa O g a , 'Dart•01.4I1133N1ON3 VHd7V t••i'r Nee .r .IBp1MgAru . Na311Vd 10'I 31VWll1fl 0 ttwr 0.0 R„ AeU.S/a 1.30Vt:1831 3UIFIS11IH11 p�` / 'tsi�..1Mo wrL -I9 WIAI� ` / L '.1 111ws) S g e. L . .. , II r, sa., "---...s4"L..........., kl. v 1:."j 1.0 St 2Y Q --17P oL.O i` Q i. . oics1 e > o'ul �`��� v IVrungaaTt9 bs1.o 1 j Moaev AVVIn1ba Oro ly35z-o 9 E•ou t ! I I a , • `` _.J ! 0D 4 . . s • 2. : j _ n•,qL+0 A >- x or ___I Te l'o, • r - , '. I40)I4V ar`49.)fitZ40 i — ,Q �I Ca � o! , "rN'wu0AttavO d i M :aus Ip oa�ruJ dvy 09, 5� a701-r. 1.,, it L"611 1 0 h�uv iw sa a 2 $.b2.o I 0 tiZ.... _ u,ax� O. 1 I I Wt ^P771• • �I y r r1 �1 I I C]aulo I 1�♦� I w a ' 1 r O I 1 iWI *••. .e r 7 1 I • __` 1' 1, p ,V 1 n ac aal I" iN LA.G z , 1,1 i & 1 131 1 I+ p 4.VI I I r ' ,s1g- ?1e i d. ,t(ra79C1). ,., I 1 4 g! 1n.aO.r dil H 10 'may ! i- I r ' i •,,e_FLI LL tan ar1Ld" h I ' L) Y 1 .11 'd is r N n rig V • , • an.l 61.1 o Ca j u U U .. e1: L7'p? .. XC7I y O Gr - i ..�.. .. a..�..a,.,_. 'L,r.. ra _...�.. , ._. - �' Y (I n.,uwU _J ! Pt..4r1rN f x.t:. . _— . P 4 Y.IAVNJMaa G4•.7 ui ... '2 ne ot.o - " - ' I -•tS A.-.`7,r AA,7(r.ry ' 14 4 1 1 V t 0 A t II 4•, Y • �I ` , 1 '1 I _ r .. • • " . .1 Al•'t1 V/ ' . • ' i.I 4 ♦ . e.. _ '}. . , - • • • i \ ,` N r 1 , *Uri 0.111)NAOO MI OW, .09•.t• WS ib 1rMin,nn•smaen iwi+mi,m•vnnNo,n tie-spa nr OA t�«ela 9 NAl1d0 gip•9N/N87NIDN3 YHd1Y% !Y'S"Nig -arm ApoiMwaid SS3Jb° A.I.I�3dA�d �.N3J3('Q�d �' .. ' War itW —0 i—AgU.Pla 33b�1a31 3L�IHST1IH 2 a .i ar..gep"Mr Ag oiuotW `^ 1 t` . .. I § , \s, 4 Y. L. 41 pp siQt f_ WQQQQ \ . 4. ` i. I1 � �` II � I I - 0 r 1111 I i' , p.I, , / ,I , 1 , tt1 U weussA_DoGwE '- i I I 11 11? I `� I a +' 1 1 I I' ll t I �� II I o t w I 1' 11 i 1 1 a1 , I \ I ,Q • III 1 I I t�.- -� I r'r�'out oAl�.rn� � I I\ 11\\ \y �1 • /1 ;\ \ I �t I I \ �I \\ � / //1 1 I I I I I( 11\" �� �� \ ',, / I1\N i J I1€ l i t \\ I � ,� r I I ( l (1' I I ` � \ \1...i 1, . .� a i 1 \ i ; . \ _ G `� 1 I ,I I I i\ . �I I 10 t I I li� \\ ti II \ ! 01 i i \ A. �� �t03 1 1 I I Y y s ,� \ + } t ti rt i fl! . ,, t tl ' ' I t \ I, — . \I . +, c Y t 6 r a • , bi ' ± , , . A ' , �r, } J? , 1 • ,,i,„ , ., • '.' .. �.p�•ta h {y y { ' , as 11M1,w,o Ilnu„u.CII .00•J ems V. NoI S I 1 Ntl 338-111 ow 13MOM N a Ow,•n,1.NL+rr,111UO,MM•OMWMIMI , SS3�i1 .l.La3dO id 1N3�3f`Od , •ONI'9NIUD8NIUN8 YNd'itl 6r. Ma 0,-Arrwr Aimoutais 0.00 p p . u�aa �,a —ate-Ae�w.a 30V82�31 3eJIHS-I IH b Isar ma—Mr'Au Wuh1 A "s 8 .^ 2 4 R i 3 = 3 LI 18 . z SC POI I `k. i � Ct ' Ny.xsn.v,ro rwa \ 1 0 l rr.rl { 2 tJ •1di. \\[.. „..... J I ` \\ I a L 1, $ � ' ' III ).) ,) if , 1` � j III I I I � � � i,. O. �. � s � s 1 DRIVE 1 It 1 I I I I /I I 1 ` A `� I ` ---%'� - II II I I ' 11 I F i I �, µ II I I ; 1I i �p,c� '' ,,,� g LI \\\� � r1��it• % ��`11� i 1� I $� ) f �� ,f .. 1 ,11 t� 1 C�1 I ) oral g • 111 1 I ^I` I I 1 • I I 11 X N 1 OYOS ANYAyp ! '"'O �I I II I I I, 1 IIj IV 1` ` `o ' . a•I ".:11"1,1406,\ ,,,0 4 r , ,,� 1 ` 1 1 1 \ I 1 1 \ I .1, 1 ilvi1 1 ; , 1 ! . ,' CO 1 I , 0- i 1 r' 1 i a , \ I 'I , I 1 I 1\ '•t �+ ti 1 ) • I 1 1 I .1 I I - i ` ,, \ 'r'N'ouuoAlf G d, . k. \,...... • ... <I ft t 41MUM ors.,,,.. .�- - ' I 03 1 „ 4 • .0 „_.._�•• P .. I i 1 i\ Ir ' • '• : . \ i 1 i 1� ^�� A -:r •,� 1• C :r \ 1 14 % \ q$:v „ • .' • }I u r I•I 1. , • 1 1 v . -Y. , + y,, , +, r • • • • BIT • • ,O (3fZ%) JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING SOILS-CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 (5031 774.0077 • , April 10, 1987 OTAK, Inc. • . 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF SUBDIVISION BETWEEN HILLSHIRE AND BRY_A,NT • The subdivision is located south of Westridge Drive between t;"� Hillshire Drive and Bryant Road. The west and northwest part is on a slope and the east and ahutheast part is very gently sloped. DOGAMI Bulletin 99, Geology and Geologic Hazards of Northwestern Clackamas County, shows only the moderate slope as a hazard. Much of 4 ;' F• the site is covered with Douglas fir trees of 1 to 2 feet in diameter. Many of these have sweeping trunks and curve in various directions. • However, there are a number of old stumps several feet across that • suggest that the ground has been stable for a century or more. Three boreholes were made as shown on the attached Exploration Sketch. Borehole Ikl was in about the middle of Lot 2.: ' '' , . : • 0 to 4' Brown silt with soft, greenish gray stones 4 to 5' Decomposed rocks in brown, red, yellow colors 5 to 51/2' Brown and dark yellowish brown silt 5/ to 61/2' Brown silt with sort, greenish gray stones 6/ to 7/' Mottled yellowish brown, dark strong brown colors yellowish brown and 71/2 to 8/' Very dark gray soft rocks with dark yellowish brown silt • 8/ to 9/' Strong brown decomposed rock 9/ to 10' Dusky red silt and dusky red stones. This hole had to be chopped with a heavy blade all the way, as the auger got hung up on stones. Borehole 12 was outside the sibdiviion centered along the west line. 0 to 4' Pale brown soft rock This was not able to be augered and had to be chopped all the way. At 41 depth progress was very slow. Borehole Ik3 was in the northwest corner of Lot 12. ��' --. • 0 to 6' Brown silt and pale brown soft rock. This hole likewise could not be augered and progress was veryi• 'slow at 6' depth. , , • jl, 1 •.M ,, 5' 1 .: '' • . y ' • • • .. 