Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1993-04-19 1 (\ s ., is r ~ AGENDA (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAR 1N ' ,,9 1 I� �. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE + A Monday,April 19, 1993 L . . . . 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER :: Agenda Boole " . II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '' IV• PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING SD 19—y2�-1 ,a request by OTAK, Inc. Y j involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of Hallinanr of a major partition to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot panel. The parcels are both proposed to be 21 256s) square feet in area. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Cass I variance to the , Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, et, '.r which is a private street. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits a cui de—sac or dead end street to no more than 1,000 feet in len ` modified Future Streets Pia., as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feetnnth• • ength in o ;rder terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes ta • Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required byLOC 49.1 r applicant has upgraded this application from minor to major partition becuse it involves the creation�e of a street through widening of an existing public easement. , and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1 ra a.Tax Ivlalo2 lE 1.Dween Gans Road coordinator is Michael lt. y'hgeler,Aso „patp pia e P 0 D), Staff S�elik�eration. �'� �n inued fr�m A nr:� a �n� c -,tyA l- , a request by Kruse WayPlaza single family residential planned developmen , a Class tI evariance to er Edwards) ds) for approval of a 16 to allow cc from a private street for Lots 10-12, and a future street plan to serve propertiesOlocated north of thess subject site. The site is located east of Pifcington Road n the north and south sides of Rosewood �' Street(Tax Lots 3300& 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AB and Tax Lot l00 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AC), Staff coordinator is ) 1993, .l� wa bs.yelonment R y ny Pia r� Continue 1 rrom Aprals i i ' >� $IMod 4— 2 r The applicant is requesting extension on theapproval of NR ' a request by Richard P. Waterman and planned development. A variance to the ark and Open Spat Standardpartition, lot line adjustment approval includes a future streets plan. Also the applicant is requesting approval of the followis denied ng T>'_4 r modifications to the prior approval: ng I. +i do . a. 4'• 4. L •♦ •� N� Y.S• f ' 1• I . r 4. Y • '_ b h` ' 4 ' ', . �„ ' a• A new, additional lot lime adjustment of approximately 1,065 square feet between the two existing parcels,resulting in a reduction of the overall size of the major partition/planned • . ` development and an enlargement of a landmark site. k ` greater than 15 000sq. ft. �,•,1 • b. A revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels each. c. A revision to the area proposed for open space,increasing it from 11.6% (as originally considered) to the minimum 20%requited. d. A revision to the approved right-of-way dedication from 40 ft, to 26 ft. ` ' `' `' i e. A revision to the required right-of-way dedication through creation of a private tract reserved for public access or reservation of a private one-foot strip at the north property line. f. An alternative provi'lion of public water service to the site from the City of Lake Oswego instead 4 of the Glenmorrie•Water Cooperrtive. g. Employment of the protected Solar Building Lint:Option [LOC 57,020(2)] to enable compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance. The site is located at 1515 S. Cherry Lane &vacant site,otherwise described as being west of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD and Tax Lot `• 2300 of Tax Map 2 1E 14BB). Staff coordinator is Michael R.Wheelers Associate Planner. F f A VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII% OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92)-FWL Architects ' SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)/AP 93-01-Thomas H. Nelson V III. ADJOURNMENT • The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to • come and go as you please. l Ra Members: ;off: Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vico-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner William F.Horning Ron Bunch,Senior Planner Lawrence M.Magura Hamid Pishvaie,Dcv.Review Planner Julie Morales Catherine Clark,Associate Planner • -, • Charles Oldham Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Martha F,Stiven Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary ,y Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • 1 CE • OF ‘Al , QPi '� a' ` yy. ' ' 0 t 1. aC * / � i� r°t EGO \ i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMr3NT 1, Staff Report Addendum • ' ,. \ y9 TO: Development Review Board FROM: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 (Rosewood Planned Development) DATE: April 9, 1993 n.— # The ro osal had originally P Pbeen scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on April 5, 1993. Due to a large number of applications on the agenda, the public hearing was continued to April 19, 1993. This delay provided an opportunity for the applicant to meet with staff in order to address the specific issues, including open space anti setbacks, which were identified in the March 26, 1993 staff report. The applicant has submitted the following exhibits for the Board's review: 4 .'. Exhibit 21 Applicant's Supplemental Narrative, dated April 8, 1993 Exhibit 22 Revised Site Plan for the South Side of Rosewoods Street Based on an analysis of the information above, staff makes the following findings: " Setbacks and O a tare: • 4Staff had originally found that the proposed modifications to the required setbacks could not be supported due to a failure to comply with the requirements of LOC 48.476(2)(a) and (b), [March 26 , 1993 staff report, pages 5 and 6]. As Exhibits 11 and 22 illustrate, the open space area has ,, ---A •w been increased from 25,003 square feet to 27,253 square feet.qIn addition, the proposed 10' ) V., frontage on Rosewood Street will provide an adequate pedestrian access to open space Tract "C" . from within the project, Exhibit 22. • Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets the planned development overlay district „ requirements, as follows: • ' • — The revised site plan provides more open space land than the minimum amount required by • the park and Open Space Standard, Exhibit 22 illustrates an increase in open space land from 20% to 22%, .4 4, 'e 4 180"A" Avenue • I'u.t()flied Box 3(i) • Lik& Oswego,Oregon 9703,1 p Planning Division:(503)635 0290• Building Division:(503)635.0390 • FAX Min)r,15.02 ) 4 . . a1 A. P ,� 1 .d 1 tY �•. I� r 4 ,, + I i. .. I' r " .`'"l;, 1 j V' _ C v . .;\ - The applicant ras provided an adequate access to open space Tract"C" for the future residents in t,4 development. `" Therefore, staff supports the proposed modifications to the side yard setbacks as illustrated on Exhibits 11 and 22. .... �'w CONCLUSION i • Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and staff findings presented in this report .. and the March 26, 1993 staff report, staff concludes that PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application o€certain conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of PD 1-93/VAR 2-93, subject to the following conditions: a A. Prior to Approval of the Final Plat,the Applicant Shall: 1. Submit a final plat which clearly depicts the following information: • a) utility easements; and, b) setbacks as follows: front yard: 20' (25' for garages on Lots 13-15) rear yard: 20' ,'y I side yard: 10' (varied setbacks for Lots 1 7,9, 10, 13 and 14, as illustrated on Exhibits 11 and 22) : 10, _ street side yard: +. 2. Submit a revised site plan illustrating adequate vision clearance areas on Lots 4 and 15 at the intersection of Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. , • 3. Dedicate the proposed 25' x 34' public easement area(Exhibit 4) to the City as public ' J right-of-way.• 4. Label open space Tract "C" as "Private Open Space Tract"C" on the final plat. The following note shall be provided on the plat, as well: :,', "Private open space Tract"C" shall remain in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance,protecting natural processes, providing passive recreational uses, and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed • only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a professional • arborist, and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in this area including landscaping, which are in keeping with the above '.1' d• purpose,must be approved by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings, except play structures or other similar landscape features, shall be allowed in this area." 5. Submit bylaws and yes,covenants and restrictions of the Rosewood Homeowners Association for revi",.,,and approval of the City Attorney to insure the continuing Pb—i'LMTTAIU-93 (Addendum) Page 2 of 4 Y r 1 1 _F' f {' ♦ 1 • • ' •tl 1 r preservation and maintenance of Tract "C". These documents shall address ownership, use, maintenance and liability concerns, and they shall provide the enfon;ement authority to assure reasonable maintenance of this tract at the owners expense. 6. Dedicate 10' of additional right—of—way along the north and south sides of Rosewood j Street. �` 7. Identify all solar lots on the final plat. Show the Protected Solar Building wilding Line for ' Lots 4, 11, 12 and 15 on the plat or on a legal document to be recorded with the plat. • • ° n $. Provide a plat restriction, or other appropriate legal instrument to be recorded at the ' County Recorder's Office, subjecting those lots that abut solar lots to the requirements of LOC 57.035 (protection from future shade). • �; 9. Provide plat and deed restrictions against removal of street trees (if am f they outside the public right—of—way). planted 10. Show utility easements on the final plat for those lots where public and/or private utilities are to be installed. Where utilities or landscaping will be constructed on side or rear lot lines, provide a note to future property owners that removal and/or replacement of fences for public access to utilities shall be at the homeowners expense. 11. Show a 1' reserve strip at the northerly end of Rebecca Lane to be conveyed to the City on the final plat. B. Prior to Approval of hp Ei^si Constniglion pla nsaheARR'Icant_Shall: • • 1. Submit a final landscape plan showing a minimum of one additional street 4 and 15. tree for Lots 2. Submit a final grading plan for review and approval of City Engineer. 3. Submit a final drainage plan, including,design calculations and configuration of the r storm water quality facilities, to the satisfaction of City Engineer, • u 4. Submit a final street lighting plan (for;Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane)and . a accompanying photometric data, for review and approval of City Engineer. . 5. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook", for review and approval of City Engineer, 6. All streets shall be designed for a 20 year life based on CBR soil values, J '7. All public utilities shall be sized to the City Engineer's satisfaction and extended to the project boundary to the north. 8. Obtain an erosion control NPDES ( ) permit per DEQ requirements. 9, Final construction plans shall show the following information: — Undergrounding of all overl2'ad lines on Rosewood Street (along with new stree t construction) An 8" water line in Rebecca Lane — ( en um) Page 3 of 4 F \ i ,F .�, ' �G I) t • �'f9 M`•X - - A fire hydrant near the rivate proposed G, s,,Beet(Tract "B") 0 : ,. . .:. : ,5 - A 6' good neighbor fence along the west propertyr ;' along with project improvements line which is to be constructed - A barricade at the terminus of Rebecca Lane - A concrete strip as a boundary delineation between the public street(Rebecca , and private street(Tract"B") Lame . - The west end of the private street(25' x 34' public easement area) to be constructed to public street standards within a public right-of-way - The proposed sidewalks on Rosewood Street to be relocated to the north side of the right-of-way and be constructed within the dedicated ririht-of wa r- The vision clearance areas to be measured from future edge of pavement on Rosewood Street(28' wide pavement) C. Duriz orate t(�nn of t_hg Project tke Apn < lll: >.' 1. Adhere to the erosion control guidelines in the Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, as approved by condition B,5. • Lance of nnv B pjldjng P•sjs; 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, accepted and as-builts submitted the City. ��� 7- to 2. Install a 6' good neighbor fence along the westproperty line. ,. E. i42Ct4Recena final B 'ildin �n�..4`t„„ n., • 1. The ro P perry owner shall complete installation of street trees as required by Exhibit t 2 and Condition B.1, above. bi m r [hunid 92,41<rapons>PD 1-93/VAR 2-93/Addendum .�w • , a_ ' 40. ., ..• - 1 h°,, 1- AR - (A en urn)Page4of4 • { r ,; '`'' y 0 } `a #.. 4' I' 'i 7 0 , '..., ' .. .Ar -i r d off. yy d_ i W' 4 ( U M°r tt. 1 \ \ .a A +. ‘„ 5,MP�1 Sr \ \.,..0 ��' REVISIONS TO LOTS 1, 2, . co :i ,• t5 ter. -kr- gQ,.,a v-, o \ \� ,Y\ a , \O ' AND COMMON OPEN SPAS �s W" , \ iy - ,, Y.s. - - - It./..-- 'e .,, ...40 4 • • 3. 4,eo1 NSF ' a ,,. _ . T N'►�.A.�avru >i 1 \ e\� � � \`rxh - J SCALE; 1" •- 30' s )(' ."-S\ ,..., , ,, . ..: ,,,, 6. v f 1 1� i' s n n �- 9 ifi 0I. . 1.d ti k. k' Cct, .. 4 50 Id ' °A 1 tTl 'J \t..t1'° ccl '51-r-, -\ LP 'l� \ 0 0; at 1 b `r3 \ �'\ 1� lU; G'1 O, i ' al �G rl ry n 1.O° 7O -A f•- ��\\ii,i 1\ 1 \ r 1 aim o , 1 T Ln. 01 t mC1 '5� \ tJ u 1 \ ,1�\ e n, \4,050:`5F� 1, ho �, cP u.\ \ OWNER {, : 9 1 \ u_ \o.�tc�. 1 \ r.a \-.0 01 400E SWMORTON DONNE NIIPHIIf.Y PARK CREST, ��+ n '^ , �' \ 1 1 f, `/ AS,r" PORTLAND, OP 0122E 1 t d ' 'v .y APPLICANT / DEVELOPER �5' "� A• 1 ROGER EOWAl10G .> 1 1 �'� ,�140' , , \ 1J \ )(RUSE WAY PLAZA OUt, NIOG "� o ram" TRACT C \ 4500 s.W Krwst WAY, 5 �, LAKE OS EGO, qR orDAS p �� ., r OPEN SPACE 1 (503)035.200D LA 4 7,253 SF F, ( % CIF SITS) 0 1 ENGINEER / SURVEYOR / �• =1 ,* '''' - - ALPHA ENCINCEI1INq INC, • 1 1R r` ( * Ii, 0800 5.W. OAK, /230 — t • ;y� Ali) (5 3)52-000JO/x21 \ �!F 4 PROJECT UANACEII RANbY CIAat10 ' � PROJECT ENCI11rr11` JtRRY PALMER \ ! 411( ill\ y UTILITIES / SERVICES J TR' WATER - CITY Ot lAKE OSWEGO 4, - SEWER - onto 'ul'WERAGE AGENCY � . 5 "y Nei 3 +* .1� 1 POWER - PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC u • {,� ` it, 4 Ilkl, GAS - N:W. NATURAL OAS F 1 . d E• ipr 1 PHONE . U,5 WOO a � CAN - P.qI UTAUTA LADLE hD 1. o\" , fit 'QAS Lel a , , p y iiir. * .. �1 NOD 5 12y5 (>;�'"l > GROSS Slit ARIA 2 05 AC . Ul, c t .WWW, I STREET ARCA 111,014 Sr !'- J L°11 . yl * , /� ..;\ O� CONN SPACE AREA 27,25E sr airl w W "AR AP ' + CONTOURS ALMA ENGINEERING7.25) I q c ,✓ , �' 1 •, OD, hROPOSEO BUILDING ENVELOPF t �jlll� L ` 1 ,�1 � �`^ I 50' I Chi, . iiif 1 y �°QQ •N I ,�1 Y. a y 1 ,/ E1 ,tr• I oil I \ I '` ) t r • • ',Aa . 60� ` �'' ,N\�� , n t . •h h / , ° PROJECt PGStW: ' go " - - 2 - ALPHA ENGINEERING• INC. ENOINEERINO a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . Sl,'R\'El'INc; • u e APPLICATION REFINEMENTS 4.8.93 The public hearing for PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 was postponed from April 5th to April 19th. This postponement has allowed staff and the applicant to clarify some areas of discussion and to revise the agreement. conditions of approval based on the following areas of * �. i) The common open space area has been enlarged to 22% of the gross project area. This has been accomplished by reducing the depths of lots 1-3 and providing an access corridor. The total area of the open space is now 27,253 SF ii) A 10 foot wide access tract has been provided, along the � f. east line of lot 1 to allow residents direct access to the private common open space. A path will be constructed along the access strip that meanders around the existing trees in that access tract. iii) Sideyard setbacks have been revised for lots 1 & 2 to accommodate the inclusion of an access strip adjacent to lot 1: see attached site plan for Tax lot 100. ,i • 267-005h Y" f' j ': fApR y 8 1993 t • 4/ I - i SDI"`13����h 1 Ku III .\/\ \\'r.'r. • yl,i-rt.. it' . 'Hitt/ \1' OAK A I'c)RTI AND, c)Itl;c;LIN 'i72�1 A ioi 4,3,! , ' PM ,• , STAFF REPORT ',• 1 it LA. 'lisma, PLANNING DIVISION- CITY ,. � ti, ' ' : .../ U y APPLICANT: ELF. NO,. Richard P. Waterman SD 12-8 VAR 19-88\ . PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92)\ }e' PROPERTY OWNER: SD 13-92\HR 2-93 ao Richard P, Waterman (TL 7000, 2 1E 10DD); £TAFI: Matthew J. Jankowski (TL 2300, 2 1E 14BB) Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • DATE OF REPORT: ,• Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD; 14BB April 9, 1993 . CATION: DATE OF HEARING,; 1515 S. Cherry Lane &vacant site; West of Hwy. April 19, 1993 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane NEIGHBORHOOD A$ OCIATION: • COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Hallinan 4. R-15 ZONING DESIGNATION: ;• R-15 u APP CANT'S REQUEST -y The applicant is requesting extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition, lot line adjustment and planned development. A variance to the Park and Open Space Standard was denied earlier. The approval includes a future streetsplan. requesting � • Pp Also the applicant is requesti approval of the • following modifications to the prior approval: r A new, a, existing parels,arestilting n lot line justment of a reduction approximately overallysize of t065 he major uare t partitionn/planned the two 'f *' ' • development and an enlargement of a landmark site, P n/p ned .7 •' b, A revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels greater than 15,000 yq, ft, each. , • , le . . . . 114 .'. SD 12--88\VAR 7.9-38\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13.-92\HR.2-93 ' Page 1 of 20 Af 1 r \ °af '".t mo t , `J' C. A revision to the area proposed for open space,increasing it from 11.6% (as originally 1 j considered) to the minimum 20%required. `. 0 ril 41 '` 9 d. A revision to the approved right—of--way dedication from 40 ft. to 26 ft. e. A revision to tlio required right—of—way dedication through creation of a private tract reserved �� :' for public access or reservation of a private one—foot strip at the north property line, a "` f. An alternative provision of public water service to the site from the City of Lake Oswego ' ' •' instead of the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative. 1,:g.'''. g. Employment of the protected Solar Building Line Option [LOC 57.020(2)] to enable compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance. `' IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • ,' ' A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensivg2ial: Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 ;a Impact Management Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1,2,3,4,5,6 •``" General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3 } General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 ` Wildlife Habitat Policies .;" General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 ?r'` ' General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2 M 'f Distinctive Natural Area Policies r . •f ` General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 Potential Landslide Area Policies ` General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1,2 "r General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 : .' . , ',` Potential Erosion Area Policies " General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1,3 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 T Energy Conservation Policies p:. General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 r° ;t,0 Stream Corridor Policies e r General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2,3,4 .. General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 • i ` r Residential Site Design Policies + { General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2,3 1 Protection Open Space Policies , M ~ ' . General Policy I, II ' ,t ) i " SD 12—$8\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 ;� (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 • Page 2 of 20 ).•.,:, ' ; l' 4. •y., Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2,3,4 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1,4 v . I o B. City..ig L c-014 , t220.nia-g- nand: LOC 48.015 Definitions LOC 48.195 -48.225 R-15 Zone Description (setbacks,lot area,lot coverage,etc.) LOC 48.470-48.490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.490 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approvals �" P LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks ,e•to, C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: ' Applicability of Development Standards ry t , LOC 49.090 PP ' ty 1 r� LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits . . ' LOC 49.125 Authority to Approve Changes in Development Permits b LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49.300-49.315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.330 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Final Plat LOC 49,215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.610 Quasi-judicial Evidentiary Hearings Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval ,v. LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 3.005 -3.040 Stream Corridors s 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights 6.005 -6.040 Transit System 7.005 -7,040 Parking&Loading Standard - cr 8.005 -8,040 Park and Open Space 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11,005 -- 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 14.005 - 14,040 Utility Standard 16.005 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion ControlAA 18,005 - 18,040 Access Standard • 19.005- 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways • 20.005 -20.040 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways E. City of eg e_Oswo Solar Access Ordinance.: ° LOC 57.005 -57,135 • o Tree Ciittin Ordinance: F. sty • Pat LOC 55.010 55,130 ' t ,• _ SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)`.5D 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 3 of 20 . , 4 ` r; F ‘ / - W e •r ' I: F .` t G. ivision Ordinance: ?' • LOC 44.371 -44.750 • .„.. . .. H. •C y •of 1 aye Oswego istor• Preservation Ordinance: ' LOC 58.005-58.165 , ; • M. FINDINGa A. mound: v The applicant was granted approval for a lot line adjustment and a three-parcel major partition with a planned development overlay on February 3, 1989. An earlier Class II • • variance to the Park and Open Space Development Standard was denied on April 19, 1989 following a remand of an appeal of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 to the Land Use Board • • of Appeals. • The applicant requested extensions on the approval on September 16, 1989 and again on August 3, 1990. The first was granted administratively per LOC 49.330(1). The second was granted by the Development Review Board on January 21, 1991 (Exhibit 13), and extended • i •. until April 19, 1992. The applicant submitted the current request for extension on April 17, • 1992 (Exhibit 2). The applicant proposed several modifications to the approved major �, partition, which were also received on that date. The application for these modifications was made complete on March 17, 1993. A description of the proposal follows next. 4 B. Proposal: The applicant is requesting an extension of time; for the lot line adjustment/major 40 , ., a;" .... partition/planned development which was earlier approved by the Development Review , Board(Exhibits 25,20, 13). The applicant is alo requesting approval of seven modifications .Vi to the approved lot line adjustment/major partition/planned development. These modifications are proposed in order to: ' 1. Comply with the Park and Open Space Standard(by providing a minimum of 20 percent of the gross land area in open space) as required by the City Council's denial of VAR 19-88 on April 19, 1989; and, 2, Comply with the Solar Access Ordinance (adopted since original approval) through employment of the Protected Solar Building Line Option; and ` , - 3. Accomplish a new, additional lot line adjustment of approximately 1,065 square feet to • ,• • • satisfy a court settlement (Exhibits 7 and 8),resulting in a reduction of the overall area ' •r of the major partition/planned development, and the enlargement of a landmark site; and 4. Revise the approved parcel configuration, resulting in three parcels each greater than ' , ', , • 15,000 sq, ft. in area; and, ; 5, Revise the approved right-of-way dedication from 40 ft. to 26 feet in width; and, 6. Revise the required right-of-way dedication to enable the creation of a private tract for • public access, or reservation of a private one-foot strip at the north property line of the site; and • • . SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 , (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 ,. Page4of20 • i • ,r ' ■ 4 7. Provide public water service to the site from the City of Lake Oswego instead of the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative. •; %�, ` .rk � �r C.ggh Existing Conditions ' . 1. The site is composed of two existing parcels as follows: • • Tax Lot 7000,2 1E 10DD 1.3 acres • Tax Lot 2300,2 lE 14BB 0.95 acres • t' 2. The approved parcels are as follows: Parcel 1 17,300 sq. ft. Parcel 2 12,635 sq. ft. Parcel 3 16,615 sq. ft. 3. The approved lot line adjustment/major partition/planned development provided only 11.6 percent of the gross site area in open space. • 4. The approved lot line adjustment/major partition/planned development required dedication of a 40 foot—wide right—of—way,construction of a 24 foot—wide street with curb and gutter, among other performance requirements. 5. The gross project site for the major partition/planned development (following the original and newly proposed lot line adjustments) is 55,634 sq. ft. • D. Analysis: u µ , 0 Discussion regarding the extension request will follow an analysis of the modification • • components (described in Section 1T.B. above) as follows: 1. Open Space The City Council denied a variance [VAR 19-88] on April 19, 1989 (Exhibit 20) upon r ' remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) because the earlier proposed reduction in open space from 20 percent to 11.6 percent did not meet the relevant criteria(Exhibit 22). ; The applicant now proposes to provide 11,674 sq. ft. of open space along an existing stream corridor,resulting in a total of 20.98 percent of the gross project area. This amount exceeds _ the minimum 20 percent required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard (LODS 8.005—8.040), reviewed later in this report. 2. Solar Access The City adopted its Solar Access Ordinance in October, 1988, four months following the Development Review Board's initial action on the applicant's development proposal. The Development Code enables the Board to require compliance with current Code provisions • • when extensions of time are requested prior to preparation of a final plat [LOC 49.330(1)]. t The applicant has chosen to employ the Protected Solar Building Line Option for compliance 0 with Design Standard [LOC 57.020(2)], This method requires a minimum of 70 feet between the Protected Solar Building Line (PSBL)and the middle of the lot to the south, a minimum of 45 feet from the Protected Solar Building Line and the ;torthern limit of' and development (setback line) of the lot on which it is located, • • . ' 0 . • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-9241R 2-93 Page 5of20 • • r ■ The applicant has illustrated the PSBL for each parcel on the Site Plan for the proposed partition (Exhibit 9). Each PSBL complies fully with the provisions of LOC 57.020(2). The PSBL on Parcel 3 should be moved northerly to coincide with the 10 foot side yard setbac to avoid misunderstandings about potential development locations. This will be required a condition of this action, if approved. 3. New Lot Line Adjustment/Enlarge Landmark/Reduce Area of PD Accordingly The original project site(including the original lot line adjustment with Tax Lot 2300) was composed of 56,699 sq. ft. The applicant sought acquisition of the 982 sq. ft. adjustment • w through civil court proceedings (Exhibit 7 and 8). The resulting settlement required an exchange of property. The owners have agreed that the original lot line adjustment could occur in exchange for 1,065 sq. ft. of the original project site. The adjustment results in a net gain of 83 sq. ft. for the owner of Tax Lot 2300; and a net loss of 1,065 sq. ft. to the original ny project. The result is a major partition/planned development of 55,634 sq. ft. The proposed.new adjustment enlarges the site of the landmark located on Tax Lot 2300 and .,' • increases the distance from the existing dwelling on that site, though not by a uniform • amount. . A lot line adjustment involving a landmark is enabled by the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Three criteria are required to be satisfied. Compliance with these criteria will be examined regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance,reviewed later in this report. • The loss of 1,065 sq, ft.resulting from the new adjustment marginally affects the original projec:,, The applicant illustrates that parcel areas will exceed 15,0(X) sq. ft each, though not required to do so as a planned development [LOC 48.476(2)]. The applicant proposes to provide 10 ft. side yard setbacks and 25 ft. front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed frontift • yard setbacks exceeds the 20 foot front yard setback originally approved by the Developmel Review Board; all others remain as originally approved. While the rear setback in the R-15 zone nas increased to 30 feet for new construction and the side yard to 15 feet, the original ,. .., setbacks are appropriate in light of the size of the project, the amount and quality of the open space being proposed, and the voluntary increase in the front yard setback from 20 feet to 25 •• feet proposed. .r S • 4. Reconfigure Parcels Greater Than 15,000 sq. ft. ' •• As noted previously, the applicant proposes to reconfigure the three parcels of the major partition/planned development to exceed 15,000 sq. ft. each. The applicant has expressed his • desire to more nearly conform to the area requirements of the underlying R-15 zone than enabled by the Development Review Board's original approval of the project in 1988 (Exhibits 31, 26 and 20), The proposed reconfiguration incorporates an open space and stream corridor area into Parcels 1 and 3 which will be further protected through a conservation easement and special stream corridor setback, These will be discussed concerning the Stream Corridor Development Standard later in this report and required as a • • ! condition of this action, if approved. • 5, Reduction in Right-Of-Way Dedication Width The applicant proposes to reduce the right-of-way width required by the Development Review Board (and subsequently by the City Council) from 40 feet to 26 feet, and to employ six-foot-wide slope and utility easements along each edge of the proposed dedicatiort. • • • ' > • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 ° • (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 • • Page6of20 •r • • e ` The Development Review Board required a 40 foot-wide right-of-way to enable E3 24 foot-wide paved street to be constructed with curbs on both sides and gently sloping shoulders ' • -' : - 0 (Exhibit 32). The Board determined that a turnaround(as shown in Exhibit 31)was not required and deleted it from the proposal(Condition 4; Exhibit 26). The Board required the ° provision of slope easements on private property in addition to grading within the 40 foot-- `■ '" . wide public right-of-way that was apprve k The City Council has adopted a policy of requiring rural street sections .rather than curb, • gutter and sidewalk, but this policy has not been formally adopted as an ordinance revision. Such a rural section would affect more land than originally approved because gently sloping shoulders and drainage swales would be required along the paved improvements. Due to the grades present on site, it does not appear that it would be prudent to require a rural street• section here. • The engineering staff has identified that the right-of-way width may be reduced to 30 feet. The Development Code and related ordinance require a sidewalk only when the street is intended to serve more than 13 lots or parcels. Since this project will provide 3 lots and upon t extension only approximately seven lots, the right-of-way may be reduced to 30 feet, as long as public slope and utility easements are provided to accommodate grading and required services. This will be reviewed further regarding the Utility Development Standard, later in ,this report. o ; 6. Private Tract Proposed Instead Of Public Rese- 4 Strip The applicant is proposing that the "access tract" approved by the Development Review Board (Exhibit 31) be reduced in size from an area of approximately 40 x 50 feet to 1 x 26 feet, and that this "street plug" or reserve strip remain in the ownership of the applicant and to establish a method of reimbursement regarding the cost of constructing the public street, ' •, . 