Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 1988-07-18
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD City Council Chambers, 380 'A' Avenue Monday, July 18, 1988 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL % III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS { V. PUBLIC HEARINGS o School District 7J for DR 11-88, a request by Lake Osweg approval to install two'portable classrooms on the Lake Grove { Elementary School blacktop. (Tax Lot 4 of Tax Map 2 LE 8BC)- request by Lake Oswego School District 7J for apDp g,toa installportable classrooms on the Uplands nds Elementary l two s Tax Lots 300, Elementary School blacktop. (Tax 2 lE 54). Chris A. Smith, DBA VAR 28-88, a request by Design 3-84(Mod. 88)/ royal of a minor modificatlocption planned Systems mefo approval regarding the approved f proposedoedoddwell (PD; also, the applicant is seeking approval a fa Class Erosion olStandard(DSn16.005-16.040)he side withpregardlon to and loe ControlLot 4800 of Tax Map 2 lE ' a allowed limits of cut and fill. (Tax 8DB) VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII, OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions, Et Order DR 9-88 - Donald E. Pollock SD 33-88/VA 25-88 - Rhoads DR 8-88 - Eugene Bryan/Decision Dynamics, Inc, (second vote) VIII. ADJOURNMENT 7025 • • • The Lake Oswego beV@lopment [review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda itefe§. Feel free to come and go as you please. DRB paembers: Staff: 0110 James A. Millet, Chair Karen Scott, Assist. City Mgr. , Kenneth Zinsli, Vice-Chair Planning and Development Robert H. Foster Robert Galante, Senior Planner Robert b. Greaves Hamid Pishvaie, Dev. Review Planner E. Daniel IngriM Ponta boWlin, Associate Planner Vern Mak'tindale Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner Edward Swillinger Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner Jana Heisler, Associate Planner Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Atty. Joyce Faltus, Secretary r• 762U f ' A • 1 404 STAFF REPORT ofe, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ------"LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : • Lib: School biric 7J, DR 11-88 James Schell, Assistant Superintendent .01 PROPERTY OWNER: sTAETt LA O. School District 7i Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 4 of July 8, 1988 Tax Map 2 IE BBC LOCATION: DATE OP HEARING: Lake GrbVe Elementary school July 18, 1988 15777 Bootle's Ferry Road ) COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: P (Public) R-7.5 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Lake GroVe APPLICANT18 REQUEST The applicant is reqUestihg approval to install a maximum of tWO portable OlaserooMs at the Lake drOVe Elemebtary School. I. APPLIdABLE REGULATIONS Ai City of Lake Oswege Comprehensive Plaft: - Social ResoUtte Policy Element General Polley VI - NatUral Resturce Policy Elemeht Quiet Envitohmeht Polities deneral Policy II 11-88 7027 Page 1 of 5 . ., q . B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: • LOC 48.195-48.225 R-7.5 Zone Designation LOC 48.730 Conditional Use Provisions C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: • LOC 49.300-49.320 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.610-49.620 Hearing Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2.020 - Building Design 5.020 - Street Lights • 6.020 - Transit System 7.020 - Parking & Loading Standard 8.020 - Park and Open Space 9.020 - Landscaping, Screening and Buffering , 10.020 - Fences 11.020 - Drainage Standard for Major Development •.'• 14.020 - Utility Standard 16.020 - Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.020 - Access Standard 19.020 - Site Circulation - Private Streets/ DriveWays 20.020 - Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways II. FINDINGS A. Background: 1. The underlying zone is R-7.5. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Public (P) . 3. The applicant is proposing to erect two 27' x 32' portable structures at the rear of an existing elementary school building. The structures Will be placed on an existing paved surface. No other changes are proposed. 4. Parking currently exists for 78 cars on the property. t. 5. The site is generally surrounded by offices and commercial uses; however, some single family residences exist to the north and West. DR 11-88 U Page 2 of 5 7028 5 • _ •r • 1, El, Compliance with Applicable Criteria: I. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan ' Plan Policies ill have been addressed by • the Planning Commission in their review of , CU 5-88. • 5 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinances: a. LOC 48.200(1) - Zone Description Institutional uses which include a school are listed as a conditional use within the R-7.5 zone. Zone requirements will have been considered by the Planning Commission in their review of CU 5-88. b. LOC 48.730 - Conditional Use Provisions ' Y A use that existed before December 16, 1982 . which is permitted only upon receiving a F conditional use permit under the terms of Chapter 48 is not a nonconforming use, but is without further action to be considered a conforming use. , . t ') The Lake Grove Elementary School existed prior to December 16, 1982. The underlying zone is R-7.5; and based on LOC 48.730, any modification to this use is reviewed under the City's existing Zoning Code and processed as a _ modification to a conditional use. The Planning Commission will have considered the application for a conditional use permit (CU 5-88) on July 11, 1988. . 3: City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinances: a. LOC 49.315 - Application Completeness .. The applicant has not submitted materials . i sufficient to judge compliance with the City's Building Design Standard. This concern is • addressed further in the following section of this report. 4: City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: i The Historic Preservation Standard, Stream corridor, Wetlands, Weak Foundation Soils and Flood Plain Standards do not apply to the DR 11-88 Page 3 of 5 7029 . project because those resources or natural • hazard designations do not exist on the property. Street lights meeting the Street Lights Standard already exist to serve the site. The Parking Standard is not applicable because parking for elementary schools is calculated on the basis of auditorium size or amount of seating in the assembly area. No change to the assembly area is proposed and 78 spaces currently exist to serve the facility. The application does not involve any changes to paving or grading, circulation, fences or utilities. The Site Circulation Standard, Access Standard, Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard, Fence Standard and r Utility Standard are not applicable. No . change to the amount of landscaping or open space is proposed. While the exact amount of. landscaping or open space is not shown, the • amount of area appears to far exceed the .J • amount required by City standards. The site . 1 is currently conforming in that regard. ' The requirements of the Drainage Standard do ' not apply because there will be no alteration in the drainage pattern and no increase in runoff as the portable structures will be • placed ort an already paved surface. The site , • is presently served by a dryWell. ' , The following remaining standards apply: a. Building Design (2.020) The applicant has illustrated that the two • portable structures will each mr'asure 27' x 32' and that they will be one story high with • a low pitched roof. The units are proposed to be sided with T-1-11 plywood siding with grooves to create the appearance of vertical siding. Fiberglass shingles are proposed for 1 roofing. One 46" x 37" sliding window is proposed on the same side of the structure as the entry door. Colors for the structure have not been specified. • . DR 11-88 Page 4 of 5 7030 ; i 4 - r. 4 tt„ The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 3) does not po,'. - properly address the Building Design Standard. +- IThe staff recommends that the Board not s ' further consider the application until the applicant provides support for their 6application, along with adequate evidence to �, judge the relationship of the school building , to the portables. The narrative should describe adjacent structures of good design, •^,0, describe the visual relationship to the • ,, structures and describe why the choice of size . ,, and materials is properly related to the school building. In creating the narrative, " � � the applicant will need to rely on the distance from any nearby residences, the screening created by the school structure ;i itself and the small size of the structures ; "}_ themselves which minimize the affect of the structures on the appearance of the school ' facility as a whole. b. Transit System (6.020) • 1 ,- 1.a The site is served by school bus and meets the °'� 6". • 4. requirements of the Transit Standard. Paved i' „, pathways exist on the site. In addition, a Tri-Met stop exists at the corner of Boones Ferry and Reese Roads. III. CONCLUSION • , :% The applicant has not yet demonstrated compliance with '', the applicable criteria. IV. RECOMMENDATION r ' The Board can continue the hearing to July 27, 1988 , • ' t� (Special Meeting) to allow the applicant to provide adequate support for the application. , - - Exhibits '" 1. Tax Map { 2. Vicinity Map A3. Applicant's Narrative 4, Site Plan ' 5. Building Specifications , ,ip 6. School Floor Plan , ' • 7. Structural Plans 8. Pictures of School and Portable Site 4 ' DR 11-88 ' ` ' Page 5 of 5 1031 r 9r.1 Ar! ' w , , lair ya.�. m s`_• ♦ tht r N d• ` M Y�%.4? 1 e1c a'J•,p • ki,o.....� ie.'Q "�¢ 1\9 ',. �3 P i, "'(N ' t N i,4 D ?p i I .y K• w.�hJ .; G5-i� .�o e. • "ems ♦ A`'po� ) t `� Q;, +- G ti J• r•.a i \,y_,`�y N7 1 any�J. �a�A6 Y� ; , , d 1 4r,v it > 1j�..� ! ti .ot. I q DI ') '' J :tL wf `` ••••bi• ♦ ....4., ! O ,o O oI L•\O n' . .0, hJ "S� !,• ••'e., iA y.:�P t'' ' °' L '� YJ ,•a9 ,.c•L9 4 tr :6. ..��t, 1':d.e� ..,y ern irNr r,.V.rn' A �.. •;.rr�. M crOp. •CI sn•r+..,vr•..Lo..y ik4a`. •'''\.� , 1: :; ••4 , o r� I r „ • ` f� b t///i// / Y• a / / ..r,,, . , • �I� M / y•it:y -0,. .F t •o I; OI P ' . •Y • \•re, 1 •a•• • - . / 1/ I /t +,' 'if •i;+' r r p • ••+� _��7y— • / / f t ill\ f t, 'Sri t ' i�—.1t17I ' '• 0 / ,/• .. r i ll to� • • • ,r1. . :,y . f0 ) s+ ..tit 1 Y l,`d,1 k, !' / , ' / Sr h �tl: T1 '1 11+1 l a -• •? 1. + .p . •♦ . S ,. S a,,`.�•!"tF+ C1(ti f ' a tP l l , W1. ' 1 + L7: ? • • 4 , p .iw • ,t>lr it 4 I r p r..� 1 ./ 4t r L•r L Si a . . , t i••• , I 4 (r 7+5 L. rT 1! !•i r• r•r.b • e P.1 t•i i • •1•s-S,a' • e' + /t ' , itT 11' ••♦1� u+ J} i • .•��' t. ♦</ h•,,i 4. - r . , % 7txttt � ;fit. i r 1 ttt.h 1 ,'' 0. 4,,. y S 1 • / r ,a r21Sj�. • tti'.yt iy1•SM•4 >t i t rt yt,:P 7 ' u i '' �" • • ?. $l' h t �rk5 ? l�yr71 t"' hr1• l+, ' P� l,}' , a a .C,�4 • ••♦✓ , /�... .�- t f a t. ;8 t + ,. 4� 1 w}' i 1 t p 'f ' ' •t• •liry.11 t`)471.i' 3 ,r ti 1 , t a 'v ,2 * r.' "Y •:• `�. % / - .4 r. fit,. .'PlOiw 1 tri 3•4 v!` ,. •.,t •••:: ..'i ,•,, L - t •`• fy,'. ' ...•rt' .0 t a±,." •F}t,,.,., •. /; ✓ L'Cl • tit }. ii4 1Q w�,..p r!' "i $ 1 1 lyt' + • t• t .' i Y / .r" , d '. .+Y �1 • f t .'1" r N . Y p ,. , 'o! t t ,,1.t ;P. i p . .ry , 1�..� ,4 , t t + a•1:4,, Q"i t,Sit j r 1 ':(43 It t°4•S7 007 •tl'?":• h.• t • P6... I• I ,•, 907,' it•O t ct'!'c w •� •P,t Isli,t�,•.. 4ti7 r} ,7,a P •tA.y �- • , - R •� ; ' • , t L, ° 8n+•sit•lit `ab t tt `T•�qt Ott 1 .it• $ •i� 1 • A:= r.1 N4c t � �' /4�,i• Y $u l�li, t,'i' th 1 4 e• 4 •.r •t• t ' 'in 'P ± 1 Ct: t �l,C .S 1.,:+ ,t ai i�4..•..1 �s .. . 1_ t .T '��t'y, �,1i'"M !•T 7h t j`nrr}t` :• 1-�, a t2`I't bsl.4 �. p p, '\I 1•1 '+r.,i 1-1~s Z 1 -�i F.t...A'., t ;�'F' vti', Q .t '• ! • - t� J'/,r;`M• , ti , • ' • /..,...•..., . I. ' ,.. w'••-7.7.---_---.-.. . ,„, : '1•111 / , , •••••• : g • • g ,'..,..(.4 • I:Tiftf ' •'L r'`E J rJ . . . i O. •' .423i iw..i •i••' I/ro. 'M°' rww �. �,H I;� \ t �•tohi ..• 1 • H.. NW .F .'top C S iil.c .1 "11 ee•iW ''- =_\• i'... ."`1 _ YC.I IV•• •••••el1•s.I&_ C g ,i. . I ,,i, qrw '4 / ism _ u01 . 8 i .. 8 , L♦Y. • x : . titht• " i•fi•" uwo 1 E . G roVe ;.act: .; , 11,11 = L C S' S : B i• • / '-3/'OC 1sl,s i C 1131.. • : : i C : . u d : . P,� 1'. '- E .S . .. . ttul i • ' COWLS WAY I _ -• • I • r • i WY au1. a0 J, • _ 8 nwl y 9. WC 01Pt • sys J;� '10. ♦ tun • X,f• 3 / 6 U.,I sot {INItN . ° k 'JO ' 11W/ Into CITAIK /� t° tut • •I'� • ' 1iNtiF' ," toss. ,Ito •„• .Ina a1f. luri•:..;at+ •into LCN001 /. • Lfuo �•r4•t• N• C L, ••,t'1 Cl.:.- Ho l«:Ilwr •, ••US SNOP / t i 1 V r E ..NL v'000 -��.SI-[ tr10 - - J/ ( : �r,l IIY1 • ,.,._,a• ".�IJ • �"• rtI rllty E i w�Irrl .1rN util i rf r.1 ,��t v E•Y:F host q♦,'L' _ - 1m�"ta•w11'ftw 14s 4,i, 5 Milo .•..._-. . ss•t 0 — _.. .. r1. OI 0.OR • '��/ i.,.:' •� lugl yt,/. t/h lfr,1 u o ♦♦♦t. y 9—' • •11•10' % ONKI • 4:GC ' l sss G i ern,no n.. /,'t -- 4 !A. I . •. 1• 'III! .t a wu. 8 tl •4 ••w• ' • (.11l ���JJ 'I• 5 •t Y _urt.....y ..1w.tY/ 4 ii t i 4 • .In• ti... ,,, Jb °4.so' .is0st• p.it O••°7 •.. sss'i .1 i .;, �.• 1". ••$ I 1n1••w• i Y,,4• • ,1sts` 1s,,4r h , J . b - I b. 1Y. 1. p i ' i"�1 1,. ,.04s \'',, • ••.l'. J s'++.y o. •45'•y. •f•Ev/.-1. Y•S �.,^•.1 . 0 / 0/ „0,. s;:: '.' •o 50' .JS Jb y=b $ • 1 4�Ye"4 ., �iT�y,(1..(� +'1. 5 .•✓'• N1, 14.0; "t D"/.5 •- uy/ 't, L �+{.•Y Rt -- '!.; { Jr'' t.{t,No ,, ►.,1 7' / b 'b . . ,,,,t': I,L7� s ' • `v •!• J vBsL f • �.° , is ° „ Yr Ty `• s r..+•.',t • :10.' • 7•. i '� r i1 • J/ /�a 1Ir1c b •• .. es .,' ./^b \ �Po:..,‘".A..., ° •+'.10 0 Ji Jb b • �. .,21.YE}sr �":" n / J i un• /•!' , t .... :•••• °" 11 t.• ;• •." Fat�1 ' ,nw_, Y, �i 9 -.:\F I*,‘.!.*Z5.,r')1,;7-0.' sae O s ,.b ��' ,' "�,.>. ��' � ' � '�; ., "•• d E X H I i I T+ ' r.,,. _4 �� � C * , s., t /I . f ,l i r ..•F 7 k,,,,:t..,,L.,,,e,,,,i.,, x.a{•J TO: Lake Oswego Development and Review Board FROM: Lake Oswego School District RE: Request for permit to install portable classroom(s) at Lake Grove School Exhibits: (1) Site map (2) Vicinity map (3) Installation site photographs (4) Plot map (5) Portable drawings (6) Portable drawings (7) Classroom specifications (8) .Building room chart (9) Property owners' list r � INTRODUCTION: Lake Oswego School District applies to install up to two / portable classroom units on the blacktop surface of the Lake Grove School building, Every Lake Grove classroom is ' currently in use, and the enrollment projection is for • further growth within the attendance area. Our plan is to commence use of these units by August 29, 1988. REFERENCE LOC 49.3151 Historic Preservation: Not applicable Building Desigro All methods, materials, and workmanship 'shall conform to the 1985 Uniform Building Code. Framing 4 !X H i A T ''O3d 3 J u y lumber stress-graders per "The National Design Specifications 010 for Stress Grade Lumber and its Fastenings," 1979 edition. Building size to be 27 x 32 or 24 x 36. Portables will be 27' x 32' or 24' x 36', of all wood construction. (See Exhibits 5 and 7) Stream Corridor: Not applicable Wetlands: Not applicable jge_t_ shj'a.: No change Transit: Site is served by school bus and Tri-Met, with Tri- i Met stop at Boones Ferry and Reese, and Boones Ferry and Kruse. No change from present. parking: There are 78 parking spots (see Exhibit 7) . No additional spots will be added. Barking and Open Space: Project will be in compliance with the code. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: Portable(s) will be installed adjacent to school on existing blacktop playground. (See Exhibit 3) . Distance between school and portable will meet code. No plans to landscape. Portable(s) will be installed behind school, • nearest rooms 7 and 9. (See Exhibit 8) . Lake Grove Portable(s) site virtually obscured fron neighbor's view except for two-three property sites to the west, Fence: Not applicable. Drainage for Minor Development: School's drywell. Weak Foundation Soils: Not applicable. y , 703G . 1 r ` y Utilities: Portables will connect to school's electric lines for lighting and heat. Portable(s) will be served by w school's other utilities. Interior lights only - fluorescent fixtures. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: Not applicable. y Flood Plan: Not applicable. Access: Not applicable. ,. Site Circulation: No change in current roadways. . • pikeways and walkways: No impact anticipated. • 1 , 7036 • V , • . . . , . , . . • . • ., . , . . , . . . . ., . . , : • . . . . • 0 .. . • , . . .1.•:,..., . ., 111 . . ,, • . , . . . . • .. . \ - • 1 , ..' , - . . /. / - . • / , . . ' . .L.—...—....—.. i 1 % ...... ....• I *.•. . ,•..I . • '.4 ; V . a . , . • l . ,.. ....., '.......I , / L /v.,., ..1• 0310.0.060mlosiehrolimm31 I . 0 O la-0.' 0v-,0.•0', 1 •••, / I 3 O / S. 14 . , 1 . • , 1 PP.it , 1 . , l ( --•-.. / ...... i 1.". ' lo., e I / / / o ,.• • 1 t) /' 1 1 ' ta • 4 i .1 e e ••• , *.f.i.A....e..'"L'.......11 4/ 1 ' IV l •.'...k• . 1 // 6 ki , . / "\ . . . 1 • / 4 I / II 1 3 F.1 / 04 4 4 • .7 /. , . / /. ,.. plot Plan ...,,, , . */./ lake grove . , , . //'/ . :41 • , . IIXHIBIT . I . ., 7037 -.1.i.....- . , . , . . .. . . .. .. . • , Exhibit 7 SPECIFICATION; STANDARD CLASSROOM RELOCATABLE BUILDING 1 OREGON STATE 1, All methods,materials,and workmanship shall conform to the 1985 Uniform Building Code, Framing lumber stress grades per "The National . Design Specifications for Stress Grade Lumber and Its Fastenings," 1979 edition. 2. Design Criteria Building Size: 27'1:64' & 27.'x32' ' Floor Load: 40 PSF Roof Live Load: 25 PSF • Wind: 20 PSF horizontal, 15 PSF uplifts ' Seismic: Zone 3,per UBC 3, Lumber All framing lumber is kiln-dried, Grades and species per UBC, . • computed using the "Western Woods Use Book, Structural Data.and Design Tables," 1975 edition, Library of Congress No.73-77089. • 4, Plywood . General: All plywood is grade trademarked APA Roof Sheathing: 7/16" Waferwood or 1/2"CDX plywood Foundation Sheathing:5/8"R,S.T-1-11 Plywood skirting Floor Sheathing: 5/8"T&G Redex • Laminated Beam: Glue-Lam and/or TRUS'JOIST Microlam 5. Nailing: Per Table 25-0, 25-P . 