1 /v L• 1 . ' DOGAMI Bulletin 99 indicates on its maps that this site is . ID . . . underlain by Columbia River Basalt. The soil sequence at Borehole #1 is very different from the other boreholes in being layered. The layers could come from ancient landslides or there could have been a series of ashfalls from recent volcanoes associated with Cooks Butte. In any event these things happened at least a million years ago, as the materials appear to have weathered in place and to be ' all of a similar degree of decomposition. Landslides that are of recent geologic age seem to have hard rocks and weathered rocks . mixed together. ' My opinion is that because of the firmness of the soils there is no hazard of landslide on the site. There is no groundwater to at least ten feet of depth and no springs were noticed farther down ,. I the slopes. The sweeping and curving trunks on the trees is apparently due to damage while they were young rather than to recent soil movement. At the same time, excavation with standard construction machines should be able to be done, as the rock is not hard enough to require blasting. Very truly yours, • • ..t PROFF K:11/fe alPhaPl ae //te�rr1 f 7 1 7NL. ..- 1JS"' • O .11 i. y 'rl • , ,,, . . ., ..,.... • , , ,, U.1 •c . , , , . • F' 1 :, Ail { W fa - r. k u + I • /------------ Borehole #1 "-------"A I\ / N 1 . I Bryant it Road Borehole ��2 , Scale: 1 200 40 .+ .. • • ,I / N Hillshire ,, • Drive 1 i 1 Borehole #3 y. EXPLORATION SKETCH • SUBDIVISION BETWEEN + HILLSHIRE AND BRYANT t April 10, 1987 a .` John McDonald Engineering • Update to the October 17, 1989 °> Memorandum (which updated the ,' ' August 19, 1989 memorandum) . ' a • Adopted by Council December 5, -•^ '` ,\ 1989. `1 MEMORANDUM / To: De velopment evelopment Review Board Members . Planning Commission Members /i EXHIBIT • From: Mayor and City Council II gP0) •,F Date: December 5, 1989 01. c AA4-' o Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity This memorandum is an update to the City Council's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial / determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17, ,a 1989, memorandum contained updated information and data received 4 by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on October 2, 1989. This memorandum contains updated information and data relating to voter approval V�1, ' of a $17,800,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities ,\I ' improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989. • As a result of recent determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential 0 development that there is a lack of elementary school capacity, the City Council has conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential development, in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197.505-197.540 . A pattern • of denials of residential development applications is defined by , . state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of the exclusion from that definition of actions "in accordance • • with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of the City Attorney, concluded that the exclusion is not applicable to the current situation. State law does not permit the adoption of a moratorium without the City first making the findings required by the statute. The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law ' to justify the need for a moratorium. �� � The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the / Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium ) , and yet the Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the , ' r required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity. It is 4 necessary to have consistency in decision making from application to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council. •' 1 r'A 1_ `j 4 ' + .t ' 1 • t r c • , 1 A ' j Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members December 5, 1989 41101 l` Page 2 These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precedent. These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set forth in Attachment No. 1 . • The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a A consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan • policies, with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts will change over time , so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular • ' basis, in coordination with the school district, and keep the Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when addressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that , if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development 4111 , ' application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be with us for the foreseeable future. The Council is committed to ' improve the current data exchange efforts between the District (43 and the City. ^'. The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving development i ' . approvals are aware of the current school capacity situation and understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if