0 The size of the "access tract" was approved to allow the applicant to construct the public street only to the top of the proposed vertical curve. The "access tract" was then to have been , dedicated to the City of Lake Oswego as a reserve strip as required by LOC 44.490. This method would enable the City to control future use of the street (and potential development)by the owner of property abutting to the north. Any future extension of the street improvement would be the responsibility of that abutting owner, not the applicant, • The applicant proposes these measures to enable his reimbursement (of an unspecified• proportion) by the abutting owner, should future development take place, The applicant correctly identifies that there is no procedural mechanism in place to accommodate this desire. The City has developed a "zone of benefit"reimbursement procedure for subsurface infrastructure improvements such as water and sanitary sewer, but not for streets, The Transportation Policies, General Policy IV, Specific Policy 4, requires the City to • "develop local residential streets which provide access to abutting land ,,,". The approved Future Streets Plan enables this provision, while the Board's condition of approval(limiting the street's construction to the top of the vertical curve) actually implements the Impact - • Management Policies, General Policy III, Specific Policy 1, which requires ",,, development to pay for an equitable share of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because p of the development, including but not limited to,., street and traffic safety improvements,including off-site improvements.,." The Board found that the existing method of cost allocation was reasonable because it didn't require construction of a longer street than was necessary to serve the applicant's development, and required a sharing of the cost of improvement (and other required SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 • (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 7 of 20 • Y ti r N • measures) by abutting owners in order to extend the street to serve future development. In •a the absence of an adopted procedure which includes the applicant's methodology, staff recommends that the Board's original approval (and dedication of the "access tract" to the0 ' r . ./ City per LOC 44.490)remain in effect. 7. Alternative Water Source(City of Lake Oswego vs. Glenmorrie Water Cooperative) The applicant proposes to provide water service from a City water line located in Chapin ' Way, rather than from the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative's line in Cherry Lane. The • applicant proposes to acquire a private utility easement over Tax Lot 6900, abutting to the west. The Development Review Board granted approval was granted based upon a commitment from the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative (Exhibit 36). The applicant has approached the owners of Tax Lot 6900 to request the required easement, but has not submitted a letter of commitment or an actual conveyance of easement. " ' Additionally, the applicant has not provided topographic information or a tree survey along r, the proposed route, so the impact upon existing natural resources cannot be documented. } Through fundamentally,one water source should be as acceptable as another, the absence of - information about these resources and the absence of any commitment to grant an easement does not demonstrate compliance with the Utility Development Standard (reviewed later in this report) and should not be approved. 8. Extension Request The applicant submitted a written request to extend the approval of SD 12-88/VAR 19— 88/PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90)on April 17, 1992 and asked that the approval extend through April 19, 1993. The matter of the extension was not scheduled earlier for hearing before till Development Review Board because the applicant simultaneously proposed the seven previously discussed modifications; the materials necessary to complete the application for • those modifications were not received until March 12, 1993, and the application for the new . o lot line adjustment was not made complete until March 26, 1993 (Exhibit 10). 4 Presuming that the analysis noted above leads to a conclusion that some of the modifications should be approved and some denied(pending further review in this report), the length of v any recommended extension remains at issue. • Due to the applicant's year—long delay in completing the application for the modifications and the new lot line adjustment, staff concludes that an extension of six months duration (from the date of the adoption of the Board's Order on the matter) should be adequate in • . which to prepare the final plat, construct (or bond) the public street, and to meet any of the • requirements of the modified approval. Despite the lengthy period of application and appeals (14 months; February 1988 through April 1989), the applicant has had four years from that date in which to complete the project, . largely under Code requirements applicable in 1988. The latter of those four years has been consumed while the staff awaited complete materials from the applicant regarding the proposed modifications. Staff recommends that no further extension requests be entertained by the Board regarding • this application, should the applicant fail to comply with the conditions of''this action, if ••• PP Code approved. Development s changes have been made to the City's Zoning Code Development . Standards and other applicable regulations since 1988. The applicant's • development f the site should be required to comply with current requirements in the event • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 • (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 . Page 8 of 20 r that the final plat is not recorded within the time limits prescribed by the Board regarding this . •p requested extension. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. E. Compliance with Criteria for Apprava. Because several of the proposed modifications would alter conditions placed on the development by the Development Review Board, those requests are being procssed as a new application requiring hearing body approval,rather than an administrative action [LOC 48.490]. As per LOC 49.815 (Zoning Code) and 49.615 (Development Code), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. ., . 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted many documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report, ., Staff has provided background materials, when appropriate. As will be noted throughout this report, the applicant has failed in some cases to meet the burden of proof required in order to • receive approval for all of the proposed modifications. 2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: t. /. a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Applicable policy groups are: • Urban Service Boundary Policies °,:, .S • These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, which is • n used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. This • specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. The City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990 demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The passage of the 17 million dollar school levy •• • on November 7, 1989 further assures adequate school facilities. 4. • Impact Management Policies • 1. These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive • review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public • facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, ,, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be • • preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams •' will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan i policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. . n • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 9 of 20 io r y o To P O . Wildlife Habitat Policies r, These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in thi report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Distinctive Natural Area Policies • ° • Thesepolicies }require the City to preserve tree stands. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Landslide Area Policies •These policies require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the Y � y degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation District mapping • indicates that the site is in a landslide hazard area. A soils report is required to address this `�; condition. These policies arc implemented through the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard, reviewed later in this report. Potential Erosion Area Poles These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require er,;,ion control and:•drainage measures during site planning and p construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control • v Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development • Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. 0 : ' Energy Conservation Policies ' These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented ' through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will he reviewed later in this report. stream Corridor Policies • These policies designate stream corridors as Protection Open Sp ace, • the City to require dedication of easement in stream corridors as a condition of These ew allow development where needed for storm drainage management. These policies also require a determination of a stream corridor buffer zone to protect steep slopes, soil and vegetation from erosion hazard. Grading is required to be regulated to protect stream corridors. Setbacks are required to achieve the above objectives. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard reviewed later in this report. Residential Site Design These policies require residential streets in new developments to provide street trees and y landscaping to control the speed of automobile traffic, These policies are implemented through the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Development Standard, reviewed later in 'this report. 40 . SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 ." • (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 r Page 10 of 20 b • - . r , a Protection Open Space Polic • ' ". 1- 0 These policies further protect natural resources listed in the Plan, including stream corridors, hillsides,erodible soils and sites with landslide potential. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard and Hillside Protection and Erosion - Control Development Standard, which are reviewed later in this report. Izzinsportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The • \ • policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate right—of—way as necessary to ';': • , provide for construction. These policies are implemented through the Utility Development Standard. The applicant will be required to dedicate right—of—way along the route of the proposed public street necessary to meet these requirements, and in order to provide for the future extension of the street to serve Tax Lot 6600 to the north. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis ILQC Cha tep r 48) ,. The following regulations applied to the project as approved by the City Council on April 19, 1989 (Exhibit 20). The site is zoned R-15 which requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit _• [LOC 48.210(1)]; required minimum lot width at the building line is 80 ft. [LOC 48.210(1); • required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]. Maximum lot coverage allowed in • , the zone is 30% [LOC 48 • .225(1)]. The City Council approved the following minimum setbacks (Exhibits 20 and 26): { Front yard: 20 ft. Rear yard: 25 ft. Side yard: 10 ft. The applicant originally proposed the parcels to be the following sizes: . Area (sq, ft,) Parcel 1 17,300 Parcel 2 12,635 7..,`,. Parcel 3 16,615 The applicant has proposed a number of modifications, in addition to the requested extension • of time for the original approval. These modifications necessitate a review for compliance . with the current requirements of the Zoning Code. • The following requirements were in effect on the date the applicant's request for extension and modification were submitted: The site is zoned R-15, which requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit v [LOC 48.210(1); required minimum lot width at the building line is 80 ft. [LOC 48,210(1)]; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]. The maximum lot coverage for new construction allowed in the zone is 25% [LOC 41111 48,225(1)1 . SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 11 of 20 Y ,, 1 1 0 4 The following minimum setbacks are required for new construction in the zone [LOC ii 48.215(1)(a)]: 0 ' '' Front yard: 25 ft. Rear yard: 30 ft. Street side yard: 20 ft. on arterial street • Side yard: 15 ft. The maximum height allowed for new construction in the zone is 35 feet on a flat lot and 43 feet on a sloped lot [LOC 48.220(3); LOC 48.015(32.5); LOC 48.015(34.5)]. The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area (sq. ft,) Parcel 1 17,888 Parcel 2 15,264 Parcel 3 15,322 • Tract 29 42,470 DevelnI?ment Code Regiments end An' , The proposed extension, modifications and new lot line adjustment are appropriately being < prrmssed concurrently as a major development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. The project was originally approved as a planned development, reviewed against the provisions of LOC 48.470-48,490. A discussion of these provisions is found in Section ILD.3., earlier in this report. The lot areas and proposed setbacks meet the requirements of the planned development overlay due to the amount and quality of the open space proposed on the site. As such, all Zoning Ordinance requirements are met by the current proposal. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57) , As noted earlier, the provisions of this ordinance took effect in 1988 following receipt of the original application. Compliance with its provisions is enabled by this review for an extension of time [LOC 49,330]. The ordinance requires 80 percent of newly created lots (or parcels) to be designed for solar `; access, The methods are available to do so, each resulting in proper orientation and adequate space, measured north-to-south, in which to build a dwelling. • , The applicant has chosen to impose a Protected Solar Building Line (PSBL) on each of the three proposed parcels, as illustrated on Exhibit 9. An analysis of this proposal was performed in Section ILD.2. of this report, While each parcel complies with the • requirements of LOC 57.020(2), staff recommends that the PSBL on Parcel 3 be relocated to the north to coincide with the proposed 10 foot side yard setback (south) from the property • line resulting from the new adjustment. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. • go, . SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\1-1R 2-93 Page 12 of 20 ` -A, •' i i - . • . ... Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 55) •1 l,. This ordinance is requires a permit to remove trees in excess of five inches in diameter. The applicant has submitted a tree survey (Exhibit 43). Based upon that survey, the following numbers of trees would be subject to removal based upon setbacks and the position of a typical building envelope within those setbacks or street improvements: ' To Be Removed Likely To Remain Parcel 1 14 trees 19 trees Parcel 2 6 trees 10 trees Parcel 3 3 trees 8 trees • • •`•"1. Street Construction 7 trees 0 trees Totals 30 trees 37 trees . '. (45 percent) (55 percent) The applicant has designed the proposed parcels to enable as many trees to remain as +* possible, either between parcels, within setbacks, or in an open space conservation easement. The applicant will be allowed to remove only those trees necessary to construct the street or • to locate the dwelling and accessory structures. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Subdivisions (LOC Chapter 44) This chapter of the Lake Oswego Code guides the design of streets, sidewalks and reserve strips such as that proposed by the applicant and discussed in Section II.D.6. in this report. Reserve strips will not be approved unless necessary for the protection of the public welfare + and dedicated to the City [LOC 44.470]. This section also protects the property rights of an • abutting property owner, such as the applicant, in allowing participation in the process of development review for property which would benefit from the removal of a reserve strip and subsequent construction of a street extension. As noted earlier, the Board(and the City Council) placed limitations on the extent of the street improvement required (i.e., to the top of the vertical curve), resulting in a reduced • construction expense to the applicant. The Board approved the applicant's "access tract'', enabling implementation through LOC 44,470. The applicant must comply with the w: '. condition and the Code. • • " ' Historic Preservation (LOC Chapter 58) The dwelling at 1515 Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 2300) is a listed landmark, This ordinance enables the Development Review Board to approve a lot line adjustment to a landmark provided compliance with three criteria is demonstrated [LOC 58.145(2)], as follows: • •' a. The...lot line adjustment does not allow a significant feature of the landmark to be located on a separate site form the landmark; and I The landmark and all features will remain on Tax Lot 2300. An area of 1,065 sq, ft, will be ' ' added to the landmark site from Tax Lot 7000, abutting to the north. This adjustment is the . . P•• result of a court settlement and will result in a 2,5 percent increase in the size of the landmark i . site. • SD 12-88WAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\FIR 2-93 Page 13 of 20 • n a b. The... lot line adjustment allows adequate setbacks from the landmark s . improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development of the new parcels; andei . The proposed new lot line adjustment will increase the distance from the landmark from zero •< to 20.64 feet to the adjusted northerly boundary of the landmark site, and minimum setback of 10 feet north of the adjusted boundary will further separate new form the landmark structure. c. Yard and landscape areas including large trees and shrubs associated • with the landmark shall be retained with the structure whenever possible. • There are no trees within the area of the new lot line adjustment. An area of brambles will be • removed and landscaping be installed by mutual agreement of the two property owners. • These improvements will further enhance the appearance of the grounds surrounding the • c. The applicable Development Standards Stream Corridors (3,005—3.040) • This standard requires the location of stream corridor boundary or buffer zone. No development may occur within this buffer zone. An unavoidable road crossing is permitted ' are met:in the Stream Corridor Buffer Zone [LOC 3.020 4 a O( )], provided that the following criteria a. The development cannot feasibly be located elsewhere than in the stream 4) , 1 corridor buffer zone because of physical or topographical conditions; The grades along the frontage of the site and sight distance along Hwy. 43 were examined in 1988 and it was determined that no other safe location for the proposed street intersection was feasible. b. Location of the development within the buffer zone is necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; • While the dwellings resulting from the proposal will not be within the buffer zone, the road crossing necessary to enable development of the site at a density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and the physical capabilities of the site, Such development was deemed reasonable by the Development Review Board, the City Council and the Land Use Board of Appeals in earlier actions regarding this Ate, c. The development will cause the minimum degradation,or loss of natural features in the stream corridor necessary to accommodate such work; and, • • Other than the installation of a culvert to direct the stream beneath the road crossing approved in 1988 and 1989, the stream will be further protected through a conservation easement and a special stream corridor setback from new development resulting on the major 1 partition/planned development site. d. The development uses design techniques including density transfer, to minimize intrusion into the buffer zone. iv • d . . . . SD 12--88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\l-IR 2-93 • Page 14 of 20 • •• t Because the stream corridor is located at the low end of the site (south),where access to r• Cherry Lane was determined to be most safe, no opportunity exists to cluster the 0 development in a location which would not require the unavoidable road crossing. Additionally, the City may require additional protection through the importation of special setback;, in which no structure may be located. The applicant has delineated the stream corridor and buffer zone on Exhibits 9 and 12. A portion of the new lot line adjustment is within the buffer zore, but is not shown. A portion of the landmark site is also within the buffer zone. The special setback mentioned above can be imposed upon the minor partition/planned development to protect the natural resource, but development affecting the ' landmark site is minimal and does not merit a similar requirement or dedication of a conservation easement on Tax Lot 2300 at this time. ,..:. Street Lights Staff originally recommended a street light be installed at the intersection of the proposed • : public street and its intersection with Cherry Lane. This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the conditions of the original(Exhibit 26) and subsequent approvals (Exhibits • 20, 18 and 13). This street light will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Transit System (6.005—6.04.0) • This standard requires a development to provide a hard—surfaced pedestrian path to connect ` the development with adjacent paths which lead to the nearest loading and unloading facilities. , . ' The nearest transit stop is located on Hwy. 43, but there are no hard surfaced paths near the site to which the applicant may connect the development. The standard is therefore satisfied • in the absence of an adjacent path. , Parking and Loading (7.005 —7.040) • This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off—street parking spaces . in addition to a garage or carport. • The applicant has illustrated setbacks and building envelopes (Exhibit 9) of sufficient area in which to locate required parking on each of the three proposed parcels. The dwelling on Tax . ' Lot 2300 also provides two existing off—street parking spaces. Park and Open ce (8.005 —8.040) . The applicant's modification,discussed in Section ILD.1. is intended to provide nearly 21 • ' , percent of the gross site area of the major partition/planned development in open space. A minimum of 20 percent is required. The standard is satisfied as a result. The open space will ; be protected through a conservation easement and special stream corridor setback, These will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Landscaping. Screening and Buffering_(9.005—9.040) ... • • ` This standard requires street trees where projects abut streets, These trees shall be other than 0 those prohibited by LODS 9.025(8) and properly spaced according to species. Additionally, the trees chosen should be solar friendly,chosen from a list adopted with Ordinance No. ' • • -, ' 1974, the Solar Access Ordinance. This will be required as a condition of this action, if M approved... , 40 • , . SD 12-88`VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 • y (Mod.4-92)\.SD 13-92\HR 2-93 , r Page 15 of 20 • . Y . Iv Drainage Standard for Major Development(11.005- 11.040) This standard requires drainage management measures to be accessible at all times for City - '' • inspection. Alteration of the stream corridor(culvert installation) to unavoidably cross the stream must not adversely affect other properties. The applicant proposes to direct storm runoff(roof and foundation drains) to the stream corridor. This will require environmental protections against stream contaminants and provide a direction for overt►ciw, should the culvert become blocked by storm debris. Condition number 11 of the original approval was . , imposed to require these design considerations before construction plans are approved (Exhibit 26). This condition remains in effect. This condition will be reiterated as a condition of this action, if approved. Utility Standard (14.005- 14.040) The applicants proposal affects only street width ar'l water service with regard to this • standard. As noted in Section II,D,7. of this report, the applicant has not demonstrated that • alternative water service is possible and would have a minimal Impact upon natural resources. As such, this modification should not be approved. In the discussion of the applicant's proposal to reduce the right-of-way width, in Section II.D.5. of this report, the Engineering staff has agreed that a 30 ft, width would enable the 24 ft.-wide street approved in 1989, as long as slope and utility easements are provided on both t• sides of the street on the frontage of the three proposed parcels. This will be'required as a condition of this action, if approved. • The Fire Marshal indicates that the street must be posted as a fire lane with no parking signs ,, on the improvement. The reserve strip discussed in Section II.D.6. of this report must be dedicated to the City pe a LOC 44.470. \ , The applicant proposes a berm along Hwy. 43 and within the open space proposed to buffer the site from traffic (Exhibit 5). A berm may be installed wholly upon private property, but would not be allowed within the open space conservation easement because it would not • , meet the requirements for protection of such natural resources as identified in the Park and Open Space Development Standard. • A fire hydrant is required to be located at the entrance to the project with a minimum flow of 1000 gallons per minute. Due to the need to further improve Cherry Lane (and realign its intersection with Hwy. 43), and Hwy. 43, tiro applicant must either construct those improvements to City standards,or may defer this construction by signing a nonremonstrance agreement for further street ` improvements anticipated in both Cherry Lane and Hwy.43. All of the above requirements will be required as conditions of this action, if approved. J >� • Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16,005- 16,040) . s This standard remained in effect on the date the application was received, though it has since been replaced by two similar Development Standards. • 0 ,.4 _ I(. < SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 . (Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 16 of 20 • The standard requires protection when hazards are present, as identified by a soils engineer. • The applicant provided a soils report in 1988 (Exhibit 39) which was used as the basis for the r original approval (Exhibits 26 and 20). The standard remains satisfied by that exhibit. Access Standard (18.005- 18,040) Each proposed parcel will have more than 25 feet abutting a public street, as required by this standard. , site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways (19.005- 19.0401 ' This standard requires driveways not to exceed 20 percent grade for single-family dwellings, nor 5 percent cross slope. Compliance with the standard will be assumed upon application for any building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways (20.005-20.114Q) This standard is applicable to major development, and requires bikeways to connect to public streets. The City Council adopted a Pathways Ordinance and Master Plan in 1989 (Exhibit . 46). The Pathways Master Plan Map (Exhibit 45) illustrates the presence of a constructed ? , pathway along Hwy. 43 from Oswego Creek to Glenmorrie Drive. This standard has been • satisfied by that earlier construction. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • A future streets plan was approved as a part of the original approval (Exhibit 25) with which ' this proposal complies. C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the new lot line • adjustment complies with all criteria, that modifications a-d comply with relevant criteria ' , (with conditions imposed) and that modifications e-g do not and may not be approved. Based upon those conclusions, the applicant's requested extension may be granted (also with conditions). III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of modifications 5 through 7 of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92). • Staff recommends approval of an extension of time on SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92) not to exceed six months from the date of the Board's Order in this matter. No other extensions may be requested regarding this application. `stuff recommends approval of the proposed new lot line adjustment [SD 13-92/HR 2-93], ;abject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 12 and modified by condition 4) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within six months of the date of this decision, , , • • SD 12-88\VAi 19-88\PD 5-88 , (Mod, 4-92)\SD ,13-92`HR 2-93 Page 17 of 20 . , . , . ./ L C ' 1' . II 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded • with Clackamas County Clerk's office. 3. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer0 . . for recording with 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, • T . when recorded the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application— " City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development, File No. SD 12-88WAR "' 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93. 4. The applicant shall label the two adjusted parcels as Tracts 1 and 2. 5. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Department of Planning and Development prior p<r. to the issuance of development permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. Staff recommends approval of modifications 1 through 4,subject to the following conditions: , 6. Except as modified by conditions 7 through 12 below, the applicant shall satisfy the • conditions for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90),permits requested subsequent to this action. prior to the issuance of 7. The applicant shall design and illustrate solar building lines for Parcels 1,2 and 3 on a covenant which will accompany the final plan, according to LOC 57.020(2). The solar building line on Parcel 3 shall coincide with the southerly side yard setback line of 10 feet. 8. The following note shall appeal on the final plan for the major partition/planned development: Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are solar lots. Development of structures and planting of non-exemp " vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions o the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding on the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. m4 9. The applicant shall illustrate the edge of the stream corridor buffer zone on the final plan for the major partition/planned development and shall dedicate the area to the City of Lake . Oswego as a conservation and drainage management easement. A 4 10. The following note shall appear on the final plan for the major partition/planned development: The final plait shall be modified to label the proposed common area as "Private Park Tracts A and B." Provide the following note on the plat: "The conservation and drainage management easement shall be protected fro the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance, protecting natural processes, and maintaining - atural , Trees be d they have been own to be • hazardous tovegeta lifetion or property may by a professional only arboristafter , and after a treesh cutting permit has been obtained from the City, Improvements in these areas, including landscaping or structures which are in keeping with the above purposes, must receive approval by the ., City of Lake Oswego, 11, The applicant shall note on the final plan for the major partition/planned development that a 10 ft.