6, Energy Efficiency Insulation: R-11 Floor,R-11 Walls,and R-1 h Roof Windows: Double glazed • Doors: Weatherstripped,insulating cores ' 7, Systems It is the intention of the owner to have available to them the option of moving this structure. Therefore,each building shall be readily relocatable,with a F.A.S.gold seal, + lxvii`-.1,T. 703i Of:- Iv"' The building shall comply with the following codes and rules: Unifrom Building Code Type V Construction . • Oregon State Electrical Code National Electrical Code • - ` WI SHA/OSHA Oregon State Department of Commerce,Building Codes Division, . Prefabricated Construction Oregon State tag: Gold " . Occupancy: E2,Educational to 12th Grade,less than 50 persons Oregon State Energy Code Rules and Regulations of the Oregon State Board of Health, • governing enviromental sanitation-school,revised and adopted April 1976,together with all of the latest modifications and interpretations of said regulations. ; ' 1,1 Foundation A. Concrete: Individual corner footing pads B. Piers: Concrete Block • C. Vents: Galvanized screen vents D • . Skirting: 5/8"R.S.T-1-11 plywood skirting ,r', 1.2 Floor Construction,Exterior to Interior A. Bottom skin:Typar . ' B. Joists: �'2D.F.2x8, 16"O.C.with continuous inicrolam rims C, Insulation: R-11 fiberglass batts kraft backed W ' D. Sub Floor: 5/8"TecG Redex glued and nailed to Joists E. Finish Floor: Carpet- 24 oz,commercial grade, 100%Olefin continuous filanu mt yarn,level loop. Jute back for glue down. F. Base: 2 1/2"Vinyl base cove 1.3 Wall Construction,Exterior to Interior A. Siding: 5/8" - 8"Grooves T-1-11 plywood siding , B. Studs: 2x4 16"C.C. . C, Top Plates: Single 2x4 microlam (no splices) D. Insulation: R-11 fiberglass batts kraft backed E. Interior Wall: 1/4"Birch paneling OPTION: 5/8"vinyl-faced Gypsurri Wallboard 7039 } y I ebl 1,4 Roof Construction,Eterior to Interior • A. Minimum 2/12 Pitch B. Roofing: 215s Fiberglass shingles,Class A, 20 year C, Sheathing: 7/16" Waferwood or 1/2"CDX Plywood D. Bearn: Microlarri sized per engineer E, Rafters: #2H,F,2x12 24"O.C. F, Insulation: R-19 fiberglass batt G. Ceiling: Armstrong incombustible suspended ceiling panels in grid system . H. 6"Roof overhang 1,5 Windows,Exterior One (1) 46"x39"slider with screens located same side from door per classroom A. jambs: Aluminum sliders B. Glazing: Double glazed Y 1,6 Doors,Exterior One (1)door located on same side of building as window per classroom + A. Doors: 3'x 6'6" , 1-3/4"all metal"ThermaTru"flush doors B. Jambs; pre-finished wood jambs , OPTION:Steel door jambs 1.62 Hardware A. Group 1 Exterior Doors Locks: Schlage Series Butts: 1-1/2 PR Stanley 4-1/2x4-1/2 ball hearing 26D finish OPTION: Closer: LCN 4040 Panic bar: `JonUuprin 22NL • i OPTION: 1.7 Porch,Ramp,and Stairs A. Ramp/Landing: Pressure treated 2x6 deck -ramps and .z rails to handicap codes B. Painting: Non-slip type deck paint:railing to match trim color on , building 7 0,1 . K l 138 Electrical This section shall be construed to cover everything essential for the , , completion of the entire electrical system,ready for normal and . proper operation, All work to comply with the state and national • electrical codes. (Servico line to primary power is not.included) A. Power supply: 110/120 single phase,underground service ^ B. Main service: 200 AMP panel or as required ' C. Wiring: s 12 THHId or larger in concealed conduit D. Lighting Fixtures: Recessed 2x4 fluorescent Iix ores in ceiling grid E, Switches: 3-way F. Receptacles: Duplex or equal G. Exterior porch light at each door H. Smoke Detectors,Heat Sensors,Pull Stations: Raceway only • , 1, Clock receptacle 84"high 1.9 Miscellaneous Metals A. Cap and edge metal: 28 galvanized OPTION:, B. Gutters: continous galvanized with 2"galvanized downspouts and ells • ' � OPTIONS: 2,0 Cabinets and Furnishings A Chalkboards: Two (2)each 4x8 Mirage per classroom B. Tackboards: One (1)each 4x8 metal-framed vinyl tackboard • ,} C. Teacher's Cabinet: One (1) 2'x4'x7' Wardrobe, 1/2 storage with five shelves and two lockable doors per classroom D. Student coat storage: One (1)shelf with coat hooks 2.1 Heating 27'x32' A. Egttipment: One (1) "zoneaire"HTE 24 single-packaged heat/AC including 2 ton cooling, 10 KW heating,and 1000 CFM air handler 27'x64' A.Equipment: Two (2) "Zoneaire"HTE 24 single-packaged heat/AC including 2 ton cooling, 10 KW heating,and 1000 CFM air handler 1, 7041 } II • 0 - f' B, Ducting , (1) Air handler: seperated from the rigid ducting with isolation sleeves (2) All ducl.ng installed above suspended ceiling grid 'I.(3) Ceiling type diffuser I Y (4) Line dampers installed close to supply plenums , • • 2.2 Painting A. All exposed exterior wood: THY'o coats Glidden Endurance exterior stain B. All exterior metal: One coat primer,two top coats C, Interior wood: vinyle wrap colony oal . {{ I . 10,13 s V . y U 7 . " C�J ,z,t`l I 1 N , / • H ,i, _,C) . n ly I v . ir.„;,,t , ) ,,, / . . O Q wri) l'AVVD 1 P ,1Pq • a0 —le a I l • a ...." i , , ,, It.--,pEdfli r . , 5` r W ( , W I v ) uk� 1` r a ttl ( z': , 3Sod�lndInnw ,4, 3 \ _,_ i { 3 r---14.V —1".\ 1-j 'I ns 1_---321- ---) e---4 \-- --- ) <t r -.s.. L (, sa 111\V5S ti, F • sc4 1J ,ti�73ds r a ` ,1N 1 A� . L___-_____, )----.--1 4-' 1 /1 c° f • U I vi5 � I `' ( �— ` — .J U .L..... . . LI' HI , 1 .:170 _.....____, A .1 i UXHIIIT GU- II . • 4 ;•J.IRYJ rr4lrwu. n.a.aollro a.nw0.from 1 'rut 'Nil I711115{lll\I 711r/,N'11I t1��7c�N',., r:•11„ a 1 , 1 , r ;1"14)17;.. - • i' `oll I a1n.�..tiv •1•ICI X • 0.�7 r�l�' rL•17 iL I� '� 1�1� t .. ` Y. f' LaS y •. i ell • WUu 4,U• .• 1 it/ - 1 Q• I .1 t' r 3 • I • " ' L.- s • i ?' :• ? a �8• • + �. ..' ,�r L 1 • t • ua•4 •?1 1 ' • ..... j iS I H 6i •`'4— ... r 'I ? 1.. �• ..1 1•t • q �1 1 i/ • r i • '1•. • 0 • 6, a 111•, • V ' • • Q — a w a ++ EXHIBIT ' b 4i , "5•4F41-4x.11 , - q9.-11 -cr • 1,r a _ • 1=I.1 4.LI I 1�-� t • , • 1, r ' s ( r 0 , r_ Yo r l ,�. 9" ,1 • \ . .h 11 .. •_1 Jt�y`,1n �� t;' I .' • s T'tLL • i. •,.,ti 1.l•�, .s . ,.:t•Y .,.'•I, - X4i� y , ',C4 ' A f ..t.'r L} • t11 •t-.1'1• 1 r, ' i,,l, �''y�'e l'� • * ,�' ' ,, I.I.... r1. f M -- l l 7. a a�' •• ,r•• ,.,,41 1':ti ^ t 'i'1..:"A,!•nit' '.!. S�''� G, t;.f(''r',':i .• ',, •( I , 1. . :1.111Z t..$'•4••••.7,•". 11 •t '•I 1 • ....::'1,1 . © /.....,'S, )..' '. .... . . $7....11 h • • 5t_5 1--r;rl—Y 1 ram—' al � .• � �. /M ''' I••••! •••1�';'"'ills•I._•••iti.�t•,t�'•4,.'•til 1• Ll I, , • • ' , 1 J . 1 I yi!'i-. 1, �t�l ..- 'tl, Z 1 t'«t ,I rf t.'', ', .. . . : • mil.r"� . a ]11 � Y t i ' 1-•{�I '111t1 'a a. 3x a_ 11,1 .. F • . . f, • • s _Al- .1. 1 ''" 1 '; . 1 I I i I I " I ,3;1 . 1 rtutiJ ! I I S'`C S ••,-,' .''''" ,.. $ li .li ' t .. ! ! ' -- a t) All- 11 a Tra8 " -- , t" , . i xtllblt 3 Lake Grove Lake Grove • . I -.... . li Lib litilili ' . . ., _ . i , • 3a Milk.� • 7•��we 1i w Portable Site Portable Site "' , Lake Grove Take Grove _ y ,-- . • w, jam,;.>i �' •,,+ •• i h 4 i. • • P. .....1• ... s 4"..', it;, 4'v-7. . Nri V 4' .` .,s�j ice' r .'^"iii I .:. ',.mi , , Y 4 . . .: , . r�.••1 • ., pit -4 .iii.V. rim....MM•1111111N 1 i t% im ....." :4-1,11•-- , iiiii rt--• . .-• a r i • • �•.alarm ;. La . , 'rqw Portable Site Westward Portable Site & Access j EXHIa1T . r 17O4G ---g- pt. II -p8 • n ' STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: L.O. School District 7J, DR 12-88 James Schell, Assistant ' Superintendent. ' PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: L. 0. School District 7J Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lots 300, 600 of July 8, 1988 Tax Map 2 lE 5 , LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: Uplands Elementary School JUly 18, 1988 2055 SW Wembley Park Road E COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: , !" '' ' P (Public) R-10 , NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ,c ,, Springbrook R APPLICANT'S REQUEST r The tWo portablet is classroomstatgtheproval Uplandso install a maximum of Elementary School. 00 , I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . A A. City of Lake OsWego Comprehensive Plan: e. - Social Resourco Policy Element General Polity VI Natural Resource Policy Element Quiet Environment Policies General Policy II DR 12-88 Page 1 of 5 1 1 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: i , LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Designation LOC 48.730 Conditional Use Provisions C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: ,• ' LOC 49.300-49.320 Major. Development Procedures ' '1 LOC 49.610-49.620 Hearing Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval • D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2.020 - Building Design 5.020 - Street Lights 6.020 - Transit System 7.020 - Parking & Loading Standard 8.020 - Park and Open Space 9.020 - Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ' 10.020 - Fences 11.020 - Drainage Standard for Major Development 14.020 - Utility Standard ' 16.020 - Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.020 - Access Standard 19.020 - Site Circulation - Private Streets/ • „ Driveways 20.020 - Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways - ' ' �1 II. FINDINGS A. Background: 1. The underlying zone is R-10. 2• The Comprehensive Plan designation is Public . e • (P) • . • 3. The applicant is proposing to erect two 27' x 32' portable structures at the rear of an existing elementary school building. The structures will be plo''d on an existing paved surface. No other charges are proposed. �• 4. Parking currently exists for 67 cars on the property. 5. The site abuts Springbrook Park to the west and south, the Lake Oswego Junior High School to the north, and single family residences to • . the east. , DR 12-88 Page 2 of 5 , / 7048 k B. Compliance with Applicable Criteria: • 1 . CiLy_ of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Plan Policies will have been addressed by the Planning Commission in their review of CU 6-88. 1� 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinances: a. LOC 48.200(1) - Zone Description Institutional. uses which include a school are listed as a conditional use within the R-10 zone. Zone requirements will have been considered by the Planning Commission in their review of CU 6-88. j b. LOC 48.730 - Conditional Use Provisions • • A use that existed before December 16, 1982 which is permitted only upon receiving a conditional use permit under the terms of Chapter 48 is not a nonconforming use, but is without further action to be considered a conforming use. The Uplands Elementary School existed prior to December 16, 1982. The underlying zone is R- 10; and based on LOC 48.730, any modification q to this use is reviewed under the City's existing Zoning Code and processed as a , ` modification to a conditional use. The Planning Commission will have considered the • application for a conditional use permit (CU 6-88) on July 11, 1988. 3. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinances: a. LOC 49.315 - Application Completeness " The applicant has not submitted materials sufficient to judge compliance with the City's , Building Design Standard. This concern is addressed further in the following section of this report. 4. city of Lake Oswego Development Standards: The Historic preservation Standard, Stream , corridor, Wetlands, Weak Foundation Soils and Flood Plain Standards do not apply to the bR 12-88 °, Page 3 of 5 • '7041 • a. , tf, project because those resources or natural hazard designations do not exist on the property. Street lights meeting the Street Lights • Standard already exist to serve the site. The Parking Standard is not applicable because ° . parking for elementary schools is calculated on the basis of auditorium size or amount of seating in the assembly area. No change to the assembly area is proposed and 67 spaces currently exist to serve the facility. ' The application does not involve any changes to paving or grading, circulation, fences or utilities. The Site Circulation Standard, Access Standard, Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard, Fence Standard and Utility Standard are not applicable. No change to the amount of landscaping or open space is proposed. While the exact amount of landscaping or open space is not shown, the amount of area appears to far exceed the ' amount required by City standards. The site t ` ` ' is currently conforming in that regard. 4f, The requirements of the Drainage Standard do 1 not apply because there will be no alteration . in the drainage pattern and no increase in ' • runoff as the portable structures will be placed on an already paved surface. The site is presently served by a drywell. The following remaining standards apply: a. Building Design (2.020) The applicant has illustrated that the two portable structures Will each measure 271 x 32' and that they will be one story high With ' a low pitched roof. The units are proposed to be sided with T-1-11 plywood siding with grooves to create the appearance of vertical siding. Fiberglass shingles are proposed for ' ' roofing. One 46" x 37" sliding Window is , proposed on the same side of the structure as the entry door. Colors for the structure have not been specified. IA, 12-86 050 Page 4 of 5 Y e • The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 3) does not properly address the Building Design Standard. mirk OP') p The staff recommends that the Board not 3 further consider the application until the applicant provides support for their application, along with adequate evidence to , judge the relationship of the school building to the portables. The narrative should describe adjacent structures of good design, , describe the visual relationship to the • structures and describe why the choice of size . and materials is properly related to the school building. In creating the narrative, the applicant will need to rely on the • distance from any nearby residences, the screening created by the school structure ►- tself and the small size of the structures themselves which minimize the affect of the structures on the appearance of the school facility as a whole. b. Transit System (6.020) • The site is served by school bus and meets the R requirements of the Transit Standard. Paved pathways exist on the site. In addition, a Tri-Met stop exists at the corner of Country • Club Road and Wembley Park Road. .. III. CONCLUSION The applicant has not yet demonstrated compliance with ,`, y•„ , i the applicable criteria, IV. RECOMMENDATION ,' The Board can continue the hearing to July 27, 1988 e )for theto oapplicationthe cant to provide adequate support , Exhibits 1, Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map • 3. Applicant's Narrative 4, Site Plan 5, Building Specifications 6, Structural Plans 7. Pictures of school and Portable Site DR 12-88 , Page 5 of 5 7051. • . 1. • • `u U 1 ;: • v, 2, 1E, . 5AA r ,,,, 1 M 9 r .y;t.i,; t n Q `, 6y,' < ' ,t.SF'E:'7 MASP o f •..:e.'. J afi ' EAD goo 1• l r r 2 I '5 19.2AAc f. �E11 +t ,p, a,.i ;o ,t l '•; • ' ,• ' 41; • • • • • • { i i .., t � ` ' ' _ : i r f ,po � y, t, o. -.:-.:.' 7 , _ „ • 9 "" ' A . " ,AC,SUP ` ' , L; : N.CN1777 .•. Y, . i 'r. ,:•yyr • • • , . ' SHIRE VA F -VC ° MARKET.ROAp �$ } ; C--....... ; Jt' : t ��.,�'' SEE ' , a 600. :{ ,""i . . i]7 JMAP :� I a Il Ac, • / 1 . , •,, • • y 1• 0 ` / .. /,.. N SV1.CO .. , , A ..: 0 6 I D L.0 ,8 ' TAP ; SEE . t': SEE MAP L' • �� MAP I 4CC ' f a I E 5 D D rl J C I X41 l r f.,s.' . Y: 4, • • • t , • ` / two i I MI 1 it,',P n w • .,�-i° 1' ' tyM•• •Iw I I 11 I:I1 i*: 1.. 1 I_ ISM I 1--1 .-J,�.L1•,.�7s- • • - 1' 4 1 r r 1. J taut. . 1_ I --1 p ft`,1 ,' 1 ,1;,� i7- •1 I ? � - 1 t1i GOo'�• '1' 1.-'r•• 1 r ,1_ •1 + Hell t , ,, • __-1. Iiu/ 13110 1 1 1 i i)a I -•!1'?%,' now,, ro It,gr,y{Y�yh '.•Isebr ,`e. y ' ,,a-rS.'+,,•=,, ' �, t. 1wr1 1-i11,1 alto-‘‘.1 I 1 y L.,-j1 u� ' ve.• fY. Yl11{I ,....:Pc r1j` -1C 4 Fes' 1��I.1 I� thi 's '0! ...- - - '6. , t ~ --• ? ' ..Il,i,'..r f} ( .44.y+ Led L,; :Y P' ,J ISM _�__ ----1.-- --.. _- •I t y4s p'gl 1't ;=t .(IT�L12454,1 7,It l'11,.',.'",1,. I i,. nm ua1'•_'n" 1 -u L-1--S•..'., wf tl 11-1 % f ulw ,It• 1 I 1: q,a� aNl ' T. • } 1 i i '1• 1 is .�t. •'tb I ' na) ism1 1 ism . • !' Lai•01.001 y� I I f� V---•• _'--1..1,u1 ,Ilea --._ ..'. ,b.1 I - awl ;r{ 1: i 1•- i i,• • t • n1u i11u -. Il ' I i'ri�rpl:- rye N. 1 ' Ivn 1r � ({` • f1 1 Ir 1 �r �',: ttte! +� f Idrid '1 swoon I i t13111 I. f ..-7 ;`_ _ 1ftNor ▪- ' t_ - .--•I SI -�. • .,A I i. " --Alin ,;-:- , ' i��4 I.Mo ••-•,rill • N 7:1_7:_.-/-- . v «•- ., ..,_I 1_2 ,% E i S i taa 'lalt I1p11 • .. 1-tipi ry1i1 K a. I 1 00 li R i 10 NII IA A III ,1r1 ,1r011 )1,,.... . /1'I„•�r i " •:;,.. yl,tall - �r J` �- '1 1 ▪S o• -• y1N°. :1I % � 1 d ..n '.. n. ' -'pant 1'llrle 17/11 ••- I,M`,.•-, ,• • , C MO 3 1firo' I 1"'•, 1111El..... J• OOP .J.. 1,110-1 flat 1t- rI 101, t d 1 , �1a1l-. Y '• Co�N}^`- r S 1 Ii. ~ C.MOT'.1'.1 430 loll ! -'' , , 1, • , 00r IlN{If1-1'{ 1/111.111 a/•Y 11111 J N II 114111 0 6 L I ii /1r i 1 1 1 ..014110 , I • I...-, NI ', �,. rr�1 4.• , 1i11p►11/1 • 5 :hi'1,0 1 4011 I, • 1e11 4, '.I l .,• .V. • *'. , _i:' Iota• .0,,,,.0,,,, ,.. . .., 11/1 ' 111w�=i.% ' wit ',.. � ..„ 1 ' 1 t -0., 1 • WI w ' •• aid llel ♦ u 'i ........• Ills I,1r1 'a ...---, I'• k1 J111�'3fl// .1,111' 11,, + i Hot C IIN/ ; ;Ins 1 0 . ': 111W 1Un1.0s 1 , r 1101 a,bl If4 T I,0,. s�9{. IV'S - IHa tar 1e.oOl ,r I ' A I1jr, J I wi.....‘ ' �r'tO.." , . 1a. •'-' I,.. Ills ,n1. . • 1 „ ', 'l WO ' 3111 4111 'like.' +.� • - fur .. - 1 .0 •u, . _ • ,la t111 ' IIIIN .,. + :.-'t `4 11 EXHIBIT 1 ...... , ' .{ Y - •urn TL • b• o,L•,, ,,1 „11' n ^se b 11� P I.= ills 'IS P 6 1t , TO: fake Oswego Development and Review Board ' I FROM: Lake Oswego School District RE: Request for permit to install portable classrooms) r at Uplands School Exhibits: (1) Site map (2) Vicinity map (3) Installation site photographs I (4) Plot map (5) Portable drawings (6) Portable drawings (7) Classroom specifications (8) •Building room chart (9) Property owners' list INTRODt : Lake Oswego School District applies to install up to two portable classroom units on the blacktop surface of the , ; Uplands School building. Every Uplands classroom is currently in use, and the enrollment projection ection is for rurther growth within the attendance area. Our plan is to commence use of these units by August 290 1988. 3 . r M li'a orb C_ a va -is2n: Not applicable ai,atdinQ Degiant All methods materials, and workmanship Code. F'ramin• r EXHI IT , ( 'Shall conform to the 1985 Uniform Building � Y "10 5 1l vR►z..