justified by the facts . The Council directs staff to develop appropriate language to be included in the approval orders, to be reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish this purpose. Attachment No. 1 provides the factual findings of the Council with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these interpretations are based. Attachment No. 2 is a listing of the factual information relied upon to support those findings. Attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies. The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great c , concern for the community as a whole , 4111 • Atty/Correspond-7 1 , 1 Attachments 1-3 , , r 4 • ,• • �, ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FACTUAL FINDINGS ( 12-5-89) The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact of development on the ability of the District to meet its legal obligations to educate the children of the District. A significant portion of the School District lies outside the city limits and the City has no control over the impacts of growth occurring outside its boundaries. The City has received no communication from other jurisdictions served by the District that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due , a . to school capacityr` problems. The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary School population has been reduced for the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1, 1989 was 651 ' students . Enrollment as of October 2, 1989 is 530 'a students . 2. The District has short term plans in place that address ID the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . ,, By implementing these plans , the District stated it will continue to provide an educational experience to its students that meets District standards. 3. Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3,726 elementary students . 4 . The District as of October 2, 1989, had an elementary • school enrollment of 3 , 157 students. Based on maximum capacity and current projections, on October 1 , 1989 the District by implementing the short term plan will have unused capacity system wide that Will accommodate 578 additiona], elementary students . 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity in addition to the 578 seats to bo made available through the short term plan. These long term plans include an additional elementary school and remodeling existing r facilities. 6 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 726 students , assuming a continuation of the current rate of growth, will accommodate new students into the 1991-92 school year. (' •4 :(• ' 7 tl , Attachment No. 1 December 5, 1989 Page 2 • 7. The earliest completion date for the new school authorized by thel `Fovember, 1989 bond facility election is Fall, 1991 . T! 6remodeling of existing facilities, to be funded by t}ie'bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students. . 8. The District as a practice does not construct facilities io anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet a .• current demand at completion and not stand empty or be ' underutilized. Ana " 9.,- The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student counts. Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer p program factors are made if warranted. The 4110 ' District 's projections in the last 2 years have been quite accurate. The physical counting of children in It, the district on a regular basis, as the data base for projections, does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning ji development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth in)" school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is notes • a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school population and those 2 factors that will assist the District in • making short term student projections. Other factors such as market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon economy and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes also affect the number of new children in the District 's population. Based upon the present level of sophistication of o the City and District planning processes, it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty how soon after approval children from new residential developments will enter the school system. ` s /P . r • Attachment No. 1 December 5, 1989 w Page 3 � (C.... The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base _ by an approximate 2 :1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542,310. The new tax base is $29,975,000. The new tax base contains levy authorization above that levied by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to fund growth and staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the November, 1989 bond issue. This comm%,.aty has a solid history of . support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demands 'generated by growth. During the middle 1980's , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students. The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. y Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was 41110 delayed. The growth was