-wide special stream corridor setback exists north of the conservation easement I required by condition number 9, in which no structures shall be located, 0 ' SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 R (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\HR 2-93 ' Page 18 of 20 • • r ' 12. The applicant shall dedicate a 30 ft.-wide right'-of-way to the public along with a reserve 41. strip as illustrated on Exhibit 31 and according to Exhibits 13 and 20. n. 13. The applicant shall provide a signed nonremonstrance ag reement for the major partition/planned development for future street improvements anticipated in Cherry Lane and • Hwy. 43. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved. 14. The applicant shall comply with condition number 11 of Exhibit 27,prior to issuance r.)f any developmentpermit requested subsequent to this action. 15. The applicant shall install a fire hydrant and street light at the intersection of the public street and Cherry Lane, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. • • 16. The applicant shall design and install street trees along the front of Parcels 1,2 and 3 as a • condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. Such trees shall comply with LODS 9.025(8) and be solar friendly trees as defined by the Solar Access Ordinance• (LOC Chapter 57). , 1. Tax Map 2. Request for Extension,dated April 17, 1992 3. Proposed Modifications,dated April 17 1992 • • ;. 4. Applicant's Narrative, dated September 3, 1992 s : • 5. Applicant's Narrative (modification and extension, addendum), dated February 24, 1993 0 6. Applicant's Narrative (modification and extension addendum by Gilbertson Engineering), u dated February 26, 1993 7. Letter from Judge Brockley, dated February 25, 1992 8. Letter from B, Littlefield, dated November 28, 1990 9. Site Plan: Proposed Partition, dated April 8, 1993 a'k 10, Letter from M.Jankowski,dated March 17, 1993 11. Applicant's Narrative (property line adjustment by Gilbertson Engineering), dated March 5,1993 12. Site Plan: Proposed Property Line Adjustment, dated April 8, 1993 • 13. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod 10-90); dated January 21, 1991 "• . 14, Staff Report; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90); dated November 21, 1990 15. Tay: Map • 16. Letter from Applicant, dated September 28, 1990 17, Applicant's Request for Extension, dated August 3, 1990 18. Letter from L. Bailey Granting Extension, dated September 20, 1989 "' 19. Letter from Applicant, dated September 16, 1989 • 20. Findings, conclusions and Order, City Council; regarding remand of VAR 19-88; dated • April 19, 1989 . 21. Petition for Judicial Review; Land Use Board of Appeals; dated February 24, 1989 y 22. Final Opinion and Order, Land Use Board of Appeals; dated February 3, 1989 • 23, Notice of Intent to Appeal; Land Use Board of Appeals, dated October 10, 1.988• 24, Findings, Conclusions and Order, City dated September 21, 1988 0 25, Notice of Appeal of Findings, Conclusi Council;ons and Order of Development Review Board; dated , 1 • June 20, 1988 26, Findings, Conclusions and Order; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557; dated June 6, 1988 27, Staff Report; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88; dated April 22, 1988 • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 , $ (Mod, 4-92MD 13-92\HR 2-93 Page 19 of 20 Y -.....,\ 28. Applicant's Narrative 29. Letter from Don Hanson, dated April 1, 1988 30. VAR Request 31. Site Plan 32. Profile of Proposed Street 33. Stopping Sight Distance Map and Table 34. Tax Map •• 35. Street Vacation Map 36. Glenmorrie Water Cooperative Letter 38. 37. Oregon StateMap Highway Division Letter 39. Soils Reconnaissance 40. Council Memorandum regarding Schools,dated September 18, 1990 41. Site Plan "A" (Presumed to be Exhibit 14 of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88); not dated 42. Site Plan "B" (Presumed to be Exhibit 15 of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88); not dated 43. Tree Survey (portion)dated September 3, 1992 44. Cultural Resources Inventory 45. Pathway Master Plan (Map); dated December, 1980 46. Pathways Ordinance (Ord. No. 1981); dated February 7, 1989 47. Pathways Master Plan (Text); dated December 20, 1988 1 t • 40 . • • . , „ . . , .. , . . . , • . . . , ., , I, . . .•, . ,.•. , , . • . . . . q .. . • . s. ,, SD 12-88\VAR 19--88\PD 5-88 • (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13-92\Ffl 2-93 .. Page 20 of 20 49 $ 0 t1 ,,fir£� `� Jr. b pp 1 0� iN.f.ea �C ; t� V 7 •� r C:ir �� a fBi+ia a� /. .I y y . aJ 31 ,• q \ I 1 r2 9 /as- . - 6600 �" • oti o j,ta 07• I 16155 1 ..pct 4z ; TA V v... 6 7 0 0 • I `f , f\ _t. 16620 ti^ I (e, cC \, ,1 s 01 n3 v \ \ `.1 I, att\I \ • . imei H 4. ,\ ' \ 1,� • ° • . (J,/ �o.1B d� 3q • L, 94 V . 3 I -70d-=- -- '_' I ?00 0 . v 7 - _ `• w 16825 IJ? \I:0 \,...__ tc--_a- S,ge'..5037 , . 3o J-"5 I`J+�`t 6 900 SGa is\ 16610 li, • •.'•9 i‘Ijo. .:, lq, ACI ., .,. . , . . , . \ \ ..._............................. *,......i•-1 ,„_.—..... ."-• • — G0 1'Z9A ® Pt e• • o 5 29? i�..'. �..., 1 2g e •aN ry tt -- 91• •• , --.\ \...--- MORRIIE ,,... �.;,4,. . _ .N. . U UPPER ,H 4 p`�ffd' 93_xplm 9 15aa • , `. J 9 .. 2400 \ `t. ,,,2 5 CO N 15SA a J A‘ 1590Z e a °6, ,, t om j C ,C. \ ., IP � ho%S 0a 4 rp 'C? - , nrM: .nr t kr 1 \95 .., • - -(.4t.livk . ....., ' ,4 \ \ s 2.141,1 . 0 ......,,...1,-,,, A.... ; 11'1,, t�i'rL +' yl� �! al1F'•t�rUr'r 4 f 0 . t RICHARD P. WATERMAN P.O. Box 3071 �, Redmond, WA 98073 (206) 481-7781 q, April 17, 1992 ��.P�1i s�41 . d EXHIBIT ......: .' City of Lake Oswego Development Review Board002, 380 11A" Avenue So ra.=ez(rtco 4 9z) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Request for Extension on Approval of 3-Jot partition Dear Board Members: On January 21, 1991 the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego approved an extension until April 19, 1992 on the above partition as reflected by: SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 (Mod 10-90) -845 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER • Since that extension request was a tson, my • Civil Engineer, and I have been wopeking witho theug ta Miker Wheeler, n Jerry Baker, and other members of the L.O. Planning and `. Engineering Departments to II ,. r , get the remaining issues resolved. It was not possible for me to properly address the remaining ` .• ` issues by 4/19/92, so I hereby request an additional extension of • one ( 1) year to April 19, 1993, and to appear a. Development Review Board to before the A p get clarification on several of the remaining issues. These include issues raised in the remand front the Land Use Board of Appeals in the case brought by Larry Sokol against the City of Lake Oswego, while Jim Coleman was City Attorney. Most of my recent discussion on the matters in question has been with Mike Wheeler, so I will outline • separate letter to the Planning Department estaff. issuescific Ihop e in to discuss these issues with the Development Review Board at the June 1, 1992 meeting. �• . In the meantime, I am submitting this letter with my check for $900. 00 as determined earlier by Bob Galante and Mike Wheeler. " • ,a: Thank you for your continued cooperation on this matter. • 1 r rLL �. ,�' ,r," }fli r Warm regards; .' b, Richard P. Waterman AM i 7 'rr', e u c . RICHARD P. WAT'ERMAI' • P.O. Hoar 3071 A P n 2 ,aj -•r,3 Redracorit WA 98073 (206) 481-7781 April 17, 1992 EXHIBIT 3 (sm.) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12-6e( -91' Planning Department 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Attn: Mike Wheeler RE: Issues to be resolved at upcoming Development Review Board Meeting SD 12-88VAR 19-88/PD 5-99 ' (Mod 10--90)-845 Dear Mike: The following list outlines many of the issues we have been discussing this year, and which mayneed D.R.B. approval "tieup n tothe Loose ends on the '� ��� �, above partition. 1 ° 1. Extension of prior approvals to 4/19/93 ($900.00 fee paid 4/17/92) . • • 2. Approval to modify "PD" lot sizes, so all three (3) lots will f:.ceed 15,000 sq. ft. in size. This is requested to satisfy some neighbors /: concern that under my PD approval, one lot was only 12,635 sq. ft. in size. 3. Approval to make lot line adjustments for: (a) the triangular • the City requested me to acquire alongCherryg parcel and (b) the approximately same size ianguLane for the public street, with Matthew J. Jankowski to obtain lar parcel. I had to exchange parcel (a). A . 4. Approval for the 20% Open Space I am dedicating to the project, L.IJ.B.A. remand decision. per the t . 5. Approval for a 26' wide right-of •way dedication for the public street, and creation of a "Tract 'X 1" as either: (a) an access tract, or (b) a 1' strip, where said easement meets my N. property line. • The City required me to provide future access to the FEDERSPIEL property • in the event their property is ever developed, and this is the only reasonable means available to me to eventually recover sane of my "public street" expenses for benefiting the FEDERSPIEL property. i talked with Ube Tom Milne, Clackamas County Surveyor. and Ray Erland, Clackamas County Assessor regarding the creation of a "Tract 'X'", and both of them said ' ' it is acceptable to them. • ' y ,./ . ,. , . . e ,. . . . .. . Mike Wheeler -2- D.R.B. Meeting • 6. Approval for me to have the option of using either (a) Glenmorrie Water Cooperative, or (b) City of Lake Oswego, for water service to the site. • 7. Approval for a "57.025 motion from Design Standard" and/or a "57.030 Adjustments to Design Standard" for solar access, because of shade from mature trees over 30' (fir, oak & ash), that will remain after development in the 20% op en space and stream corridor(drainage/conservation easement), along the Southerly and Easterly borders of the site. 8. Approv ,i ':o install a "berrtt" in any dedicated open space along the East propelw';, .line, to buffer the site from Highway 43 & Cherry Lane traffic noise Gr=:i negative visual impact of vehicles. • Please call me if you wish to discuss any of the above items, or if think of other "housekeeping" matters that should be addressed at theoD.R.B.Meeting. Mahalo! u can ass Y Warm regards, :0 ' . ' Richard P. Waterman • cc: Doug Gilbertson, P.E. ` Neighborhood Associations A ) 1 • ,E s . • 0 w RIC HAR �P. W 1 I P.O. Box 3071 L. -- Redmond, WA 98073 'f (206) 481-7781 September 3, 1992 lVECC �a r l .f id EXHIBIT ,, . Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner /f (4�s .. a CITY OF LAKE 0SWDG0 ""'�" 380 "A" Avenue • 12488Crrc0¢-il) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 (Mod. 10-90)-845; & (Mod. 4-92) Dear Mike: I am responding to your letters dated 5/12/92 and 8/21/92, and the information t you asked me to provide by September 4, 1992 in orderto proceed with the modifications I requested in my letter to you dated 4/17/92. I apologize for not responding to your request sooner, but have had my "circuits overloaded" with similar complex projects here in Washington. 1 . Please consider the' following as my detailed narrative, describing my request for modifications la-1f in your letter of May 12, 1992: a. Revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels greater than 15,000 sq. ft. each. My original intent was to have all three (3) parcels in this partition be 15,000 sq. ft. or larger, to conform with the R-15 zoning. However at the suggestion of the planning staff at a pre-application conference, I followed a staff suggestion of requesting a PD overlay, to give CTAK more flexibility. " At the Development Review Board hearing, the primary complaint of Larry Sokol and the other neighbors opposing my development was that all three (3) lots were not 15,000 sq. ft. or larger. As I recall, they argued that all lots in the nearby HALLINAN WOODS Development were 20,000 sq. ft. or more. At the subsequent City Council hearing, I asked OTAK to see if they could modify the lot sizes, so all lots were at least 15,000 sq. ft. OTATC was able to do this, • and we presented this concept as Site Plan "B" (copy attached) . As we have discussed, the record seems unclear on whether the City Council„ prpved Site Plan "A" or "B", or gave me the option of using either Site Plan^or�the basis • °; • I received approval for the PD overlay. It was my distinct impression that they were agreeable to giving me this flexibility, as a means of addressing my • . neighbor's primary objection. It is for these reasons that I feel my request to create parcels of 15,264±, 15,423±, & 17,888± sq. ft. as shown on the - attached drawings is reasonable and consistent with the public hearings and the preference of the neighborhood. e , ill . • . . • . r, . • , . . b. Revision to the area proposed for open space, increasing it from 11 .6 to the minimum 20% required. 0 .!. : i One of the primary arguments presented by Larry Sokol in his Land Use Board of Appeals complaint against the City of Lake Oswego, was that the City had no right to approve my Major Partition with less than 20% of the land area being ,:' doe.l:ated to open space. When the case was remanded by L.U.B.A. to the Lake • • k Oswego City Council, Jim Coleman (City Attorney) and I discussed the best options for settling the "open space" issue, and hopefully avoiding a Court of : '.' - Appeals "Petition for Judicial Review" filing by Larry Sokol. We decided that ' the best solution was for me to agree to dedicate 11 .6% to open space, and pay the deficiency (8.4% of the property value) in cash. . ~ ° Jim Coleman subsequently left as City Attorney, and it was determined that the • ' c: ' City Code no longer provided the possibility of a "split payment" (open space + cash). The only option remaining available to me appears to be the dedication of 20% of the project to open space, and in order to proceed with the development I am willing to do this. You will see from the drawing for this revision that I have dedicated 11 ,674 sq. ft. (or 21%) to open space, encompassing significant trees, native vegetation, and the stream corriddr. . .; . c. Revision to the approved right-of-way dedication from 40 ft. to 26 ft. •. - Following my meeting with you on 4/17/92, you will reca]l I had a long discussion with Jerry Baker, City Engineer. Jerry indicated that Lake Oswego ' has no "hard and fast" right-of-way standards for projects like mine, and suggested that I review with Russ Chevoret the right-of-way widths that have been approved for similar developments in Lake Oswego. .•i.1tnoiminme Russ found several stall developments that have been approved with 24-26 ft. ILO-W. 's. Based on these prior projects, and the dedication of 21% to open space, we . decided it was both necessary and appropriate to request a modification for a • 26 ft. right-of-way. C' d. Revision of the required right-of-way by reservation of a private ' one-foot strip at the north property line. In my discussions with you, you have indicated that the City of Lake Oswego appears to have no established mechanism such as a "Latecomers Fee", which �? would enable me to recover any of my site improvement costs for the public street, utilities, etc. if the Federspiel's decide to develop their property ' • or sell it to a developer in the future. I feel it is unreasonable for the - City to require that I not only provide proper access to the Federspiel - • property, but that the City provides no mechanism for me to recover a prorata share of the improvements which benefit the Federspiel property. I reviewed this situation with Tons Milne, Clackamas County Surveyor. He indicated that he would have no problem with me creating a private tract reserved for public , access or the reservation of a private one-foot strip at the north • (Federspiel) property line. Tom Milne said he preferred the one-foot strip, and that it was the most donation approach used in Clackamas County. The • imposition of Latecomer's Fees is donation here in Washington, in cities the - • size of Lake Oswego, to enable developers to recover p o-rata street and • • utilities costs from adjoining property owners who^el ct or refuse to • ,tr participate in the "up front" costs, but subsequently sell or develop their property and receive a "windfall profit". I am willing to provide the L.O. City Attorney with samples of legal documents to accomplish this request. e. Alternative provision of public water service from Glenmorrie Water Cooperative or the City of Lake Oswego. I mild like approval to bring public water service to the site from either the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative as proposed by OTAK, or connect to the City of Oswego water line in Chapin Way. As you probably know, the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative is a private well system,�,c Although I understand the • Glenmorrie system is currently being upgraded, ! have served on the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative Board, I have much more confidence in the longevity and 4 reliability of the Lake Oswego public water service. I have discussed the possibility of obtaining an easement from my neighbor to the West (Ardys Stevenson), so I can connect to the Chapin Way water line, and she has • indicated a willingness to consider the proposal if I will pay the expense of connecting her residence @ 16830 S.W. Chapin Way to the Lake Oswego public water line. Please see attached map showing the proposed easement. f. Request for the Solar Building Line Option as an alternative to comply with the Design Standard for solar access. ' ' ,. Doug Gilbertson and I have reviewed in detail with you the best: option(s) for ' addressing the Design Standard for solar access, which was added to the Code • ' requirements after my Major Partition application was submitted. We agree with your recommendation and interpretations, that the site is best served by • the Solar Building Line Option (LOC 57.020(2), and allows the site to conform with the solar access Design Standard. The attached drawing shows the "solar building line" for each lot, North-South dimension, and other pertinent solar R measurements. 2. Separate drawings to illustrate each of the revisions proposed in Items la-1f are included with this narrative, clearly showing the changes for which I seek approval. " 3.. New application and fee for a Lot Line Adjustment. • Per your request, I am submitting a new Minor Development Land Use Application for the lot Line Adjustment that became necessary in order to get Jankowski to agree to cooperate with me in providing the 982 sq. ft. "triangle" as shown on the original Major Partition Application. While the "exchange of triangular • parcels" was not shown on the original application, the land area being � partitioned/adjusted has not changed from the initial Major Partition parcels. • You will find a new drawing of the site plan showing the two (2) parcels that are subject to the L.L.A., but the inventory of existing features, etc. has • not changed from the original Application and public hearings. I am providing • • extra copies of the Development Standards Summary of Applicability in the • event you need it for a "complete file" on the L.A.A. Application. 4110 • : • • 1 • . , 1 • 4. Neighborhood Associations and notifying neighbors within 300' . i 4 You have on file the names and addresses and two (2) SHEETS OF LABELS for notifying neighbors within 300' of the D.R.B. Hearing and my extension request. I have also included the required new information with my L.L.A. Application, in the event they need to be mailed separately. ' Following our meeting on 4/17/92, I hand delivered the necessary Neighborhood • Association information to both the HALLINAN and GL'ENMORRIE Neighborhood Association representatives. I had previously spoken with the lady representing GLENMORPIE by phone to give her an overview of my project, and spoke with Robert Mogental of HALLINAN at his residence the evening of 4/17. • With both Neighborhood Association representatives, I offered to meet with • their groups separately or at a joint meeting, but to-date have had no response from either Neighborhood Association. 5. Expiration date of pending one (1 ) year extension. I had originally requesbAthat my extension for completing my Major Partition be extended to April 19, 1993. Since most of that time will have elapsed by the time of the D.R.B. Hearing, could you please have the one year extension commence on the date the D.R.B. issues its decision on these requests. I am sure there are still some "i"'s that will need to be dotted or "t"'s that will need to be crossed, so please call me @ (206) 481-7781 . Mahalot Warm regards, 461. • Richard P. Waterman •F • 4111 . „ 4 •, j` •, L w • • RICHARD P. WATERMAN P.O. Box 3071i. • mod, WA 98073 2o6) 481-7781 MAR 1 1,' February 24, 1993 3 EXHIBIT 1 Michael R. Wheeler t C3 ) , Associate Planner Department of Planning and Development 12�c$( a�•9 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 - Re: Modification & Extension request; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88 /PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92) Dear Mike: I am responding to your correspondence dated October 5, 1992 and February 1993 regarding the revisions necessary to consider my application 9, complete. Because you indicated inie narrative did not "address how eachy current letter rcom l my detaied applicable review criteria", I asked Doug Gilbertson (GILBERTSON complies ENGINEERING) all ' 4K4 to prepare and submit a separate narrative. Doug's information should reflect sufficient detail to show how it corn lies with the rovisio;is of the Comprehensive Plan, — �' p • ', Zonin Ordinance Develo lent Code and Standards" for each of the modifications listed in De Doug said he conferred with your 10 5 92 letter. Doug • data" whichyou requested, earlier this week, has researched the "technical quested, and will submit his information to you to complete • my application for modification by your February 26, 1993 deadline. ., Since you felt my detailed narrative of September 3, 1992, written in response to your August 21 , 1992 letter requesting me to "Prepare narrative of sufficient detail to separately and submit a narrative " describe your request for the g' (1 • a. - f., etc.) "reads like a dialog, rather than a report describing your proposal and demonstrating how it complies", I submit the following revised narrative, to clarify my 9/3/92 submittal: 1 a. The Comprehensive Plan designates the zoning for the area in which the subject property is located as "R-15". This zoning requires, things, that each residential building lot be not l_:.s than 15,000 sq.ng ftother . . size. "Plan A" which was submitted initially at the D.R.B. Hearing, had "Lot •2" at only 12,635 sq. ft. This confi guration and lot size was based on Renee Dowlin s (City of L.O. Planner) su gggestion to file my application as a "PD ' overlay". As described in my 9/3/92 narrative, neighborhood o ,me to have O'I'AK, Inc. submit "Plan B" at the subsequent Cityopposition c�a ased • Since the "PD overlay" had already been approved it Heating. ' '• subsequent L.O. City Council by the D.R.B., and the lengthy approval of my development proposal followed g y public testimony, I feel the City Council a r i of me going ahead with either "Plan A" or "Plan B" since they included mettthe criteria of Lake Os !o's "P.D, overlay" standards for R-15 zoning. ! \ ,: l i'- • .,r 1, 1 bmy ill . .., • L.O. Code re quirements on Major Partitions a original 1988 Application, and after JimColeman'srantly changed after Attorney) suggestion that we settle the "L.U.B.A. remand" to the L.O. (L.O. 0 City CouncilY b rj � { dedicating 11 .6% to open space and paying the difference of 8.4% in cash. a and Development My current proposal is merely an attempt to comply with all Plan, Bonin Ccd provisions of the Comprehensive Standards by dedicating 11,674s nance,(21 Development a , r open includes significant trees, native vegetation, space. Saido dedication and a stream corridor. 1 c. The revision from 40 ft. to a 26 ft. dedication edication r from a 1992 meeting with Jerr �- esulted Baker, City IIzgineer, who later referred me to Russ Chevrette because of Russ' experience, and fandliarit . development R.O.W. width approvals. Y with recent small e, with Russ found several projects prior approvals for 24-26 ft. R.O•W• 's• p cts similar to decided to „ mug Gilbertson and 1 go with the wider (26 ) width, and the design su • Chevrette. As 1 recall, Jerry, suggested by Russ • r standards in the Code, but could findno 1 tried to find specific pecthat R.O.W. ; situation. requirements that fit my 1 d. 1 feel the reservation of aone- • property line, reserved for public access land efuture extension at the north public street to the Federspiel property, innsion of the proposed P. Waterman. 1 can find nothing in te shouldCode that remain the name of Richard willing to provide the Lake Oswego City Attorney withpthei"legbits this,text" adopted 1 am by other municipalities to accommodate this "Latecomer's Fee ' m . '� mechanism. You will recall that 1 was required by the L.O. Department ofDevelopment to provide public access to the Federspiel Planning fna • letter front the Federspiels to the City of Lake Oswegoat� acce site of t 1 • ed. Code §49.620 does not suggestis not penalized by that 1 should be unreasonably being required to provide public access for Federspiel, and absorbing the full expense of installinga +,h lic street and to benefit their property so it can be d FLoped sometime in teif fuutture.services •Mike, you suggested that I talk to the Clackamas County surveyor , • question of creating of a "private tract" or "1 ' stri " Y either thee approach would have to be approved byyp r since you felt either indicated in my 9/3/92 narrative, 1 n1e theith Pont Milne SurveYwho� he had nc problem with either approach but said he no the most conintan approachpreferred the one-foot strip and said �,t is public access" 1 a being required to provide. n as Coturty for the type of "future n � .• F a .. • ', -2- • • 1 as ` •• ti .aa -. • , .1 , • ' • • a • . A l n /. I e. Since my 9/3/92 letter to . expressed her Willingness to you indicating that Ardys Stevenson had ' (ares her N, ro grant me a water line easement front Cha p perty line) to my property, she has sold her residence. I talked to her recently, while her sale was in escrow, and she specifically o rested that I not contact the Purchasers until after her sale had Gowned Since this is a recent sale, I have not been able to contact the while in Lake Oswego, to follow through with your requestnew owners ccommitment to that I get a written • omet tprovide a private water line easement for my benefit. I will . every attempt to get this written commitment prior to the 4/19/93 D.R.B. Hearing. I much prefer the option of connecting to Cityof rather than relying on the Glenntorrie Water Coo Lake Oswego Water, inherent limitations. However, I want to keep both options osn.' with its pen. 1 f. I specifically request employment of the Solar Building Line Option (LOC 57.020(2) ] to achieve compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance. All three (3) parcels can comply with the Solar Access Design Standard (57.020) through the Protected Solar Building Line Option. Inspectiong Engineering drawing will show that each parcel satisfies all Code conditions of the Gilbertson • and requirements. 2. The revised drawings Gilbertson Engineering prepared should illustrate everything you have asked for. I hope that Doug Gilbertson's "technical information", along with this narrative re-submittal on the above "modifications" will assist you in preparing your staff report. I am confident the approved major AP the requested modifications continues to comply with all current ddevelopment regulations, criteria, and standards. Thanks for your continued cooperation in finalizing this project. Warm regards, /),,:i 4L:2L---, • Richard P. Waterman 1 • • 7 0. . e p War 1 �. • a• • • y • 1. . • r • • / • • • • • • • • • • • • P. • N, ; ••o • d ' ® "• • • • • • I.: • • GILBERTSON • k ,. ENGINEERING tiA 1 / EXHIBIT CS fit February 26, 1993 :Michael R. Wheeler. • Associate Planner 12' 3> moo 4�r. City of Lake Oswego -O Box 369• Lake Oswego, OR97034 ( c : r(odification & Extension request • SD 12-88/VAR 10-88/PD 5-88 (Mod. 4-92) ... r 4 mar Mike, +, • • z4 the request of Mr . Waterman, • � • Cctober 5th, 1992. I will attempt atordescribeghow th to ey items 1 a- comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Developmento t.n • and Development Standards. Code, a. ) We are proposing to make each of the 3 parcels 15,,000 sq. ft. , as opposed to an earlier greater than a ° ' rcel less than 15, 000 sq. ft. Tproposal which showed one �T-nprehensive Plan density thishRl5e uzre�t proposal satisfies the on_ 410g minimum (page 'l7) . That size is which is 15,000 sq. ft. on the zoningpg map. The also allowable in the R15 zone as shown width of 80 ft. and the minimum ddeptshah�ofs a100nd aft, aas s allow the Zoning Ordinance. Reasonable building envelopes which meetspecified by zoning • front and rear, and 10 ft. side are also allowed, setbacks of 25 ft. • b. ) Although the earlier proposal of 11.6% open space was either approved or not, we are currently proposing about 21% open space, which is more than the minimum of 20% specified on I Standards. This open space preserves a streamacorridor the Developmentthe visual structure of wooded areas, and will not impinge into ourtypical building envelopes. c. ) Although the earlier proposal for right-of-way Width was 40 ft. , we believe that a width of 26 Et. (24 ft. curb-curb) will well sere the e . • proposed development of 3 parcels as well as future development to the north. Parking will not be allowed on the street; utilities can be placed underground in 6 ft. easements adjacent to the right-of-way; and '• the required width for a fire truck (24 ft. , page 65, Development Standards) is met. The narrow width is in keeping with Comprehensive Plan goals of preserving natural features (woods) while ' • adequate providing traffic flow both in the near and far future. • The 26 f t. width has already been allowed in similar developments in recenti OswCgo. yeatsn Lake ` d• ) We prefer to reserve- (ftom dedication to the City)- a 1 Et. Wide • ` ,1 "street plug" at the north end of the stree retained by Mr . Waterman, for the t•o Ownership would be purpose of nsuring that compensation Ito Waterman) by the northern, future developer would be made for the capital costs of extending the public infrastructure beyond what is needed for the current proposal. This concept is not prohibited by the i. current Development Code. Notice that in 49. 620 of that Code, although authority is given to the hearing body (DRB) to insist on dedicationg various stated purposes, a street plug in favor of the City is not one of those purposes. This private street plug concept can be further defined and conditioned to reflect the equitable sharing of costs would occur when a city has a "Latecomer ' s Fee" mechanism alreadyywhich place. in e. ) We would like to maintain both options for the site. The first option is to transport Glenmoe:rie�r water fromroidirthto e south. This is feasible, depending upon well water from�a systemt has eoutsidetedrawbacks rof o the City. the direct control of The second option is to transport City water from the west to the site. From the standpoint of quality and is better. However, we have not quantity control, this option easement necessary to accomplish this.actWe skpthateth d , opts n the ruled out by the City. option not be • • f. ) All 3 parcels can comply with the Solar Access Design Standard (57.020) through the Protected Solar Building Line Option, CO ' ' ' inspection of the drawing, nUpon conditions 2a through 2doflthat standard each parcel satisfies We will continue to develop the drawing and text for the Property Line Adjustment application, and will submit materials by March 5, 19� 3 3 .9 . Sincerely, r D S Doug Gilbertson; PE, PLS I, • µ • . • . . . . . : . .. , , ,. . . . . r Ni CIRCUIT COURT OF ORE5ON LJ FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT K CLACKAMAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE OREGON CITY, OREGON 97045 D SROCKLEY c cu1T.