- AP . p lumber stress-graders per "The National Design Specifications ' I for Stress Grade Lumber and its Fastenings," 1979 edition. Building size to be 27 x 32 or 24 x 36. Portables will be 27' x 32' or 24' x 36', of all wood construction, (See Exhibits 5 and 7) Stream Corridors: Not applicable • Wetlands: Not applicable Street lights: No change ' y Transit: Site is served by school bus and Tri-Met,; with Tri- • Met stop at Country Club Road and Wembley Park Road. No change from present. parking: There are 67 parking spots. (see Exhibit 7) No additional spots will be added. x_ parking and Open Space: Project will be in compliance with the code. Landscaping. Screening and Bufferina: Portable(s) will be installed adjacent to school on existing blacktop playground. (See Exhibit 3) . Distance between school and portable will meet code. No plans to landscape. Portable(s) will be adjacent to rooms 1 and 2, • (see Exhibit 8) not visible from other property sites. Fence: Not applicable. Drainage for Minor Development: School's drywell. Weak Foundation Soils: Not applicable. Utilities: Portables will connect to school's electric lines ' for lighting and heat, Portable(s) will be served by 7055 00 school's other utilities. Interior lights only - fluorescent fixtures. • Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: Not applicable. Flood Plan: Not applicable. Access: Not applicable. site rare„l tion: No change in current roadways. alKews 'G and Wa]kways: No impact anticipated. 7056 . . , • . . , .. . . . , • • . . . .. . ' ' , • . • • . , . . • .. ., , • . . .. .. . . • . , * ' " ' * ... * - . • I ... .___. ... .... ......--"...•77=)- t* ' . . : 96% ' '6:7". .;•.•7*".1..:•I..";n',"':2;1113N.:::.44tA Ad . I 1,, i . . •*"..ki.4*1:2‘..';r*e1 . i ' *.-At'....on- , 4 .. , ; .•••:'•,•;,,,'.4";',..:71".....)-.....,,,C,'",:,ir ,,.4. . ; • '••.,.;:•,-...•3:4*--„,..,•....,..........-v-ct • 1 t. '.•'.t::.••• •:•!'.',.:'1.-"/ViTv74-.4.7.---ca...W-1.7.3 • • , , I • .:' .3::...,:•.•,,s•••:... ...•- , ....3,....a,ramt.414. , . , • . . • .:' *'...;:•'Ilt:.;;;7:45:.ii:.-44•;•CrAlt4i,..4 1 . ! ' -(.117-:.-•,• :.•-:•.;•.' .,"f.:,.:1-3.:,..:;.•,,tc.. . i • . •. :•. ..a,:..z..,•-c-1,,....i....,..,,, .t . . ...,:•,.--- .......v.............,.1.,,,....,:e1,1?.... • . ... — • ., •-.- • •....:...,--le.r....1.-)•-i-••'4"I * • • t , V.': ..*:,..•, .....1•;•1 Mit"*"..,...*I't.:••••1•1 . I...1.1.1 m 1 . ***...:.1 ;•*1..I.::::=.7••• .• •'. . m . • • 1 * •11.;'''.F...:.%1•!.%*•:1*,:?•**7.;•'::•:*%..i'; ' • . I 1 ..• ..".*.•::•••.*.la.:7 4,,du_`Iri.1)°,..V1-:";r4-rel.. " , . . , ", ; .•••.:• ..t 7'.'1..rii.-7:1/4.'.:"..•••i:7::::71.14.1•L'... •- . , • .i....."..•:t'•..••...,M....!0:C....T.-,-..L.,-;•.••:,..477.r • .......•;,..,:. ......,'0;1 t''.`1.-g•••-•:,,t. . . .--I-- • ... . • • •t•- I t• . : • .... ••ti''',''4::,•••••TIC:',.::11•J.1..1'10: ' ' ,..o :.I...'!:'.7.,::.:...- . , • ,..,`,.:' .". ,";••:t1-'• •-.. ' -• . ..... ,, ., ,., , , . ....:c.7.a.,•••: .....—....::>./._. --••••••••••-••••c:c•-c. ...-c•r,-77, ,, \r;"..;..\\'..7,-..,-STAy ••.....•. . ,G .,.. , , ..-,...i.,I, . :.... :•:.:7;74: f,...• 7"' • V.!. ‘V•.7.:.‘..,..,\.•‘-..7:* • '.. ) .. •/ . .I' .. . t"...-..- -:.*.7 • ..-4-"I..''''•-•• . • •••;.•.••7'1".•,:ii 7%'.7' !.°':':.".'.;'.I•'••••t I. '. ....-,•4'..:J-•••••• '. I v..:• .: I:' • 4.- .:.:,'.....4..7."'..,..i....i.'••,:t.:,...:.. .......,r..„ .1t.:',:. , , , .;::'....it.li:7:.;•.. ;,•:,.1.;,,,:l.f.,,,A/41„/,Z_Zi ,t,A•jili7/2////4-f.:.;.12.,-!;z:•.' .; ;,.•':::,:f i;I.,: i' ; •"::::•'.:....:.:,..AI r;.r..,:,•:,-..."4"..".'7.1.: . .. . '. i 1 :.• -'- . ---1-. 0!.-v• r- - ' •:-• • ^•••• • .-.:,!.. .r'. .• ,e4-V;1-.. l'e•,' — ; . . ii‘..!......4.i.Z .',...,1•':'.r.,7///•/1/1/1/i; / 2"': . . ... %'1'..', ''t I..:.'' ' 7.•,":"'."•',. .t•.,i,!•,. .. .:.... ;41 .e..:...;::;::,,•A,...1 i..=,:.'• 4.,:,-;•.:..-,;(......:;‘p:_r-,..,.::4..1-. .t'e . .-...l•• '',./.;.,^! . . r;•;••••"'..i:. ,.•,.,. ...,, -./ ,3. ,, . .r-:,,•,:.:.-•:.•:,...f,•1.,___L__•7'.' '•-•LS-.•.,4,.7:kti='..."'1...:I 1••• ...Z.L.: 1:1.........:.......j,..., :.4.2r.....4*.• ,...`:1‘:.,:l...717/:;'••"'.... . '-••••• • •\:• ...' "•• ..__D 7 L....;,,.," • ••‘,— ••,.- P.. .. •t •••• . • -:.-o••,-.‘1......., •,..r.,,,..::.•,,,;.,:,..,,,,.....,,. 1 , . , ....... ,-,•• ,--,.,,lt,—,.:,:•......,........:..,_.--.-—,:......., .. .• ,,.•II 7,.••• ••:''..,••.r:••. ::• ....sti.::r......i.,••":::',4"'„Ii.:!.••••.:C.1.%1•!—....i.f:.-1.. . .• .:••*:1''''."4.•7•;'"?'•..•• 't•......t.''':•••:''''...• •Tit. :11:•••'"^•*'':. ":!'....",;:•'..".?:'.;i7I'..-::• ".."--:--,* ,6.,.'•,.. ..„ ':••,... u7i:`: ...„:.,,,.:;,:.':,::::a.;.1)EII. :t..••,:••,:..Z. -.1!•1 :i.;,..,s...,..t.,.. r.,,:::...:,',.;"• /..0.7.% .:it • ,...`-• ..•:. • ' .• ••. •••••• . . t•.. +1'.?••e•11... 77',•''.'...•.•;":":."4.4.il.W-V. ::•t i '••• • **•':' .." .•:- •• . . '• 41. 1.,.I.1. 1 . .. I .•....• m . 1 •1-i I rg.,..:71,1,4_„,_.....i".• t ••• ._.!.. ...;.•3- ,• ...T',.•. ..2.2,7 .1 V f'.,',-..1.• ...:,-.... 1„ • 7 .I% ..-7••••w" ,'•:.1'. , .. .1:"..1.! •''.'. •• "• .• .7 r.f.:.; :•:1 I•.*::1-1. :''el'f..,'17-1A•t,.1...',:••.;.' . ec-7.::•.;'.' I,':,'•:-'..•• .0.* • ,•••,.-rr. 1.-.':,...4 ! ..' •• '..,.. -t• , ..,...../•.F:1,. ' ,.., . -1, ' .-,.'," : , *" : - ....' 1 .• ,, . • . . • ,„- •;,,,,..,:• Imo 4.!••••• __- . ••• I••• •,, • . • ..i.. gm °- LA.!? 1.,.,1 1 ,, 1 , . . . , . ,i• l'i ...1 '' • - . • :. . . .• I. 4*•e •, ...., • . •'. . .. . .1 . . )-• • ' - i ---•—=-- I ni.,...74-7.,_1..".._..4 . . . . . ......... .. , , • . . - '•.; . • , .. :,...: ... ,,. . . ... . , .. • , ,..., -• . . . , ......._ . , „ ..i. , . ,_;:7-7,•----. .1 • •............•••...,::••• • , - „: •• 4.,:,!t•,.....!, . : 1.1.......1 ,HL.... . . . . ,.;,:t I •• . • • ! I I li• I .. _ 171...•••• . I-- . •'..: .-. . ' • '.-LL,- • a '-', .'4.-1. ,. •. . ... . 0 . . .• . .4 1 1 1 • . .i . •rt F , 1 . • :....A.,., • . . -..-,....p... .... ...„4.1 .. 1,,,,,..,.........,...,..,...tr.,:f',;.,.' I • ' . . , . • u . 4 • • 1 . r , 0 . . . . • • 5 1 .; .. a ,t ..._..._______. . .. , IXHIBIT . . 1 DLI IL- It. Itr , '7057 . , 8 WrcatPca . , . . . , ' • . . , , r+ l1D1C '.. SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD CLASSROOM RELOCATABLE BUILDING OREGON STATE 1, All methods,materials,and workmanship shall conform to the 1985 Uniform building Code, Framing lumber stress grades rades per "The National ' Design Specifications for Stress Grade Lumber and Its Fastenings," 1979 edition, 2. Design Criteria building Size: 27'x64'& 27.'x32' , Floor Load: 40 PSF • Roof Live Load: 25 PSF Wind: 20 PSF horizontal, 15 PSF uplifts Seismic: Zone 3,per UBC M 3. Lumber ., All framing lumber is kiln-dried. Grades and species per UBC, computed using the "Western Woods Use Book, Structural Data and Design Tables," I975 edition, Library of Congress No. 73-77089, 4, Plywood General; All plywood is grade trademarked APA • Roof Sheathing: 7/16" Waferwood or 1/2"CDIt plywood • Foundation Sheathing:5/8"R.S.T-1-1 I Plywood skirting' Floor Sheathing: 5/$"T&G F.edex Laminated Beam: Glue-Lam and/or TRUS*JOIST Microlam ' 5. Nailing: Per Table 25-0, 25-P 6, Energy Efficiency • Insulation; R-11 Floor,R-11 Walls,and R-19 Roof Windows: Double glazed �, Doors: Weatherstripped,insulating cores , 7, Systenys It is the intention of the owner'to have available to them the option of moving this structure, Therefore,each building shall be readily relocatable,with a F,A.S,gold seal. 11 tIXML�IT 5 '705'31 8•M w The building shall comply with the following codes and rules: Unifrom building Code Type V Construclaon + . Oregon State Electrical COde national Electrical Code WISHA/OSHA Oregon State Department of Commerce,Building Codes Division, e Prefabricated Construction • Oregon State tag: Gold Occupancy: E2,Educational to 12th Grade,less than 50 p tsons Oregon State Energy Code• u: ; Rules and Regulations of the Oregon State Board of Health, '+ , ., ' governing enviroment:�l sanitation-school,revised and adopted :� April 1976,together with all of the latest modifications and interpretations of said regulations. • • 1.1 FOUI]daUoll '' r" •�;" A. Concrete: Individual corner footing pads •-•w; • B. Piers: Concrete Block A �4 " C. Vents: Galvanized screen vents • • D. Skirting: 5/8"R.S.T-1-11 plywood skirting • 1,2 Floor Construction,Exterior to Interior .:. ,,: : '' A. Bottom skin:Typar 4 • B. joists: ,2D.F.2x8, 16"O.C.with continuous microlam rim C. Insulation: R-11 fiberglass batts kraft backed D. Sub Floor: 5/8"T&G Redex glued and nailed to joists• E. Finish Floor: Carpet- 24 oz.cormhercial grade, 100%Olefin „t, r�, continuous filament yarn,level loop. Jute back for glue down. .,, , F, Base: 2 1/2"Vinyl base cove vt„ fi, 1,5 Wail Construction,Exterior to Interior .1', *'; . A. siding f Siding: 5/8" - 8"Grooves T-1-11 plywood ,r,�,',_ .+ B. Studs: 2x4 16"O.C. `i�r y - C. Top Plates: Single 2x4 microlam (no splices) N,t �a D, insulation: R-11 fiberglass batts kraft backed E. Interior Wall: 1/4"Birch paneling i OPTION: 5/8"Vinyl-faced Gypsum wallboard Ji '705:) '. , g ,; e 1 + d« ,f a'dL� i,�tKra q I t:- I *u r 4 .7 a • rt yy t'` • : r cis a 1 , ' f, t+_U �+= a � p : �"•� �:v,y° • • :eIT K , . . b sSA'1' �_ t ,,r. ,.,t '";' tA4y r: • i • 't a v _ !. 4 } ,t 'C''''' ,r I . B. Ducting ° r +1 N (1) Air handler: seperated from the rigid ducting with isolation 0• k sleeves ,,, (2) All ducting installed above suspended ceiling grid ''.. , .;:• z , :�% (3) Ceiling type diffuser ' (4) Line dampers installed close to supply plenums1. ,.',. ,I.,:, y 2.2 Painting ^, y A. All exposed exterior wood: Two coats Glidden Endurance exterior : e !" stain , a, .� ;, , B. All exterior metal: One coat primer,two top coats ': .t,, + C. Interior wood: vinyle wrap colony oak. , , R, tii P‘ • -. 4:4, a4 v d� ,r+ l .�a 14 .,.. rt'. ' '' Y li 6 l 1 4, J 4y Y'� ,, Y : 'a -4 , lei v A . k t,) N . ! 7 c M, 7060 ar , '`7 wy u, b Y.-, ''.4' .,h a ''''t''' ', k8i Ni , .''.L • a 7 '1re. ,..R a. 1 t .• k47 .7''wa,1' *•h Y ,- -� + ,lip J •c -• • - 1 , ''. I I . ."' E¢A w - , ` , , a,,� i r Y a , 6,�'r ' ••� ." t I , " a ' 1,4 Roo(Construction,Exterior to Interior ` ,"z ;. A, Minimum 2/12 Pitch B, Roofing: 215#Fiberglass shingles,Class A, 20 year C, Sheathing: 7/16" Waferwood or 1/2"CDR Plywood . i . " , D. Beam: lvlicrolam sized per engineer E. Rafters: #211,F, 2x12 24"O.C' F, Insulation: R-19 fiberglass batt G. Ceiling: Armstrong incombustible suspended ceillaig panels in grid .. system ¢` H. 6"Roof overhang 1,5 Wir,dows,Exterior One (1) 46"x39"slider with screens located same side from door per classroom , A. Jambs: Aluminurn sliders B. Glazing: Double glazed C ir. 1,6 Doors,Exterior `i 4 r"•One(1)door located on same side of building as window per Classroom L A, Doors: 3'x 6'8" , 1-3/4"all metal "ThermaTru"flush doors B, Jambs: pre-finished wood jambs OPTION: Steel door jambs '1. 1.62 Hardware P';, ..' A, Group 1 Exterior Doors , , '' i 1,' .. Locks: Schlage Series ` Butts: 1-1/2 PR Stanley 4-1/2x4-1/2 ball bearing 26D finish ; OPTION: 1,,,. .� tik�, Closer: LCN 4040 ;", - f Panic bar: VonDuprin 22NL ;, ' `` OPTION: 1.7 Porch,Ramp,and Stairs ` A. Ramp/Landing: Pressure treated 2x6 deck -ramps and " ra;ls to handicap codes B. Painting: Non-slip type deck paint:railing to match trim color on •: , building • y j . f L Y 7061 �I J� . fib,. ,;+ f� c t is 1.18 Electrical ;` ` • ,� 'i +,' This section shall he construed to cover everything essential for the 4 completion of the entireelectrical system,ready for normal and • proper operation. All work to comply with the state and national electrical codes. (Service line to primary power is not included) A. Power supply: 110/120 single phase,underground service B. Main service: 200 AMP panel or as required C. Wiring: #12 THHN or larger in concealed conduit D. Lighting Fixtures: Recessed 2x4 fluorescent fixtures in ceiling grid E. Switches: 3-way F. Receptacles: Duplex or equal G. Exterior porch light at each door H. Smoke Detectors,Heat Sensors,Pull Stations: Raceway only I. Clock receptacle 64"high 1.9 Miscellaneous Metals A. Cap and edge metal: 26 galvanized • OPTION:. B. Gutters: continous galvanized with 2"galvanized downspouts and ells OPTIONS: 2,0 Cabinets and Furnishings A Chalkboards: Two(2)each 4x6 Mirage per classroom <t ` B. Tackboards: One (1)each 4x6 metal-framed vinyl tact board ', `4:r C. Teacher's Cabinet: One (1) 2'x4'x7' Wardrobe, 1/2 storage with •• five shelves and two lockable doors per classroom • D. Student coat storage: One (1)shelf with coat hooks 2.1 Heating 27'$32' A. Equipment: , } One (1)"Zoneaire"HTE 24 single-packaged heat/AC including 2 ton cooling, 10KW heating,and 1000 CFM air handler • 27'x64' ` A.Equipment: Two (2)"Zoneaire"HTE 24 single-packaged heat/AC including 2 ton cooling, 101W heating,and 1000 CFM ail'handler i Jry i i 7062 u', . ; ., h fir'. �»..� 4 },,,• . r • f +ri ., s•1 rr ,' KI '' 4.1 k ,. . ' ► 4.! 4d• 1 i d,-. t '.k. I§'6,. k 6 , ar) ,P� •w �''.. '' 6 �i, .i l,i' k +�, w r r s, «,r - a. ' ' s }• • .1 . 1 I 1T. •i• t .4•,4 Y••tt.. 1 , • . • • • ' • • • , K :.:= .= • 1\1V IGI s)Nl�I./U it �Il i v, , . — .nway.w.. .. ),, ° 1 n 1 j I4 Iynavr�r.+lrnvr k TrW r011lp/� ••�•�iyCG.�'„' i ; � ' I yI '7u11Sfillrl 1N 11aN1 71f1%N'1111 ' ) � • - • . FJr 4.1 , ° gII '• L- T rl,„„a5 • , s: ,..may) I 11 r Y 1 5 Jr ; :_� Jlra�:lv+,�-r:l amp 11-pl ; I ,� . • • • 1 •i ,-----& • ..M. .,i,♦' ,,.I i '7 '42V • 1 1 • • t 1 i •4.: 9 I �`` •t •••',.,1. 8. fig, I • •�a '..-d' tl • • J .1 • 1I•j6R i 1" M •T1, ' — ~ r. Lj Ill - • • 1 'I ;.. i'. ,s•/ � I s Y LI • • e 1� i. !' kw-1 ' r-• _ Ili�.—_•_ C. r -1-- ••I L 4• ,) y • t r i.. '. . ' S' • •�. • L • , :s.„ .,..) w 1. •, ,Null . , .1 , .1 I ' ` 1 V ljff ., 1 S d, 0 1t 4, ` 1 .d.. BXH IT t 4' is I lo63 ....i._- 4 ,. .,,,, ,r, , . a. • ,„�arr •' k. el. ., ,. •#'t • q Y r dt • '' r 1 x y�"' r '4i A f r�M� 11" I 4' ,r k •• •, # '' • :1• t 1 /t' 1 ,.� + j 11 YA ' 1 +' '' ,' a' I .y ♦ .'•, „4i� ''a f.l , d 1, Y I ♦.J•1 , .t .. :1. '2 �'. � t � fi �V f , . . 1 '..' 1 6 •Y `� r t / ..- •t t .;'* I_ r 5 + ;,`I� �...4 IW'•T0.7p„YIY,a WY/TI.Oq"01Lb P"'��1' 1 11 • 1 ,�y ! ` A 11 1•,' 1 nn1 'S'11,1,1•;:Illlyl fill ( e _--- • d t +cy' • '1` .•]II t I I ' ' s p Vry?_ �, C :1 ryt�}' ;; i y ram'' 1 ,I /� 3R' it'� i 14 ,'s d ' , ,,1 . , L I' 14' TALL , \ • i ':,St ' i - 1 t iIt r i y.7 • Y.. . yt. 'i 1 +L•_..y t 3••t 1, 7„ ' I" • h7 SJ1.1 ,, , "t t ,I ' F ~ '1 3 3 1 l I � ° i ]"- a I��S'a '" •� a11 ..'r • + + 7r ) Irl r 1 !:3 7 1 i a• ry,,�Q.•t4{�•� tI ,• r 1. • �:M 1-3 111 71 <<;•,, rr 1 I' Cu , 114 t t. :.l 1n t 1Nr' 1F-} 1' 7 1 ,. .. ' 'r ,r/ 1 .i. t 11 i1 i/ ] \ + ts' 31.E-'---. .3 ,•2 A I. 1,r 3 .', �7 4 • ' L 4IIJI.•, 11. ' 1I - I' • , t$• : . , / 4 4 t7 15 y ; l � ; 1� 1� . �� 1' -^1 ' II 43 qj 1 ''". * • y. + �. •.„!,1, I ' ---v:-.-,-.—r.�...•t•-f-4 C'_.T• ---_..._r,.. ..'.•.•., t y f;'} ' iC•� i E:� T 7y r- 8, 1 +' 1 • 1 (7U� v „ a , .s• A + , « • ,. .. y • 1 , ,,, ,r �, + , g' +.. .lay, •\"YV,y • , ' 1P •,' . t i e+ .tr" � I .. d ,i3O, ,y._44 114•i b '. Y. 1'' a 1 y1, • .l 4 ► . t1 • 7 • �• ' ": Ii\ y ` M. . t% +. '` ,., .7Dy, ., t x`� ' . ' ' ' •n• " • - Stp. .I Uplands s ..•X 1 ti. • i • s safs0.11'nfs1 rrt :3.Y :.4 r I i II IV!' 4i71:).,!!4".. JJ. _.p j I i if i� ` .1 /'. .. • ;'' •�. tM' 3++ • �r Ore Y If V ..�•. portables Site a' h Uplands "A4 :; moo 4 '••., a•pp'•••, ���, �• • i .i.,i; • M�. i 1�t •f.Lgip ; • �.+." �• =y��S "F! a 'et'', ae/f• 1' _ • • 11 r 6' olt, y„yl 11111144,2• ..ert '�4it•�» .r y �! w, -y • f • �f . �t ' r EXHIBIT Portables Site r a �� • ,.4 i .y n 9 .. V4 t ,1 .4 •.rr R 1 V Iii t1 A r• A f H t + J 7 S P 14 l r'' �f.� F *' d i r. ' f �. ,9b' •.*+ ' y.. `1 . I .nF , 1 t"tr.'. •`i tF My• i w'. i', a I ''11H, .'•#:',i �JL i r t{ t,.,y ,?pt1. v ' t n1 •` t 1 ..c.. V ,...1 'r ;.�, YFf. w( ti ark '), �'{p:�<• STAFF REPORT �SIT OF LAKE � E ;,,... . LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION y ,� I'Ir,r NO. : • APPLICANT: Chris A. Smith, I)BA Pr) 3-84(Mod, '88)\VAR 28-88 Design Systems PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Vergil S. Fogdall Michael Wheeler r LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: 'A Tax I,ot 4800 of July 8, 1988 'l'ax Map 2 11'; 81:11 > , 1. LOCATION: • DATE OP 1lEnI2ING' Ys ; u 4 •'A, `, •- North of Lakeview Blvd. , July 18, 1988 ,�`. west of Iron Mt. Blvd. COMP. _PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: ' • , R-7.5 R-7.5 , 4� •a $ ,s. 1 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: fi None Yy, Sio ., I . APPLICANT'S REQUEST - .. ,,: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor r modification to a planned development (PO 3-84) ".. ,,'' regarding the approved location of a proposed . '',', dwelling; also, the applicant is seeking approval of a 2 Class II variance to the hillside P1'OUXL ion and "ti r) ! }A;,, , Erosion Control Standard (DS 16.005--16.040) with Y4 regard to allowed limits of cut and fill . ,�y. •+a a ' V.1 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ;' ' { A. City,elf_ Lake ,Uswe e 7onin __Code: ;1'15..' I.00 48. I95-48.225 B-7.5 'Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot ,. coverage) "s' r'' `"$'�`''' "" PO 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28�88 ' Page 1 of 10 n ' ' } .,!- 1' 10 C;U .d . • 4 L t yy.,. A ' , N r , e '"-(1 ' , ' sa s,AE ti'"t i. i . ; LOC 48.535 Special Street Setbacks +' LOC 48.485 Expiration, Revocation I (Planned Developments) LOC 48.490 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval . y 5. City of _Lake Oswego Development Cade: s ;, ''"ft LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development . Standards i LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits r ) °.1 , LOC 49.140 Minor Development ' LOC 49.200-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval •r..i„ `1 LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications 1` ' ; CAC 49.510 Variance Standard M C. City of Lake Oswego Development. Standards: 7.005 - 7.040 Parking and Loading Standard 12.005 -- 12.040 Drainage Standard for Miror Development ' t 14.005 -- 14.040 Utility Standard ,y'• � 16.005 - 16.040 hillside Protection and Erosion Control . 18.005 18.040 Access Standard ' 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private a ' " Streets/Driveways ' i 4. D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • k• I. : Impact Management Policies General Policy 1, Specific Policy 1(d) "t;w, General Policy T, Specific. Policy 3 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2(d) Potential Erosion Area Policies • General Policy III, Specifics Policy 3 ' • ^ ., b .,1 II. FINDINGS �;lM •._ A. 11.ack round: F"y ' 1 . The property owner received approval of a two- t t., lot planned development (T)D 3-84) on July 2, ; 1 • 1984. The action of the Development Review r1 ', ,, Board included six conditions of approval. s' �Y ! *S ,� , n; !', ,. : " PP 3-•54(Mo0. '88)/VAR 28-88 ,. ,� ' Page 2 of 10 ( ' � r „< ,,I1 y; �06�1 t '' -* "' t', yn, v* r 1 1 rY� t S y fir, 4+. Requested extensions were granted in May, 1985; and July, 1986. The most recent • a#' ,..; extension is scheduled to expire July 21, .',,.'