anticipated but the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the provision of� thb District 's solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts, enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197.520.r The District has the responsibility under state law to educate ' 1 the children of the District. The Council views the District as an expert in, educational matters. The Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards. Atty/Correspond-7 IP ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ( 12-05-89) 1. Bill Korach, Lake C; eq o School ,District Elementary Enrollment August; V 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: • Building permits by year, single-family, graph (1 - Building permits by year, multi-family, graph - Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989 - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 3. Class size and public policy: Politics and Panaceas, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education • 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11, 1979 5. Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, July 31, 1989 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5, 1989, with attachments 7 . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting, July 31 , 1989 e', 44 , 8. Proceedings of City Council meeting, August 8, 1989 9. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development, dated August 8, 1989 10. Handouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent a. Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, service level, and short and long term solutions 11 . Lake Oswego School District: The pacts, submitted by Nick Bunick 0 12 . Transcript excerpt from August 7, 1989 Development Review Board meeting (tape including excerpt also submitted) • • Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 4111 Page 2 13. Enrollment graph showing actual enr011ment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14 . Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24 , 1989 16. Letter 'from Jae Rieg datGd August 3, 1989 .ruG 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989 18. Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom' Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, Chamber members, dated July 28, 1989 19. Letter.*,' from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20, 1989 A 20. Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8, 1989 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989 . 4 22. Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5, 1989 23. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, dated August 6 , 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25. Letter from Lynora Saunders, Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 26. Letter from D.R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989 27. Letter from Judith D. Umaki, dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles Hales, Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs , Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14 , 1989 29. Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated August 13 , 1989 30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14, 1989 31 . Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 14 , 1989 32. Carol Webb letter, dated August 14, 1989 w • Attachment No. 2 ' 0 December 5, 1989 Page 3 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 . A 34 . Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14, 1989 38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989 ' 39. Robert+ S. Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13, 1989 40. Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13, 1989 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14, 1989 42. Toni Smith letter, dated August 13, 1989, including attached newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach's memorandum dated July 5, 1989 c. 43 . Deborah B. Feldsee letter, dated August g 14, 1989 44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989 45. Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14 , 1989 46. Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989 47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11, 1989 48. Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989 4'9. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10, 1989 50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11, 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14, 1989 52. Richard M . Bullock letter, dated August 11, 1989 53. Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 54. William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 II55. Marci Nemhauser letter, dated August 10, 1989 56. Charles A. Mansfield letter, dated August 10, 1989 ( i • , iy ` Attachment No. 2 December 5, 1989 Page 44110 57. tarry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 58. Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989 59. Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989 60. Karen Griffin, League of Women° Voters letter, dated June 20, 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13, 1989 62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, 1989 63. Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14, 1989 64. Letter from Patrick F. Stone, dated August 11, 1989 65. %:gip of City and District boundaries 66. Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted by Erin OdRourke-M.eadors 67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers: How is the School 1111 District Coping with Growth. " [Presented to City Council at JSint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2, 1989. ] 68. Bond issue information, November 1989, prepared by Lake Oswego school District. 69. Election results, November 7, 1989, Lake Oswego School District 1989 Facilities. Improvement Bond. it Atty/Correspond-7 • • • ' J t • M • ATTACHMENT NO. 3 0 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS (12-05-89) n In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearings considering specific land use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by Y those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have also been raised. Before statin-4 the Council 's interpretation of those policies, it is necessary to restate the rational for the City's interpretation-that the General Policies of the Plan are • the regulatory language of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdiction to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals. A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as: " (A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that IIII interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs . 'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of governments , semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. 'Land ' includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. " At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in nature , is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines are: i " (S)uggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation of plans, programs and regulations in compliance with goals . III Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies , cities, counties and special districts to a single approach . " v 1;0 • Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 2 The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the following way, "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are short statements of the purpose of the policies, General Policies, which are major methods of achieving objectives, Specific Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General Policies, . . . . " l/ There are also strategies for carrying out the plan found in Volume II, which is the background information and supporting documentation for the plan. The language has historically been applied as follows: The general policies of the plan are the portions which are "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application, must conclude that the applicable general policies of the comprehensive plan have been followed. Each land use decision must identify and explain why the requirements of the applicable 1111 general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general policy the hearing body will be guided in its decision making by the specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element. In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory weight as are the general policies then each provision of a specific policy will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an application or project to be approved. There is no provision for the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of the Plan. When an application or project colnforn(a to the general policy, but perhaps hot to the letter of a subsection of one of, the specific policies fo,r the general policy, the application or project as a whole ;rust be denied if the specific policies are construed to be regulatory in nature. All regulatory standards must be complied with in order for an application to be approved. a a b • Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 3 • The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the • specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point. This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level effort and scrutiny that went into the original plan development. Each of the applicable General Plan Policies will be discussed below. No General Policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies become applicable in the review of a development application. 1. Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3: The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered. " • This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such that the, planned densities do not result in land uses that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available or planned. This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan map densities and is not applicable in the development review stage. The appropriateness of the plan map designation or zone designation on a given site is not an issue in a hearing on a development application. • Attachment No. 3 December 5, 1989 Page 41110 2. Impact Management 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 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information,, on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review. " This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capacity in the development review process. This policy requires that a detailed review of projects take place and it directs that the City seek capacity information from the District. The development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the • School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity information. The July 5, 1989 report from the District and the July 31, 1989 and the October 3, 1989 joint meetings are examples of this 1111 coordination and "encouragement" . Because of the variety of factors that impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict with a great degree of accuracy school populations beyond the coming year. it is equally uncertain and .11 unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population. However, once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it becomes reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in the near time frame (3-6 months) . By monitoring actual school Populations and outstanding building permits, forecasting over 3- 6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of reliability. If this coordination results in the development of data which supports the findings required by the state moratorium statute to establish a capacity shortage, a moratorium on building permits can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow of new students to the district. 3. Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate public services and facilities. 1111 . .......... r t 1. w Attachment No. 3 • lip December 5, 1989 Page 5 Specific Policy 3: Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of public services except in instances where ' the developer pays all costs of providing additional required capacity, subject to City Council approval.' The General Policy requires that City to plan and program for the provision of adequate facilities. This City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the city to plan facilities for the school. Through the \ nactment of the moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on all case by case basis due to a lack of school capacity. The moral rium statute is available to temporarily prohibit on a system wide basis land uses which exceeded the capacity of thelschools. 4. Urban Service Boundary General Poli4y III r The City will manage andphase urban Services Boundar growth within the Urban y, with a logical planned extension of basic • services: To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services Boundary as follows: (1) Lands suitable for near future development (IMMEDIATE GROWTH) (2) Lands in long range growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4: New development shall be served by an urban level of services of the following: n a. Water b. Sanitary sewer c. Adequate streets, including collectors d. Transportation facilities • e. Open space and trails, as per Open Share Element f. City policy protection g. City fire protection - • h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks and Recreation Element • '; • �� '. Attachment No. 3 4111 December 5, 1989 Page 6 i. Adequate drainage j . Schools 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 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. " The Urbc:.1 Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define' the future growth area for which it intends to he the major provider of public services. Within the ultimate - growth area, General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizable areas. The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. • Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of the General Policy. • The Specific Policy almost seems misplaced, • and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above, • which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is • notable that the specific policies for that General Policy do not require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in Specific Policy 4. The_, most relevant language of this General Policy to the issue at .most ,hf ,o is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a DiDoyical planned" extension of "basic" services. The School strict is logically plannin to demands generated by growth. g provide new facilities to serve , The District, like school districts in general, provides facilities in response to demand--not in anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of Land • Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and identifies schools , along with police and fire services , as "responsive" facilities. The Director draws a distinction fo planning purposes, between these responsive facilities and r transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities which in her words "must attend, rather than follow or respond to, construction. " • IIII . :, • . , n G • VS k • 44 Attachment No. 3 10 December 5, 1989 , Page 7 ^ e Specific Policy 4, on the other hen , directs that schools be