►UQGS February 25, 1992 COURTROOM 3 R 1503) 65518686 Richard P. Waterman P.O. Box 3071 Redmond, WA 98073 RE: Circuit Court #90-3-162 Dear Mr. Waterman: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1992 . The above case has been dismissed. It may be reinstated for the purpose of , entering a decree •,. +xaapqp::iWa. wx b.e..,terms, of settlement 4,1,, By copy of this letter, I am requesting the attorneys to ' f advise me concerning the decree. Thank you for your cooperation. 'h Very my yours, "" , . /"L'Gi2 /c� o; Sid Brockley Circuit Judge SB/jv cc: Carlton W. Hodges ft Brad Littlefield ^s • J ` • EXHIBIT 1 1 r el t6p12..%. 1.400.4...11. ..... , • . . . . •, r r . . • . , . . 4 y. / V. • n 6 ., - + • • .I-r P d M. • WILLIAMS.FR:;DRI�':ICSI�Id Y. wior . �.1AK N.N1 LtSENSEE 8 C+C LIMN rm.}',C. %Tem:ALCIAUASLN•• /:TP¢lt;►.CY!&VD COL143X►ORZAT LAW rI.r1Y1!A MO NRIt'ksti1;! MOO bl'1UTH w!lT Ft7ulLTPd AYPNI,I ,3UITC Do' �• 6;tR30),h,GOIDSIdITH }sORTi�NV•Okkc:c�N %GUI•':'.1/� 1 `'mAND I Mtn •_, N.`JhllL1R1 F:RlT2AtE11.R• tIM+.PdpIJ1;L TSI.r.PHC1Nr t;od1 u22•t+vms 1"Itw uI ILYMIrLU tNttL!(1,l1i 4lS.10 M � ^ ,4MN I,LtAiA' 1Tt R C.AtKttlRo T! tt I 1 8 '1Ct,• Cr CoLnI5t L MittICIA A.NBN?MN•• L LK.17•t?p•ln ' '. lOHN C 11UMMrRT A):'.k�C\:MEXPTO '►'!NClIL CAA' DONAU:k's1ARY. RCTIRCD ,IONNS.TH0k4A3 November 28, 1990 inlgp v..,vkIsNNsI'! •'•t.t:!nl>'�IiTtJ tN .,Llt•d •uh L1A;•ush b+t1.IdAA1s ••ALSOA_►,:RICn:4,n,w -a• M MAC: D.tir LLlnHs 11:REIL1 KLASS tart%-J FILE 1•ct !• �, SENT VIA FAX • Carlton Hodges Attorney at Law 14� Building 0 American Bank g S.W. Mclrrisoii ':' Portland, OR 97205 Re: Waterman v. Jankowski Litigation Dear. Carlton: ! In accordance with our telephone conversation enclosing herewith the. �:fi this marrlint;�, m ' cZien'C',has a �' ssd :, ett1%smenar Agreeme`�t 'which m}► Pprove2l, and is prepared settlement of all claims and issues in this can sul �' and t:.na j eon this basis it is . understood that t e3en b et the tlxhY and ' hp. »or al Settlme; tgr ,, e tap Deec of e gned, by Mr. Jankows ;We would appear in, ,c '» nd; Y,zbedember 4y. 199 and• ut : • Ncltwith tanainlg the fore r he settlement on the "oxigiq 1sor,'visrrti �,ari: ow� eX'_ goin„ oz :� ati „$�.ltt�Ied. tc care:bY'' nda d�.�ctftea by Mr. Jankowsk t att.i ?'.Mo y, F De a tber 3, i 94. t , , Very truly �urs , . , a• • •� / LITT' FIELD, ' o f edrirl'soh, Star , Weisenseo & G c.ldsmith, P.C. I3L,:vp H . Fnc i+ EXHIBIT i B ( D 1-2,A, r+ooq,q0 0 „ • i / 1 , ✓1 v , 4 AY• eft • • t, '' BETTIME T AAe.R,BEME T 1 ', r This Agreement is, made and entered into this day of .11i1. --- ----, 1990, by and between RICHARD P. WATERMAN, hereinafter referred to as Waterman, and MATTHEW 3, JANKOW;;KT, ' • hereinafter referred to as Jankowski. RECITALS A. Plaintiff filed suit in this case asserting several claims. B. Defendant filed an, answer denying any ].lability. C. The parties now desire to make a complete and final j settlement of all of their rights and claims„ The; . 1�ertie�. ha✓evil aarstwOr uRorr:th term' . of a,'`Settlement which are incorporated •2te1re s ,, i D. The .operties 'af :�3dt ", Ian ��b�•' thi,� settlement are Lc l:s 2a,4044,44.0, • , Za ie Park; lack smas Caurity,' 'Sidi/to aOf'' oregor. , .„ • E. a".'l4ineaykurpose, of't is document in to permit/, . . , piaintif:,,ty construct• a road on his property (Lot 30, Glenmoz P3zk, Clackamas County; Oregon) situated to the north of/ ' dafendento.s ptbperty as' required by the City of Lake osWec, as ' Fatrt.: of its appoval- ..of, P14a3ri+,irf's pending major partition proceeding. „ cov_ EtfAN" It 15 r.�tt�a11 ► agreed, r i or good and valuable�ah)•e cor..sidez it;o:t 11110 x as follows: . . oing is are true 1 � The �'oYe�� � recitals � •- and co_roct . . .. Page 11 - sei'tlem nt Ag` e;naa,tt 112190 r Ili. �. ) 1. ' 11'44'YM 140 ►U Rt W414 'ri IVUr - NPr4U Ft • • • • • 2. Contemporaneously herewith, partriea :earth' Shell l 443, transtea.~, Q the-oche ' "•"q®6d•" nd":*UPticient warranty deed aParoXileately- 9rM square feet of` property on either side of the ex iSting'"niorth.. boundary line 'of defendant's propertx, the common v• address of which is 1515 S, Cherry Lane, Lake Oswego, Oregon, the ..a legal description of which is Lot 29, Glenmnrrie Park, Clackamas County, Oregon. The parcels are sketched and loratud on Exhibit r, A which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Such deeds Will be recorded after the City of Lake Oswego ':as approved the applicable lot line adjustment application (also referred to as "Minor Development Land Use Application") . The • cost of such application shall be borne by plain :iff. • 3 . Plaintiff is authorized and agrees to relocate, at no expense to defendant, and in a good and workmanli a manner and with the least amount of disruption to Lot 29, the berm situated on the northeast boundary line of defend el, property or any • • other alteration of defendant' s property as may be necessary to accommodate the new. road and as may be required by the City of Lake Oswego. The new berm shall be of the :came genNral configuration as the present berm, taking ir.t'a consideration the y • minimization of traffic noise and car lights affecting defendant' s property, and shall further conforr11 to requirements • of the City of Lake Oswego and, so far as possible, ;i the gaality of : andsc,aping that: sresently> exists oh defendant ' Iii0 property. l-laihtiff shall consult with defendant and subn1t to • defendant awe plans for proposed work on the berm in adva n r e so Page 2 - Settlement Agr.ement 112"1c 4 ' sisd4 •YV tr* it +u 9014 wPa't.b mb • • • • "that defendant can object or make suggested changes: Any alteration of defendant's property other••than the berm shall conform to the City of Lake Oswego standards. 4. The parties agree that even after the exchange oi properties and relocation of the berm as provided herein, some of • I the shrubs and trees planted by defendant on plaintiff ' s property (Lot -0) will continue to encroach thereon. Plaintiff agrees not • to remove such shrubs and trees and grants to defendant a • revocable license to water, fertilize, groom and maintain such shrubs .and trees; provided, however, that this grant is a license only and i^ not intended to encumber plaintiff' s property or constitute en easement or right running with the land. Dr, fendant ru : .' is further given the right and license to remove, at any Arne prior to March 30, 1991, all such encroaching trees and snrubs . in the evens, of such removal, defendant agrees to restore the • property by filling in the holes and covering them with b;:rk dust. 5. De'"endart shall purchase and install (through D. C. Lawn Care) 20 pht..tinia shrubs (6 ' balled and burlaped) on his property • et selected locations near the north boundary line. Plaintiff shall pay defendant within 30 days after receipt of the statement from D. G. Laiwn Care for the purchaz e and Installation cf Such .;' shrubs ih a,; amount not to exceed the sum of $750. 5. Plt intiff is required b:. the City c.f. Lake Oswego to have a street li.jht at the intersection of S . Cherry Lane and , ne new road prop sed by plaintiff on his property. Such street light rage 3 - Se'.t'_ement Agreement 11.',800 • �'' •. 11." aV 14t 11 b DVu . Y4 1Vv: vo t••.••' • E Y shall be hooded or shielded so that the street light has minimal effect on defendant's property and his use thereof. Subject to approval by the City of Lake Oswego, the parties shall agree upon a location that will ensure minimal effect on defendant 's property. 7 . The road that plaintiff proposes constructing on his property shall, subject to final approval of the City of ;sake Oswego and State Highway Department, conform to the location shown on the attached plat map marked Exhibit B and incorporates f.° by reference herein. r 6 . The parties have had a dispute regarding claimed U encroachments by defendant onto plaintiff's Lot 30 property. Ci October 22 , 1990, plaintiff engaged Otak, Inc. to do a suxvey the common boundary line, which has now been staked. The per i::s agree that the true boundary line is as surveyed and e akt•; r . 4xhibit C is attached hereto and incorporated by reference hr_:.ln • showing the ne North oundary line between the parties ' properties ?hick will result from the exchange of deeds at, set forth herein. • 9 . Defendant shall remove by March 30, 1991 , the ireigatien system, including lines and sprinkler heads, located north of the new Lot 29 property line. Plaintiff agrees to pay to defendant • within 3C deys following removal of the irrigation system the s•em of $250,• � • 10 . T ' the event the city of Lake Oswego, Clackamas eot:nt,;, State of orhgon, or any ether public agency requests any t1erk to • page 4 - Se' Nlemer t Agreement 11:'''3e • V li..i. ra t•►iia or .w. .J • Ij be done as a condition to construction of the road on plaintiff's , , '1 property br approval of plaintiff's major° j partition or applicable lot line adjustment which results in any expense or cost to defendant, then plaintiff shall assume and pay such costs and expenses and indemnify and hold defendant harmless therefrom. Defendant shall indemnify, defend and hold plaintiff harmless from any claims arising out of or related to defendant 's removwl e or failure to remove the trees, shrubs and irrigation system installer, or planted by defendant north of the new boundary line between Lots 29 and 30. 11. Except as otherwise provided herein and except f.or . ) obligations the performance of which survive this agreement, .. each party does hereby release the other from any claims, liab;•lities, debts or obligations of every kind and character now existing, ° whether known or unknown. 12 . .ach.�ad� ever ri , y.,pravi,siQn ir►. this settlement a r emen�t . • 9- sha?,l inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon t;,e heirs , and., so far as assignable, . the assigns of the parties, 13 . If any suit (except for the pending action) , action or other proceedings' or appeal from a decision therein is in:titu_ed to establish, obtain or enforce any term of this agrEerren,•, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the oter party, in a:edition to costs and disbursements, su, h addi t . ona1 ® sUms as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees both : )' in the triad and appellate court, 14 . ch party shall execute whatever docu3^ents may provp-.k Page 5 - Settlement Agree • ' , .. . ,.., : • • • , :. ' •, ,./.. • .' ' • •., . . `1 • .`." ', ;i' / ' '. ''•. . . '4.. : . ' . „. "... ''.. •• ' `••••• ° . ‘ • ... , : • i 110We. 104 Agild IS b194 ert. 10Vr 10,b1110 eu ..to .......................-....;_. %. , . . - ,.• , , • : - ,, , . • . . . 0 • . . . ncseamv.A.-vArIll„OtfrXr,tilarti ,•-arecorep-Iigh•nthe,.:tierms...,,cf.-the foregoi I n i••• • !. ,.• 8441am/eat se. r • 4.•)..:,,,„ ..... ......,... *st,. • ... I‘`' • f 1 , - 15 0 134150d-fFort..75thrK....,,:liti F:61:6-ijiiir•- • remerft 6-*the pa rt le , . stipulatqmpre.PielrilAK that tigAt'diS.4:'mily: blii:disMissad with -I, . . _ prejudicw a nol withatit-cosii:i6'thi7Oititteterlir ,. .,. . .... .— . • . • DATED • ,• ____ Richard P. Waterman, --P.rariItTFE DATED Matthew J . 3anialITT757kind7ant • . • . .. . ,.. • .,, , f. . . . . . \ * \ . . , \ . ,. . . , .. ... . , . . . . .. . , . . 4 , . t,. 4 ' • ' • . 40 . . • . 010. .1 i pitge 6 - Set •-lement AgrAeoeht ,!. t,C • .4 \/-`•I''' rar4r I .4, . . • . . . • • .. • aa • • / .^• • 4 4 4 .• s 4� J 23• . . 0 e .. 0 • CROSS PROJECT AR"A (INC, 982 SF .24+57" E •1 • PROPOSED PARTITION AND OPENS PACEOTOTALS 11,619 SF 634 SF, 21XN 86 6'79 (C) YIL...?-li" FOR DICK WATERMAN 4/8/93 =.+' 309,73 291,89 >,M� --- "' • T R A C 3 1 N '� il - c\_ i I. 1 APR 9 1993 .. \ 0 A \\" \ 6g 1 1 \ \ Yb \ 17 888 SF ! 1 TAX LOT 6800 y \ a ' -S- �A, kfA l eter P. S u I (�) ,\\ 0 aN \ 1 p0 SINE ° 0 6,954 F I ,� o SpUR p4 41 � . /OPEN SPACE , cif , o T R A C T �. ._ ,3 —a- - �� ,� / �/ �`r \ �' TOTAL PROPOSED ` (� e v g TATS6C STREET ,6 ,r,/ ' 1' gyp`; PROP05ED\ 15,322 SF\ / ' AREA IS 7137 SF ,t,i -, � TAX LOT 6900 LP% \ id �,66 QpG.g�� oa.00y I I •y� , d C1 ' SOUR in,'1 ••*AO e�'�o'os• W z51.00 lMl N�j,� i • J \ ` V------- ,I .,` , D VIA PENDING EPROPERTYELINE 8 ADJUSTMENT PROCESS „" u TRACT 28 14 \ TRACT 29A �� i \ n leo TRACT 29 EklsT HOUSE I ' 1U -3U ` '10, a" n zaoo 1" _ 301 feR01'nonss QNAL UM SUFvp011 ;, %, EXHIBIT R1 nW CILBFRTSON 1J„y 61l »Alt/�]f , / GI , +'' 17.1 cncTgu r. on coH i "• LUtC OSWEbb, till JIILT S0, rd!. . 07034 0axi Gl g44 1 + (eol) e!s-7e00 tllrlrtrti IJ/�ih! ia� D 4rt `TZ - ENGINELNINO Joe 611-e7 '�i / WA1Eft l aR1E) ` E x15T °, • • QQ. • • • • li, • . r . • • • F• • v. • • • • yr y . •• ' I • e 9 �. ♦ y �.y ',I '• '. .. � ., is I.k ...... .. •. • - - i3 l \\'\.\ • >' • P a MATTHEW LT. JANKOWSKI 1515 S. Cherry Lane Lake moo, OR 97034 March 17, 1993 MIa" ei 4 lr Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner - „u CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Approval of Lot Line Adjustment Application for Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 21E 10DD; and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 21E 14BB; SD 13-92 1. . :. Dear Mike: As the legal owner of Tax Lot 2300, I am responding to the letter you wrote to Richard P. Waterman on October 5, 1992. For the record, my property ` is described legally as "A portion of Tract 29, Glenmorrio Park, Clackamas 2/ County, Oregon". My residence is located on the subject property, at 1515 S. • • Cherry Lane. Since meeting with you at your office last week, I met with Doug Gilbertson (GTLBERTSON ENGINEERING) on 3/16/93, and discussed the ro p. posed development with him. I subsequently spoke with Mr. Waterman, and we reached an agreement whereby the Easterly tip of the "triangular" parcel of land I will be • acquiring through the Lot Line Adjustment, will be moved ten feet (10' ) further East. This results in me receivinga approximately 1 ,065 s . ft. in Si e as compensation parcel of land • for the approximately 982 sq. ft. 4 parcel Mr. Waterman for purposes of roadway access. Doug ,, . thit ' Gilberton, is confident this modification will have no adverse effect on the proposed project. Mr. Waterman also agreed to remove blackberry bushes that encroach upon my property. Based on this agreement, I hereby authorize Richard P. Waterman and the City of Lake Oswego to proceed with the MINOR DEVELOPMENT LAND USE ApPLICrTION (Lot • • • • Line Adjustment), which Mr. Waterman filed with the City of Lake Oswego on I September 4, 1992. , Please be advised that revised WARRANTY DEEDS will be prepared for the two (2) "triangular" parcels of land that are to be exchanged, and Doug Gilbertson is /7 revising his engineering drawings to reflect the changes resulting from the modification of the "triangle" I am receiving (the d;mensions of• the parcel . Mr. Waterman is receiving from me remain unchanged). Sincerely, 4 , • (• • it, ,,,,te ......---- , .; ' .. : Matthew J. J ows • • 410 . , ' i EXHIBIT - MAR 2 6 1993 • 3 lo ) 12•- -- 4-90 , 4 rS I. 6 f` J • • ,N_• • 0 .. q n' • . • • • • •xkr.' it • • • ..• • 0 • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 i IV • Q. • • • • 4. • • • r., 1 • • 0 • • • • ` 1 • • • re ' • yr ''•• *•I6• • x } . ,•`� • a f' A'It . • GILSERTSON U .,/ ar • ENGINEERING March 5, 1993 MAR a 1993 Michael R. Wheeler Associate Planner = EXHIBIT City of Lake Oswego ;' g 11 (2 ) PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 s re: Property line adjustment application for TL 7000, 21 E 10DD ,' .4' •. and TL 2300 , 21 E 14B8; SD 13-92 Near Mike, At the request of Mr . Waterman, I am responding to your letter of ^ctober 5th, 1992. I will attempt to describe how the proposed property • line adjustment complies with the City' s Zoning and Development Codes, and the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Please refer to the accompanying drawing, and notice that we are proposing to adjust the common boundary between the two tax lots (noted above) such that TL 2300 V acquires the western triangle,, and TL 7000 acquires the eastern '"triangle" (actually more like a segment) .pig " ' t '• he purpose of this property line adjustment is to add the eastern ,—. iangle from TL 2300 to TL 7000 so that access to a proposed 3 parcel �`'�,f partition on TL 7000 (SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92) ) is improved. To accomplish that addition, it has become necessary to • •'I� r,• "trade" a similar sized area from the southwest corner of TL 7000 to the . y northwest corner of TL 2300. The net effect is to increase TL 7000 area by 18 square feet, and to decrease TL 2300 by the same amount. The applicapable zoning regulations are LOC 48.195 - 48.225. R-15 density is allowed, as is the proposed use of home occupation, which will continue to be satisfied following approval of this property line adjustment and the concurrent partition proposal. Minimum lot widths and depths of 80 ' and 100 ' will be satisfied. Front and rear setbacks i existing for TL 2300 of 50. 9 ' and 70. 1 ' will continue to satisfy the sone ' s minimums. The existing side setback of 11. 4 feet will be unaffected by this adjustment. While a 15' setback is required for new ' construction, there is no new construction proposed for TL 2300, and f'; 11. 4 exceeds the minimum 10' which applied when the house was built decades ago. g The proposed lot coverage for TL 2300 is 2,490 square r"---`^ feet, or 6%, which is less than the required maximum of 25%. These zoning regulations, as they would apply to TL 7000 , will also be met with the proposed partition of that property. . This adjustment is classified as a minor development, which means it I . 0 must satisfy the applicable pevelopment Standards. The applicable l . • Hc ., t i it . GIP.LIERYON , • is • ' ti 0 . . , „it , , . ,..,,, ENGINEERING . . Development Standards are consarned with Parking and Loading (7) , Drainage (12) , Utilities (14) , Hillsides (16) , and Access (18) . The proposed property line adjustment will allow 2 offstre+_t spaces in addition to those found in a parking • satisfying Standard 7. garage or carport, thus ` !• l The Drainage Standard requires that no development adversely affects neighboring properties. The addition of the western triangle to will have no effect on drainage, since no development is g TL 2300 p "' that triangle. g P proposed for The addition of the eastern triangle to TL 7000 will be uevelo ed• however, its effect on existing drainage e affect neighboring properties. g patterns will not adversely catchbasins to direct drainage to anexisting ditchle hwhe curbs drains n^rtherly. which drains • The Utility Standard ,requires that all utilities be installed • underground where possible. No utilities are needed for the western h triangle, and utilities for the eastern triangle (as p development of TL 7000) will be undegrounded. ill, '''part of the The Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard applies to steep . hillsides or areas with erosion control. Neithert epp Y hillsides, and any erosion from development on the easternhas will be addressed through the partition approvalg process for TI, 7000. The Access Standard requires that each a minimum of 25 feet, both tax lots as modified buthist a p proposed o street for adjustment easily by proposed 7 ally meet this standard. No trees are planned to be cut for either triangle; therefore the tree cutting ordinance of LOC Chapter 55 is complied with. Hopefully T have succeeded in demonstrating compliance with applicable criteria. Mr. Waterman and i plan to attend the April DRS meeting to" further clarify any issues. g Sincerely, a Doug Gilbertson[ • d r • • . 0 * 0 r _ 1 • PROPOSED PROPERTY ERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT a a• 4/O/Y3 FOR DICK WATERIAAN LOCATED IN CLENUORRIE PARK, SW 1/4 OF SECTON 'si AND MAT! JANKOWSKI I W W n AND NW 1/4 OF SECTION I4,T 2S, 11 IE,W►1, iN T11". I • b 1. A P[� 9 �g9� FA COLLARD DLO /45, CRY Of LANE 0511EOO, I' PN u. 1` CLACKMIAS COUNTY OREGON, g. CROSS PROJECT AR (INC, 982 SF, I L_'�o OPEN SPACE TOTALS11 81D SF S=,21% (I 9 LEGEND TRACT 3 1 `�� I M' ;1:3;.dacroi O 5/11 K 3o• IKON ROD WRNZg1,09 u'lf."'',� i YELLOW MASI:C CAP P•1RKED•CIU3ERTSON11'llfE y , 10 aC Elt Ls xO4Y •• • \ II ! • NORUA1LNT, FOUND MID 11EASURED TO •• • • \ `� \ „ Ii4i\ In - INnN NW, IP - IRON PIPC1 ` r \r .' R •`' \ ` ID •4 INSIUI'DU,NETER, 00 OUTSIDE DuuETER \" 1` .� \ ;'•, \ ;1 ! `�` (u) OITLJLOtDT0E0W£CT IJEASUREUENT, �. ,• \ ` \ 1�,eaes� I I\ \ atlil15,204 SF\\ � °� /So1 1'aLtG'L E��/7 r" i P �� ; Z DOEN PACE D `1 I` tAxLorp000 N \ , /� W EXHIBIT ✓- 6IITE /OPEN SP E °1 �! ' I ) TRACT `N. \tea `6. ���, /� / .��'— —v—s-ii \ , , , • • • . .13%, Vfb05t0Da+>••'� "� No, \ 15,3z2 SF Iker lb i `--�-. .. • ‘ p‘ i. -1 TAX LOT 6900 ��A, qt.. a °'j / k ,a 1 • -'' .d7 • 03•� 2 SF x-31,73 / L �a� SOLAR LLD• eo(G) N e�- - \p C . x5i J° L 4,z7 \ C za,ee toa5 SF yN� — s-p tD". W ''.I,eJ • j L I''T 1p5j1 � ��3Y , O TRACT 29mc SCALE: 1• - 40' v \� •b TL Z3oo TRACT 28 EXISTING AREA r ' ' z 41,405 SrSrJ `T TRACT 29A El 11.E 5 00'3 4W ES P orrssiIM. t>m it 30,25 UND SURVEYOR �1 TL 1 oo '}S 1as,, to "y 4414►404 4///,7 • \ f I tio ET S`�5�w 20,4 • N V `' 185,57• ,, GILtIERTSON I:,'; aZ.4B,o(f W 15Y70 DREEIi1R[E AVE, 5 e 1p,NE AtER TAKE D5WECD, ors • G14ERRI CAST anal M/N NNORRIEI rt ENGINEERING • (sDi) e35�15uo Joo 1,1-51 WP , 1 • • .. • ,,, • • • • • /•. '/I• • • • • Ant • • • • • •a rN # • • • • • • • �r, " 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 4 A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ) SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 5 ON THE A.PPROVAl..OF A ) (Mod. 10-90)-845 6 3—LOT MAJOR PAR'IT11ON, ) (Richard P. Waterman (TL 7000, 2 1E LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A ) 10DD); Matthew J. Jankowski 7 VARIANCE TO HE PARK AND ) lE 14BB)) (TL 2300, 2 8 OPEN SPACE STANDARD. THE b FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER APPROVAL,INCLUDES A 9 FUTURE STREETS PLAN. ) ,. 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION " 12 The applicant is requesting extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition, lot line 13 adjustment and a variance to the Park and Open Space Standard. The approval includes a future • 14 streets plan. The site is located west of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane, 15 Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD; 14BB), • 16 17 HEARINGS 18 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its • 0 19 meeting of December 3, 1990. 20 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS • '• 22 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: iT ." 23 Impact Management Policies 24 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4, 6 ' General Policy II, Specific Policy 2, 3 25 General Policy HI, Specific Policy 1 26 Urban Service Boundary Policies ; 27 General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 28 Wildlife Habitat Policies • , „ 29 ' General, Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2b r -4 10 Distinctive Natural Area Policies , 31 General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 32 d EXHIBIT Potential Erosion Area Policies 1 � I cton`-) ` 33 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 y' 34 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 6011-g . _11)` •y • Energy Conservation Policies 4 PAGE General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 •101 SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90)-845 4' I,4 ..• • - i J ' 1 • • Stream Corridor Policies 2 General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 • General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 • 3 General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 , • 4 Residential Density Policies 5 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4 6 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • 7 Protection Open Space Policies . .• • 8 General Policy I General Policy II 7 10 Transportation Policies • General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 . 11 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 4, 5 • 12 General Policy VI 1 13 B. City of Lare Oswggt.2 nning_Ordinanca: 14 LOC 48.195--48.225 R-15 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot • 15 coverage) , 16 C. y of ak Os ego Develop nt odd: 17 18 LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.120 Future Streets Plan 19 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures o: 20 LOC 49.330 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or (10 a I Plat ;,; • 21 LOC 49,61,0 Quasi—Judicial Evidentiary Hearing 22 LOC 49,615 Critteeriae for Approval 23 24 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 25 3.005 —3.040 Stream Corridors • 26 5.005 —5,040 Street Lights 8.005 —8.040 Park and Open Space 27 9.005 —9,040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering • 28 11.005 — 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development • 13.005 — 13,040 Weak Foundation Soils • 9 14,005 — 14.040 Utility Standard 10 16.005 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control • s " 18.005 — 18.040 Access Standard 31 19,005 — 19.040 Site Circulation —Private Streets/Driveways w 3 2 E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: ,. 33 ` 8 4 LOC 55.010—55.130 X , • PAGE . . 2 SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90)--845 ., : r 7 . , y 1• . 4 F. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access_Ordinance: 1 2 LOC 57.005-57.135 3 % 4 CONCLUSION •to S The Development Review Board concludes that SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) 6 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. .;a 7 • 8 FINDINGS AND REASONS 9 The Development Review Board incorporates the November 21, 1990 staff report on SD 12- 10 88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) as support for its decision. 11 12 S2BI?E8 ,' IT IS ORDERED BY'THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 13 BOARD of the City of Lake Oswego 14 that: 15 1, SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) is extended until April 19, 1992, subject to 16 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. 17 2. The conditions for SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) are as follows: 18 A. Except as modified by conditions B through J below, the applicant shall satisfy the conditions of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 as originally apprrved on April 19, , ' 19 1989, prior to the issuance of any building permits requested subsequent to this action. Z 0 B. Original Condition No. 3 shall be deleted ant ...placed by the following: 21 .:, f "The final plan for the major partition shall reference this 22 land use application—City of Lake Oswego Land . ' Development Services Division File No. SD 12-88/VAR 23 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90)." 24 Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) for the lot linos 25 adjustment to be ,specified or legal instruments for title i la transfer, for recording with Clackamas County Clerk's .:• ` 26 Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. Actual 27 recording shall not be a condidor of approval of this decision. However, when recoil. 1, the instruments for each r'. ' • •" 28 parcel shall reference this land use application —City of ,fig Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No, SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90), 10 • C. Original Condition No, 8 shall be deleted and• 31 replaced by the following: ,. • 3 2 "The final plan shall dedicate, and illustrate the location, dimension and purposes of easements for construction and 33 maintenance of sanitary sewer and water lines necessary to . .� 3 4 serve P'ircels 1, 2 and 3 and Tax Lot 6600 of Tax Map 2 1 E 10DD, abutting to the north." -• fp PAGE ,, 3 SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90)-845 r ,. • • n a .'-',.: .•' . 0 •. f r ?. 1 D. Original Condition No. 9 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: «: 1 2 "The final plan shall refer to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 instead of Loss 1, 2 and 3 as originally proposed." :; 3 . 4 E. The following notes shall appear on the final plan: 5 Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are solar lots. Development of .�r 6 structures and planting of non--exempt vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply with Solar Access 7 Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57,090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers 8 of Parcels 1,2 and 3. �• 9 10 Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriekited within 30 degrees of a true east—west axis 11 and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall 12 protected from shade by strucutres and non—exempt trees; 13 or. ,'k 14 Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof 15 area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is 16 ' protected from shade by structures and non—exempt trees. 17 These notes are for reference only and are not•a part of x 18 the plat. 19 ' F. Original Condition No. 13 shall be deleted and replaced with the follows: 20 "The final plan shall dedicate to the City of Lake Oswego 21 and illustrate the location, dimension and purpose of a 50 22 foot—wide easement along the stream corridor as • illustrated on Original Exhibit 3," 23 24 G. Original Condition No. 6 shall be amended to add the following: 25 b . y; 26 "This agreement shall apply to all three parcels as approved." 27 H. Original Condition No. 15 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: 28 "Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public t. 29 Works and Development Services Department prior to 10 the issuance of building permits requested to the date c F r ` "' 31 this approval." • 3 2 I. An additional Condition No, 16 shall read as follows: } ' � 3 3 "The City shall allow the removal of only those trees • 3 4 necessary to allow road construction, site a dwelling or '''' accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. This removal shall comply with LOC 55,050-55,080 (Tree Cutting PAGE Ordinance), 4 SD 12•-88\'VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90)-845 •4 • "4'. t y, r r l: • "S I. An additional Condition No. 17 shall read as follows: ,r 4 1 `• 2 "The City shall record a copy of the approved Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 9) with,.ne County Clerk. The P'' 3 recorded instrument shall reference this land use 4 application-City of Lake Oswego Land Development 5 Services Division File No. SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5- 88(Mod. 10-90). The ultimate lot pattern shown shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant . 7 approval for the creation of parcels in that configuration." t ' . '_', • 8 i • E 9 }0 r .• 11 • 14 a., . 15 i 3 7 18 • rC i 4 23 Ay • 25 26 y 28 F_ le • L 3. , 2 33 (10 PAGE • , ., 5 SD 12-.88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-8 3(Mod, 10-90)-845 4 T { sr • y y , , <4 r t i 1`14'ei n4Fu.T it Sf • V, 1 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED • 2 by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 3 4 '•t DATED this 21st day of Janue1,y , 199_1• 5 6 ,r .. 7 '''ri't. VC 14k r :: A ., t.: .-..z. 8 Robert H. Foster, Chairman 9 Development Review board 10 11 F7M.ba/tdt. /_71PI-PA4M------ 12 Secretary 13 '' i 14 A'1"1'EST: 15 16 DEAL DECISION-December 3. 1990 . i 'I 17 AYES: Stanaway, Foster, Starr and Bloomer 18 NOES: None it , 19 ABSTAIN: None 0 . 20 ABSENT: Sievert, Greaves and Remy 21 tiv > 2 WRITTEN FINDINGS -January 7, 1990 (First Vote) a ,A, 23 t. 24 AYES: Foster, Starr and Bloomer 25 NOES: None ' ABSTAIN: Sievert, Greaves and Remy 26 27 ABSENT: Stanaway 28 WRITTEN FINDINGS --January 21. 1990 (Second Vote) a "n tr 9 10 AYES: Stanaway, Foster, Starr and B1oomor 31 NOES: none 3 2 ABSTAIN: Greaves and Remy • 33 ABSENT: Sievert 34 . PAGE 6 SD 12-88\VAR 19--88\PD 5-88(Niod, 10-90)-845 f + a • ' f _ ! ! f «1 4 H' ! Y { . . y F; t P t ttt CITY OF LAKE oswEc 0 -. . . ... . . . t. „ .-.:.. .,, ,J ...