• "': 1988. 2. The staff report of April 27, 1984 noted the 4 , applicability of the Hillside Protection and + ` .' Erosion Control Standard, and noted that `a extensive excavation work would be required to site a dwelling. One of the applicable Standards for Approval was noted (16.020(1)1 . '. However, no variance from this standard was requested, as required, and several other standards were not addressed. The following ,bh rt0 criteria apply: ..'`A, S 16.020(1) - "All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation and soils." { 16.020(2) - "Designs shall minimize cuts and � : fills." ,•'' 16.020(5) - "On land with slopes in excess of «„ 12 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45, and as Gc«', follows: i `' • a. Toes of cuts and fills shall be set back , ', `' , i "'1 from boundaries of separate private ' Yta , ownerships at least three feet, plus one- +I ;, fifth of the vertical height of the cut or •' p.;, ,. { fill. Where a variance is required from ", that requirement, slope easements shall be provided." 3. The staff reports of April 27, 1984 (Exhibit „ , , ;, 19) and June 8, 1984 (Exhibit 20) provide "1 ' 9 ' additional background information, Future t plans for the right-of-way improvements to ,. 1 ,1; { " Lakeview 'Boulevard are described in the staff 4'{v' report of April 27, 1984. 1:, B. Proposal: ' tY,f, • 1 {,/'a .` ri The applicants are requesting the following: 1" Y „ 1. Approval of a time extension for PD 3-84 to ,, .: afford an opportunity to complete negotiations 3 . ' { for the sale of the westerly parcel approved '' r g in 1984. s .v , n , s;, _ PD 3-84(Mcd. s88)/VAR 28-88 4'w�'"', tt : .. Page 3 of 10 44 -'�+, -1' f+'y f,�q w 1 r ' • �` { t,Ai'"} -YAK b 4, 2. Approval of a modification to the planned , '' °' development (PD 3-84) to allow rear 04 TMhk (northwest) and side (northeast) setbacks to " { be reduced to 0' and 5' , respectively. The , ;,. setbacks approved by the Development Review 04 Board in 1984 were 6' and 8' , respectively, '' , , • .rt:'' though a retaining wall and portion of the , •rs",* r ' y f proposed dwelling were shown at 0' . 9 4, M1 e .ve f" 3. Approval of a variance to several provisions 4IRy, of the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard. The standard requires a , ,, ' 3` specific setback from abutting property for cuts and fills. The applicants propose to cut • to the northwest property line in order to r r ,' %I k ,, construct a foundation for the proposed �;, dwelling. b 411 ' �Y ; The applicants propose to complete the planned development and build a two story dwelling on ti f , • ;., the westerly parcel. { P , B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: 4n f • r ), ° As per LOC 49.615 (Development Code) and LOC e' 4 4 ti q u 48.815 (Zoning Code) , staff must consider the z�"`', r following criteria when evaluating a modification p'' to a planned development and a Class II variance: /4 ''' � ,"j u t ;F y '; 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the 4 1tt3,' i 6 ' applicant seeking approval. ' `'0',x� u' •4 r °'_ ,,: The applicant has borne the burden of proof ° ,4 through submittal of documents marked as '' f';""� ; ,k;,'•, exhibits, accompanying this report. ,'; '; .''• n;�" °, 2. ror any development application to be v Al ! ' r)-- approved, it shall first be established that 4",�"" a , `', the proposal conforms to : F w ;. A 3 '1 ',• ,, a. The City's Comprehensive Plan "' ~,`, �. a•' o;: The applicable Impact Management Policies �,J and Potential Erosion Area Policies have .ea , ,,.. been addressed through aeoption and k r r;c` implementation of the Hillside Protection 4 and Erosion Control Development Standard, discussed below. DeMonstration of i' �''� '' conformance will be reserved until an y a,:� �_i evaluation of the development standard is ;�; ,r made. + Ni,.,,,; y. o d . ,c A t '� o i f{.•t PD 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 { i 1 J ; r, . Page 4 of 10 ,, +yp ' i L � 4,a 3 ♦ iil- a5 ' ,.. s1 C .„. b. The applicable statutory and Code J requirements and regulations. r ,; - Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis if The Zoning Code allows the consideration q' , of a planned development to afford flexibility in the design cif difficult sites. The current proposal does not "„.; :, increase the density of the site above that allowed by the underlying R-7.5 zone. , i• The proposed modification of setback is r,, • within the authority granted to the ' 1 Development Review Board, as prescribed by x , LOC 48.470-48.490. . The proposal is an extension of the �`ra '4.? 'r original approval with regard to the >,, ; location of the northeasterly wall of the `. 1 -y; „p approved garage/retaining structure. ,.,: '. 'o As per LOC 49.510, the staff must consider s" �' '4'' . J. the following criteria when evaluating a ,,''_+ 7 request for a Class II variance: n: E a. The request is necessary to prevent ' c, unnecessary hardship: i ` Section 16.020(5) requires a setback , ' of 4.1' from the northeast property t '' r line in order to cut into the existing , • .a, hillside. This is reduced from the '', `ti;, , ,f 6.8' setback that would have been 3'; , required by the previously approved • structure (Exhibit 17) . _y ,. The applicant suggests in his narratives that the parcel is unbuildable without the requested �, • variance, stating that in order to achieve access, the dwelling needs to be as far north as possible. It would appear to be true that in order to develop the parcel approved in 1984, extensive grading is necessary and that such extremes are the minimum necessary to prevent a hardship in the development of the westerly parcel. . b. Development consistent with the r request will not be injurious to the '•' neighborhood in which the property is "'b. PD 3•-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 ` j "• .' .. Page 5 of 10 :A'.A; I. .�, :, ., , '.titr'y. .4, N. t ( 1 Y • f 'n ItC n' located or to property established to r ',y • be affected by the request: �, ; , tY 1,. The applicant has noted the relative '•3p f• locations of nearby dwellings relative sa:, to the proximity of the railroad and ;' , + Lakeview Boulevard (Exhibit 8) . While the nearest home may be no closer than k , 140 feet, the 5'-wide pathway and railroad right-of-way are clearly the tz most affected by the request. The applicant has submitted Exhibit 9 to demonstrate that such a cut on the '. property line can be successfully accomplished at no detriment to .•' ., •`'1 neighboring properties. *` ,lA,, c. The request is the minimum variance ! .' necessary to make reasonable use of ' ', t, the property; . 1 The original approval, though proposed ! ,� to allow a 19'-high retaining wall on the northwesterly property line, would ; have required a 6.8' Class ii variance from the Hillside Protection and t o ' Erosion control standard in order to ; ".F$1, ' be built. This fact was overlooked in +_; approving PD 3-94, • ,, ,, ' The current ro osal reduces the 'jy� degree of variance to 4.1' based upon the more limited profile of the +,�4!; proposed dwelling over that originally a approved. The applicant is proposing a two-story , srFy,a dwelling above an entry-level garage. The dwelling is proposed to have a lot ;ae"...�', coverage of 27% on a 5,170 square foot ,!k �' parcel. The dwelling is proposed to a .'' i',, f+ �., ,:, have a floor area of 2,294 square foot � l.�,i: A. v +;�•»� on two floors, not including the �•': proposed garage (the size of which has , y It ),I not been indicated) . An additional , ,.. 30-35% of the lot would be devoted to ` 1 " ' r• driveways, off-street parking and ' -„ *-,.: maneuvering areas. .. ' Based upon the 25' special street a setback required from the centerline �,44''; y.= r: of Lakeview Boulevard and the l5' , �''' • PD 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 rt r•N Page 6 of 10 t.. e •• rrL� 1ti'r • .' t .> h4 ♦ ... 04 .k r . . Y r f r ..4 ',, r• , y,, . H,"yg e 't I. 1 '. 5.. • ' %k!,:.":., q tV' . front yard required by PD 3-84, the ,, proposal appears to be the minimum ti,= ,Ht --4 necessary to build a reasonably sized 1 0 ' i'r '-':17. home on this difficult lot. It also ' � c y , tC appears that, under those r 1' circumstances, the proposed cut is the `r" . 4 minimum necessary to site the home, fr '': and that construction of the dwelling on the property line must occur in y t � order to make reasonable use of the property. d. The request is not in conflict with w the Comprehensive Plan. ` Applicable Plan policies are , . implemented by the Development `% Standards listed in this report. The ;, . • 1• f' $ c' applicant's request is shown in this ', report to comply, or that it can be wr' , t g ; s made to comply, with the standards. ,, Therefore, there is no conflict with u Plan policies. ; i ; % Development Code Requirements and Analysis r„ ' '1! ' ' . This application was originally y ` ,.; : processed as a minor development. The a• �' current proposal is a minor 0 "• ?1• development, based upon the . 1t;'• interpretation found in the staff aV;', J; report for PD 3-84, dated April 27, •• t. ' ' 1984. There are no additional Code ' requirements unique to the site or the k' • e • ;.. , proposal other than the need for extension of the approval and the -, ''4s /• i�y,r requested variances. y aF, e. The applicable Development Standards ikJ1 1 A i+2• �- ' Parking and Loading (7.005 - 7.040) ; t; The applicant's proposal will provide• } ' ,0. for two off-street parking spaces, as 4 '" _ , 'w required by this standard. `' , .w,w' , r, Drainage Standard for Minor • '. " ' .1 t Development (12.005 - 12.040) . I H %o xw 4 •,•; •J No storm drainage facility (ditch or { , m:1111 4:- , ,• ' storm sewer) presently exists to serve ;, ,i « q H • (.l.1.{` ( W "11a tl 9 r ; ' PD 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 y, w• , ', r, , Page 7 of 10 A 1 : u F'' ` ^ v a 1t R o ty � 4 i..-. K " PPP 1i:yC�t' 7 ! ,•f• f*' 1'Y 1.,, t!a'< �' . v v a r , i ,14 tj• x,W•1:4, g.4 4 r d.v.„ y `. ' f.2 .• tr . �13H : . L a n f '' '1'41: . , , �, A G t + , . Iye‘ 1 ,x1 ?. . ,1 • �• 14, the site. The applicant should demonstrate that on-site drainage can be disposed of through drywells, or that connection to an acceptable City storm drain system can be provided. . y Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 - 16.040) Variances from 16.020(1) , (2) and ''.'-'4.• (5) (a) are required for compliance with this standard. These have been discussed earlier in this report. The extensive grading required will be supervised by a geotechnical engineer ° to insure protection of neighboring • properties. Approval of a revocable permit for a construction easement in the 5'-wide pathway adjacent to the I north will be required. Access Standard (18.005 .. 18.040) ,'' Both proposed parcels will meet this standard by providing a minimum of 25 feet of frontage (each) on Lakeview Boulevard. A ,,. Site Circulation - Private Streets/ r , , Driveways (19.005 - 19.040) 1 f This standard requires that driveways not exceed 20 percent slope, nor 5% cross-slope. The applicant's proposal demonstrates compliance with both > requirements, f. 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 • applicants staff concludes that the proposal complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria, r r • p PD 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 ° Page 8 of 10 /0'73 . F M • • ° • ! III. ACTION TAKEN The staff recommends approval of the applicant's - request for extension of PD 3-84(mod. '88)/VAR 28-88, as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 14) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Any further requests for extension will be reviewed by the Development Review Board. • 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's Office and recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's Office. 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 review. Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However, when recorded the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, Pile No. PD 3-84(Mod. 088)/VAR 25-88. 4. The applicant shall provide the City a signed agreement of nonremonstrance and a petition for future street improvements anticipated in Lakeview Boulevard. This agreement shall apply to both parcels, as approved. 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. • � Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 substitute for Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the original approval (conditions regarding final plat and recordation) . Application of • Conditions 4, 5 and 6 of the original approval (Exhibit 21) and Condition 4 of this report will provide compliance with all applicable criteria. PD 3-84(Mod. 188)/VAR 28-88 Page 9 of 10 7074 • O Exhibits 004 1. Tax Map 2. Request for Renewal of PD 3-84, dated June 3, 1988, by Vergil S. Fogdall. f ' 3. Request for minor modification to PD 3-84, dated June 4 3, 1988, by Vergil S. Fogdall. , . 4. Narrative regarding minor modification to PD 3-84, dated June 3, 1988, by Chris A. Smith. • 5. Narrative regarding variance to Hillside Standard, • , dated June 3, 1988, by Vergil S. Fogdall. 6. Preliminary Soils Report by Anthony J. Wright, dated • June 3, 1988. 7. Additional narrative regarding variance to Hillside Standard, dated June 28, 1988, by Vergil S. Fogdall. 8. Additional narrative regarding variance to Hillside , Standard, dated June 28, 1988, by Chris A. Smith. • 9. Soils Report by Anthony J. Wright, dated June 28, 1988. 5 10. Petition of Support, dated June 28, 1988. 11. Section 2308(b) , Uniform Building Code (Oregon State Specialty Code) referenced in DS 16.020(5) (d) . 12. Correspondence to Vergil S. Fogdall, dated June 10, 1988 regarding fee waiver request. 13. Preliminary (Survey) Sketch by Andy Paris and Associates, dated June 28, 1988. d 14. Site Plan 15. First Floor Plan • 16. Second Floor Plan ' 17. North/South Section 18. West/East Section , 19. Staff Report, dated April 27, 1984. 20. Supplemental Staff Report; dated June 8, 1984. • 21. Findings, dated July 2, 1984. „ " 22. Staff Report, dated June 26, 1986. 23. Findings, dated July 21, 1986. • i • 24. Exhibit 1<, PD 3-84, approved July 2, 1984, • PD 3-84(Mod. '88)/VAR 28-88 Page 10 00 10 707J ; 4 , a . r �_ . I 1 iii • i . y O 01 I' 1 , • • I Va9 31 Z dVW 335 \ N svr/ 11 w 9, 1 4•00 4 tilt) ,,pro . \ I. M \ G e. o f sYr/ g RN ego \ A. I 0 hN 1' 10 1- b If°` .ems` • .4.4. ` \ N. 'a , 1§O O i ti \ 'h : O O ,t di ill O� ! ) r \ \ ` r• 1.. . cs Zi ) Y` 4Sa O +1 ' • \ . Od4°,` ^3. .� Z$ I, cod .•) s 0p \ Ov • W �a •o rM/O pp 1°1 w� e4i 0r F •e \ f� pa q \ Op + eJ 0 + .41. t o 4tl t �O\ y^ �41�/, I w f� . .,leJI � w4. Q 84: . \ "f 0 �, ,4 ! o s/ 44:4, 04 2;14,4,. ‘'-. , ...,0......,, \ 0.1% lifs.),, 116 A j�4 1a ' fie i!1*0.; h C _ v� .� .,.1. ;y, \ ��y +rA 1 r •V �1 r i 1. \ N - +? ? • H /p ',.'kg p °�• N 1.� ar \ o i / M'~Oa, ` `'• 'sIn t ue ' 5. QItin y •. \ isIv' Pi. \ q��' 2. 70'7 GI. ��"' r AYCRGIL S.rOODALL PM.D, .. 1043 LW.LAKEVIEW SLVD, LAKE OSWEGO,OR 070SA L '; T'Oz City of Lake Oswego• 3 June, 1988 • Development Review Board 1. �j "�k Ills Renewal of permission to sub-divivd our lot , ,, y,, IS 1E Map 8DB Tax Lot 4800 + �� * - .. a Otherwise identified as 2983 SW L(keview Blvd. ` Lake Oswego, OR 7n 1984 the Development Review Board approved the sub-dividing of our lot and the creation of a new lot next to ours as the 10 ation for a single family dwelling. And two years ago this permission was reared with the further stipulation that the staff was authorised to take similar action in the future without 1 referral to the full board. We are now in the process of selling this lot • within that authority and hereby request a renewal of this permission. The new owner will be applying for his own plans for the lot. , Since there is no staff work involved in this renewal]we respetfuly ask that the fee be waived. The new owner will be liable for his own fee in connection with his application. . ' 7 0'7'7 • ..21VEROIL S.ROODALL.PK.D. 1 204'.i S.W.LAKEVIEW SLY°. .. LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97034 • Since we are so inexperienced in the mechanics of processessuch as e taiiss, copy' please advise us if there are other things we can d AAlso gay we is 19a6 o of the minutes of the nt.. ting in which this permission (..L,:____._ ' Respec f lly, • i • Verg S. F 1 l -t 1 Al rta Brooks,logdall • 6 • • 7 l0'73 . 1. C-. • A June 3, 1988 ! Development Review Board ' . ' ' City of Lake Oswego ' :1 348 N. State Street KwjJ J Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ATTENTION: MR. MICHAEL WHEELER PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: MINOR MODIFICATION TO PD 3-84 D Dear Mr. Wheeler: I request that the Development Review Board approve the reduction ' of setbacks as a "minor modification" to the "two-lot planned development". I see no conflict or detriment to my property and, in fact, the reduction at the north property line would place the proposed residence in line with my own home thus retaining possible view from my home and solar access to both homes. I understand that without these approvals I will not be able to complete this sale of my property. In four years of having this property listed this is the first acceptable offer I have received. Thank yo or your consideration in reviewing this proposal. . r_ , C� r1-9 /7_11/ . Vergil S. Fogdall Alberta Brooks Fogdall ' . 