available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If that has not occurred, the Specific Policy states that schools ,nr may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the • development. " The Specific Policy contradicts the language of its General Policy in that it is illogical, and inconsistent with how schools function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this Specific Policy. A defacto moratorium resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. In summary, the three General Policies listed above which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a e specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth, coordinate with the School District on capacity issues, and evaluate applications and determine impacts. School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact the ,)school system is not precise. A quasi-judicial hearing on a single land use application is not the appropriate forum within $ which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity. There is not reliable data concerning future impacts that will result from a single application or the timing of those J impacts. The current level of coordination and planning, with continual monitoring of actual school population changes satisfy these policies. If it is determined that school capacity will be exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state ' moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities while the District implements programs to correct the problem. i i Atty/Correspond-7 , , ,, . 1/1 . , . . , , (., r, ?` ' :iP\ .r.:1 ' , ,'. '-. : . , J/ J t` 41 O �C Iy *.) • •: , • ... C ) j�� tit i!'y� 1 i <M•;t � t c,,'b�S" %/ '1A • 1`JJ;Y"i `�� r.�.r,� d}�itfy I. t ) t ,..... ..r, ,.:,, i . ' I N, Itill- • / + i� Vp.4 1 t� �I r • I \ 0 44 ...:,'.,..!':ii,"'1'''''[..:'i'.:'''''''''11.';;',1i.:. ';'.tis';',.'I'3' Alit . ( ,//,' . 1/ /t, r'.f alril ' .�• t� '. / , J MrV~ ' ..i ,^ / a ur jy •V Ir.'l I r / / /�Na11'�trt t of 'I i VV 6� ./,'. `�\ / ,:\. / ..... ' If ro \ , . . \ 1 I� y vt/ - / t ' ',"ci..''.',‘,V.,,'I'`4•!A. ''':7"111i-. ' • 1 - * ', Q ( 1, ) ',.'..;"9.,/,'1,''..1,3'in•-• 9 y• I Ir .;:, • , ,,,,.....20'•' Perce t . '/ ' , Y� 7 , ti';'?r ' ..+,r' EX sTINt RESIDENO ey •® SIR .(shaded), . y I , r,; )'n1hffFti• ,, ln;. lr• ."J .t. L i Or • til ikkie • • .i1' 1 • . ..-- •I / ((//'' ("1:•:0't'i'••Fi.s/', .,.,.4.2f.' ' ,,,,,r. ')/,'',- •'‘(,. :., ,.:2.- • r� ') •ok;SG t., A D DEQIDUO n• r-.1, , ,t..,.'Ytl. ;A /4., . I t I ,,,t Y 3n,vri`Ispy1i 4 `l ,, t°4 n 7 r' j �t. I• FM' ,�l I L )`l.:J •1'�iehr 14. fI I y� ;•s4 ,, 20_$ Percent 1, ;;r;2u t t tilt,. • M.,1'• :trs " Slope!(shaded G.:}u'. .%¢ , ( 1))1•Are ( nji �j V•r-ttf lk• i t;i N' 5t�'.I'N. 1 1 'on .-.� I cpg'rj 1 �� 1 t RYy�,ri I I I t ., I. ,,{ A4=1120 Percent I ; Sherwc �t I Slcpe (Unsnade ) / / 1 / • ' j'rt;Y i// qw4 , Pi AND N.,�pLE ' , C I (-------_,.• 1;1 k' - ' I. / ) \ \ / ) I i t�*.• X.' •yiy k44:/ `/ ! trc • wy, •.em• 0 .,..i.:4.I ;Pr' ';' 'f I ' • \ ,..,•.''';:t..'..'' . P4104 ii. • " 1 N t' i �� , y yl,;, \ i' G'' f , � , ., - I .;' .{.t 1.. tn. EXHIBIT . 40 i. t 12 . ta"q¢,1 SITE ANALYSIS 4 b f ( 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • CITY MANACER'S OFFICE .MEMt RAANDUNi v. EXHIBIT TO: PlanningStaf f and 1/2 City Attorney's Office .-.-N�.... „ FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager . n SUBJECT: Interpretation of Minor Changeg to Variation of 25' Street Frontage Requirement (LOC 49.500(1)(l )) DATE: March 28, 1990 ' A request has,been received for an interpretation of the language "minor change" in LOC 49.500(1),as it pertains to the 25' street frontage requirement. That,section further states that the City Manager shall determine whether a request.is a Class or:Class.II variance. III . . The City Code (LOC 49.025) provides for the City Min. as er to interPret all • terms, provisions,and requirements, T46iie interpret ons may be appealed in accordance with s' 49.630. , For purposes of LOC 49.50v 1')(B an into' retation of the language, "minor change" needs to combine the wbr'dii of the introductoryr !� portion of 4..�,500(1) with the wording on the 25' street frontage requirement. This combination . , would result in a phrase as follows: A Class I variance is a minor change to vary the street frontage requirement.. 1( The next questtdh is, how much of a Variation is "minor," thereby, meeting the requirements for a Clare,I variance, and how much of a variation would exceed the "minor" change, thereby, becoming a Class II variance? S It would seem logical that a lot g should have sufficient frontage on a street to provide at least one vehicle travel lane and for emergency acess. On vehicle travel lane is 10 feet: Some additional distance on each side is needed. The width needed for the operation of fire department emergency equipment is 13.5', _,r It is therefore my determination that a variation from 25' to 13,5' of the street 11) frontage standard would be considered "minor change" and a Class I variance: and a variation to less than 13.5' would be a Class II variance. tcmo>plarnning.st.variance '' 380"A"AVENUE/POST OFFICE BOX 369/LAKE OSWEGO,OREC,ON 97034/(503)635.0215 > Cd r .