-i, '. .. r LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION • Yx. APPLICANT: FILE NO,: Richard P. Waterman SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) `� "' . PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: 1 Richard P. Waterman (TL 7000, 2 1E 10DD); Michael R. Wheeler " a Matthew J. Jankowski (TL 2300, 2 1E 14BB) DATE OF REPORT; LEGAL DESCRIPTION: November 21, 1990 ' Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD; 14BB DATE OF HEARING; LOCATION: December 3, 1990 West of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane & NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: p Cherry Lane Glenmorrie Park COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION; : R-15 R_15 s I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST " A r '' ' The applicant is requesting extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition, lot line adjustment and a variance to the Park and Open Space Standard. The approval includes a , future streets plan. IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensi y Plan: .1 Impact Management Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4, 6 4 EXHIBIT `I General Policy II, Specific Policy 2, 3 ( �0;) .,i • General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 I�— •M , SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(1Ylod, 10-90) Page 1 of 8 q n ` i A. :. Urban Service Boundary Policies S° t* General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 Wildlife Habitat Policies0 .. ',...1::,,, General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2b f ... ` Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 ° =1 r Potential Erosion Area Policies .,ti General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 Energy Conservation Policies . General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 , Stream Corridor Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 .�` General Policy II, Spwcific Policy 2 , General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 Residential Density Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4 ', General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • `' ..) ' Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II "+ Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 4, 5 General Policy VI B, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: " LOC 48.195-48.225 R-15 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code; LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards I LOC 49.120 Future Streets Plan • LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.330 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat ., LOC 49.610 Quasi—Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Stan d arils; 0, 3,005 —3.040 Stream Corridors 5,005 --5.040 Street Lights 8,005 8,040 Park and Open Space 9.005 —9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11,005 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 0 • -. L SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 2of8 , 13.005 ,- 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils ,, 14.005— 14.040 Utility Standard 16.005 — 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control y . <,' 18.005— 18,040 Access Standard 19.005 — 19.040 Site Circulation—Private Streets,/Driveways E. City of .ak Oswego Tree Cutting Ordin ancN• z ,I; LOC 55.010—55.130 F. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005—57.135 A. Existing Conditions: • The applicant was granted approval for a lot line adjustment and a three—lot major partition with a planned development overlay on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit 8). An earlier • Class II variance to the Park and Open Space Development Standard was denied on April 19, 1989 following a remand of an appeal of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 to the Land Use Board of Appeals (Exhibits 6, 8). • The applicant requested an extension on the approval on September 16, 1989 and was granted that extension on September 20, 1989, effective until September 21, 1990. The applicant again requested an extension on August 3, 1990. As required by LOC 49.330, :�a : the requested extension must be reviewed by the Development Review Board. V• Upon review of file materials, it has been determined that an error was made in the date chosen from which to grant an extension. A comparison of the correct and actual dates is as follows: 4' • I Correct Date Date jJsed (incorrect) Date of Council's April 19, 1989 September 21, 1988 , 0. :cinal Decision (Exhibit 6) (Exhibit 10) • r Date Council's April 19, 1990 September 21, 1989 Decision Expires (as per LOC 49.330) Date of Admin— April 19, 1990 September 20, 1989 istratihe Extension (did not occur) (Exhibit 4) • Date Administrative April 19, 1991 September 21, 1990 ' Extension Expires (as per LOC 49,330) (Exhibit 4) Acting upon direction of a former staff member, the applicant securred an administrative - extension approximately five months earlier than required by LOC 49,330. While premature, the applicant's current request for extension may be considered by the Board and if appropriate, be2 • granted to the correct date of April 19, 199.., ., ' r : SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) Page .3 of 8 • ' .I • to i c r ' . _tib t . - r r r ,, I t , a. B. Existing Conditions: There have been no changes made to the applicant's proposal. C. Emposal; 1 The anplicant is seeking approval of an extension of Council's approval of SD 12-88/PD 5—E;3. VAR 19-88 was denied by Council and is no longer a part of this application. D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: The criteria for approval were substantially addressed in the original review of this application (See Exhibit 13). This report provides some additional information to update the earlier consideration. AS per LOC 49.615 w y •x (Development Code), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for extension of an existing development approval. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as r , , x exhibits, accompanyii?g this report. " 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established r that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Applicable policy groups are: Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities, These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protectedd frome areas . removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Developer ent Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Condit, ,ns of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance, Wildlife Habitat Policies 1 These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies, t 4 Distinctive Na ral Ar h Poli ;pl These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting 6f Ordinance, The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report followin ► an �:''; analysis of the applicable Plan policies, 4) . • SD 12-88\VA[t 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) , N . Page 4 of 8 1 Potenti )KrosiatiMa Policies, These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection w Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and : construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related ' development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Y . Plan policies. Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. z stream Corridor Policies • • These policies designate major stream corridors as Protection Open Space. These policies allow the City to require dedication of easement in stream corridors as a , • condition of new development where needed for storm drainage management. These policies also require a determination of a stream corridor buffer zone to protect steep slopes, soil and vegetation from erosion hazard. Grading is required to be regulated to protect stream corridors. Setbacks are required to achieve the above objectives. Residential Density Policies • • These policies require assurance that residential density is appropriately related to site ` r conditions, surrounding land use and capacity of public facilities, The policies encourage planned developments. These policies are implemented through a variety of ° Development Standards and the Planned Development Overlay (LOC 48.470-48,4901, ` . ' These regulations are reviewed later in this report. Protection Open Space ' These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable • 4 Development Standards and Ordinances. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. ,: • ., ;.-�;, i. For valiance applications, the standards found in LOC 48.650. • y ` Zoning Code Requirements attd Analysis • • , An analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Zoning Code was performed in the staff report for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 (Exhibit 13), The adequacy of this proposal was affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit • SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page5of8 iY r • t Development (`rid i?nrniira.n..enre e.id An'IVSly This application was appropriately Development Standard ee addessed n thas original staff reor port (ExhibitApp13) and0 ' affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on February3 1989 13) applicant proposes no changes in the proposal. (Exhibit B), The Tree Cuttin Ordinan . R auirpments ^rid An lvsic This ordinance allows the remova l of only those trees necessary to site proposed improvements (e.g. street improvements, dwellings, accessory structures). The applicant's propossal to construct a new street will require some tree removal, the extent of which will be determined upon submittal of construction drawings. The design will be required to minimize tree removal, and a tree cutting permit is required before removal may occur. •♦'r y-_ S-ola_r Acres; OrdinanrPat ..LQ. elltlP r l Adopted since the original approval, this ordinance requires that 80% of newly created lots meet minimum solar requirements regarding aientation and lot depth [LOC 57.020(1)]. While each proposed lot exceeds the required minimum north-to-south u dimension of 90 feet, none of the three proposed lots are capable of having a fronts e within 30 degrees of east-west. As an alternative, solar building g may for all three lots or each must comply with one of two performance options [LOC designed 57.020(2) and(3),respectively]. This choice will be imposed as a condition of this action, if approved, • c. The applicable Development Standards 40 , .• - The applicable Develnpment Standards were addressed in eport (Exhibit 13). The adequacy of the applicant's proposal was haffirmed by the e original staff LandUse Board of Appeals on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit 8). • d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS A future meet plan was approved as a part of the original application and remains unchanged in this request for extension, C. C.orralusiQn Based upon the materials originally submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the addition of certain conditions. III. I3ECOMMF NnA 1 The staff recommends approval of the requested extension of SD 12--88/VAR 19-88 D 5- *' 88(Mod. 10-90) until April 19, 1992, subject to the following conditions: /1' . A, Except as modified by conditions B through J below, the applicant shall satisfy the conditions of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 as originally approved on April 19, 1989, prior to the issuance of anybuilding ' ' , •: permits requested subsequent to this action, • n II) 4 l h SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) • Page 6 of 8 � • , 4. r( 1 l,1 A • B. Original Condition No. 3 shall be deleted any..replaced by the following: . .- - .s 0 "The final plan shall reference this land use application— City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division File No. SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90)." C. Original Condition No. 8 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: }' k t "The final plan shall dedicate, and illustrate the location, dimension and purposes of easements for construction and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water lines necessary 4 to serve Parcels 1, 2 and 3 and Tax Lot 6600 of Tax Map 2 , s : 1E 10DD, abutting the north." D. Original Condition No. 9 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: "The final plan shall refer to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 instead of Lots 1, 2 and 3 as originally proposed." °t ' E. The following notes shall appear on the final Nan: ` ' Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are solar lots. development of structures and planting of non-exempt vegetation on .., Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply with Solar Access "' Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall �y '•' be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis ' and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected ' i from shade by strucutres and non-exempt trees; or, Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area ' • which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the ,. , plat. • F. Original Condition No. 13 small be deleted and replaced with the follows: • "The final plan shall dedicate to the City of Lake Oswego and illustrate the location, dimension and purpose of a 50 .. • A• - foot-wide easement along the stream corridor as illustrated on Original Exhibi. 3," ' • G. Original Condition No, 6 shall be amended to add the following: "This agreement shall apply to all three parcels as approved." Y. SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) Page 7ofB . 1 ' • pi ‘ -, H. Original Condition No. 15 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: "Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works .0 and Development Services Department prior to theC. .., . ., , issuance of building permits requested to the date of this approval." ; i1 � V''s I. An additional Condition No. 16 shall read as follows: ; 1`.}` "Th' City shall allow the removal of only those trees ,, °' y 'sI I � �{ rxa , necessary to allow road construction, site a dwelling or ,,vf ,010, 17 accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050-55.080(Tree Cutting ••.`' Ordinance). �. , vl. J. An additional Condition No. 17 shall read as follows: a• ' "The City shall record a copy of the approved Future , Streets Plan (Exhibit 9) with the County Clerk. The recorded instrument shall reference this land use application-City of Lake Oswego Land Development • Services Division File No. SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5- ,�,. .. 88(Mod. 10-90). The ultimate lot pattern shown shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant ' '=q ,,• approval for the creation of parcels in that configuration." li` EXHIBITS 41/ , , 1. Tax Map .' 2. Letter from Applicant, dated September 28, 1990 3. Applicant's Request for Extension, dated August 3, 1990 4. Letter from L. Bailey Granting Extension, dated September 20, 1989 5, Letter from Applicant, dated September 16, 1989 • 1' 6, Findings, Conclusions and Order, City Council; regarding remand of`VAR 19-88; dated April 19, 1989 '`. ` 7. Petition for Judicial Review; Land Use Board of Appeals; dated f ebr,uary 24, 1989 8. Final Opinion and Order, Land Use Board of Appeals; dated February 3, 1989.• 9. Notice of Intent to Appeal; Land Use Board of Appeals, dated October 10, 1988 10. Findings, Conclusion and Order; City Council; dated September 21, 1988 «'; 11. Notice of Appeal of Findings, Conclusion and Order of Development Review Board; dated June 20, 1988 12. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557; dated June 6, 1988 • , 13, Staff Report; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88; dated April 22, 1988 14. Council Memorandum regarding Schools, dated September 18, 1990 sw-901 1, k SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) Page 8 of 8 .err • • ,- .^.01..�� ' h ,rd�oea A tar r used // I �t� \\1\ `�u'. • :..� s , 3 ,,.,, 1 }r;e�.or 4 1>— /).'�•0 .tom i• 4r ,./et•st / 1 / < • fl. ,r 5 . L 1,- \ 5.5 5 1. t % 1 4'., 4/c97"►'+9'ea•w ' Oa*,,aoo-,•./•,+a.70• °, v/. �I 6403 �. ,11 `' k'%.... �' + f°�'.�DyC� � 4 a �' `' �{ 1460 �h 'Q '"w�°�.� ../.sa•t*.h, (-� ZD Nr� rr a :I^ 6 2 0 6 a— �.426 s••' ry r�► �,"` ./t. a51 re) :'. 0 . . ra.�g• t.// 4reir•.r,:�a••a \ II•b ti r,s ,�) r /®,,t..,a 12100 • v•LA y 6600 43 • 4. o p% sd»•s7 w 16755 1 �m ` Nao n N N .,,,C�o 5.„ e 1�C /�. a .. .,..., 1 1 1`4 I d,a JO .51 I, 1666Y '`�• aJ`,0 A ....,. ' 4 Jt o /' . ' A j7,...) 1 s �+ ` �e ^ , �� 1 '� • i + IP' / i• \ ``\ 1 to) 1 26 N ofr'18't rL7.1l` / b`i�N %x• �� \ \\ J m . „� 2300 t �, •o < 31 cQ 16665 \ • ` t�`' . ` ,'A E rx,.>J • ! ad ' • .� c _ 30 I,, 7000 \ \ . - 11 I l; ,u. \ \ \\ A W ° Q• �l'� \ P t0 11 'e• . 1 < �00 ' C): .6 . , . 2 Q • 1. = 15 14 oy 1 i \• \... rl 5�° �V \ .„ •. • ,O•. . W 1 o c` •y,, 00 \J ,�.' CO, 'a 6. ..u + L '7 h JiQJ' "'�1•: •y o o % 0 . „,b� 4A 6 .L \%• I I, ' • A+x � � lO0 J p �• � o �fl6 ✓V • ' 1��60 't ok r ' • ,0 o • c� rJ e Wi,_...- ram-J�1 9' Q :-..., • • 1 t, - j az.4,5,e, , \:N., .,-t-:/5,,,,•‘-‘1,,I. f',3,,,,,,_,z...' .:, : n.,1 R R 1E ,3r ,�.to .� ,y ;::1-1- „e 4 Z , Z 100 \ ,. z. , . ---;.o i. , ..,1 e? '. `� ,•� ,� , ,� 24CA 4y,•,, .. yq + �� 1 EXHIBIT Mb .,- E/ ,.,' ,, 0 jJ `.wy `'�N g\ O 12-T 4z 4 4,' A 5 4 .4 c? •• ,� ° \ .cam V V •e '�. `� , '� - •• , k. -r .4 1 1 ! ri 1 i tlh S .A- 1 • .-1 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. i -• P.O. Box 3071 Redmond, WA 98073 (206)481-7761 taevl eel 9eoi- " September 28, 1990 Bob Galante �� '!. Acting Planning Director CITY OF LAKE OSWE,GO QiC,1 380 "An Avenue a ` Lake Oswego,'"OR 97034 ° N' RE: Mailing Address L'bels for DRB Hearing on 10/15/90 for r ,". SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7 •N • a, \ Dear Bob and Hamid, , a % Enclosed are two (2) sets of mailing address labels for located ,within 300 ft. proparty owners , o my proper'�y, which Bob requested during our brief ,.4 meeting' •on Tues. (9/25),, in your office. Needless to say, it was an "' interest challenge to g r et this information fran 150± miles away, but thanks , .. y°' to FAX I� able to get it mailed to you today. . , I plan to be in Lake Oswego next Tues., Wed., and Thur. (October 2-4) dealing4111 with the laiasuit I filed in an attempt to get the pu,lic road access into the x .. property (Jot line adjustment) that Jerry Baker requested. The Settlement Conference is scheduled for October 3, 1990 and the Trial Date is October 23, yet . 1990. Please call me at (206) 481-7781 on Monday (10/1), or at 635-2067 in Lake qs Oswego fran 10/2-10/4 if you have questions, or if there is any problem with getting on the DRB Agenda for the October 15, 1990 meeting. I appreciate your continued cooperation on this matter. . arm egards, �' 1 S Richard P. Waterman • EXHIBIT r• EXHIBIT r �� . `P iy M, t -%4. 4' j IN • . . 9 f Vi[\ A0@oaa68 September 20, 1989 V� WO`t 703A e �'H:•ditlit k / p�AMir? !A :�I dIS C2S: `� ®®e Enginunnq Richard P. Waterman > s!i•das•0270 Professional Consultants, Inc, e��o«q 8147 - 161 s t Ave. NE S0a•aas•0390 Redmond, WA 98052 FAX SD12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7 ' Dear Mr . WAterman, fThis office has received your request for a time kIJ extension for the above land use action, LOC• 49 . 015 (10) delegates review of this tfrom the City Manager to Land Developmentocest :E ::, '''''',:::::.:: Q w staff. Services a., . , In accordan ce nce with the terms. and conditions of the original approval your request is hereby approved. The new expiration date is September 21, 1990 . Any further extension requests will be heard by Development Review Board. Please refer to page 4 of f '*� the enclosed copy of Findings, Conclusions and Order •' . ' . al?. ® for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557 for addiLion .:D) ` ) information. �onal If you have any questionsplease office at 635-0290 . ' contact this Respectfully , - ' W VI Lfin D, Bally"- Associate Planner , LDS/jk EXHIBIT . ila ` P 2 . 1a-8g 4dg4 > ] 11.$t 6100 4. • M D • ' A y- , • . ,. • PROFESSIONAL yF TOWER1 THE WATER • LANDING • 9' 1 / / August A'• C./4k: Jack Hammond, Acting City Attorney t‘i .47( "))t•r' ' ' :' ,. AA, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Request • • • • of Approved Major Partition L• r Dear Mr. Harvey and Mr. . . M a follow-up to my telephone conversation today with Lynn Pailey, L.O. ,,_ % Associate Planner, - - consider this l- - to •- my formalrequest for 4- extensial for ♦•• - landuse action • 49.015(10) r • and/orother of - Oswego •- Se present ctions. - xpiration date -, , on my Major Partition is September 21, 1990. - • understandingproably require � - 1 , . approval of the Development Review Board. I am filing this formal extention . I'' '' , '', request today to permit timely scheduling with the D.R.B. All required ' ' 1. application materials and fees will follow. , reason • Partition cannotcompleted by the • •0 expiration r'' t , x S. - is because Jerry Baker, • Engineer, requested that I try to quire 875± sq. ft. of adjacent • to provide better • erry '. Lane for the public street the City is requiring to access my three (3) proposed lots. - Busher, - former owner of C adjoining property q, , agreed to the 875± lot 'line adjustment, which is a matter of record in my ' '. application. However, Busher sold the property to a Matt Jankowski in 1989, , ' • Jankowski unwilling • make - i • adjustment - City • of Lake Oswego is requesting. . \\ I currently have a law suit pending against Jankowski in an effort to resolve ‘ this matter. However - Settlement S.Conference Date of • • and the Trial , yDate of • •0 both take place after my September •• expiration date. Hence the need for - • n. • • • . Thank you for your cooperation in granting this request. • regards, 1' • • P. ' -' CarltonHodges,- AssoOiate Planner - . PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. THE WATER TOWER AT JOHN'S LANDING 8147 - 161st Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 �- - (206)869-2680 N-- September 16, /1989 Peter Harvey, City Manager CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Request for Extension of Approved • Partition (File No. SD 12-88/ VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7) Dear Mr. Harvey: I have been advised by Lynn Bailey, L.O. Associate Planner•, that my approved parts exte for nsion on the above property will expire after September 21, 1989 "unless consider this lertter toest 1s be my wr,ittenwet with the City Manager". Please requestor said extension. ,•,• • . I am working with Lynn. Bailey and C TAK � develo trying to resolve a problem that has • : ped with thy: owner of the adjoining property, which was my former , l . residence. Jerry Baker had requested that I the adjacent lot, to try to acquire 875± sq. ft. of provide better access off Cherry Lane for the public Y) street the City was requiring to access mythree lots.. The public street vs. private road re quirement came about because the City felt I should be to theNorth. provide access thrt,ugh my property, for the Federspiel property • A problem now exists because Michael Busher, who • i'`- purchased my former ' residence fran me , had agreed to the 875± lot line adjustment which is a matter of record in my application for the three (3) lot Minor Partition. But the present owner of this property, Matt Jankowski, has recently indicated his urAl iingness to sell or trade me the 875± sq. ft., even though he currently has the property listed for sale. Because of this situation, I will need some additional time to explore my legal and land use alternatives concerning this street access situation. • Thank you for your cooperation in granting this extension. Warm regards, "1 Richard P. c' E X B ,��,` ,C�J, , r. • cc: Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner z oTAM Project Engineer Sv 11-$8a -y S MCP 1989 N Matt Jankowski r., RGEIVEa . ors �� 8�,9 5 b �i�� 'Ito i. 9f '• 7• • ., • is • • 7. • • • • ;1 • • • • \\•' • • • • • • • • • • • • , BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 41" 2OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Consideration of the Remand ) VAR 19-88-661 t:u 3 by the Land Use Board of ) Appeals of VAR 19-88, LUBA ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Case No. 88-087 ) "' Nature of the Appeal 6 This matter is before the City Council on the remand by LUBA, in case 488-087, of the City Council decision to approve B VAR 19-88. VAR 19-88 granted a partial variance to the Park and 9 Open Space Standard for the proposed development approved b • y . . :0 Order SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/ PD 5-88-602. Hearings • The City Council held a public hearing and considered this matter on the record of the entire proceeding at the Council ' s y4 April 4, 1989 meeting. The hearing was held pursuant to LOC I-5 49.625 . _ 1a _ Criteria • J LOC 49. 500 - 49. 510, variances / ^�> _ Park and Open Space Standard _Y Conclusion <=: The City Council concludes that VAR 19-88 does not comply with the applicable criteria. • lc 2.1 A Findings and Reasons • The City Council relies on the staff report dated March 24 , 1989 and the evidence in the record presented to the Council ay part of the report as support for its decision. Mr . Sokol, during his oral presentation offered new e, e concerning EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 01. .tse 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER "p C3P3 C • • ��! +'i ,1 t ' t Y 4• 1% • • • property ownerships and opinions held by a person not a party to this proceeding. Due to the constraints imposed by City Code 5 provisions requiring an "on the record" proceeding, the Councia. rejected the offer of new evidence and based this decision only on evidence contained in the record. 5 Mr. Sokol objected to the fee charged for the transcript on c appeal. That objection was raised during the Council 's consideration of this appeal in September,' 1988 and rejected in the Council 's order. That order was appealed to LUBA. Mr. Sokol Q did not pursue his objection in the LUBA appeal. The Council 's 1© decision on that point was therefore final at that time and the 11 , Council will not further consider that objection. 1 Due to the nature of the appeal taken to ,LUBA" and considered 410 ; 13 in case #88-087, the decisions on all aspects of the proposed 14 three lot development, except the variance, became final by 1' operation of law when they were not appealed. The Council 's ° 16 decision in this' order will require a change to those final land ,u0 `0 1` use decisions to bring them into conformance with this decision '. ;yo 18 prior to any development activity taking place on the site. The • • 7_W 'fig 19 provisions of LOC 49 .125 will govern the type of procedures that > 2C will be followed in the consideration of the request for change, a 2l if and when it is filed. 2L IT IS ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: 1 ' 24 Section 1 . VAR 19-88 is denied. .... ,5 Section 2. The land use approval granted by city y Council ' s 410 . 26 order SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-602 shall be modified to conform Cage 2 FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER w • r • , Fir 1, • 41/1 : to this decision prior to the issuance of any development permits. I certify that this order was presented to and approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. Dated this 19th day of April , 1989. Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor • Vote at the Council meeting on April 4, 1989. AYES : Schlenker, Anderson, Churchill, Dutham, Fawcett, Holstein IC NOES: Holman • ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: • W O iQ Jt H. J� IS u, `W S Y C Q � J f.LLI • Q - Q • 0 rJ r1 23 • 24 • • • Y 1 • 26 - • 1 f 3ze 3 - FINDINGS ► CONCLUSION AND ORDER �r.• - / dw• yl b. '4 J; • • • V. .r 114, 9 • to •1 I 1 • •. O • • • • • • • J • • • 1' A TRUE COPY,..-, z r e 1 '. • Af Attorne s IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Y for OF THE STATE OF OREGON LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) , . HANS vanWITZENBURG and ) ARTHUR BODE, �, ) LUBA No. 88-087 Petitioners, ) 11/ ) Appellate Court v. ) No. b • J.1, ) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, ) ) Respondent. ) d PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Petitioner seeks judicial review of the Final Order of the Land Use Board of Appeals in case number 88-087, dated February 3 , 1989, and represent as follows: d A. Nature of the Order the Petitioners Desire • . Reviewed: This is an order deciding land use • questions arising from the City of Lake Oswego ' s grant of a variance for development of three lots 1 . within the City. The Land Use Board of Appeal erred in holding that LOC 49 .510 (1 ) were "standards and criteria" required by ORS 227 .173 . Petitioners contend the provisions are too vague, indefinite and allow 4'. complete discretion with the City in violation of ' the State statute. • id Ili , EXHIBIT EXHIBIT • ` 1. , ... 1 �' ) `7 ) 1 - PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 4 t • • The Land Use Board of Appes found that petitioners had failed to establish that LOC 49 .510(1) required a strong "unnecessary hardship • test prior to the granting of a variance' The Land Use Board of Appeals also found that the only injury to the petitioners ' neighborhood • under LOC 49 . 510 (1)B was a failure to provide additional open space despite the fact that the evidence was that the variance will create significant traffic and safety hazards as well as `. adversely effect property values. ' I r B. Nature of Petitioners ' Interest: Unless the above decision is reversed, the petitioners will be aggrieved by the construction of three lots where lawful application of a variance would have permitted only two lots . Petitioners are • harmed by having the variance granted pursuant to $ . code provisions which are vague, indefinite and allow total discretion in the City to grant or not to grant a variance depending upon the whim of the City. Lastly, that unless this decision is reversed, the petitioners will be required to live with additional traffic and safety hazards and what they perceive to be a lowering of the value of their 410 residential properties. 2 - PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW .�, ,• • 1 • f - - - y" LA` .. 11 0 I . • :'s "Y C. Petitioners do not agree to shorten the agency ti .. record. Dated this 24th day of February; 1989. JOLLES, S' , •L & BERNSTE , C. By *,y, , LARRY N. '�OROL 7 B #72247 ) 721 S. W. Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephony;: ( 503 ) 228-6474 � Attorneys for Petitioners • w . ,�`{ 4 9 n H• 4 • . o i 1 d 0 . • 3 - PETIT/ON FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW , ; „1 V • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I served the foregoing tw' Petition for Judicial Review on: Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High• Street SE, Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97310 Dave Frohnmayer OSB #71001 Attorney General Phone: State of Oregon (503) 378-6002 Justice Building i , t Salem, Oregon 97310 Virginia L. Linder Solicitor Genes:-al OSB #80294 t. Ph State of Oregon one: (503) 378-4620 Justice Building r " Salem, Oregon 97310 James M. Coleman OSB #76101 `' City Attorney Phone: (503) 635-0225 City of Lake Oswego P. 0. Box 309 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Cityof• Lake Oswego P. 0. Box 309 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Richard Waterman P. 0. Box 144 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Don Hanson and OTAR, Inc. • 17355 S. W. Boones Ferry Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Michael C. Busher • 1515 S. Cherry Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 . by mailing by registered or certified mail to those persons a true and correct copy thereof, certified by me as such, • in a sealed envelope addressed to them at the addres placedet forth, and deposited in the United States Post Offi e at , Portland, Oregon, on February 24 , 19 : • . with the p.-ta. prepaid. ' , effimilL 411 .. . LARRY N. SO OL • 4 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '" of Attorneys for Petitioners ,r . 1, -' .. .: 1 ' Ay;. •• 4 fir• ,.'� ,�, ^. . ` �•yy A . \1 t ° . LAND D U S E BOARD OF APPEALS ••• h ..ii 0 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 • FEB 3 2 37 Fri '65 `' , OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) HANS vanWITZENBURG and ARTHUR ) 4 BODE, ) s ) Petitioners, ) LUBA No, 88-087 • 6 vs. FINAL OPINION " 7 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, ) AND ORDER 8 Respondent. ) 4: 9 Appeal from City of Lake Oswego. 10 Larry N. Sokol, Portland, filed the • 1•1 argued on behalf of petitioners . With phim ion for review and Jolles, Sokol & Bernstein, P.C. was I . 12 �. . James M. Coleman, Lake Oswego, . , 0 13 argued on behalf of respondent. g ' filed a response brief and , : 'T 14 SHERTON, Referee; HOLSTUN, Chief Referee,the decision. participated in 15 • • REMANDED 02/03/89 • • 16 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order . 17 Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197 . 850 . .• • 18 F. . F EXHIBIT 19 • 20 2 `✓ .r 12-t-8( 1-1L .:IT 4 • 22 ISO IZ d$('loo kit.) . } 23 24 "� . 25 0' `. CO26 • • • Page 1 • 0 • 1 Opinion by Sherton. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a Lake Osvego City Council ( city 4 council ) order approving ( 1) a three-lot major partition, ( 2 ) a s lot line adjustment, • (3 ) application of a Planned Development 6 (PD) overlay district, ( 4) a variance from a parks and open 7 space development standard, and (5 ) a future streets plan. 8 Petitioners challenge only the approval of the Variance from 9 the parks and open space development standard. 10 FACTS 91 The subject property is an undeveloped 1 . 3 acre parcel • 12 owned by applicant Richard P. '.atermanl and zoned R-15, a 13 residential zone with a 15, 000 sq. ft. minimum lot area. The 14 property is located to the west of the intersection of 1s Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. There is a stream corridor in the ` 1 16 southeast corner of the property. The property is adjoined j to 17 the north by a larger parcel containing one single family 1s residence. 19 The applicant initially requested a minor partition of the 20 property into three lots to be served by a private street . 21 After discussions with city staff, in which the staff strongly , 22 recommenced that a public street be created, the application 23 was changed to a request for a major j partition to be served by 24 a public street . 2 A major partition is classified by the 25 City of Lake f'swego Development Code (LOC) as a major • 26 development , LOC 49 . 140 and 49 . 145 , The city ' s Parks and Open Page 2 r ' • . ' • •.r' Space development pstandard is applicable to all major 2 developments . 3 Lake Oswego Development Standards • 3 (CODS) 8 . 010 . 4 The proposed development includes ( 1 ) three lots 17, 300 , : 5 12, 635 and 16, 617 sq. ft . in size, 5 ( 2) 11, 500 sq. ft . a` 6 dedicated for public road purposes, and ( 3 ) 6 , 400 tq. ft. 7 reserved as private open .space to protect the stream corridor . 8 Record 193 . A variance from compliance with the Parks and Open 9 Space standard was requested. The q parties disagree on what the 10 Parks and Open Space standard requires in this instance . 11 The city' s Development Review Board ( review board) approved , 12 the application on June 6, 1988 . Petitioners appealed the 411) 13 review board ' s decision to the city council . The city council . . , . ,, 14 adopted its order denying the appeal and affirming the decision , 7 15 of the review board on September 21, 1988 . This appeal 16 followed. 17 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 18 "The City' s variance approval process which applies 1 what the City calls 'guidelines ' as opposed to 19 approval criteria is in violation of ORS 227 . 173 ( 1 ) . " 20 LOC 49 . 510 , entitled "Variance Standards, " provides as 21 follows : " ( 1 ) The granting authority may grant a variance from 1. ' the development standards if it is established that : 23 "A. The request is necessary to prevent ' 24 unnecessary hardships and, 25 "g. Development consistent with the request will GInot be injurious to the neighborhood in 26 which the property is located or to property rage 3 r. •. , 1 established to be affected by the request; and, ° 2 "C. The request is the minimum variance 3 necessary to make reasonable use of the property; and, 4 "D . The request is not in conflict with the 5 Comprehensive Plan. ,.. ',, 6 " ( 2 ) In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority shall consider the 1 7 following, together with any other relevant facts or circumstances: s "A. Relevant factors to be considered in 9 determining whether a hardship exists include: 10 "i . Physical circumstances related to the . 11 piece of property involved . 12 "ii . Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the •p 13 ' property without the variance . 14 "iii . Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 15 "iv . The economic impact upon the person 16 requesting the variance if the request ` • is denied . • 17 "B. Relevant factors to be considered in determining • 18 whether development consistent with the request is injurious include: • , 19 " i . An analysis of the physical impacts such 20 development will have, such as visual, ': ' noise, traffic and the increased potential 21 for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards . 22 "ii . The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood concerning the 23 incremental impacts occuring as a result of the proposed variance . 24 ' "C. A determination of whether the standards set • • 25 forth in subsection ( 1) are satisfied necessarily • involves the balancing of competing and 2640• conflicting interests. The considerations listed pap 4 , , �U.• , , 1, h; • a in su bsection ( 2 ) A and B are not standards and 2 are not intended to be an exclusive list of considerations . The considerations are to be 3 del . usedibe as rationsguide in the granting authority ' s • 4 "D. prior variances allowed in the neighborhood shall not be considered by the granting authority in 5 reaching its decision. " 6 Petitioners contend a variance to the city' s development • c . . 7 standards is a discretionary permit; and, therefore, under 8 ORS 227 . 173 (1) the city is • required to base approval or denial • 9 of such a variance on standards and criteria set out in its • 10 development ordinance. 6 Petitioners argue that because the 11 city interprets the above-quoted provisions of LOC 49 . 510( 2 ) as 12 mere guidelines, " which are advisory in nature and can be ' .' 013 ''enforced or ignored by the City as it sees fit, " the city does 14 not have mandatory approval standards or criteria for variances e. '~ 15 from its development standards. Petition for Review 4 . 16 Petitioners also argue this lack of variance standards 17 "conflicts with the procedural rights set forth in Fasano v . 0 15 Washington County Commission, 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 ( 1973 ) . " • 19 Petition for Review 5. Petitioners argue their rigt^ :s to 20 present and rebut evidence were prejudiced by their inability 21 to determine the standards applicable to the variance 22 application . 23 Respondent agrees its ap proval criteria for variances from 24 its development standards must comply with ORS 227 . 173 ( 1 ) . ' • 2,5 However, respondent contends that it does have mandatory 26 approval criteria for such variance � � s, and t.iat those criteria , Pzge 5 • v • 0 , . 1 are set out in paragraphs A-D of LOC 49 . 510(1 ) . According to 2 respondent, it cannot approve a variance unless all four of 3 these criteria are met. Respondent also argues t 9 s that : '� �JC 49 .510 ( 2)C makes absolutely clear that the "considera ' '• bons" 5 : sted in LOC 49 . 510 (2 )A and B are intended only to give -, 6 c idance to decision makers in determining whether the criteria { LOC 49. 510 (1)A and B are met. Respondent argues that the . 7 W r criteria of LOC 49 . 510(1) are clear enough to inform 9 u..;cet must be established in order for a variance to beparties granted . of 10 ORS 227.173 (1) requires that standards and • d . 11 a_p_oval of a variance from the criteria for the city 's design standards be set 12 out in the city 's development ordinance . We agree g with the 13 city that its code sets out standards and criteria for the 14 acc=ava1 of such variances at is the city' o _. _LpC....4.9_. 51011). A..,.� s c • hrough D. Under �_ de.__ the _.. __---.___.__ ti_. _ __ .P..li•cation of these criteria is 16 mandatory. The city cannot approve a variance from p y . .._..._ .. its design 1% wardsp'it standards Unless determines _�..._ that these four criteria 18 mee__ are • 19 On the other hand, LOC 49. 510 ( 2/A and B are non- exhaustive o lists of "relevant factors" the :Y deter city is to consider in -pining whether the criteria of LOC 49. 510 (1)A and B are i3 satisfied . These "relevant factors" are not themselves . :3 standards Whichmandate a Pproval or denial of a variance aPp1 • _cation . LOC 49. 510 ( 2)C. We find no error in including in i 5 the code a list of factors the city considers relevant to 6 determining compliance with mandatory criteria . 8 age 6 • Y ,, • y` ' r V 1: i Furthermore, since the city ' s code does set out the 2 criteria for approval of variances to its design standards, 3 petitioners ' rights to present and rebut evidence relevant to 4 these criteria were not prejudiced . Petitioners ' specific 5 challenges to the interpretation and application of three of ' 6 these criteria are addressed under the second assignment of 7 error . 8 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 9 "The City ' s f ,� y grant of the variance is contrary to the 1a applicable standards and law. The City ' s findings that the applicant had met the criteria for a variance under LOC 49 . 510 (1 ) is not supported by substantial , ..(7 11 evidence in the record. " 12 A. Unnecessary Hardship 13 ' LOC 49 . 510 (1 )A sE. s out the following criterion for a 14 variance from the city ' s y development standards : 15 "The ( variance) request is necessary unnecessary hardship * * * " to prevent 16 a 17 Petitioners argue that respondent has misconstrued this 18 standard in several respects. Petitioners first argue that the s 19 "unnecessary hardship" which must be shown to obtain a variance ,. f. , M.q 20 must arise out of conditions inherent in the land itself , 21 citing Erickson v. City of Portland, 9 Or App 256 , 496 P2d 726 22 ( 1872) , Lovell v. Independence Planning Comm. , 37 Or App 3, 586 .. • 23 P2d 99 ( 1978 ) ; and Chou v. City of Keizet, 15 Or LfBA 420 24 ( 1987 ) , Second, petitioners argue that conformi.,ce with the 23 city ' s code cannoc itself constitute the "unnecessary hardship" •L 2. .. 0 ` •a required for approval of a variance, citing Standard Supply Co . P'u3a 7 . ti + 41) V •t v . Portland, 1 Or LUBA 259 (1980 ) . Finally, petitioners argue 2 the "unnecessary hardship" standard requires that , without the 3 variance , the applicant ' s property would be • virtually useless , 4 citing Erickson v. City of Portland, supra, and Standard Su l%Pp I 5 Co . vY Portland, supra. Petitioners contend the city did not 6 find, and the applicant did not demonstrate, that denial of the ,: k • 7 variance would preclude beneficial use of the property or that 8 there is a hardship based on conditions inherent in the land . 9 The city argues that land use law relating to variances is 10 not based on common law, but rather on the interpretation and 11 application of the specific local government ordinance t , 12 provisions applicable in a particular case . Co e v . Cit of ! ' . ... , 13 Cannon Beach, 15 Or LUBA 546 ( 1987 ) . The city further410 ..: - 1 argues 14 that the language of LOC 49 . 510 is different from the ordinance 15 language construed in all the cases cited by petitioners. 16 According to the city, the LOC does not contain language ; ., 17 requiring the establishment of exceptional or extraordinar f y 18 circumstances applicable to the subject property , as did the he 19 ordinances at issue in Erickson v. City of Portland and Lovell 20 v , Independence Planning Comm. The city also argues the , 21 language of the LOC, unlike the ordinane�:+ language at issue in g . 22 Standard Supply Co, v, Portland, does demonstrate an intent to .3 create a variance standard less restrictive than the 24 traditional "unnecessary hardship" test , • 2_ The city contends it made a specific policy choice to adopt• ' 26 less restrictive variance criteria when its prevent development Pne 8 i. S i code was adopted . According to the city, prior to the 1981 2 adoption of the current LOC Chapter 49, the use and development 'r 3 o,E land in the city were governed by a zoning code and 4 subdivision code which contained variance criteria similar to s the traditional standards considered by the Court of Appeals in • 6 Erickson v . City of Portland and Lovell v . Independence 7 Planning Comm. 9 The city argues that legislative history of 8 the adoption of the 1981 development : code, in the form of 9 minutes of city council meetings at which the draft code was 10 considered, demonstrates that the language ultimately adopted 11 as LOC 49 . 510 ( 1) was intended to relax the traditional hardship • 12 test .10 13 According to the city, because it did not adopt the 14 traditional hardship test in its code, and the code does not 1s specifically define "hardship, " the city is guided by the 16 common dictionary definition of the term "hardship" as • • 1, "something that causes or entails suffering or privation . " • 18 Respondent ' s Brief 13 . 19 The city also contends the record supports the city ' s 20 determination that requiring full compliance with the Parks and♦L 21 Open Space standard would subject the applicant to an 22 unnecessary hardship because ( 1 ) the development application 23 was changed to a major partition ( to which the Parks and Open 24 Space standard applies) because of the city ' s desire that i 35 public street be created to serve future development on an 26 adjacent lot ; ( 2 ) additional public open space cannot be A PI-Be 9 411 p 1 . 1 provided without limiting the partition of the property to two 2 lots; and ( 3 ) the applicant is dedicating 11, 500 sq. ft . for a 3 40 ft . public road right-of-way and building a 24 ft . public 4 street, at considerable cost . s We agree with the city that in interpreting the meaning of 6 code variance provisions it is the code language, rather than 7 appellate court or LUBA decisions interpreting] traditional • • A variant, ;tandards, that controls . In a previous decision , we 9 observed: " (W)e note land use law, including the law pertaining to variance relief , is not a branch of common law, but • is rather based on particular statutes, ordinances and rules enacted by legislative and administrative 12 . bodies . Anderson v. Peden, 284 Or 313, 315, 587 P2d 59 ( 1978 ) , Thus , in cases of this sort , the focus of our inquiry must be on the actual language appearing in the controlling enactment . " Fisher v . City of 14 Gresham, 10 Or LUBA 283 , 289, rev' d other grounds, 69 OL App 411, 685 P2d 486 ( 1984 ) . 13 • • 16 To date, no Oregon appellate court decision has limited , on 17 constitutional, statutory or other grounds, the scope of is discretion which may be exercised by local governments in • 19 establishing standards for the approval of variances . Id . We _o have held that the power to allow a variance is not strictly 21 limited to instances where relief is necessary to permit • 22 beneficial use of the subject property . Morrison v , City of . 23 Portland, 10 Or LUBA 12 ( 1983 ) . Local government variance :4 standards which do not require a demonstration of "unnecessary ' 23 hardship" have been applied without judicial criticism, Fisher 26 v . City of Gresham, 69 Or App at 415-416 ; Atwood v . City of Page 10 - i ' w •'�. , • • 1d 1 Portland, 55 Or App 215, 637 P2d 1302 ] 9 ( 8l ) , rev denied 292 Or 2 722 (1982 ) ; 1000 Friends v. Clack Co. Commm. , 40 Or App 529, 3 595 P2d 1273 ( 1979 ) . 4 Where local government variance standards do include the 5 traditional "unnecessary hardship" criterion appellate without further ' elaboration, both we and the • courts have required the 7 standard to be p inter reted to require that (1) the subject 8 property be virtually useless without the variance; and ( 2 ) the 9 hardship arise from conditions inherent in the land which 10 distinguish it from other land in the neighborhood . 11 az Erickson v. Cit of Portland, supra; Lovell v. 12 Planning Comm. Trade endenee su ra, Standard Su 1 Co . v. Portland, su ra; 13 Chou y. Cit f Ke1_, sera. In Standard Su PIY Co . v 14 Portland, supra at 262, we rejected the city's more liberal zs interpretation of "unnecessary hardship" in its variance 6 stz ndards because we found no authority in the local 17 government 's code to support a more liberal interpretation.pretation. However, �,: in this case we agree with the city that 19language of its code indicates that it did not i the ='o the of the diional, strict interpretation _ntend to adopt term "unnecessary "12 23 hardship. The code identifies "factors to be considered" 22 in determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists 23 including "physical circumstances • related to the 24 property involved" and "whether a reasons piece of ble use similar to 23 like properties can be made of the property z6 p �' without the . variance . LOC 49 . 510( 2)A. i and ii . These factors P parallel , , • Page 11 a� U • • 1 but are more liberal than, the traditional elements of 2 "unnecessary hardship. " The factors also include "economic 3 impact on the person requesting the variance if the request is 4 denied, " which is not part of the traditional, strict S interpretation of "unnecessary hardship. " LOC 49 . 510 ( 2 )A. iv > Most importantly, the code provides that a determination of 7 whether the • "unnecessary hardship" requirement of 8 LOC 49 . 510(1)A is satisfied "necessarily ,• y ,involves the balancing 9 of competing and conflicting intersts" and the considerations 10 set out in LOC 49. 510 ( 2)A "are not standards and are not , ii intended to be an exclusive list of considerations, " but are to ,„ 12 be used as a guide by the reviewing authority. LOC 49 . 510( 2)C. ' 13 • Reading LOC 49. 510 in its entirety, we find that the city 41, 14 clearly did not intend to adopt the traditional, strict is "unnecessary hardship" test. The city' s interpretation of the 6 "unnecessary hardship" criterion of LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )A not to 17 require a demonstration that ( 1) without the variance the 18 subject property would be virtually Useless, and ( 2) the - 19 hardship arises from conditions inherent in the land, is , • :e reasonable and correct .13 • 21 The first subassignment of error is denied. 22 B. Minimum Variance Necessary for Reasonable Use 23 LOC 494510 ( 1 )C sets out the following criterion for a 24 variance from the city ' s development standards : 25 "The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable Use of the property * * * " 26 Page 12 . Ik •. U 1 Petitioners argue ' this Board and the Oregon courts have . � s 2 held that a variance must be the minimum variance necessary to u 3 make beneficial use of the subject property, citing Erickson v. a City of Portland, supra., and Standard Supply Co. v. Portland , 5 supra . Petitioners argue that the city "did less than consider • 6 whether the developer 's request for a variance to the open 7 space standard in order to put in a three-lot development was B the minimal variance necessary to make use of the " property. .' 9 Petition for Review 11 . According to petitioners, the city 10 merely adopted the applicant ' s contention that a three-lot ' 11 partition was necessary in order to make reasonable use of the , 12 property. Petitioners assert there is no evidence in the • ' 13 record to show that three buildable lots are necessary to make • 14 reasonable use of the property. 1s The city argues that the development review board decision 16 the city council relied on states that requiring additional 17 open space would severely limit development of the • � property. .4 • � �,• 18 Record 65-66 . The city also argues there is evidence in the • 19 record that ( 1) requiring the full 20% open space would result zo in less than 45, 000 square feet being available for • •' 21 development, thereby limiting the development to two lots; and 22 ( 2) the loss of the third lot would make the development 23 economically unfeasible. Record 74, 176, 193 , 24 The city also points out that the partial variance to the 29 Parks and Open Space standard results in preservation of the • ' 41.0 26 stream corridor ( 11 . 6% of the property) as open space , The •• w Page 13 a / 0 , : \ Jii 1 city further argues that the applicant could meet 'the Parks and 2 Open Space standard by , P P paying a $3,870 acquisition fee in lieu � �: ii.; 3 of providing the remainder of the required 20% open space. The 4 city argues the requested variance is the minimum which would '` s allow three lots to be created and not require payments by the •'0 , • ;: 6 applicant in addition to the costs for dedication and construction of the public street. According to the city, in isthese circumstances, to apply LOC 49 . 510( 1 )C in a manner , 9 resulting in less than three developable lots or a requirement r ';¢ is for an additional contribution for public improvements would be 71 unreasonable. premise underlying ` `' 12 A y g petitioners ' argument concerning the ; 13 ' interpretation of LOC 49 .510(1 )C is that, based on the cited0 �l 14 LUF3A and court variance cases, the city must require that a b b ' . is variance be the mimimum necessary to make some beneficial use 16 of the property. However, as we explained in the previous r : r 17 subassignment of error, our inquiry must focus on the . i+ . as particular citycode provisions governing the appealed variance. •• 19 In this case, LOC 49 .510 reflects an intent to depart from • , 20 the traditional, restrictive t ype of variance standards . In 21 the preiious subassignment, we concluded that the city was not 2 required to interpret "unnecessary hardship' in LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )A ` 23 to require that, the property be virtually useless without the . ' 24 requested variance. To require LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)C to be 1 interpreted as p petitioners urge would create an inturnal . • x .... . . 26 conflict between these two standards . 14 We conclude the Palm 14 • 'f, , ` • • • 1 city ' s interpretation of "reasonable use" of the subject 2 property under LOC 49 .510 ( 1 )C is reasonable and correct . : . :. ''' z J, 3 However, petitioners also allege the city ' s decision does • 4 not demonstrate that the requested variance is the minimum ' . 5 necessary to make "reasonable use" of the property. The only 6 findings explicitly addressing this criterion state : 7 "The applicant has provided 11. 6% open space in addition to right-of-way dedication for a public 8 street and future access for the •• adjacent parcel . Staff supports the applicant ' s variance request and 9 agrees additional open space dedication will reasonable use of the 1.3 acre site. "15 Recordr13�nt a 10 Other findings relevant to this criterion provide: 11 "The applicant initially requested a minor land 12 partition but staff ' s recommendation for construction of a public street resulted in a major partition , N. 13 hence a major development. Considering the amount of right-of-way dedication, future street access and 14 physical improvement of the new street, the / ' preservation of 11. 6% open space is sufficient . 15 Requiring additional open space would * * * verely . limit the development of this parcel. se Record .' 16 p * * " 50-51, 65-66, 136 , 17 To comply with LOC 49.510 ( 1)C, • the city ' s findings must 18 establish ( 1) what constitutes reasonable use of the property, 19 and ( 2 ) why the approved variance is the minimum necessary to 70 allow such use.16 See Fisher v. City of Gresham, 12 Or LUBA =1 at 192. Although the above-quoted findings include a +i 22 conclusi0nary statement that the standard is met, they are 23 inadequate because they fail to explain what the city considers 24 to be " reasonable use of the property and why the variance 25 approved is the minimum variance required to allow the 6 " reasonable use. "17 . Rather, they simply state preservation NM 15 • s ` � r •a . r. , • /A g 1 of 11 . 6% open space is "sufficient" in this instance and st ate 2 that providing additional open space would "severely limit the 3 development of" the parcel. Under ORS 197. 835(14 ) ( b) , 18 even though the city ,. �,', 4s 5 findings are inadequate, we must uphold the city' s 6 determination of compliance with LOC 49.510(1 )C if "the parties 7 identify relevant evidence in the record which clearl Y supports , 8 the decision. " In this case, the evidence cited by the 9 does clearly supportparties a finding that providing the full 20% open 10 space would result in there being only two developable 11 the property. Record 176, 193 . Howe lots on ver, this evidence does 12 not clearly support a finding that the approved variance from 13 20% to 11 . 6% open space is the minimum necessaryto prevent 0 . 14 loss of the third . ot .�9 15 In addition, the evidence does not clearly support PP a 16 finding that providing three deve?,',n " able lots is essential to » "reasonable use" •�� � � . of the proLerty. 20 Interpreting and 18 applying the "reasonable use" standard requires an exercise of 19 considerable judgment by the city. We are therefore unable 20 overlook the inadequacy of the cit � s r� w'" to 21 ORS 197. 835( 10 ) ( b y findings by virtue rtue of See Bright V. City of Yachats, Or 22 LUBA ( LUBA No. 87-048, October 13, 1987 ) , slip op 14 . 23 This subassignment of error is sustained . 24 C. Injury to the Nei hborhood 25 LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )B sets out the following criterion for a g 26 variance from the city' s development standards : lb ' palm 16 • . , I. �. J 1i "Devel opment consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the 2 located or to property established to be affected by the request * * * • " 3 4 Petitioners challenge the adequacy of the city's finding of s compliance with this standard, arguing that a finding must • 6 state the facts supporting the decision and explain how the 7 standards and facts result in the decision reached , 6 Petitioners claim the city ' s finding merely recites the ; 9 approval criteria. Petitioners further argue the city ' s io findings fail to address relevant issues of traffic safety, noise and congestion raised by them in the proceeding before t r . : 72 the city. ;` 73 Petitioners also contend that the city's finding of ,a 14 compliance with this standard is not supported by substantial as evidence in the record. Petitioners cite evidence in the 16 record concerning traffic safety which they contend constitutes 77 substantial evidence that the proposed development will cause 79 traffic safety problems. • 79 The city points to its findings that there will be public -Jo benefits from the proposed development as u. s pporting its _/ determination of compliance .with LOC 49_ 510 ( 1 )g, Record 65 . -,z The city also argues that petitioners' arguments concerning 3 traffic impacts, congestion and noise reveal that petitioners yr misinterpret LOC 49 . 510 (1)B. The city argues that this 2.5 standard only requires determination of the effects of the , • fp 26 granting of the variance from the Parks and Open Space standard , '';' NM 17 ' P • ,), .. q . 1 1 on the neighborhood, not of all effects of the proposed 2 development on the neighborhood. According to the city, the 3 only effect of granting the variance is either that 8 . 4% of the 4 subject site will not be required to be preserved as open space s or $3, 870 will not be paid to the city in lieu of providing 6 such open space. Respondent argues that the approval of this 7 variance, therefore, can have no measurable detrimental impact a on the neighborhood. 9 The parties disagree on the proper interpretation of 10 LOC 49 . 513 (1 )B. Petitioners contend that "development -'r 11 consistent with the request will not be injurious to the 12 neighborhood" requires that the city consider the impacts of 13 the entire proposed development, i . e. , three single family 410 . 14 dwellings with a 9 public street to provide access to these is dwellings and the neighboring parcel . On the other hand, the 16 city argues this standard only requires consideration of the 17 incremental impacts on the neighborhood due to the variance '.`. • . is itself, i .e. , preserving 11. 6% versus 20% of the site as open • 19 space, or forgoing $3, 870 for acquisition and development 20, ..!!! parks and scenic easements. LOC 39 .100 . a The wording of this standard is ambiguous . We find that 22 the city ' s interpretation of, its standard is the more 23 reasonable . In many instances a requested Variance might only 24 affect one portion or area of a large proposed development . In 2s such a situation, it would be unreasonable to interpret this 26 standard to require consideration of all impacts of the Palm 18 a": / u BY,' • 'I v ic 1 development in deciding whether the variance should be 2 approved. This interpretation is supported by the city' s 3 identification of the perceptions of neighborhood residents and ~^ 41 4 property owners concerning "th incremental mpacts occurring, as a result of the proposed variance" as a relevant factor in 6 determining whether LOC 49. 510( 1 )B is satisfied . ( Emphasis 7 added. ) LOC 49. 510(2 )B. ii . B , : Thus, we conclude that LOC 49 . 510 (1)B requires the city to 9 determine that not providing a additional 8 . 4% of the 10 proposed • development site as open space will� 11 not be injurious to the `4. 11 nei hborhood, and to explain the basis for that determination 12 ill i s Fl n•d i_n a 2 2 g ., The only findings expressly addressing 13 LOC 49 . 510 (1 )B state: • 14 "Staff believes the request to reduce the required 20% A . open space will not be injurious to the neighborhood . 15 The applicant has street and proposed to construct a public t, 16 provide future access to the adjacent parcel to the north, and is dedicating a sizeable portion of the lot for that purpose. " Record 136-137 .17 18 The city maintains the following finding, although 19 ostensibly addressing the application of the PD overlay, is 20 also relevant to compliance with LOC 49 . 510 (1)B: 21 " * * * (Title proposal would . the requirement of installation of etwobstreetnlilhts, 22 the obtainment of a City drainage easement over the stream corridor, and the provision for future access 23 to the adjacent lot . " Record 65 . a� + Only the first sentence of the above-quoted findings `� -_ 23 directly addresses the impacts on the neighborhood of not . 410 26 providinq the additional 8 , 4% open space. We agree with • Page 19 • r. • petitioners that that sentence is impermissibly conclusionary. 2 It simply restates the criterion, and does not explain what, if 3 any, impacts the city believes not providing the additional 4 open space will have on the neighborhood and why the city • 5 'concludes those impacts will not be injurious . The remainder 6 of the findings quoted above describe other features of the •� ; ' 7 proposed development and conclude they will provide a "public a benefit. " These findings may be relevant to the standards .;• ,:; 9 governing approval of the partition or application of the PD 10 overlay, but they are not relevant to deEermining whether the i •. 11 lack of additional open space will be injurious to the • 12 neighborhood. 5 �• 13 Since we find t - city 's findings inadequate for the • 14 reasons stated above no useful purpose woulA be served by 1s reviewing petitioners' additional allegation that the findings 16 are not supported by substantial evidence. DLCD v . Columbia 17 County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 87-109, March 15, 1988 ) , • 18 slip op 7; McNulty v. City of Lake Oswego, 14 Or LUBA 366, 373 19 ( 1986 ) . 20 This subassignment of error is sustained, in part . 21 The second assignment of error is sustained, in part . 22 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR • 23 "Inaccurat°y information on the lot sizes proposed for the development was Used by the Lake Oswego 24 Development Review Board in analyzing the developer ' s plan . This inaccurate information prejudiced the 25 City ' s decision and the finding should be remanded for reconsideration, " 26 Page 20 + tD , VP I 0 0 i Petitioners assert that city staff provided inaccurate 2 information to the development review board regarding the size , 3 of lots surrounding the proposed development. Petitioners , .II 4 argue that the size of surrounding lots is relevant to ' 5 determining whether development consistent with the variance 6 will not be injurious to the neighborhood pursuant to 7 LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)B. Petitioners argue that they were prejudiced a because ( 1) the misinformation damaged petitioners ' credibility • 9 before the review board, and (2 ) the review board relied on +' 10 this misinformation. ti The city points out that at the hearing on petitioners ' 12 appeal of the review board 's decision, the city council allowed 4111 13 petitioners to enter evidence into the record to correct the 14 misinformation " ' given to the review board . The city argues the 4 , is city council accepted and considered petitioners ' evidence, but 9` found it not to be relevant to conformance of the proposed , IT dvelopment with applicable criteria. The city denies that la petitioners were prejudiced by the misinformation on 19 surrounding lot sizes provided to the review board .I' 20 The findings adopted by the city council state : 21 * * * Duringthe appealhearing hearing the only inaccurate information identified by appellants was the reference to lot sizes i^ the Hallinan Woods subdivision. The Council accepted Exhibit 23, a portion of the plat of 23 the Hallinan Woods subdivision along with a written • statement by Andy Paris that the lots shown on the ► . 