44 Ex IIIT Ha a4�iroc ee ' `b02. -rib , o 7079 ' _ • • . j • • Development Review BoardV.1 a NV3 City of Lake Oswego 348 N. State Street • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 { ATTENTION: PLWHEELER . ANNING MICHAEL DEPARTMENT '• RE: MINOR MODIFICATION TO VARIANCE PD 3-84 ' a` J • • Dear Mr. Wheeler: I have recently conditionally purchased the proposed lot to be created by a Two-Lot Residential Planned Development conditionally • approved in 1984 with continuances through July 1988. • The property, 2943 Lakeview Blvd, also known as Lot 1In 48 Lake View Villas, requires submittal information for final approval. reviewing the conditions granted in June, 1984 and the proposed reknittedab plan Mr. Chilcote, it isbapparent the area 25(Exhibit "special use pmi Y :,,,`reet setback" was not included. After subtracting the additional 5'-0" it became evident the scheme would require modification to be "buildable". Due to the additional "5'-0" special street setback" we hereby respectfully request a minor modification of the two-lot p development" previously approved. REQUESTS: A. Reduction of setback from 8'-0" (as approved 6-84) to 5'•.0". • B. Reduction of setback from 6'-0" (as approved 6-84) to 0' . • systems design F9d o . ,,,,. L.,..), . . tnnncinr�g m �saaSff offc�gor� , 7Vs() PO SOX 111011 PORTLANO,011110014 871107 OWVELOPWRm OSSIONSRS OuNEgAL CONTRACTORS '*SLRPIMOhNU B03.241.01118 I Page 2 of 3 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER MINOR MODIFICATION TO VARIANCE PD3-84 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST A: (8' to 5') 1., The existing property is zoned R7.5. In an R7.5 zone the standard setback in this location would be 5'-0". • 2. The adjacent residence owner has no objection (see attached) . 3. Existing vegetation between the two residences will be retained • with trees treated by a tree surgeon to ensure longevity. 4. The proposed residence shall have only two windows facing the adjacent home. They will be of minimum size and shall not be aligned to allow intrusion of privacy. • 5. Due to the unique shape and topography of the lot the proposed reduction will allow improved vehicular access on to and off of the site. Due to driveway grades it will allow a lengthened driveway thus reducing the depth of excavation. JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST B: (6' to 0') 1. To retain a buildable, livable residence the additional "51-0" special street setback" grossly limits the available building . envelope. 2. By positioning the proposed residence on the property line the driveway can be lengthened allowing sufficient parking, improved vehicular maneuverability and will substantially decrease the depth of excavation. 3. The only residence adjacent to the proposed residence is presently built on the property line (Dr. Fogdall's home) . This existing residence encroaches 15' beyond the property line with a leased right-of-use from Southern Pacific Railroad. P 7081 H p P Page 3 of 3 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER MINOR MODIFICATION TO VARIANCE PD3-84 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego • 4. Houses to the north are approximately 190' away with a landscape buffer zone of approximately 40' against the proposed residence. This buffer zone includes trees with a canopy height exceeding 40' . Adjacent buildable properties to the west are in excess of 1000' away from the proposed residence. Properties tO the south are not impacted. 5. The reduced setback allows for added livability of already excessively limited yard space ail maximizes solar pot to Lakeview The added front yard space ��itheapYesentow nstreetscape� Boulevard thus enhancing F. No windows willbe in the ion.toToconform ' railroad minimize the noise of (-))de ahu axr mxthising enrgy conservat ered stud" construction with soundboard this wall will be "staggered insulation, ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR REDUCED SETBACKS A AND B: • 1. The total amount of open space will not be affected and there I present. • are no unique natural features 2. The proposed residence is within the squarevfle o(1t re0ommend)tion made in the "two-lot planned development" app 3. Lot coverage will be approximately 25%; 10% less than allowed in this zone. 4. Building height will be less than 26' on the south and 19' on the north and east. R- c1fully Submitted, 0 A ris,• . Smith enclosures ASsatt 7082 • 4 . • • S , I ` June 3, 1988 MO ,3'W3 .. . Development Review Board , City of Lake Oswego 348 N. State Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 I ATTENTION: MR. MICHAEL WHEELER ; ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION xv f " AND EROSION CONTROL Dear Mr. Wheeler: In June 1984, I applied for and was granted conditional approval , for a Two-Lot Residential Planned Development. During a recent review of this information pursuant to the submittal of final conditional information it was noted by City •aff that an additional variance would be neccessary to grant proval as noted. Due to the necessity of construction excavation the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control standards would govern. , We hereby respectfully request a variance to allow for construction excavation and retainage which is significantly less than that • originally proposed. There is an obvious hardship affecting this Variance application as • it would be impossible to build on this lot without this variance. , The construction cuts proposed and the use of retaining structures are noted on the enclosed sectional drawings. All cuts are the minimum possible to allow vehicular access to the site. . r • A soils engineer's report by Mr. Anthony Wright, shall accompany , this request. All land forms shall, as previously approved, be returned to their natural state resulting in no negative impact to neighboring properties. There are no unique features present on this site. All foundation and retaining walls are to be designed by State ' certified engineers. EX II raIT . ; b 1ML'ZR-86 , 70S3 L, t• • •f ' Page 2 of 2 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Development Review Board .: Cityof Lake Oswego wz It will Under the requirements of 16.020 section 5a of the COY it of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance be necessary for us to receive ; :the approval of the City of Lake Oswego in regards to a slope• easement to be used during construction only. • I will suffer economic hardship without this variance as I will not have a buildable lot. Thank yoU for your help in resolving this previously uncompleted matter to allow this final approval of my lot. Please note the attached "approved" exhibits which have already spoken to this issue. 5i a Vergil S. Fogdall enclosures V5Featt • i t • 7084 Page 2 30 May '4 be located a 2-story rouidentiul unit with each floor containing 850 to 900 sq.ft. of living space. We would propose approval be ti granted based nn a generalized site development plan as shown with iilownnceu far nqunre footagea of 1800 Lu 2,000 sq.ft. The actual , • residential design should conform to review board criteria as a • • condition of development. After construction has been completed, beckfilling and landscaping completed the improved site will pro- vide a very pleasant addition to the housing stock of the City of • Lake Oswego. m Specifics; ' 1. I'urkinq ' To consist of a 2-car garage with exterior area adequate for parking u minimum of 2 additional cars and turn around space on site. The parking would be totally on-site and not disrupt o the street traffic pattern. There would be adequate space for maneuvering and turning in order to drive down the driveway to , . , the street instead of backing out. • 2. Vehicular visibility • Visibility of Lakeview Boulevard is a major concern to all parties; the neighborhood in general, residents of this particular pro- perty and to the City. A considerable number of hazardous conditions exist along Lakeview Boulevard in relationship to . • parking and backing. The location of the drive entrance at the westerly end 'point' onto Lakeview Boulevard with visual site ' lines of 1100 feet plus in a westerly direction and 450 feet plus in an easterly direction, will provide visibility which is not 1- • only adequate but superior to a majority of existing situations. • Au noted on the drawing it is very important that the drive entranve he luoatr,rl al the 'palm' an shown since the street begins a curve westerly at that location. if the driveway is located further east on the site visibility would be considerably reduced in the westerly direction. 3. Drainage A. iiiniinul site coverage is achieved with the dwelling designed as a "stacked" unit. Roof and foundation drainage for the house would extend out to the existing street-side drainage ditch. This drainage would route to a storm sewer, similar to the requirements of any and all other dwellings along Lakeview • boulevard, at such future time that storm sewers are installed. • B. The driveway drainage is proposed to extend down and into . the existing roadway ditch in a westerly direction. . C. The natural grade (as shown on the attached plan) indicates this site is close to the crown of the hill. Therefore, , • there will be little if any drainage from other properties and there are no pre-existing water-ways through this pro- • perty. • 4. Hill Side Erosion Control Uue to the nature of construction with excavation, retaining wall, and basement level construction, the completed structure ' Will keep the existing grade condition about as is after con- • ,,,, struction. Conditions on some slopes will become less severe than existing. In addition, all cut bank areas • should be required to be fully landscaped and stabilized. 1085 Gi ENN CI illC011 e, ASSOLIAI I'1 Al A AhCI III CIS,PLANNERS/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 15964 BOONS I I ItIV RI 4./P r0.l4W8 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 PH.(503)636-3668 M • �� • DD , CITY OF LAKE OSWCGO WPPINE da DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING • JUNE 18, 1984 J The Development Review Board sheeting was called to order by Chairman ` Richard Hutchins at 8:00 p m. Board members present were Chairman Hutchins, John Fulton, Anthony Wright, and John Glasgow. Board renbers absent (excused absences) were Richard Eslick and Lynn Takeuchi.. Staff present were City Planners Bob Galante, Stan Tidman, and Gary Hiniszewski; • Deputy City Attorney, Mask Pilliod; and, Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock, PETITIONS AND C(WIJNICATIONS - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES ` Mr. Wright moved for approval of the minutes of June 4, 1984 as written, „ The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgow, and passed with t'r. Wright, Mr, Glasgow, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor, Mr, Fulton abstained, as he was absent at the June 4 meeting. The minutes will need a second r' • vote at the July 2 meeting to verify this vote, PUBLIC HEARIThGS PD 3-84 - A Continuation of a request uest by Vergil Fogdall for approval of a two-lot Planned Development in R-7.5 zone, The location for this requested action is 2943.Lakeview Boulevard. Mr, Tidnan presented the staff report. It: the prior staff report, staff had reconnended denial of the application, but have changed this re- commendation to approval subject to conditions based cn submittal of supplemental evidence by the applicant (Exhibit J, Vicinity map; Exhibit K, • 'f Ste Plan; and, Exhibit I.,,, Narrative). Glen Chilcote, Architect, 3480 St Upper Drive, spoke in behalf of the applicant. He said that the driveway access has been designed•to allow view in both directions on Lakeview Boulevard, He discussed the building plans, and the drainage solutions for the site. He answered questions . for Board members, . No one else spoke, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Board discussion centered on the driveway access, and whether it was viable or not, Chairman Hutchins did not feel the driveway allowed adequate turning space for a vehicle exiting, and it would encourage cars backing onto Lakeview Boulevard, Mr, Wright moved for approval of PD 3-84, subject to the recommendations cited by staff with an addition as follows: 1. A survey (as depicted on Exhibit t:) be registered with the • Clackamas County Surveyor's Office. This survey should clearly L. depict the five (5) foot special street setback (25 feet from centerline) along both parcels Lakeview Boulevard frontage. 7 0 j 6 2. Legal descriptions of each lot be specified on legal instruments • • , Develnpment Review Board Meeting ' June 18, 1984 ',. 0•rr,, Page 2 • Clackamas County Clerk's Office. The instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application, and its • conditions of approval as outlined in the City of Lake Oswego's Planning Department file no. Pill 3-84, 3. Evidence of the above survey registration and legal instrument recordation be provided to the City Planning Department, No building permits can be issued until this evidence is provided. 3, i 4. A site drainage plan based on this proposal be prepared in accordance with the Drainage Standard and approved by the public Works Department. 5. No buildings are to be located within the 25 foot setback from • L the centerline of Lakeview Boulevdrd. 6, Appropriate soils investigation to evaluate the excavatability of the rock, and to provide recommendations for safe construction slopes, foundation drainage, and earth pressure against all H. retaining walls to the satisfaction of City engineering staff. 1 The motion was seconded by Mr. Fulton, and passed with all Board members . " 1 present voting in favor. Mr, Hutchins stated that he was not convinced the driveway exiting situation was adequate, but that he would vote for , the notion nonetheless. 1 • DR 13-84 - A continuation of a request by Carbarn, Inc, for approval of a 153 unit congregate care housing facilityand a minor ion to to partit , create a lot for the future development of27 additional units, Elimination ' . of a condition of ZC 10-78 (Ordinance 1723) which required 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Carman Drive was also required, The acre site is located south of Carman Drive and west of Davis Lane. Mr, Galante presented the staff report, He introduced new exhibits submitted by the applicant, Staff recommended approval with 17 conditions, San_ of the conditions could be eliminated because of new evidence sub- : mitted by the applicant, Mr, Galante answered questions for Board members. � . ' Chairman Hutchins reopened the public portion of the hearing,to allow testiirony on the additional request of the applicant and the new evidence submitted, Edward Allis, President of Carbarn Inc,, spoke in behalf of the application. lie addressed the conditions of approval recommended by staff, pointing out those conditions which his submittals had addressed, and referring the Board to those exhibits which illustrated the conditions having been net, ,i I t`") Joe Griggs, Architect, gave a slide presentation illustrating the loca- , , 'tion of the development, and discussed the plans for the project, He answered questions from Board members, 7 0 8'7 Mr, Galante said he had received a telephone call from John James, who had testified at the last hearing (owner of 400E Kruse {day Place). , i AN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,Inc. 1470 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 (503)635-3146 June 3, 1988 Design Systems • P.O,Box 1602 Portland, OR 97207 } Attention: Mr. Chris Smith PRELIMINARY GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE 2983 LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD, LAKE OSWEGO WEST PORTION OF LOT 148, LAKEVIEW VILLAS t . • . The subject site consists of a triangular shaped piece of . property confined by a street cut of Lakeview Boulevard to the { : south, and a railroad cut to the north, and the existing Foghill residence to the east. ;r • The site is underlain by Miocene basalt (DOGMI Bulletin 99) . No slope or other soil hazards were noted to exist over the site. A north to south fault has been inferred immediately east of the bend in Lakeview Boulevard - though this is not considered to be active. We understand that the planned residence will be developed • over the brow of the lot. It is planned to minimize cuts to those necessary to develop an east to west access driveway and a basement garage for the building area - which will be mostly 4 to B ft and locally as deep as 12 ft along 'the back of the basement garage wall. It is our opinion that the cuts can be made at a relatively ° , steep slope. An evaluation of the potential cut conditions will be made subsequently. Detailed geotechnical recommendations will be provided in a subsequent letter report. Yours truly, (' t;..\� AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,Inc '`, �'''01 N fi•j'r,� o,8G"o ylP,,�N V Anthony J. Wright; P.E. Ortetl / -47 l'i. 4�30 • (j �` yONV i IA'' 4 EX I�IT �� eis pUNJ . r _ 7088 11, ►���� , + June 24, 1988 �� r2 ,$ 198P Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 348 N. State Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ATTENTION: MR. MICHAEL WHEELER PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE ON VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR • HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Dear Mr. Wheeler: As I have stated previously I will suffer severe economic hardship ( hould the approval of the variance to "hillside protection and erosion control" be denied. I am told that without this approval my "two-lot planned development" will be nonexistent. My wife and I began this Planned Development in 1984 because of increasing hardships brought on by retirement and age. We were granted the approval for dividing our lot in 1984 and have had this piece of property on the market since that time. In this period I have received one acceptable offer, which is dependent on this variance and a minor modification to the Planned Development. Now we have been told that because of an "oversight" by the planning staff in 1984 we should have, at that time, requested an additional variance for the setback as it relates to "hillside protection and erosion control" in order to build our driveway as approved and granted in exhibit K of PD 3-84. After July 1988 my Planned Development expires. Should this variance approval not be granted further extention of the approved Planned Development would not be granted eit.:, r. This would leave my wife and I with a piece of property that ins become too large for us to manage and a severe financial hardship we had not anticipated when we received the initial approval in 1984. We are very concerned that the planning board could possibly rescind their original decision for approval of this Planned Development and all our time and mnaey over the years would have been wasted. 4,, " txHI it I 1:1) 7089 11a-es • • • Page 2 of 2 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE ON VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL • Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego In our original hearing exhibits from 1984 the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control issue was addressed both by my architCct, Mr. Glenn Chilcote (exhibit L) and by City of Lake Oswego Staff Report (exhibit N, page 5) . At no time during the many months that we worked on this project was it ever mentioned that more in-depth • criteria needed to be addressed concerning this issue. I believe what, although it may appear to have been an oversight by present staff, the assumption was that this matter had been addressed to everyone's satisfaction. I feel I have been wronged in having • to dedicate additional time and money to a matter that was accepted years ago. In reference to your letter of June 10, 1988 concerning non-waiving of fees of $280. required for this original "oversight" in 1984 I want it known that they are paid under protest. 11 We respectfully request that you approve this variance as well as the minor modification. Sincerely, • Vergil 0:214,1110:1%) Alberta Brooks Fogdall VSF:ccs 7090 June 24, 1988 • Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 348 N. State Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 PUN 2 8 1988 ATTENTION: MR. MICHAEL WHEELER PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: NARRATIVE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL • Dear Mr. Wheeler: We respectfully request approval of the variance which refers to "setback of toe of cuts" as refered to in section 16.020 5a of the City of Lake Oswego nevelopment Ordinance and Standards, January 1987 (DO&S) . We understand that a variance from the Development Standards can be granted should certain criteria be met. We believe that the right Triteria have been met and will be stated in this narrative. In this particular situation the topography (10-30% slopes) and the lot configuration (triangular) necessitate that the driveway be located along the north property line beginning at the southwesterly "point" of the lot and continuing along this line at a 20% maximum slope to the house location (which is dictated by setbacks and the properties unusual shape) . This lot, because of its unusual character requires innovative design to make it function. We believe the driveway access along the property line is the best possible solution to a difficult design problem. It is our opinion that the intention of the "toe of slope setback" was adopted to prevent disturbance to adjacent • properties. It is the intention of this design to make the minimum cut required for construction and to return the site to a "setter than existing" condition through the use of retaining wall foundations and replacement and maintenance of any disturbed vegetation (see sections) . Mr. Tony Wright, soils engineer, has inspected the site and will be submitting a report of his findings under separate cover. .' • EXHI IT design s ste p . Ora l • 709 i PO c 10041 PORMANO,ORSORM4 inne 7 DEVELOPERS DURIONERO OINRRAL CONTIIA$TOR/ 1 LlPMON!0101410142510 44 I1 . Page 2 of 4 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER NARRATIVE ON VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego Section 16.020 5a DO&S refers to a setback for toe-of-cut seperation between properties of private ownership of at least 3' plus 1/5 of the vertical height of the cut. The proposed cut would be placed along the north property line (not over this line) . The accompanying soils engineer report will address the steepness of the proposed cut and any backfill engineering required. Any material cut` from the site will be returned and be retained by engineer designed retaining walls, thus leaving land forms as they presently exist. Any disturbed vegetation will be replaced and maintained. , In reference to the "Outline of the Class II Variance Procedure" the following narrative is provided. 10 HARDSHIP: This request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. To allow vehicular access to this irregularly shaped piece of property the lot configuration (triangular) and steepness (0'-30'above street elevation) dictate that the driveway and residence be located as far north on the property as possible (along north property line) . See topo/site plan. To move the driveway to the south would make access to the site impossible and would cut into a more extreme slope condition along Lakeview Boulevard. Also, in order to facilitate a vehicular turn-around on the site the drive needs to be held as far north as possible. This kill result in a site circulation pattern which is better than that approved in 1984. This request for a variance of the setback of cuts is the only feasible way to make access to this particular piece of property • possible. Should this variance not be granted severe hardship is placed upon the applicant, Dr. Fogdall, as his two-lot planned development will no longer be considered a saleable piece of property (see accompanying letter) . DEVELOPMENT NOT INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORHOOD: This particular piece of property is a triangle bounded by Lakeview Boulevard on the south, Southern Pacific Railroad 120' Right-of-Way to the north and Dr Fogdall's residence (applicant) to the east. The property slopes from the northeast corner to the southwest corner with a fairly steep road cut along Lakeview Boulevard. The neighborhood consists of houses across Lakeview Boulevard the lots of which 7092 • • • • Page 3 of 4 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER NARRATIVE ON VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego • slope away from the road towards Oswego Lake. Homes east of the site are in excess of 260' from the proposed cut. Homes to the north are across the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in excess of 140' away. There are no privately owned lots to the west for approximately 1 mile. Because of the isolated location of this property there would be no negative impact to the neighborhood caused by moving the driveway cut approximately 4' to the north of what development standards now call for. In fact, the proposed move would enlarge and enhance the buffer zone between the 0 streetscape and driveway. PHYSICAL IMPACT: Granting of this variance will not have a negative physical impact on the site or the neighborhood. The proposed driveway will run along the north property line (more or less parallel to Lakeview Blvd.) rather that 3-4' south of this line thereby decreasing the impact to the steep slope of the road but along Lakeview Boulevard. By not disturbing this existing road 41 cut the existing vegetation will continue to stabalize the slope and provide a visual buffer between the street and the lot. Traffic Visibility: It was shown in the initial approval documents for the two-lot planned development (exhibits K & L) that it is crucially important to keep the drive entrance at the "point" of the property. The roadway, Lakeview Boulevard, begins a westerly curve at this point. To move the driveway any further to the east would considerable reduce sight visibility in the westerly direction thereby increasing the possiblity for accidents when accessing Lakeview Boulevard. On-Site Turn Around: It is the intention of PD 3-84 two-lot planned development which was approved in 1984 to provide on-site turn around (see exhibit K) . In order to accomplish this maneuver on such a tight site configuration the driveway needs to abut the north property line and extend the back up area as close to roadway cut as feasible. This on-site turn around was deemed to be necessary in the staff report and was then approved as exhibit K in the 1984 proceedings. 7093 Page 4 of 4 MR. MICHAEL WHEELER NARRATIVE ON VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego • Drainage: To grant approval of this set back variance would have • no negative impact on site drainage. Site drainage will be in accordance with drainage standards and will be approved by the Public Works Dept. as required in approval of PD 3-84 granted July • 2, 1984. Landslide Hazard: Landslide hazard on this site will be decreased because the existing Lakeview Boulevard road cut will remain undisturbed. If the driveway were to be placed as required with • the set backs from the north property line the roadway cut would be severly impacted thereby increasing potential for erosion and landslide. It is the goal of LCDC to fully develop within the designated "urban growth boundary". This is achieved through developing all land not set aside for parks and recreation and/or public use. We feel that the solution proposed to utilize this site is the best possible solution to a difficult problem leaving adjacent properties virtually unaffected while meeting the intent of LCDC's goals. If oU haVe anyquestions or concerns on this Y proposal we are • • available at your convenience to discuss them. Sincerely, iir4 Clr � Smith, Design Systems Ch i• ; cE:a, esign Systems Vergil S. Fogdall, applicant • CAS:att 700d1 O % • ; r !X(1 (� 5�►) AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,Inc. 3- (►�uo 1470 Horseshoe Curve N./,047,211..Eg Lake Oswego, OR 97034 . (503)635-3146 June 28, 1988 Design Systems ' P.O.Box 1602 ' Portland, OR 97207 Attention: Mr. Chris Smith GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION �i r 2983 LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD, LAKE OSWEGO NON 42 8 19 WEST PORTION OF LOT 148, LAKEVIEW VILLAS • , �` This letter summarizes the results of our site inspection and evaluations for the subject site. n The location of the triangular shaped site is shown on the attached Site Plan. The triangular shaped site is situated on a slope above • Lakeview Blvd and above the northwest shore of Lake Oswego. The site is flanked to the south by a steep road cut of Lakeview Blvd. and by a similar steep cut to the north for the SP Railroad. These cut slopes are as steep as 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Access to the site is via an existing pathway from the • southwest corner of the lot rising on a 20 to 25% grade toward the existing Fogdall residence. • The site is densely vegetated with Oak, Fir, and Maple trees and brush undergrowth. The trees are erect, indicating good • site stability, i The existing Fogdall residence, immediately adjacent to the proposed residence, is an older home with no apparent foundation problems, This residence contains a basement area that we understand was excavated to provide a sublevel expansion after . the original residence construction, • Proposed Construction Development of the proposed residence necessitates a sloping • fess driveway from Lakeview Blvd. from the southwest corner of ,e lot. Minor cuts of between 1 to 2 ft and locally up to 4 ft .re planned to develop the driveway. The "L" shaped residence will be established on conventional spread footings and slabs on grade, , ' The various stepped finished floor graded are shown,on the i,4 7095 • ' -2_ attached Site Plan. Generally moderate cuts of 3 ft or so Will be needed to develop the various floor levels. At the entry garage area, more extensive cuts of` 7 to 10 ft are planned; locally cuts will approach 12 ft along the northwest wall. We understand that it is desired to develop a level ' • ,,. , landscape area beyond the southeast leg of the residence. . • Geologic and Soil Conditions , The site is underlain by Miocene basalt (DOGMI Bulletin 1; 99) . No slope or other soil hazards were noted to exist over the site. A north to south fault has been inferred immediately east • . of the bend in Lakeview Boulevard - though this is not considered to be active. The soil/rock conditions were evaluated by a surface • reconnaissance of the existing road and railroad cuts that flank the site and by a shallow surface exposure of the subsoil • • • conditions that was made by the local excavation of a shallow trench in the slope near the southeast corner of the lot. In ,, addition, various soil exposures Were accomplished along the slope of the railroad cut to obtain a visual impression of the • undisturbed suh';c+rface conditions, The site i:, inderlain by a dark brown silt topsoil layer 1 containing roots L:. a depth of about 1 1/2 ft. The topsoil is • underlain by a ncuerately weathered fractured basalt. The matrix materials consist of silt to sand and gravel materials. The residual rock fragments possess variable hardness characteristics. The insitu rock sizes vary from gravel to mostly cobbles; occasional residual boulders (12" to 3'size) were noted in the face of the adjacent railroad cut. The railroad and roadway cuts are stable in their present condition. Some soil sloughing accumalation was noted at the bottom of the railroad cut due to relatively sparse vegetation over the cut face. By contrast the ivy covered, face of the road cut above Lakeview Boulevard indicated no evidence of surface sloughing. Grading and Foundation Development It is our opinion that the site is stable. No evidence of • deep Or shallow seated sliding Was evident. Surface erosion can be contained by suitable plantings, Overall it appears that the proposed site excavation can be made With conventional construction equipment. A crawler mounted . trackhoe Would appear to be appropriate. It appears that the 7' excavations for the adjoining road and railroad cuts were made Without undue difficulty, Ih addition the Fogdall basement 7099 ' _4- Footing excavations should be made carefully to avoid disturbance. Dislodged cobbles and boulders and other disturbed materials should be removed. All overexcavations and other voids j . should be filled with crushed rock compacted in 6 in. lifts using • suitable plate vibrator compactors. ' Although subsurface water does not appear to be present at the site, we recommend that basement walls be provided with suitable subdrains at the base of footings. It may be prudent to provide a subdrain below the center of the garage floor. , All exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the residence walls. All slopes should be planted with suitable deep rooted ' plantings such as ivy for erosion control. Similarly any existing ground cover that is removed outside the development • • areas during grading should be similarly restored. Temporary erosion control may be necessary daring construction to prevent silting of the adjacent street. Etiosion ' control devices such as surface water diversion dithing, geotextile landscaping fabrics and/or hay bales should be , employed to the extent necessary. Large cobbles and boulders from onsite cut excavations could be utilised for shallow retaining walls along uphill cuts. Selected boulders could also be usefully employed to develop a gravity retaining wall up to 4 ft high and 2 ft wide at the base - to develop a level landscape area beyond the southeast leg of . the proposed residence. The front face of this wall should be . set back at least 4 ft from the top of the existing cut slope. The base of the rock wall should be set on a 6 in. levelling pad of 3/4 in, minus rock over the top of insitu rock. Topsoil ' should be removed only in the immediate vicinity of the Wall and backfill. Rock walls should be backed by a non woven geotextile fabric to prevent loss of fines from behind the wall. Backfills behind the landscape wall could consist of selected excavation spoils tracked in ift thick lifts With multiple passes of suitable cat equipment. • The subgrade below floor slabs and the access road should • consist of 4 in. of well compacted 3/4 in. minus relatvely free draining crushed rock. . ,11 1091 e ' r3_ excavation would have most likely been accomplished with small • equipment. Occasional boulders are likely to be encountered during site excavations. Permanent cut slopes that are properly vegetated can be ° constructed as follows: Cut Slope Height Soil Type Slope Inclination Up to 4 ft Rock 1/2H : 1V • Up to 4 ft Silt Topsoil 1 1/2H : 1V 4ft to 12 ft Rock 1H : 1V It is our opinion that temporary cut slopes for the residential excavations can be made essentially vertical. All cut slopes should be covered with suitable visqueen membranes to contain moisture and to prevent surface water wetting. Slopes • , that indicate a propensity to unravel could be cut back at a • suitable slope. Along the northwest wall of the garage excavation, temporary slope development will not be practicable due to essentially zero setback restrictions. If unravelling should be a problem over the vertical face of the ex6 No 10 excavation, wesh ` recommend that the face be gunited using reinforcement attached by suitable rebars that are driven into the rock joints. The gunite face could ouldmethen nal , eutilised as a nt back form for the subsequently poured Recommended lateral design pressure for basement walls are - as follows: Wall Backfill Condition Equivalent Latera Fluid Pressure lLat l Crushed rock or sand 35 insitu exposed rock & 20 . gunite protected rock Lateral resistance against the retaining wall footings can be developed by passive resistance using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 400 lb/cU ft. A All retaining wall and figUndation footings should extend to a minimum depth of 1 ft below fhe lowest adjacent grade or 6 in. into insitu rock, whichever is the greater depth. Interior • footings should extend to at least the rock surface. Footings can be conventionally sized. The available design bearing pressure is at least 4000/sq ft for footings bearing on insitu L, weathered rock. / -5- P The Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to review the driveway, foundation, and retaining wall details for compliance with the intent of this letter report. The Geotechnical Engineer should also be retained to make appropriate inspections of the site and footing excavations. ‘, , Yours truly, /5a1e- " AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,Inc. ✓ ;-yr:,, riff, \'� /' V// � O:tii�OH Anthony J. Wright, P.E. ; ��,. �. Attachment: `'y 1,rIr Site Plan , v. 4 i • I091 DEAR NEIGHBOR: r,UN 2 '$ �988 • We have recently purchased a lot created in 1984 by a two-lot planned development from Dr. Fogdall at 2943 Lakeview Blvd. The lot has a highly restrictive shape and topography. To allow us to build a residence on the lot we are requesting a minor modification to the planned development and a variance. The minor modification will allow us to reduce the approved , setbacks as follows: The rear setback, against the Southern Pacific Railroad Easement, would be reduced from six feet' to zero feet. This would place our , home in the same relationship to the property line as our only direct neighbor, Dr. Fogdall. The sideyard setback, against Dr. Fogdall, would be reduced from eight feet to five feet. This would also place our home in the same relationship to the property line as our neighbor Dr. Fogdall. • Dr. Fogdall supports both of these requests. The variance will allow us to excavate and backfill along the Southern Pacific Boundary according to the conditions set forth by our State Certified Geotechnical Engineer, Mr. Anthony Wright. Dr. Fogdall is the applicant for this request. • 1 By signing below I support the requests of Mr. Smith and Dr. ' Fogdall: i Hj4. 