24 exhibit were in excess of 20, 000 sq. ft , The lots shown on the exhibit are not adjacent to the property 25 subject to this application and the closest shown • �" being more than 200 ' to the north and west of the F 0 26 subject site. * * * The size of other lots located . page 21 �! y a.t.- I .. • 1 more than 200 ' away from the site are not facts which are relevant to the issue of compliance of the 2 application with an applicable criterion . The inaccurate information submitted by staff was 3 corrected by appellants and the Council received the t '`o correct information into the record . * * * N 4 Record 7 , 5 The city council accepted and considered evidence submitted 6 by petitioners to correct the misinformation given to the review board. 24 7 Petitioners do not argue that the city i` ..'„ ,;..',' 8 council lacked authority to reverse or modify any aspect of the 9 review board 's decision because of the review board 's reliance 70 on misinformation. Any prejudice to petitioners due to the 11 review board 's receipt of inaccurate figures regarding the size • 12 of lots in the Hallinan Woods subdivision was eliminated by the • 12 city council 's acceptance of corrected information on appeal . 411 , . . . 14 Cf . Slatter v. Wallowa County, Or LUBA (LUBA No . ° i5 87-105, April 15, 1988 ) slip op 9 (de novo review by county 16 commissioners of planning commission decision cured any • 1; impropriety created by participation of a planning commission a T .' ., 18 member with a financial interest ) . 19 The third assignment of error is denied . 20 The city ' s decision is remanded. 2.; . , is • r 22 23 24 25 26 • , . Pane 22 , + . e"+ 1 FOOTNOTES 3 The lot line adjustment also involves a small portion of an adjoining parcel . 4 k: 5 2 Under the Lake Oswego Development Code ( LOC) , a minor 6 partition is defined as " (a] partition that does not include the creation of a street. " LOC 49. 015 ( 33 ) (b) . A major 7 partition is defined as " (a] partition which includes creation '° of a street. " LOC 49 . 015(33 ) (a) . The proposed public street a potentially would provide access for future development of the adjoining parcel to the north. 9 , h 10 hw ., The Parks and Open Space standard provides, in relevant 11 part: 12 " (a]ll major residential development * * * shall , provide open space or park land approved by the city . ' 13 • in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the gross land area of the development . " LODS 8 . 020 . 1 We also note that LOC 49 . 140 ( 1)H identifies a minor • 15 partition as a "minor development. " Minor residential developments are not required to comply with the Parks and Open 16 Space standard. Id . • 1,7 4 / :sr, The Lake Oswego Development Standards are not codified as part of the LOC. y 20 5 . Although the minimum lot area in the R-15 zone is 15 , 000 -,a sq. ft . , a smaller lot may be approved if the Planned Development Overlay district is ap plied to the property . The -z planned development overlay allows the minimum lot area requirement to be altered without a variance, so long as the r. , 23 density requirement of the underlying zone is met . LOC 48 . 475 . 3 , The maximum density provision for the R-15 zone z4 would potentially allow three dwellings on the subject • property . LOC 48 , 205 ( 1) . • :S III 2S 23 I, , . . , • . r , . . 410 , . . , .. . x ORS 227 . 173 ( 1 ) provides : 3 "Approval or denial of a discretionary permit ; application shall be based on standards and criteria, 4 which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a s discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive• plan for the area , 6 in which the development would occur and to the ' " development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the 7 city as a whole. " 8 7 , 9 We also agree with the city that ORS 227 . 173 ( 1 ) does not require perfect standards, but rather standards that are clear • 70 enough to inform the applicant and other parties of what must be established during the application process. Lee v . City of 11 Portland, 57 Or App 798, 802, 646 P2d 662 ( 1982 ) ; Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Co. , 14 Or LUBA 179, 182 ( 1986 ) . /3 However , we note that petitioners ' argument under this assignment of error is only that the city does not have 13 ''criteria for the approval of variances set out in its code. • Petitioners do not also argue that, if the provisions of c. .;, ', 14 LOC 49 . 510( 1 )A-D are criteria, they are inadequate to inform .• ., parties of what is required to obtain approval of a variance. { ' 15 16 8 We note the technique of providing both approval criteria 17 and relevant factors is similar to the legislature ' s and Land Conservation and Development Commission' s appr — in providing /8 both mandatory "statewide planning goals" and nonmandatory "guidelines. " See ORS 197 . 015 ( 8 ) and ( 9 ) . • 20 9 Section 50 . 510 of the city ' s 1961 zoning code provided, in . 21 relevant part : • ?.Z "The Design Review Board may authorize variances from the requirements of the zoning code where it can be 23 shown that, owing to special or unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property, the literal 24 interpretation of the zoning code would cause an undue • or unnecessary hardship. * * * 25 110 . 2 ' In determining whether the literal interpretation of 26 the zoning code would cause an undue or unnecessary ' Page •2 4 re , • 1. F y hardship of sufficient degreee to require the granting of a variance, the Board will consider the following 2 criteria, together with all other relevant circumstances : • ;, 1 3 " (1 ) Special and unusual conditions apply 4 property that do not apply Pp y to the properties in the same p zonee or b hood, 5 which conditions are a result of neighborhood, P lot size or • shape, topography, or other circumstances over 6 which the applicant has no control . 7 " ( 2 ) The variance is necessary for the i, preservation of a property right of the applicant a substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other own� 9 property in the same zone or vicinity. " ( 3) The variance is not materially in conflict 10 with the objectives of neighborhood Prevailing community or • '�� neighborhood in whichthen injurious to the prop erty is located . 12 " ( 4) Without the variance as requested, the property will be unsuited for the ' as reasonable uses of property within the rzone mal aor vicinity, as distinguished from the applicant ' s 74 personal needs or desires. " 15 10 16 The exerpts of minutes of the 1981 city council meeti which the city cites as legislative history are not in the • 97 record of the city's proceeding submitted to LUBA, but rather are attached to the city's brief . Petitioners objected at oral is argument to the city's submission with its brief of material not in the record, but have not filed a motion to strike the 19 material or a request for a reply brief. Neither has the city expressly requested that we take official notice of these • 20 documents. See Oregon Rules of Evidence 201 and 202 . However, we need not determine whether these documents are • 21 before us in this case because, as explained in n 10, infra,, we do not rely on these documents in interpreting LOC 49 . 510(1)A. 22 We note the Court of Appeals has stated, in dicta, that it + • 2.3 may be We should be more influenced by a local government • interpretation of an ambiguous ordinance 24 local interpretation is based on legislativeovision history when which the local entity has peculiar access McCo v. Linn Count+ , 2S 90 Or App 271, 276, 752 P2d 323 ( 1988) . However, ne t er we nor the court have determined whether LUBA may consider, as 26 legislative history, documents not subject to official notice 4. ��11 7 and not in the record of the appealed local government111, decision. See ORS 197 . 830( 11 ) (a) . ` 2 .�,, • 3 11 We note that in all the cases cited, with the possible 4 exception of Standard Supply Co . v. Portland, supra, the local government variance standards included a 5 "exceptional or extraordinarycircumstances traditional applying to the subject or conditions • property but not generally applicable 6 to property in the vicinity" provision as well as an "unnecessary hardship" provision. It is not en 7 us that the traditional "unnecessary hardship" Criter ion ealone must be interpreted to require that the hardship result from B conditions inherent in the land not shared by other property. 12 70 We also agree with the city that its amendment of the traditional, restrictive variance standards of the 1961 code to substitute the more flexible Provisions of the 1981 code supports its liberal interpretation of the• 72 hardship" provision in the 1981 code. "unnecessary See Morrison v . City ofy Portland, 11 Or LUBA 246, 257-258, rev'd other 73 •APp 437, 689 P2d 1027 (1984 ) . grounds 70 Or 0 74 However, in construing the provisions he 1981 code we ' . do not rely on the exerpts of inutes of city tcouncil meetings is concerning the draft 1981 code which the city submitted as legislative history. Those minutes neither su r 16 against the city' s liberal inter retation part nor argue hardship" as used in the 1981 code. The minutes indicate ssomry e sa , P sa city council members felt that variance criteria should be "fairly tight" or "restrictive in nature, " while others thought ht /8 the then existing criteria were "a little too restrictive" or "there should be some flexibility. " Respondent ' s Brief • 19 pp-12 . The minutes state it was the consensus of council • members that they were "willing to look at language that would © be less restrictive on the hardship incorporates the requirement to question, butm stillr ; • 2.3 hardship. " prove or demonstrate ( Emphasis added. ) Respondent 's Brief App-14 . The quoted language does not establish that the council members 22 intended the language they eventually adopted to be "less • restrictive, " only that they were willing to consider such a 23 possibility. 4 24 13 23 We note that to the extent petitioner raises a substantial evidence challenge to the city ' s determination of compliance 2,6 with its "unnecesssary hardship" standard, that challenge is . Page Z6 • • •d II' 1 based only on there being no evidence in the record to support a determination of compliance with etitioners.' interpretation + 2 of the "unnecessary hardship" rnterpretatnot adopt the interpretation of sthatard. However, c do not °F 3 petitioners. Petitioners do not allege advocated by .. record record is inadequate to supportg the evidence in the 4 compliance with the city ' s pretationcity of tdetermination ation of hardship" criterion; and, therefore, their deary • S challenge must fall. evidentiary , 6 14 7 We note that in Fisher v. City of Gresham 69 415, the court interpreted ordinance ' Cr App at e variances to be necessary for "reasonable economic use ions requiring no require that property be shown to be "economic to 9 �tse, incapable of any .`' 10 r. 11 These "findings" are found in the staff report of A ri 1988 . The city council 's order states P 1 22 12 Development Review Board set ' "the decision of the. • ;19-88/PD 5-88-557 is affirmed . " Rforth in Order SD 12-88/VAR • 13 that this language has the effectecOrd l0. The parties agree of incorporating the cited : ',- . , . 0review board order into the �,' . Furthermore, thereviewboardcitfindingsthe il ' s theisRecord 16 .•. 16 17 As a result of the requirement. •.,� variance could not be approved '' of LOC 49 . 510( 1 )C; a � � 18 variance constitutes if the use possible without any The e, if it is alleged"reasonable in use" of the ,i proceedings below that 79 use does constitute "reasonable use, " the city ' its findings why the use allowable without variance is snot `I 20 "reasonable use. " . • . — 21 17 22 If the city is correct in interpreting its Parks land Space standard to require the ape 23 additional 8 , 4 open space or to aicant either to dedicate pan B p then under LOC 49 , 510 (1 )C the city ' s acquisition fee, s demonstrate that payment y � s decision would have to of the additional fee, as well as • provision of additional open space, would prevent "reasonable 0 Is thisse* of the property, The city ' s decision does not establisshh 5 ' • Pge 27 •� 1 1 We also note that petitioners did not assign as error the 410 , , _ city's interpretation of its Parks and Open Space standard as 2 allowing payment of a fee in lieu of providing the required open space . However, tha arguments in the petition for review • 3 seem to be based on an assumption that compliance with this standard may be achieved only by providing the required amount 4 of open space. We find it unnecessary to determine the correct interpretation of this standard in resolving this subassignment . 5 of error, as the city ' s findings are inadequate to demonstrate • compliance with LOC 49 . 510(1 )C under either interpretation . 6 sU 18 a ORS 197 , 835 ('10 ) (b) provides: 8 "Whenever the findings are defective because of failure to 9 recite adequate facts or legal conclusions or failure to adequately identify the standards or their relation to the 10 facts, but the parties identity relevant evidence in the record which clearly sup ports the decision or a part of the 11 decision, the board shall affirm the decision or the part N of the decision supported by the record and remand the 12 remainder to the local government, with direction ,'''• • indicating appropriate remedial action . " • 13 m.' +% 4 19 1 II • For instance, the site plan at Record 193 shows that Lots , `° 1s 1, 2 and 3 total 46,550 sq. ft . Under the R-15 zone with the ,,.. '•' PD overlay it is necessary to have 45, 000 sq. ft. to have three Y 16 developable lots . The evidence in the record does not explain • why the variance could not be minimized, while still retaining 17 three developable lots, by allocating an additional 1, 550 * sq. ft. to open space. Also, assuming the city ' s `'' • 18 interpretation of its parks and Open Space standard is correct the evidence in the record does not explain why payment of part " -, ,. 19 or all of the $3, 870 acquisition fee should not be required • under LOC 49 . 510 (1 )C. /; 20 21 20 This evidence consists merely of a statement by a city 4 ' 22 planner that "because of the right-of-way dedication for the public street and future access, [ the provision of 11 . 6% open 23 space with three developable lots ] is a reasonable use of the site, " (Record 74 ) and an unsupported statement oy the ` 24 applicant that limiting the parcel to two developable lots "is not feasible . " Record 176 . . 5 26 1 • • 10 s -• ' page 28 •. •,1 4• AN 1 21 } 2 Assuming the 6400 sq . ft . shown on the site 193 as open space constitutes the plan at in the 3 findings, then the additional 8 . 4% open �space er which t° the required without the variance amounts t approximately would be t 4 additional 4600 sq. ft . However, pProximately an •�% we note that 6400 sq . appears to be only 9, 9%, not 11. 6% , of the s ft , 5 sq. ft, shown on the site plan . gross area of 64, 450 • 22 7 If the city is correct in interpreting its parks and Open Space standard to allow the s acquisition fee in lieu of payment of a3,870 parks • the city 's decision must also providing hwhye �not4% ocolleen c collecting then 9 fee will not be injurious to the neighborhood, totg that the city's decision does not appear note thats - 10 comment as to do so. We offer this guidance to •the city on remand, as petitioners have not raised this issue in their argument, 11 they disagree with the city as to the correct intemrpretateoauof the requirements of the Parks and Open Space standard . of , EZ • Petitioners also attack the city ' s findings as inadequate • 14 to demonstrate compliance with LOC 49 .510(1 )B because they not address traffic, congestion and noise impacts of do 15 proposed development . However, the a • these issues relate to the fc petitionershe° variancep o�n the 16 neighborhood . Whether or not an additional 8 , en s acetis provided will have not change whatever traffic, congestion and 17 noise impacts the proposed development may have . nd s 14 19 We note that LOC 49 . 625 ( 7 ) ( "Appeals Actions to City Council" ) of Hearing Body ., provides that the city council ' s 2.0 consideration of the hearing body ' s decision "shall be confined • r to the record of the proceeding below " " e21 contained in the record made before the hearing body�imay not n be „' preoente�9 in the hearing before the City Council . " However , 22 petitioners do not assign as error the city' s acceptance their evidence regarding lot sizes at the appeal hearing,, • 9 ,0 24 25 p 29 • ' • a . ) / .ff 1r. , 0 , b 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 I hereby certify that I served the foregoingFinal and Order for LUBA No. 88-087, on Februar 3 y mailing 3 to said parties or their attorney a true copy the$eof9, bcontained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said 4 parties or their attorney as follows : 5 Larry N. Sokol • Jolles, Sokol 6 & Bernstein, P.C. 721 SW Oak Street Portland,land, OR 97205 a James M. Coleman City Attorney g City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • to • f.. t t Dated this 3rd day of February, 1989 . 12 13 14 • 9 Gros y is A ministrative Assistant 16 /18 19 % • 20 2t . 6 • 22 • 'C 23 24 •. a r 15 26 Pie 30 , a• i ' ' 1 r , r 1 • • • :, 1 V • i, 1 '%,, I y'l„•v AY ),4 ';.5. BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF AP PE .•. ' 1 01' • • :1 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON j ,V,: �; 3 LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) ,,•Tim HANS vanWITZENBURG and ) t 4 ARTHUR BODE, ) ) 5 Petitioners, ) LUBA No. ) 6 v. 7 CITY OF IAKE OSWEGO, ) 8 Respondent. ) 9 10 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL • l, 11 I 12 Notice is hereby given that petitioners intend to 13 : appeal that land use decision of respondent entitled AN APPEAL 14 OF THE APPROVAL OF A 3-LOT PARTITION WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ,u • 15 OVERLAY (RICHARD P. WATERMAN) SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-602 . ' •, 16 This order became final on September 21 , 1988 . It involves an 7 appeal of the approval of a 3-lot major partition with planned " . ., 18 devolopment overlay, lot line adjustment, a variance to the • 19 Park and Open Space Standard and approval of a future streets . 20 plant by the Lake Oswego City Council. 21 II 22 Petitioners are represented by Larry N. Sokol, 23 Jolles , Sokol & Bernstein, P.C. , 721 S. W. Oak Street, ; ' 24 Portland, Oregon 97205-3791 ; telephone number ( 503 ) 228-6474 . 25 Respondent, City of Lake Oswego, has as its mailing 410 26 address and telephone number: City _of Lake Oswego, 380 "H" 1 NOTICE-OF INTENT T-O APPEAL �. A EXHIBIT V .• Page � I� I T, EXHIBIT H(�1� ) • ,, • Q212616 pit% • it.68(M,O4.g4 12,tib . 1qa+ JOLLES,SOIt01.Witt C ) 9i1 5 W Oak Strad Po mind,O;,Oon 07-D -31I1 a' • .: T.1ko++ons(SOO 22 -4474 ,• o . . I , , , r • a' 1 Avenue, Post Office Box 369 , Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ; 2 telephone number ( 503 ) 635-0215. 3 The City has as its legal counsel: James M. Attorney, City of Lake Oswego, 380 "A" Avenue, 4 Coleman, City 5 Post Office Box 369 , Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ; telephone 6 number ( 303 ) 635-0223 . III , 4. Applicants, Richard Waterman, Michael Busher, OTAK, . ': , 9 Inc. and Don Hanson were represented in the proceeding below - 10 b Richard Waterman, P. 0. Box 144, Lake Oswego, Oregon • ° ' 11 97034 ; Don Hanson and OTAK, Inc. , 17355 S. W. Boones Ferry, 12 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034; Michael C. Busher, 1515 S. Cherry, .. 13 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 . '14 15 NOTICE: ' ' 16 Anyone designated in Paragraph III of this notice 17 who desires to participate as a party in this case before the . 1$ Land Use Board of Appeals must file with he Board a Motion to 19 Intervene in this proceeding as req • r- - by OAR 661-10- 50 ' • • s. 20 _� 99 �, 21 LARRY N N. ruiDKOL r �• . Attorney J or Petitioners Q 22 23 24 26 I 14E 8Y CER"IF 4 2 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL FOREGOING IC r"s:+, ,..�':' . ' • �. " PB�e ._.. THE ORIGINAL Tt IL ,.Jr , . .r .; • JOLLES,SOKOL&BEFINSTEIN,P.C. •` Ahtxnard al LAW t " : 1s,W,Oak st .. . w° 51 moray !orPetiori b o a ►r2441 r • j, #' ' • N 0 F 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the day of October, 1988 , I served a true and correct copy f this Notice of 3 Intent to Appeal on all persons listed in Paragraphs II and III of this Notice pursuant to OAR 661-10-015( 2 ) by first 4 class mail. 5 Dated this ! day of 0 •. •er, 1988. 4111111 7 •0'RY N.• SO' ' '. • Attorney for Petitioners ' r 8 20 a 22 ,3 : 1 . ' ' ' 410 '4 1 /5 4-. ti _5 , a9 • ..l -h • , 0, . 1 n . • • Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 0. JOLLES,SOKOL d BERNSTEIN,P.C. • ' l l S.W.Oelt Strait r Portland,O.goon 91 2054 7 9 1 : • o W iw 2264474 . • a ! ?� . 1 • • • • • • P . •• • • 4 11 ' .I • • i(r V • • • • • • 1 .. r i / '�A • •4 , V, ,. . • . 1 BEFORE THE CITX COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 An Appeal of the Approval of ) SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-602 a 3-Lot Partition with ) 4 Plannad Development Overlay ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (Ricmard Waterman) ) 5 4, Nature of Appeal An appeal of the approval of a 3-lot major partition with planned development over'_ay, lot line adjustment, a variance to 3 the Park and Open Space Standard and approval of a future streets 9 plan (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax �± ' ', 10 Map 2 lE 14BB) . The Notice of Appeal was filed by letter dated k . 12 June 15, 1988 by Mr. Larry Sokol on behalf of himself and Daniel 12 Reis , Hans Van Witzenburg and Arthur Bode. 13 Hearings •' + N : 14 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and 9. i . °i considered this application at its meeting on May 160 1988. The 2= S • oz City Council considered this matter on the record made before the wo uo LLo 17 Board at the Council 's September 6. 1988 meeting . • \• • ��� Criteria and Standards W Y i W A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: ' O6 19 . ' .7 LOC 48. 195 - 48 . 225 R-15 Zone Description W 20 LOC 48 .470 - 48 .490 Planned Development Overlay '' .: u • aI B . City of Lake Oswego Development Code: `�, - 22 LOC 49. 120 Future Streets Plan '', ` LOC 49 .210 Minor Development Application 23 LOC 49. 300 - 49 . 335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49 .500 - 49 .510 Variances • ai LOC 49 . 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary , - Hearing Procedures ; LOC 49 .615 Criteria for A. •roval • A EXHIBIT EXHIBIT ..6 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 2 (GTi 5) I0 (606%3 • Page 12.-;- atica 52,,.'f2.•6 Mee)C14 r u V , I. C . City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2, 4.005 -' 4.040 Stream Corridors • 5.005 .- 5.040 Street Lights 3 8 .005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space 9 .005 - 9 .040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 10 .005 - 10 .040 Fences 11. 005 - 11 .040 Drainage for Major Development 13 .005 - 13 .040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14. 040 Utilities _ 16.005 - 16 .040 Hillside Protection & Erosion Control 18 .005 - 18 .040 Access 5 19.005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation - Private : ' Streets/Driveways 9 D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 7 10 Residential Land Use Policy Element II Residential Density Policies, General Policies I, III 12 Conclusion II . . .. 13 The City Council concludes that SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 o I comply with all applicable criteria . 1� Findings and Reasons W; .� r N 1& c The City Council incorporates the August 23, 1988 staff Nz = report as support for its decision, supplemented by the following. The "analysis" portion of the August 23, 1988 staff report (pages 2-9 ) addresses the issues raised by the appellants ,. 5c 19 in their Notice of Appeal. During the hearing on this matter the ` • w› appellants did not raise new substantive issues or present ` 21 r . R arguments against the decision that were not generally raised in 22 the Notice of Appeal. However, the Council will specifically 23 , address some of the points raised by appellants. 24 1. The Notice of Appeal generally alleges inaccurate25 r information was provided by City staff to the Development Review °" ' 26 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER Page , 9 _ i i 1/'.4 • 1 Board. During the appeal hearing the only inaccurate information identified by appellants was the reference to lot sizes in the Hallinan Woods subdivision. The Council accepted Exhibit 23 , a . ' 4 portion of the plat of the Hallinan Woods subdivision along with 5 a written statement by Andy Paris that the lots shown on the �. . , exhibit were in excess of 20 ,000 sq. ft. The lots shown on the ' • exhibit are not adjacent to the property subject to this . application and the closest shown being morethan 200' to the 3 north and west of the subject site. The subject property is 9 zoned R-15 which requires 15 ,000 sq.ft. per dwelling unit. The application as approved by the Board results in a density 11 • complying with the zone requirements. The size of other lots ` located more than 200 ' away from the site are not facts which are •• relevant to the issue of compliance of the application with an �,` applicable criterion. The inaccurate information submitted by • r •g staff was corrected by appellants and the Council received the correct information into the record. This point on appeal ,� `� provides no basis for modification, reversal or remand of the 3. IS Board's decision. . W' a< 1 • ,9 2. Appellants refer through their Notice of Appeal And in - • -;M their oral argument to use of the PD Overlay process, LOC• < Z1 48.470 - 48. 490, as a "variance" . Such a chr +° iterization is '' legally incorrect and is misleading. The PD process is R established by Code and is available for use in any zorn... The , -. . Board has interpreted LOG 48 .470 to 'make the PD process available . 4113 to small projects if the project provides an overall public • :05 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER „.,4 Pate • ; •A , I benefit. The Council accepted the Board 's interpretation in a 2 previous appeal and that rationale is still valid. Galen Park , ;; PD 2-88-565, LUBA No. 88-053. In this case the Board adequately explained the public benefits resulting from the use of the PD S Overlay. (See 8-13 staff report,P . pp. 5-6, Exhibit 1 , p. 3 , Exhibit 3, pp. 51-59. ) 3 . The Council agrees with the Board's decision to allow Y the variance from the Park and Open Space Standard. Appellants S are incorrect in alleging the Board did not evaluate the C application for conformance with the correct standards. The 10 standards for. granting a variance to a development standard are pI .. , found only in LOC 49.510 ( 1 ) . Appellants argue that the factors I2 Via listed 'in LOC 49.510( 2) (A) and (2) (B ) are standards for approval. po w They are incorrect, LOC 49 .510( 2) (C) states: Q yy'' • LS � ,. "A determination of whether the standards set forth in 31 IS subsection ( 1) are satisfied necessarily involves the ' balancing of competing and conflicting interests . The 1� considerations listed in subsection ( 2)A and B are not cW standards and are not intended to' be an exclusive list of jo 17 considerations. The considerations are to be used as a >J guide in the granting authority's deliberations . " Emphasis 3 Is added. z� The emphasized port'ion makes it absolutely clear that the • _j 19 i ‹g considerations listed n ( 2) are not standards for approval, but h W v� • ,, are intended to be a non-exclusive list to be used as guidance to v., r c 21 o'assist parties in evaluating whether ,.i variance request can meet 22 i • Standard (1 ) (A) - hardship and (1 ) (B ) - injury to neighborhood. 23 The Board adequately addressed the variance criteria. The 0 .. , 4 4. , 2.4 Council specifically finds that the hardship created was not z 25 , created by t, .ppellant. This three-lot partition could have 26 4 - E'INDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Page a, , w / been processed administrativ'ely as a minor development 2 application. LOC 49.130, 49.140( 1) (H) , 49 .140(2). Minor ' 3 developments are not required to comply with the Park and Open 4 Space Standard. Development Standard 8, 58.010. It was as a 5 result of strong urging by City staff that this application . became a major partition in order to create a ' � ' W ' , r public road to serve the undeveloped lot to the north. A major] artition is a ' major development and the Park and Open Space Standard therefore s applies. 9 " :. 4 . There is substantial evidence in the recor 10 d that the issue of traffic safety was considered and resolved during the 11 review of this application by both City staff and the Board. See 12 8-23 Staff Report, pp. 7-9. The three lots created by this 3 1 . application will add a total of approximately 30 trips per day to 4 "' 1, Cherry Lane. This increase will not create a n •! i traffic hazard. } g 1' The intersection of Cherry Lane and Highway 43 will j mnot be Y° 16 reconstructed a�t a-¢ part of this approval. The approval was not ' . "-0 17 predicated upon the intersection being reconstructed. ` u The w �' } I o is approved design was used because it will provide safe access to of 19 Cherry Lane at this time and also if the Cherry Lane/Highway 43 �W 20 intersection is reconstructed. . 3 > (See Exhibits 11 and 16 ) . 21 5. Appellants during their oral argument expressed k 2-. dissatisfaction with information received front staff prior to the Development Review Board hearing and with the billing method for 24 appeal transcript costs . They did nbt argue that the City 's • 1 5 actions prejudiced their ability to participate p cipate in the hearings , , Lzz + ib p3ge 5 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 v •, • N 1) . ' P ,. . 1 . 0 -,. I before the Development Review Board and City Council, nor did 2 they ask for reversal or remand based upon their expressed 3 dissatisfaction. 4 IT IS ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego 3 that: 1 . The appeal is denied and the decision of the Development Review Board set forth in Order SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/gD 5-88-557 is d S affirmed. ¢ I certifythat this ord' 9 r was presented to and approved b Y ; the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. 10 f`�• ° ' Dated this 2lst day • 11 of September , 1988. �. .. ev4 William E Yo ung, aybr 13 B 14 Vote at the Council meeting held on September 6, 1988. 0 3 15 '� AYES: Fawcett, Holman, Sinclair, Waggoner, Durham ' , 0 17 NOES: . , ABSTAIN: 1s a:. • , EXCUSED: Young, Woller • -� 19 <w y u ZO Y ‹ �' r 21 r a�. . ` 22 23 tP, �4 ,i. e - , 25 26 ' "• ' 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ' P i Page 3 • , I I ,V •i.• y .... s , °. i... .. . t. .. ._ �. _ t , a .