2 ,i , ty. t944 &J ?r 2 . l.r v,goss- 44444.(.4 . II /5'"g5U st✓7w h fired £a 0su/ v 4var' !, (.., 745-p S to t-`pp 4a k p 1e , . 41111r7 - -,.. . -2-1 fP Y c-t/ , eldi-t. .......e,...7' . /-ed---'TAIOS2' ' - . .4110:Z.s • • - a 93 G ;, ,�4-c-. 1 7, 3, ' : " /1„.......:4..) • '' 0 . 41411.4e tiSiCat • aft0 alaAv.viecti 'gad F74,-k-5 , , ,, 0 lador-o( a XA:":4-7),. 270? 641 Meern'ai 'he 77616- , , lijeig:. M EXHIBIT 7100 N. , VA/Las-be ti , , 1 ,,.ha . 1 ' . R ri) . , , ,1 1 " ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ti. ' 1 June 10, 1988 5 ",i Vergil S. Fogdall • 2943 Lakeview Blvd. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: PD 3-84 (Mod. 88) Var 28-88 4 A. "j 1 ', Dear Mr. Fogdall: 4 .411, '. This is in response to your request for fee waiver in connection With your request for extension of the approval granted in 1984 ,,,,,., for your two-lot planned development. I have discussed the matter With Karen Scott, Assistant City Manager for Planning and - em.' Development, and have concluded the following: ~4. ,:,I Your current application consists of the following matters: ' 1. Variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 1 ' Standard which requires setbacks from property lines for •: • earth cuts and fills, This variance was required in 1984, but apparently overlooked when PD 3-84 Was processed. Current filing fee is $280.00. • 2. Modification of the approved planned development to allow ^« reduced setbacks beyond those required by the Development Review Board in their 1984 approval. This modification appears necessary in order to achieve your pending sale of ^^ y;N, the Westerly lot. Current filing fee is $250.00. 444 • io . ' litageoft . • VAR. XI-Bs . . *;, 4 7101 1, ' • 144 NORTH STATr STRtEt/POST orrIrr f4Ok 3( /LAKP oSWItCO,ORLGON 47034/ISM)06.101 , 4e r 3. Modification of the planned development to request an extension of the approval of PD 3-84. This is necessary to retain approval as granted for a defined period of time. 1 Typical filing fee for such extensions is $250.00. You will recall remitting payment in the form of a check for $250.00 on June 3, 1988. Chris Smith remitted payment of $280.00 on the same day. Based upon these amounts, you have paid for the !. modifications and Mr. Smith has paid for the variance, though your names appear in the reverse order as applicants. . • Absent the need to process the variance on the requested ' modification, your filing fee of $250.00 would have accountedxfor • a "minor modification to the planned development" with regard to ;. and extension as requested. However, because all three actions ,, are now necessary there can be no waiver of filing fee for the extension. • As is typical, one filing fee for several similar requests has been allowed; the fee for the two modifications is simply one . payment of $250.00 as remitted. The $280.00 filing fee for the , variance would have been required in 1984, and is required at this time as well; it is a distinct application, necessary to assure that an extension will be granted, I hope that the content of this letter is clear. If you have any' ' questions, please phone me at 635-0292, Sincerely, ith;e44"e120kagol----' Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner • • •4. MRW:lp cc: Chris A, Smith • `w 7102 . — • ,, 4� I SURVEY FOR: C IRIS SMIT N ANDY PARIS AND ASSOCIATES PLAY LOT I46 4AK4 VIEW `AI ILL.AS • • LOCATION...LE--I/41SEC, 8 ,T,ALRrLWILLAMETTE MERIDIAN w� r. " CA.A6MAM AS COUNTY, OREGON DATE: ,tuwa LB.1T111B NA _ ,•, LOCATION MAP B- %IL SO% DRAWN BY 1PS CHECKED BY \ REGISTERED OREGON LAND SURVEYORS FIEND: 0 INDICATES 3/d'K 30"IRON ROD SET WITH YELLOW CAP MARKED 16077 SW CANYON DRIVE 'PARIS B ASSOC R.L,S.axe.* LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 •INDICATES MONUMENTS FOUND AS NOTED PHONE.636-3341 t • !L♦: ' 819 : IICg19TG11CO PROP' SIONAL LE,4END LAND sioiv:YDR I1m11'L1i'SALC. et '`14 14 y° 1 ' f°IR♦ , 1'1.v 0 4`4, 6 1 I n0 ei /.� a J. _."' ✓/♦ p Lwp,L �+ 14e o 141 r N 3 • r 0 I P. (\A114 •U It M 1,40 • en•El; ( 1i4 31' 1 lS/.14' ' 1"Lb. \ ' L All E viEw BLvo, •_iirillf 1103 ♦ rwr.ram., , .-. .......��...,,.....s ....,...s ....4 Mr 1 JYtk'Y,d'�I, ✓i. •✓inC • • • • •/ ram" \ / • • ..-:-.e, .. t.., / .7ry / ....-`7,..,--•.‘-‘,......--...., ,,...." \\ t . ..,,, \ . . \,, , ,..„......,..„.7.... : ,, ...„.., .4. ,,,,, ,,,4 . . . ,,,, hi..,,,,,, ,,,.,,,,,,.... . . .‘ __ ,.,,_0, -,.........._____ .,,,..... ,,..„ ..„...,„.„. - rip 9'' i'''' °...: N .:.:.- . t - ., ' #r+j �Mv o` 1.170Q 4jig / \ .� \�,G ----. � ✓•^_ .., :. i-. i. a1'1� `` .-` �' 310 4. �.. :: ob lot, WTI" _ 1 . + F,a;.-, LhK0VIEhI i)LVD. 4 Q�(4 ! T . ' / Via.18-6) 110 4 . • • J . 1 1 CA 1 m /iir. , _ •. c.,..I0 0a / / ., / /'// / / i 1 / ji i 61 / / .. ; . . . g / / •oo • ■ . . 1.1 [cm dip o [c:::ll 0 / / < = ,...,„11 ..... .. / 1 ... . i . i .„,,„„1 i Ill 7105 et , :in - • • r • y A J . • • 0 • -1t6.9153' O. • 7106 F. • • i` • ft • • • • ., .1 j • 1 • • H H J 1T{`(rFCQQ 8 r _ - _ .�i o:11j ZZZ N. \ ''',..r-,m • • • 0 .2. _lit io ''\ i ri . . , }`I g 1+11 CC :— C a n.+«...r 1 1 ��'; 1 _ z • = N • o Qi • 8. N a _ =.. . . _ . "4 . • r A, ...yr: , ilc.)..).1 . • • i • i • , 1 d . 7108 • ti • • W � • STAFF REPORT April 27, 1984 FILE PD 3-84 • APPLICANT/OWNER Vergil Fogdall • LOCATION 2943 Lakeview Boulevard LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lakeview Villas, Lot 148 (Tax Map 2S lE 8DB, Tax Lot 4800 -- NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION None • APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a two lot residential planned development in an R-7.5 zone. ' CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC 48.205 - 48.215 R-7.5 - Zone Description LOC 48.470 - 48.475 Planned Development Overlay LOC 49.200 - 49.225 Minor Development Procedure Applicable' Development Standards Street Lights Drainage for Minor Development ' Parking Utilities Landscaping, screening Residential Density and Buffering Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Access Site Circulation - Driveways Comprehensive Plan LCDC Goals EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 The triangularly shaped property is approximately 19,500+ sqi ft. in V area (Exhibits A and 13) . It is bounded by Lakeview Boulevard on the south, the Southern Pacific Railroad on the northwest and a single family residence to the east. The site is on a south facing hillside With limited Lake views. The property generally slopes from north to south, toward LakevieW Boulevard. Slopes range across the site from approximately 10% on the southwest portion of the property (Which is below the level of 7100 dxHi 100;4146.4;01,0 • • Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 April 27, 1984 Page 2 the railroad tracks) to approximately 30% over portions of the north and east (which are higher in elevation than the railroad tracks) . A steep bank (approximately 5 to 10 feet high) parallels and separates the property's frontage from the pavement on Lakeview Boulevard. The site's geology consists of mostly Columbia River Baualt bedrock • (source: Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory, March 1976) . These areas are characterized by a high density of outcroppings and very shallow basalt (0 - 2 feet depth). Most areas consist of flat • to moderately steep (0 - 20%) slopes with local areas sometimes exceeding 20%. Development limitations are due primarily to shallow or surface bedrock. Providing underground utilities and roads is difficult and expensive. Several large, old deciduous and coniferous trees are located on the site. The remainder of the property is covered by heavy underbrush. The hillside property contains a single family dwelling situated at its crest close to the rear property line. The dwelling is served by a meandering gravel driveway from Lakeview Boulevard. A five foot Wide public walkway parallels the north property line. A single family residence and garages are located across Lakeview boulevard and immediately to the east. Lakeview Boulevard is a collector street with a 40' right-of-way. It does not have sidewalks, curbs or gutters. The pavement is approximately 20 feet wide. Due to present or anticipated traffic volume, Lakeview Boulevard is designated to have a 50' Wide right-of-way. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a bikeway and trail to be provided along LakevieW Boulevard for the future intra-city pathway system. The site is presently served by an B" sanitary sewer line and a 12" Water line in Lakeview Boulevard. A fire hydrant and street lights mounted on two power line poles axe located along the property's frontage With Lakeview Boulevard. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The proposal is to allow a two-lot planned development consisting of a, 14,500+ sq. ft. lot containing the existing dwelling and a 5,000+ • sq. ft. lot for future development. Exhibits C, D. B and F outline the applicant's proposal. ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS Use of the planned development overlay is allowed in any zone . provided the overall site density is not exceeded. The planned development overlay is commonly associated with larger residential proposals. • The applicant, initially approached staff With a proposal for a minor land partition (Exhibits G and H). However, the lot he Wished 7110 Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 April 27, 1984 e 3 to create was below the zone's required minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. The , City'.s zoning ordinance does not allow the creation of lots with • areas less than the required minimum without application of the planned development overlay. In an attempt to meet the applicant's . . objectives, as well as code requirements, staff looked to the planned . • development overlay as a method to explore this proposal 's feasibility. , , The planned development overlay is an overlay zone and is not a. . • development in and of itself. It is a technique applied to development to allow flexibility in site planning. It requires hearing body approval. However, it is not a major development. Rather, the type of development, i.e., minor partition or sudivision, determines whether the development is major or minor. Finally, staff contends the applicant must clearly establish that the proposed 5,000 sq. ft. lot can be developed in accordance with City codes. ' The site is currently zoned R-7.5 and designated R-7.5 by the Comprehensive Plan. R-7.5 zone specifications are: Lot area per unit - 7,500 'sq. ft. c ) Lot width at building line - 50 feet Lot depth - 100 feet Setbacks Front - 20 feet ' Side - 5 feet Rear - 25 feet Special Street Setback - 25 feet from centerline (requires 5' of right-of-Way dedication) • Height of strUctUres - Not greater than 35' Lot coverage - Not to exceed 35% (interior lot) 40% (corner lot) Because the application has been packaged as a planned development, the lot can be smaller than the minimum lot area required by the R-7.5 zone. If the overall density is not exceeded, as illustrated on page 5, this proposal is in conformance with the overall residential density requirement. Due to the location of the existing dwelling, the applicant requests' reduction of one proposed lot to an area of 5000+ sq. ft. with a lot , depth of 45' . In addition, the applicant has proposed reduced tbacks oft Front - 15' and Rear - 18' . Based on this proposed configuration and depths it appears that a . conventional sized dwelling Would be difficult to site. Mien with a 7111 . Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 April 27, 1984 Page 4 4114 building envelope of 20' x 40' (as proposed by the applicant), coupled with reduced setbacks, it would be difficult to site a dwelling on this lot. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS ° As the site does not include significant historical resources, stream corridors, wetlands, weak foundation soils and floodplain, those `, standards are not addressed. The applicant has not proposed fencing and the building design standard does not apply to single family dwellings. Transit, park and open space and drainage for major • development are not applicable as they apply only to major development. Some of the development standards applicable to this proposal are discussed as part of the applicant's narrative. Applicable standards are: Street Lights - Street lights are mounted on two powerline poles along the property's Lakeview Boulevard frontage. Parking - Parking area is a critical issue for this proposal. . Two off-street spaces (not including the garage) are required for new single family development. The applicant has proposed this parking area to be located on the property's southwest 'point' . This location and area would not allow proper vehicle storage or adequate maneuverability to access hakeview Boulevard. The proposed lot configuration almost forces required parking to the mid-portion of the lot. Observing parking area specifications, the proposed building envelope . would then be pushed back to the rear property line. It appears that the garage or carport Would have to be below the dwelling in order to gain proper driveway circulation for access onto LakevieW Boulevard. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering - No landscape plan is required for single family residential development. However, this standard does require street trees to be planted along the development's street frontage. Drainage for Minor Development - Application of this standard is to insure that any alterations of drainage patterns due to development do not adversely affect other property. S Currently, no storm drainage system exists on the property's Lakeview 13oUlevard frontage. The nearest catch basin is located near the intersection of Lakeview and Summit Drive. According to the applicant, no drainage problems have been identified on or adjacent to the property. The applicant suggests the use of drywells on the proposed lot to minimize direct runoff into streets or adjacent properties. However, because of the site's geology, this drainage solution could prove to'be economically prohibitive: 7112 Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 • April 27, 1984 Page 5 Utilities - Adequate City services are available in Lakeview Boulevard to serve the site. Residential Density - Density for the proposal has been calculated as follows: Gross Developable Area: - 19.520 sq_ti. Less Right-of-Hay on Lakeview Blvd. = 760 sq. ft. r• V Interior Streets = ; � Less Floodway = s'- - Net Developable Area 0.740 sq. ft. '.,o, Maximum Number of Units = 2.49 units ft.) ((18,740 sq. ft. * 7,500 sq. . Less Density Transfer = N/A Total Developable Area. Allowed = 1$4740 pa. ft. Total Developable _ 2,49 Units Area Allowed : R-7.5 Zone = =��— (18,740 sq. ft. : 7,500 sq. ft.) Application of this required methodology demonstrates the proposal's conformance with the residential density standard. Hillside Protection/Erosion Control - This standard applies to all development Which includes hillsides or areas with Erosion potential. All development is t, minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation an;t soils. As has been cited earlier, the property's slope and geology Will probably require extensive excavation Work tc, site a dwelling, and to ,,, provide adequate parking and access. Access - This standard, like the parking standard, is critical u tor this proposal because of the steepobanknandbtraffic volume on this collector street. Vehiclespotential hazard could to back out onto Lakeview Boulevard. A result by allowing vehicles to use the applicant's proposed parking area. Site Circulation - Driveways - This standard is closely integrated with the site's parking and access issues. Adequate space must be provided to allow efficient parking and vehicle maneuverability on/off LakeVieW Boulevard. 7113 Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 ti April 27, 1984 , Page 6 COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Plan encourages innovative residential building and site design for small single family homes on small areas, utilizing flexible ; setback and yard sizes. However, the proposal has not demonstrated that the proposed, undeveloped lot can be developed in accordance , With City codes. • COMPLIANCE WITH LCDC GOALS , The City has been found in conformance With Goals 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13. Goal 2 Land Use Planning - This goal ' is met through adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and review of State goals. Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural , Resources - There are no specified areas on the site proposed for development as having open space, scenic , or historic resources according to the Comprehensive • Plan. w'''. Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - This goal is , met at the City level by the adoption and application of Standards dealing with resource preservation. Goal 10 Housin - The amount of housing that the City has . planned for will not be affected by this action. Goal 11 /12 Park Facilities, Services, and Transportation - Currently, adequate public facilities and services are available at the subject site. These standards are fully addressed by applicable standards. , Goa114 Urbanization - This site is within the Lake Oswego t Urban Service Boundary and the City Limits, Goal 15 Willamette Greenway - The site is not within the . Willamette Greenway. RECOtft1LNDATION Staff recommends denial of the application because the proposal hri.s , not clearly established that development can be carried out in accordance With applicable City codes. ham. , 711.1 ' , ` ti Staff Report/PD 3-84 & VAR 10-84 April 27, 1984 r."1 , EXHIBITS A Vicinity May B Tax Map ' • C Proposed Plan :. • h Proposed Site Plan ' E March 300 1984 - Applicant's Narrative F March 30, 1984 - Applicant's Narrative Amended • G October 21, 1983 - Letter H October 28, 1983 - Staff Letter } it i f 2271P/ST/mas Agik / t Q • 1r A 1 1 1 di - • 7115 • STAFF REPORT June 8, 1984 j lemer.tal) FILE PD 3-84 (Sapp OWNER Vergil Fogdall LOCATION 2943 Lakeview Boulevard TL 4890) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lakeview Villas, Lot 148 (TM 2S lE 8DB, NEIGHB OR ASSOCIATION None APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a two lot residential planned development in an R-7.5 zone. CUTERIA ANll STANDARDS _ 'Lone Description H-7.5 LOC 48.2057 - 48.475 planned Development Overlay LOC 48.470 - 48.475 Minor Development procedure LOC 49.250 - 49.225 Applicable Development Standards: Street Lights Drainage for M:a.nor Development Utilities Parking Residential Density screening Landscaping, Hillside protection and and Buffering Erosion Control Access Site Circulation - Driveways Comprehensive Plan LCDC Goals ,,A' BACKGROUND a by on May 7, 1994, the Development ReVieW approvedBoardr hearing requeston ts to Continue the publicathertized thep applicant (OTE! Tt I) public notice incorrectly is application. NOTE! The initiald i a variance to the transit standard• Because this application being reviewed as minor development, this standard does not applY. • xrifffThe April 27r 1984 staff report recommended ishnial oth the deaploptnent ication because the propo sal did not clearly h Cthe standards. could be carried out in accordance With appliCable . IXHI T 711GlitPiLjii*") „ A ' supplemental Staff Report/PD 3-84 (Modification) June 8, 1984 Page 2 Staff's concerns focused on inadequate information for parking, drainage for minor development, access and site circulation - driveways. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The applicant's representative submitted a revised site plan and , • expanded narrative addressing staff concerns (Exhibit J - Vicinity • Map, K- site Plan and I. - Narrative) . According to the Public Works Department, this supplemental material ` demonstrates that the proposal is feasible with relation to parking, access and site circulation - driveway standards. Through this analysis; however, it was determined that oh-site vehicle maneuvering would be inconvenient but feasible. Drainage remains a concern. The supplemental material has not clearly illustrated how this issue can be resolved in accordance with the standard. The applicant's representative has requested that the owner not be required to dedicate a 5' strip of property adjacent to Lakeview . Boulevard for right-of-Way purposes. This dedication action is a , condition normally attached to minor or major development proposals. A 5' special street setback (25' from centerline) is required due to present or anticipated traffic volumes along Lakeview Boulevard. No buildings should be allowed to intrude into this special street setback. Any structure placed in this area and which is required to be moved shall be so ved without expense to the City. Based on the Public Works Department's evaluation of the proposed development, topographic/geologic conditions along the property's LakeVieW Boulevard frontage and Utilities location, additional right-of-Way dedication Would not be necessary for this portion of LakevieW Boulevard. At this time, Public Works envisions that any future street Widening and area for street improvements can be accommodated Wi toin the current 40' right-of-Way. - RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application because the applicant 0 has demonstrated that the development, as illustrated in Exhibit k, , t is feasible. Staff recommends this approval be subject to the following conditions: a' 1. A survey (as depicted on Exhibit k) be registered With the Clackamas County Surveyor's Office, This survey should • clearly depict the 5' special street setback (25' from centerline) along both parcels' LakeVieW aoUleVard , frontage. 710 0 ' I , ,, • Supplemental Staff Report/PD 3-84 (Modification) . , June 8, 1984 r'lage 3 , 2. Legal descriptions of each lot be specified on legal • instruments for title transfer and the instruments be recorded at the Clackamas County Clerk's Office. The instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use . application and its conditions of approval as outlined in the City of Lake Oswego's Planning Department File No. PD . , , i 3-83. 3. Evidence of the above survey registration and legal y ,i j instrument recordation be provided to the City Planning Department. No building permits can be issued until this evidence is provided. 4. A site drainage plan based on this proposal be prepared in accordance with the drainage standard and approved by the Public Works Department. , EXHIBITS ' I Owner's request to continue May 7, 1984 public heating • J Revised vicinity map K Revised site plan (oversized not reproduced) L Revised narrative " } . ' 0 , 2361y p/ST/mas `-118 eik BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ) PD 3-U4-148 LOT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED (Vergil FINDINGS,oCONCLUSIUNS & ORDER DEVELOPMENT. , 5 NATURE OF APPLICATION 6 This application is for a request by Vergil Fogdall to allow a two . lot residential planned development at 2943 Lakeview Boulevard. The 7 property is described as Lakeview Villas, Lot 149. , 8 HEARINGS 9 The Development Review Board held a pUblic hearing and considered - this application at its meeting of June 18, 1984. Following the • 10 presentation of exhibits and testimony at that hearing, the 11 Development Review Board voted 4 to 0 to APPROVE the proposal. 1.2 FACTS • The following is a summary of the facts and testimony presented which 13 were found must relevant to this decision. These facts are presented Lj J4 in more detail in the staff report dated April 27, 1984 and June 6, 1984; and the applicant's proposal, Exhibits D, E and F, dated April 15 dated ' 6, 1964; Exhibits J, K and L, dated May 31, 1984 and Exhibit M, • 16 June 12, 1984. • • 17 lo The site designatedor R-71e.5 byotheeComprehensive• Plan�ned R-7.,5 and 1 • 18 2. Approximately, 19,500+ sq. ft. in area, the site is a 19 triangularly shaped parcel bounded by Lakeview Boulevard on the south and the southern Pscific''Railroad on the ?0 northwest. , 3. The property slopes from north to south toward Lakeview 21 Boulevard ranging from 10% to 30% over the site. 22 4. The site's geology is mostly Columbia River Basalt Bedrock . 23 ' (source: Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory). Development limitations are due to shallow or surface 24 bedrock. , 25 5. Lakeview Boulevard is a collector with a 40' . right-of-Way. It is designated to have. a 50' wide 1 t; right-of-way. • gage 1 2439P/ST/mas + IlX HI IT 7.t1.h • 1 6. Public serviced are available to thy. Bile. 2 7. Use of the Planned Development Overlay is allowed. in any • 3 zone provided the overall site density is not exceeded. 4 8. The proposed plan development would result in two parcels of 14,500+ sq. ft. (with the owner's existing dwelling) • 5 and 5,000+ sq. ft. (with a 15' front setback) . +' t ,- 6 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS The request Under consideration was a quasi-judicial procedure, the 7 conduct of which is regulated by Minor Development procedures, LOC • 8 49.200 - 49.225. The following Plan policies and ordinance requirements, criteria and standards are applicable to this request: 9 1. Zoning Ordinance: 10 ,, • LOC 48.205 - 48.215 R-7.5 Zone Description • 11 LOC 48.470 - 48.475 Planned Development Overlay • " y2 2. Development Ordinances 13 LOC 12.005 Drainage Standard for Minor 'rj Developments "' i ' 14 LOC 16.005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 15 LOC 19.005 Site Circulation Standards • Driveways 16 FINDINGS OF FACT • 17 After .consideration of the relevant facts, applicable Policies, • 18 ordinance, criteria, and standards the Development Review Board found that: 19 1. The proposal is in conformance With the residential 20 density standard. A Planned Development Overlay is therefore allowed. 21 2. The owner and his representative have demonstrated that 22 the proposal is feasible. The proposal can meet applicable development standards: however, site 23 • circulation Will be difficult. 24 • 3. Based on a Public Works' evaluation of topographic/geologic conditions along the property's • 25 Lakeview Boulevard frontage, additional right-of-way dedication would not be necessary for this portion of 26 Lakeview Boulevard. . Page 2 Pb 3-84-148 2439P/ST/mas •,, 712,0 • 4 ` `V • raN, REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1 with CeleVant, olicies and p 2 The proposal can be made to comply of certain ordinance criteria, and standards through application conditions. 4 ORDER 5 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT RL"VTLWtoO�he £ollowingTconditions: OSWEGO that PD 3-84 be GRANTED subjec • 6 1, A survey (as depicted on Exhibit K) be registered with3the Clackamas County Surveyor's Of street setbacce. This ur(25'vey s ould 7 depict the 5' special romr centerline) along both parcels' Lakeview Boulevard • 8 frontage. • 9 2. Legal descriptions of each lot be specified on legal be 10 recordednat the Clackamast1Countysfer nCld erk'she nOfficer.tsThe recorded , . . instruments for both parcels shall rece asthis outlined in o 11 application and its conditions of approval the City of Lake oswego's Planning Department File No. PD �� .` l 2 -8 a. „" 11 3, Evidence of the above survey registration and legal • instrument recordation be ovided ton bthe issued e City plannithis { ,' 14 Deartment. No building permits $ p evidence is provided. 15 oral be prepared in 4. A site drainage plan based on this prop ` 16 accordance with the drainage standard and approved by the Public Works Department. 17 ' special Street 5. No buildings be located within the 25 Sp 18 setback (measured from Lakeview,Uoulevar'd's centerline). 19 6, Appropriate soils investigation to evaluate the ^ feasibility to excavate rock within the proposed garage 21 areao s, foundationedrainagenandions earthor safe pressuresnagainriton allpe ► walls to the satisfaction of City Public 21 all retaining r Works staff. 22 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED/DENIED by the 23 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 24 DATED this 2nd day of Julyo 1984. 25 is • 3 PD a-ea--148 'i 1 l Page 2439P/5T/mas ' 1 2/40,„"P g /64./(61a4.1.t. . Richard Hutchins, Chairman 4 Development Review Board . a • � • wt J •CM/� 7 Secretary ` ATTEST: g AYES: Fulton, Glasgow, Hutchins, Wright 9 NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 10 ABSENT: Eslick, Takeuchi 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 • 18 a 19 , 20 21 , 22 23 24 I, 25 26 • ' Page 4 2439P/ST/mas �J 1 122 r P: p CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT Vergil Fogdall & FILE NO. PD 3-84 (Mod. - 86) Alberta Brooks Fogdall VergilDATE June 26, 1986 OWNER AlbertaFogdall Brooks Fogdall LOCATION 2943 Lakeview Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lot 4600 of Tax Map 2 lE 8DB Y 1.1�Z ' NEIGHBORHOOD None �/2�'M REQUEST The applicants are requesting that the approval of their 2-lot planned development be extended. HISTORY The original fe ort ed Apri 1 4 recommended denial o thepanneddevlopment for anumberofreasonswhichar explained in t (Exhibit ) Staff's concerns ,e related d to inadequate n dteinformtionregardingparkingrequirementsdrainage for minor development, access and site circul a requesttion - ys. On by the May 7, 1984, the Development Review Board approved applicant to continue the public hearing on this application. Additional information regarding staff's concerns was provided o (Exhibits J, K & L) . A supplemental staff report was prepared (Exhibit 0) and the application was Atthhenvheheard dsatrtheeJ June subject, 984 Development Review Board meeting. nted subc tot o six conditions which are described in the June 18, Review Board minutes (Exhibit P) and Findings, Conclusions and Order (Exhibit Q). On May 6, 1985, the applicants applied for a one year extension of their approval (Exhibit R). Staff approved the extension as allowed under LOC 49.330(1) (Exhibit S). On June 10, 1986, the applicants again applied for an additional pxbencihe of ghisrrequired in(Exhibit order to.grant per thisLOC requestio(1)r a • . public hearing • ANALYSIS The previous staff reports, relatedd minutes tes andlexhibitsets containia . detailed information regarding + and standards under which the proposal was reviewed. . LOC 49.330 (Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat) allows additional approval extensions provided conformance With the current 1123 u' 1 Tr STAFF REPORT/PD 3-84 • June 26, 1986 y Page 2 law, development standards and compatibility with development which • may have occurred in the surrounding area is shown. An extension may be granted or denied, and if granted, may be conditioned to require r modifications to bring the project into compliance with then current • law and compatibility with surrounding development. Staff has reviewed the project as it relates to current zoning and development code requirements and surrounding development. There have been no code revisions or significant development in the area Which affect this project or the conditions of approval. Therefore, k ' staff supports the request for extension of the approval. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of a one year extension of PD 3-84. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map B. Tax Map $ ` , C. Proposed Plan D. Propose Site Plan • E. March 30, 1984 - Applicant's Narrative F. March 30, 1984 - Applicant's Narrative G. October 21, 1983 - Letter H. October 28, 1983 - Staff Letter I. Owner's Request to Continue May 7, 1984 Public Hearing J. Revised Vicinity Map K. Revised Site Plan - Too Large to Reproduce L. Revised Narrative M. Letters in Support of Project N. April 27, 1984 - Staff Report 0. June 8, 1984 - Staff Report i` P. June 18, 1984 - Development ReVieW Board Minutes Related to Project Q. Findings, Conclusions & Order of PD 3-84 • + R. Request by Applicants for Extension of Approval Dated May 6, 1985 S. Letter from Staff Approving Extension Request Dated May 8, 1985 • �I T. Request by Applicants for 2nd EXtension of Approval ' Dated June 10, 1986 • f • k cw 3935P/LM/mas 5 7124 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ) PD 3-84 (Mod.-86)-369 EXTENSION OF A 2-LOT PLANNED ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER ', 4l'' ' 4 DEVELOPMENT. ) (Vergil & Alberta Brooks Fogdall) NATURE OF APPLICATION 6 The applicants are requesting that the approval of their two lot 7 planned development be extended. The site is located at 2943 Lakeview 8 ; Blvd. (Tax Lot 4800 of Tax Map 2 lE 8DB). ;; HEARINGS ' • 9 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and .considered 10 this application at its meeting of July 10, 1986. 11 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS ,, LOC 49.330(1) Preparation and Submittal of Final 12 Plan or Plan 13 CONCLUSION • 14 The Development Review Board concludes that PD 3-84 (Mod.-86) , complies with all applicable criteria. FINDINGS AND REASONS 16 The Development Review Board incorporates the June 26, 1986 staff ' 17 report on PD 3-84 (Mod.-86) as support for its decision, along with the following evidence and testimony. 18 1. The Board found that there have been no code 19 revisions or significant development in the area which affect this project or the conditions of • 20 approval. Therefore, the request meets all code • requirements. • 21 2. It was indicated that the applicants had not ' ' specified the approval extension period in their Y 22 request. The Board supported a 2 year extension so 23 that the applicants will not have to return to the Board in one years time. I 24 25 26 li !MT ,;,,ile 1 PD 3-84 (Mach-86) l�'3 3967P/LM/m "1125 . • 1 ORDER of the City of • 2 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Lake Oswego that: PD 3-84 (Mod.-86) is APPROVED. 4 July 21► 1986 DATED this 6 ch rd Eslick, Chairman 7 Development Review Board t 8 . 10 1...,Lori Mastrantonio, Secretary 11 ATTEST: 12 July 10► 1986 13 AYES: Finch, Wright, Martindale Zinsli ,, 14 NOES: Eslick,ABSTAIN: Blackmore 1_ ABSENT: None• x 16 ATTEST: Written Findings 17 AYES: Eslick, Finch, Wright, Martindale NOES: None 1 18 ABSTAIN: Blackmore ABSENT: Zinsli 19 , 20 , 21 22 23 ► 24 25 26 ,,, Pr^e 2 PD 3-84 (Mod.-86) . ( 3967P/LM/mas 1126 Y „,r . , . , . .. •• • . I • . t 4• I . • 'r. . 4 • • ...t • ..4" • •• "n't 1 .•... • • \•• „ , „...-• ,. ... 1, r.iifs. .,,. . I ,/./ • . I • ) k‘' • i./ ••4 .:•\ rr St . Zs" ,I • .7... rr ir;r7.7.• ......r“ .•-`• ' — ”"*;,•?" 1:', U. ,I .44. 1 el") :AI. 1 L ) / 1. z., , ) f: ,i.•• it ,...••••4`•••••••• ,4 .0, 0\ \\,' '4 •13 t; , ". 4. • .,.. • . I 1.,"‘1".,."."J•••,W•i; 1 .4 i ...4, I 4 . .....1 '\ I i •,'.., • • • % • I = , , t .... \t.,.: .1 4, I •.,•. .• ' ,' I1,1 •,,• $6-..-..s7..J_.4•:(i)t\'4I• / //. . 1 •4 jii 2 ...., ,.N ':..4 1 I . __ . 7 0 r, 4 X• t 04 (In . 4 ••• , ' 4 f 1 1 • " 4.4; I '' ritt II .,N,s, ...1. . . ' I' c ... r... . 1 . 0 . A i0 '• , , t!..1. tA. 1 I. I Q I -•'I .1 \ \ 0• . , % • i 1 ' 1 • 1 , • I I .. .. . 1 . • $a . . . It 1 •,1 . . • ..... ,, . ..,, . cl..."‘ 4- ;'' •i I t 1 ' •1..1 t ‘./ i. 4 .1.k. \ vr 4 \ 41/4) 0 EXHIBIT l2.4 Car,IPQ..sahritsa.as) . . : \ Ve.s..ao-e6 .44 r h • . • \ 112'Y 0 54 ., ..., 4 , 12 • • I I • . v . ni \ \ I, 't \ I.i g \ \ \ \ \ w I , i i 1 I ,.• \ rz,: , \\\ A ' \ \ tk:—\A ,i.A " %t '''. I I ' '*1 . I . \‘ \ \ '\ \ ,... , , `..t'—?.. I\ , • I , , ‘\'''', \ \\ ,ii'' '' \ \ , ' i • 1 ..,\ oN • .,,, . • . I ' . .' ."9..427'. .1.. \S. ,`,�J �� , , 11 ; , �I r „p d1 SIL. _'J 4{I �. i I I I I I ,,ter• f i n�.li •,Il �1 • 1 i I j r�... ,ivi •--1-- i. { j,� VI I t,r, GV I. . 1 1,�, . ' ' ,1 1 `.l_.. 1 1u�.., 1 dal v a. J !1t I • \ + 11 • g � Tj . . I I , • � � - •u � ! , • \'` \ :UV' CI 1 I lil• `I 1 i • •.. , I .I,/ • ,;Ill!", u r t u ' ;I 1• ,./' I I W �%\ �o III, .. ,._,1 f 'i /, �1,. I. Q �`` ' �J a� 1 u71 Y .J:kl r q • ^` ' 4 kr yy.i ., p W 1Pqq 4 rVr 1 i � 1 . • 1 7] +1�.a t�l'r t. ' , iN1.t'41 • r. i • ^'{ i,,i • "}rl Y h• il .1-0. r • • • .. ( f 5 w • y• ` 1 y �t . liJ • i • , '+ `` 1 r, r ' V 1 ::f''.:ts,,,,,. ,kw1 '1W A j' • �r1 • j R vb,. a r • .. l'.*YYr�SM.Y„ e • u 1,'i• 1. Y• .•'i+� ,q r' t;`�� • ;I } p I ' -� 4 ' r ' ` 1 iM " ..., ', ' i V•' �i� 1�'d. ,.,•fi�.,L..Y,p(yt '.t r A•' V" I �+,'. �' '.. • Ott.' v ,°°•� u.1-';' I, • „''+ a :k�r .. - u f° k" r'.