�•. /n .40 tY•f 9 • I II. ‘.....:34€.: ''.12.4...0 . . -=4,Z..;4, r'7 ' / w.K 1 CITY RECORDER June 20, 1988 t � .. City Council City of Lake Oswego Post Office Box 369 r r Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Council: A. NOTICE OF APPEAL of FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER � ' of DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD re A Request for Approval of a 3-Lot Partition with Planned Development Overlay; SD 12-88/VAR 19--88/PD 5-88-557 (Richard P. •Waterman) ; Y DATED: JUNE 6, 1988 B. The appellants are residents of the Glenmorrie who have an intr;•rest in maintai. area the laws and ordinances of the City ofeLakeeOswego. The appellants live in the vicinity of the proposed PUD and either signed petitions or participated in the original Development Review Board hearing. Theyare r aggrieved by the decision because of the safetyhazard ,; which it will permit and also because of vrhat they perceive to be a significant harmful effect on their :' ,. � real estate values . Appellants also have an interest L µ� in having accurate information presented to the Boards i ' making important decisions . C. The City Zoning Code, Development Code and Development Standards involved are those which appear at Page 1 of •I100, the Findings, Conclusions & Order. According to a Lake Oswego Planning Department document entitled "A Basic Outline of the Class II Variance Procedure" , this variance request failed in EXHIBIT EXH -yr 1'Z-6� *roq�4L I c� la— $b� 01 t . i a l ' 1 15 11 . City Council City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL June 20 , 1988 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/ Pago Two PD 5-88-557 , satisfying many of the prerequisites. For example, i . ,`, r"' . this document outlines the relevant factors to be ' " ` considered in determining whether a variance is t , injurious. The factors to be 'considered are: c , • • 1 1 . An analysis of the physical impacts such. development will have, such as visual, noise, traffic and increased potential for drainage, ` ., - ' erosion and landslide hazards . i , .: ': 2 . . The perceptions of residents and owners of s ,* property in the neighborhood concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. • Y • ' 1. These requirements were neither appropriately discussed nor considered by the staff in their report. Consequently, the Development Review Board in reaching , . .; its decision couldn' t consider them adequately. The overwhelming testimony, perceptions an petitions i '• from the adjacent and surrounding neighbors opposed ,. , '' the PUD. Given this evidence and testimony, had the � � Lake Oswego requirements been followed, a variance was .' not possible at this location. The record does not reflect these requirements were considered and the record does conclusively show that significant injuries would, in fact, result from this proposed variance. `. . ,; 2. Inaccurate important information was provided by the ' planning staff to the Development Review Board. The appellants will present evidence that the staff acted + • Y as an advocate for the developer and in their zeal provided incorrect facts which were significant in the final decision. 3 . The use of the 11.an Unit Development to allow this variance war inappropriate. The Plan Unit Development • .° : ' modifies provisions in the base zone, It is, in . . . r u 1 ` + ! �.'t .F , 3. , •t',. .,•� n Ali• •!',, L .-�i� i .. ; ` ' • 3 .,' v City Council a City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL June 20 , 1988 SD 2-88/VAR L9-88/ Page Three g PD 5-88-557 . ., , ':: ":. . > effect, an overlay zone. The base zone implements the 1 ', _ . plan and no where in the plan does it authorize the use of a PUD on an acre or less. In effect, the City staff attempted to use the PUD to grant lot size variances. This violates the Code and PUD provisions. • 4 . The use of the PUD provisions was further misused s; because here the requirement of open space was partially wO.ved. What we have is a variance of a variance. It was never the intention of the PUD � '' \ • provisions to allow small PUD' s such as this on "regular" pieces of property. This variance offers no t particular- benefits in exchange for the higher density bonus allowed by the PUD. The main "trade off" " established by the law as a "price" for the PIM, i.e. an open space requirement, was waived in substantial c part. The law does not permit such a "waiver" . 5 . Contrary to the findings, the record does not demonstrate the City Engineer actively participated in . this decision. He did not testify nor did he present � .' a report. This was a significant absence. The " proponent had the burden of proof to prove the variance was safe. It is adjacent to a major highway. The record shows significant numbers of cars would be affected by this proposal which was dangerous . 6 . The testimony from the people, in both live form and by petition was that this variance was going to pose both a significant traffic hazard and a safety hazard. There was little, if any, evidence to permit the Development Review Board to conclude that the "development will not negatively affect the intersection of Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. " This was , a dream, not a finding supported by testimony. This testimony is completely apposite. How the Development 0 Y , * t 4 t yJ r47riI y v' ,gip_ 1 w' �F ,::. 4' a .,� ,.... w fir -' 'r . f!r (1���'...}r.e p.l a" n r f• r' L -•t,. \. 'r '` I ,`+ n % f ,' •, '1 ice. , '' 1 44. t • ` t' N City Council City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL June 20 , 1988 Page Four SD 2-88/VAR 19-88/ PD 5-88-557 i r Review Board could have permitted this significant and hazardous change to both Charry Lane and the Pacific "sl e Highway based on this record is an absolute mystery. Nor, q Res.- fully su•: it ed, 4s , ` I • t IC .4 in. .,'n " . . dir . 1' e ' m •.' w ° r �� 1 , d I gi,, .0( `. 1' .. , „N a' L '.' • " r 'F ` i1. a hgT,•r.V�+t r.4W .. 1 1...,'k " ., I a. . . FI ,0 .. I ' • r. n`i t U a *RE THE DEVELOP REVIEW BOARD OF THE ' CITY OF j`LAKE Q 3 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF) SD 12--88/VAR 19,-88/PD 5-88-557 41 A 3-LOT PARTITION WITH ) • (Richard P. Waterman) i ,-:. '•%,�•. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVER-) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER „. LAY. ) . NATURE OF APPLICATION °`' I The applicant is requesting approval of a 3-lot major j partition S with planned development overly , -,Y, lot line adjustment and a a` variance to the Park and d Open Space Standar ,,, • Additionally, they', application includes a future streets '' plan (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax • Map 2 1EDD and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax y l 0 .... Map 2 lE 14BB) . •• IZ HEARINGS The Development Review Board held a public hearing an ; considered t 13 this application at its meeting of May 16, 1988.. . • • I . 0 15 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 1 6 A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code; LOC 48. 19.5-48. 225 - Y R-15 Zone Descri 17 LOC 48 ..470 Ption Planned 'Development Overlay 18 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: • 19 LOC 499. 120 Future Streets Plan r, • LOC 49.210 Minor Development Application 20 LOC 49.. 300--49.. 335 major. Development Procedures LOC 49.500-49.510 Variances 21 LOC 49. 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary 22 • Hearing Procedures LOC 45.. 615 Criteria for Approval ." $ K . 23 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 24 4 . 005 - 4. 040 Stieam Corridors 5. 005 - 5.040 Street Lights .. EXHIBIT • ,25 8 . 005 - 8. 040 Park and Open Space C"� ` en • • 1 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 ' PAGE - 1 v , 9.005 - 9. 040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering If 10. 005 - 10.040 Fences 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage for Major Development ` " `f 3 13 .005 - 13 .040 Weak Foundation Soils 14 .005 - 14.040 Utilities ! : 4 16. 005 - 16.040 Hillside• Protection & Erosion Control, 5 18 . 005 - 18.040 Access 19. 005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private 6 Streets/Driveways ,:i0 7 D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 8• Residential Land Use Policy Element, Residential Density Policies, 9 General Policies I, III a I 10 CONCLUSION 11 The Development Review Board concludes that SD 12^-88/ • • • • ' VAR .19-88/PD 5-88 can be made to comply with all applicable 12 criteria. t+, ; 1. ., 13 FINDINGS AND REASONS 14 • The Development Review Board incorporates the April 22, 1988 15 staff report on SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 as support for its 16 decision, supplemented by the following: • , . `. 17 1. • During presentation of the staff report, staff provided additional •information noting the effective date of the *+ 18 Cherry Lane right-of-way vacation would be 30 days from 19 May 3 , 1988 and stated.. the future streets plan per LOC 20 49 . 120 was necessary to provide access to the adjacent Tax Lot 6600. . , 21 2. Exhibits 12 and 13 were submitted by opponents of the 22 proposal. Exhibits 14 and 15 were submitted by the 23 applicant. . 3 . The opponents ' testimony focused primarily on the • . 24 following concerns: 25 - The Planned Development Overlay is not intended to be used for small developments. 26 ,: : 2 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 ' _" PAGE w. • The Planned Development Overlay requires the. reservation of open space. 3 - The variance request to provide less than 20% has not r ,v 4 . • been justified per the variance criteria found in LOC 49.500-49. 510. ' - The intersectiwn of Cherry Lane and Highway 43 is dangerous; additional traffic and the location of the new street would increase the danger . k " 4. During deliberation, the Board discussed the proposal and �..• F' T • 1 ' B the opponents ' concerns and made the following findings: - The Planned Development Overlay can be applied to this 9 proposal and is an appropriate use of the overlay.10 t' Although the partition can meet the requirements of the 11 underlying zone without the Planned Development Overlay, the Board determined the overlay would provide 12 the flexibility and variety in the location of' • LI improvements on the lots, thus enabling preservation of the stream corridor and allowing the placement of the residences as far away as possible from Highway 43 . 15 There is evidence in the record that the proposal would 16 provide public benefit by the requirement of installation of two street lights, the obtainment of ,a 17 City drainage easement over the stream corridor, and 8 ' the provision for future access to the adjacent lot. 19 - The variance request to the Open Space Standard is • 20 appropriate. The applicant ir tially requested a minor ° land partition but staff ' s recommendation for . 21 construction of a public street resulted in a major , .r . 22 partition, hence a major development. Considering • the • amount of right-of-way dedication, future street access '" n' p -n 23 and physical improvement of the new street, the , 24 preservation of 11. 60% open space is sufficient, ' L5 Requiring additional open space would impose a hardship, upon the applicant and severely limit the development 3 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PO 5-88 PAGE f n , \ y ,' r . \4 • 1 of this parcel. The hardship is not self-imposed but 2 created by requirements of the City. - The proposed development will not negatively affect the 3 intersection of Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. The City 4 Traffic Engineer has worked with the applicant and 5 Exhibit 3 adequately reflects his comments and concerns. . 6 7 ORDER ' ` 8 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake Oswego that: 9 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 is approved subject to 1. 10 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in •' ';) Subsection 2 of this Order . " 11 2. The conditions for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 are as 12 follows: 13 1. A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for t review and signature of approval within one year of : . �. 14 the date of this decision. Upon written 15 application, prior to expiration of the one year rt grant a ' period, the City Manager shall, in writing, 4 16 4. one year extension. Additional extensions may be ' 17 requested in writing;, and must be submitted to the hearing body for review of the project for 18 conformance with the current law, development 19 standards and compatibility with development which ' r 20 may have occurred in the surrounding area. The 21 extension matt be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modifications to �- 22 bring the project into compliance with then current n. 23 law and compatibility' with surrounding development. ' (' 2. The final plan shall identify the stream corridor 24 `� and shall be registered with the Clackamas County , 25 Surveyor ' s Office and recorded with the respective 0 .26 4 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 ay PAGE ,,. , • r a r 4 4 . 4 r ó ° deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk's Office, as noted in Condition #3 . 3 3 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer for recording with the Cl ckamas County Clerk' s Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. �� yt .;? b Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However, when recorded, the instruments for both parcels shall, reference r• this land use application - City of Lake Oswego, 9 Land •Services Division, File No. SD 12-88/ VAR 19-88/PD 5-88. 2D 4. That the property owner dedicate 40 ' of right-of- 11 way, as illustrated in. Exhibit 3 as modified in the 22 discussion of the Utility Standard in the staff report dated April 22, 1988. 5. That the applicant design the public street to be a ►. 424 ' street with curb and gutter. This design shall • ' ' be submitted for review •and a • 1.5 pproval by the City Land Development Services Division. 16 6. That the property owner sign a nonremonstrance o- 1 agreement for f• uture : reetimprovements on Cherry Lane -and at the intersection with Highway 43 . 18 ". 7. That a street tree plan alongthe • new street be 19 submitted for review and approval by staff. Street trees to be lanted 2L P prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for each residence. 21 8. That the property owner provide easements for 22 maintenance and construction of sanitary sewer and a , 23 water line. , 9 . That the future streets plan, as illustrated in 24 Exhibit 9, be recorded, 25 10. That a restoration and landscape plan be submitted , and approved by City staff prior to construction. .t 5 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 PAGE 1 r Y r ° It '" 1, r r � ) c , ta ' •41 1 . 11. That the applicant: - 2 o Provide runoff calculations to determine the 50 r • year storm runoff rate to this site. , o Design the culvert for the new street to carry k 4 the 50 year storm runoff (flowing full) . o Provide an approved' emergency overflow route from 5 the new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the roadside ditch along Pacific Highway. 13 . That the property owner provide a 50' -wide drainage r easement to the City along the stream corridor . 8 � 14. The applicant pay an outstanding sewer assessment on ., �4, °� the property or apply for segregation of the • f ti:' } 1 J assessment. 15 . That evidence of completion for the above conditions 1 be submitted prior to issuance of any building 12 permits. ,Y x 1.x y1 :Y 1 4 15 • 1$ 1 19 1 • 11'• 2 ''I, 22 , •t C SG Z3 • e L 5G 2.6 6 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 PAGE ' ti. • M+ Y r ` a . ' , , . I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the g Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 3 DATED this 6th day of June , 1988. `•r , • 4 5 ;/ al, fi/tta.4.___. - , , 1 ; 6 lames A. Miller, Chairman .evelopment Review Board 7 8 _ e oaf i.4', 9 Se, et:ry ir ; 1D • 11 ATTEST: 12 ORAL DECISION - May 16, 1988 " 13 AYES: Miller, Zinsli, Martindale, Swillinger, Ingrim, Foster , 0 , •Greaves 15 NOES: None 16 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 17 , 18 WRITTEN FINDINGS - June 6, 1988 ' 19 AYES: Miller, Zinsli, Martindale, Swilltlger, Ingrim, Foster 20 NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 21 ABSENT: None • 22 1 23 ,a 24 25 406 ` 7 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 • '' r>�,y .. ,,y PAGE " • tl _ r - • . - , � I 1 1 I'. � A ♦p 1 ' • p • t i e• • la 'L • • • • • .• • m a r: ^I a • STAFF REPORT �,.tr • 1y V CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO .. . .. L, ; ,: .. . . .... . .. ' .. ` LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO. : OTAK, Inc. SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 1 , ' PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Richard P. Waterman Renee L. Dowlin Michael C. Busher DATE OF REPORT: " a LEGAL DESCRIPTION: April 22, 1938 Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD; DATE OF HEARING: Tax Lot 2300 of °• '' Tax Map 2 1E 14BB May 2, 1988 LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: . '1 West side of the inter- Glenmorrie Park section of Pacific Hwy. r ':, and Cherry Lane COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: t r '" R-15 R-15 I . APPLICANT' S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 3-lot major `' partition with planned development overlay, lot line adjustment and a variance to the Park and Open - Standard. Additionally, the application includX M1BIT future streets plan. '' ,1 2 / Gf a II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS , 12' POQ'i 12 'E A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code : litcs 12.StiCki.o ) ; LOC 48 . 195-48 . 225 R-15 Zone Descriptionor • K .1 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 1 of 11 t . 1 �.. 1 rr B, City, of Lake Oswego Development Code: • ,r/)l LOC 49. 120 Future Streets Plan (I. LOC 49. 210 ,� d LOC 49 . 300-49. 335Minor Development Application Major Development Procedures LOC 49. 500•-49 . 510 Variances LOC 49 . 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards : ,- 4. 005 - 4. 040 Stream Corridors 5 . 005 - 5. 040 Street Lights 8. 005 - 8 . 040 Park and Open Space 9. 005 - 9. 040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering 10. 005 - 10. 040 Fences 11. 005 - 11. 040 Drainage for 'Major Development `13 . 005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils 14 . 005 - 14 . 040 Utilities 16. 005 - 16. 040 Hillside Protection & Erosion Control �. 18. 005 - 18 . 040 Access 19 . 005 - 19, 040 Site Circulation -- Private 17 Streets/Driveways D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Residential Land Use Policy Element, Residential Density Policies, General Policies I, III • rp • II. FINDINGS A. Background: r 1. Tax Lot 7000 is approximately 1. 3 acres, k 2. The applicant is proposing to lot line adjust \ \ . : Tax Lot 7000 and Tax Lot 2300 in order to construct a public street (Exhibit 3 illustrates g. t, the adjustment) . 3 . The applicant made an application for a minor land partition in early1987 • , During staff review of the application, staff discussed their recommendation for both a public street and consideration of a Future Streets Plan for this area , 4 . The applicant has requested a portion of the . unimproved Cherry Lane right-of-way be vacated , The City Council is processing this proposal . III . - ' SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 f .+ Page 2 of 11 4 B. Compliance with Applicable Regulations: LOC 49 . 300 (2) - MajJor. Partition Approval PP Major partition applications shall be the same as f'x ,' • that for a minor development application. All other,� � , ' ' provisions of LOC 49 . 300 - 49 . 335 shall apply to this application. LOC 49 . 615 - Criteria for Approval 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the , applicant seeking approval. ,\ The applicant has provided sufficient materials \� with which to evaluate the request, as evidenced by the exhibits. q . 2. For any development application to be approved, It shall first be established that the proposal .�, conforms to: '\ , , a. The City's Comprehensive Plan; - Residential Land Use Policy Element Residential Density Policies 110 . . General . Po1i'V r . ° The City will assure that residential density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land uses, and capacity of public facilities (especially • streets) , and overall Growth Management „• . polidie'' bn e.nsity, ,. , The applicant has proposed a three lot major m partition with a planned development overlay. Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 3 have been provided to show the site can physically handle the proposed project. The construction of a public street and proposed Future 'S'treets Plan assures that this proposal and any future growth to the north will have adequate access. General Policy; III "Maintain substantially developed single family neighborhoods at existing density designations . " • 0 • • I. • SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD S-88 •. Page 3 of 11 \ . I The City will: .. • ...', . . • Permit POD or clustered developments in residentially developed neighborhoods where . the average density of the development does not exceed the designated residential density. This plan policy is implemented through the '.: zoning code (i .e. planned development overlay) . The applicant has applied for a 3 lot major partition with a planned development overlay and this staff report ! addresses both the overlay and other applicable codes and standards. b. The applicable statuory and Code equirements and regulations. LOC 48. 195 - 48 . 225 - R-15 Zone Description 4 ,' The site is zoned R-15 and designated R-15 by r the Comprehensive Plan. R-15 requirements are: c4,4 .IN.. `{ o Lo : area per dwelling unit 15, 000 sq. ft. e Lot width at the building line 50 ' *` o Lot depth - . 100 ' o Setbacks: 20 ' Front 25 ' Rear ' 10 ' Side a o Maximum Height of Structure 35 ' ' a: o Maximum Lot Coverage 30% . '. Because the application has been submitted as a r . . planned development, the lot size can be smaller than the minimum lot area required by the R-15 zone, as long as the overall density of the zone is not exceeded . In considering an application for a Planned • Development Overlay, the hearing body shall • apply the height FAR, lot coverage, use and ' , density requirements of the underlying zone. The remaining requirements of the underlying zone may be varied without the necessity of . variances . Exhibit 3 illustrates that Parcel I is 17 , 300 ' sq. ft. ; Parcel II is 12, 635 sq. ft . ; and , II) . Parcel III is 16 , 615 sq. ft , The site has SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 4 of 11 e . • adequate area to partition the lot into 3 parcels and meet the R-15 density requirement, The applicant has not requested any modification of the underlying setbacks. LOC 48 .470-48 . 490 - Planned Development Overlay , t ' The Planned Development Overlay is an overlay � ;�", zone and is not a development in and of it Although it requires hearing bodySelf' j,s not a major development. typeThe e approval, it • development °f P (i .e. , minor land partition, major •partition, or subdivision) determines whether .r, '' : the development application is either minor or major. The applicant ' s proposal is a major + ` • partition and classified as a major development. c. The applicable Development Standards Stream Corridors (3 . 005 - 3 . 020) This standard is applicable to all development within stream corridors. A stream corridor exists on the site and is shown on Exhibit 3 . The applicant has addressed this standard on . ':'- ' ' 0 page 2' and 3 of Exhibit 1. The proposal involve constructing the public street across • the stream corridor as well as installation of underground utilities within the publid street • area. Staff recommends the final plan identify • the stream corridor boundary. An additional condition of approval re wires a q restoration ' plan be submitted and approved by City staff prior to construction. The plan shall comply 1. with 3 . 020 (4) (A) and 3 . 025 . Street Lights (5 . 005 - 5 . 040) ;r This standard is applicable to all development which includes public and private streets, • public pathways and accessways, or parking lots , .b•• r Staff recommends a street light be installed at ;,, the intersection of the new public street and Cherry Lane, and at the terminus of the new ,r,4w public street. The location and photometrics of the street lights must be approved by the City• • Traffic Engineer . w,,i 0 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 5 of 11 • • • ti u, �. tp,t • �. Transit (6 . 005 - 6 . 040) 0 ,.'„ ; - This standard applies to PP all major, development. U .The applicant is not required to construct a * AY hard' surfaced pedestrian path as neither an 'adjacent multiple-passenger exchange ' adjacent g facility or path leading to such a facility exist. Park and Open Space (8 . 005 - 8. 040) This standard requires all major residential development to provide open space or park land approved by the City in aggregate amounts equal to at least 20% of the gross land area . r The applicant has applied for a variance to this standard (Exhibit 2) . The, applicant has ' provided 11 . 60% of the total site area as an open space tract containing the stream cr+ ., 4' The hearingbodymayIridth . • ' grant the variance .�,`l'Sm the 4 ' development standard if it is established that: 1. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. ., 1 Initially, the applicant proposed a three p . : ::: lot minor land partition that would not0 • require compliance with this development standard. After discussions with the staff concerning a potential traffic hazard, the applicant agreed to provide a public street, hence a major 'partition. Staff agrees the 20% open space requirement would create a hardship. Based upon the amount of right-of-way dedication and future street access, staff believes the 11 . 60% open space is sufficient. Requiring ` additional open space would severely limit . the development of this parcel. , 2. Development consistent with this request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected, by the request. Stafr believes the request to reduce the required 20% open space will not be '.: injurious to the neighborhood , The • applicant has proposed to construct a public • street and provide future access to the ift adjacent parcel to the nncth, and is r • SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/pD 5-88 Page 6 of 11 • • 1•. ' - a r , 4 • dedicating a sizeable portion of the lot for that purpose. 3. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. t . . The applicant has provided 11. 60% open space in addition to right-of-way dedication for a public street and future access for the , •; ,LL adjacent parcel. Staff supports the applicant's variance request and agrees additional open space dedication will prevent a reasonable use of the 1. 3 acre site. • 4. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. h' The variance request will not conflict with any of the plan policies. The applicant has proposed to protect the stream corridor as open space. Staff supports the applicant ' s request for a' reduction in the required 20% �• .�, open space. Landscaping, Screening & Buffering (9 , 005-9 . 040). This standard is applicable to all major development. Section 9 . 020 (4) requires that all development abutting streets shall provide street trees at the proper spacing for the species. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the street tree species be approved by City staff and planted prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy being granted for the single family homes. Fences (10, 005 - 10. 040) . . _ . This standard is not applicable as no fences are proposed with the application. • Drainage Standard for Major Development ( 11 . 005-11. 040 ) This standard applies to all major development, The applicant states storm drainage from the proposed three residences will outfall into the existing stream corridor , A culvert will be installed under the proposed road crossing, • enabling water to run to the existing culvert under Pacific Highway, Sb 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 • Page 7 of 11 . . ; Al . _ .. .. ., ..,. .. 1, . .Q;• J. .. ... . Staff recommends the applicant provide the following: o Runoff calculations to determine the 50-year storm .runoff rate to this site. : ' 'r • o Design the culvert for the new street to carry the 50-year storm runoff (flowing full) . o Provide an approved emergency overflow route At , • from one new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the roadside ditch along Pacific Highway. • 'am" • o Provide a 50 ' -wide drainage easement to the •. City along the stream corridor . Utility Standard (14 . 005 - t14 . 040) • a. Water System . A 6" water line exists in Cherry Lane. ' Exhibit 8 is a letter from the Glenmorr.ie Water Cooperative Engineer confirming that the proposed partition. can be served. b. Sanitary Sewer System • An 8" sanitary sewer line exists along the site' s northern• property line. The applicant must provide utility easements. for the parcels ' construction and maintenance. • These easements must be approved by the City and recorded prior to issuance o.0 any building permits. . c. Streets The applicant is proposing to dedicate 40 ' ' of right-of-way as illustrated in Exh'•bit 3 . This dedication shall extend to the northern • property line. The public street will be 24 ' of asphalt with vertical curb and gutter . Staff recommends the improvement be extended through the vertical. curve as illustrated in Exhibit 4 . This extension ' will allow greater street frontage for Parcel 2 and provide a better transition in which to end the physical improvement. The applicant has illustrated a turnaround . • on Lot 3 . Staff has determined the turn- • 0 around is not required . Due to the leng.h SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 . • Page 8 of 11 r • of the street and the prov:%sion for a future streets lar, P , the Fire Marshal does not • require a turnaround with this portion of • the street improvement. Construction of the 'street will result in • cuts and fills. The provide slope cutseasements otor cover ty nall er mt and fills within private pro pert • to construct the public street', y required Hillside P_ro Protection & Erosion (16. 005 - 16. 040) • This standard is applicable which includes hilideso areo allwith erosion potential. The easterly 3/4 of the lot erosion located in a slide area on ,the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted Exhibit 11, a � �•'.: soils reconnaissance report that states no hazards would f special treatmer.,,e totovercomement or require f Access (18 . 005 18 . 040) This standard is applicable to all major • developments and to all partitions ofj applicant 'sland. parcels and proposalontr to partltibn the lot The into 3 ' ublic conformance with this standard street is in ery lot will have a minimum of 25 ' of frontage.street v • A . III. CONCLUSION o Based on the findings presented in this re applicant can meet the applicable criteria for the development, r with the application of certain conditions , • IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SD• 12-88/VAR 19- subject to the following conditions; 88/PD 5-88 1 . A final • Plan shall be submitted to City review and signature of approval staff for the date of this decision, Upon within one year of application,• written period, prior to expiration of the one year the City Manager shall^ • . • one year extension. , in writing, grant a requested in writing andlmustr�beestensions may be • F hearing body for review of the project orubct fforted to the • SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 9 of 11 • u ,... J� ,o f �. • Y • . . .. . conformance with the current law, development 0 ,, ,. . .,. . . • , standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area . The • a extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require modifications to bring ' the project into compliance with then current law ,` and compatibility with surrounding development . ; i, 2. The final plan shall be registered with the , Clackamas County Surveyor ' s Office and recorded with „• the respective dee6s at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s fib.. Office, as noted in Condition #3 . 3 . Legal descriptions' (metes and bounds) to be • :' specified on legal instruments for titi,o 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, Services Division, File No. SD 12-88/ VAR19-88/PD 5-88 . • u: • . 4 . That the property owner dedicate 40 ' of right-of- , - ., 'way, as illustrated in Exhibit 3 as modified in the Utility ,Standard in •this. •report. 5 . That ,the applicant, design the public street to be a ' ' 24 ' street •with curb and gutter. This. design shall 4 be submitted for review and approval by the City Land Development Services Division. � ,._ 6. That the property owner sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements on Cherry • Lane and at the intersection with Highway 43 , 7. That a street tree plan along the new street be ': . submitted for review and ,approval by staff. Street • trees to be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for each residence. • 8 . • That the property owner provide utility easements • for maintenance and construction of sanitary sewer .' and water line. • 'i .8 9 . That a future streets plan, as illustrated in Exhibit • 9, be recorded. • , 10 . That a restoration and landscape plan be submitted and approved by City staff prior to construction . • SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 • Page 10 of 11 . • • 1.. • : •• •• .q l` • 1 11. That the applicant: o Provide runoff calculations to determine the 50- year storm runoff rate to This site. • o Design the culvert for the new street to carry the 50 year storm runoff (flowing full) . o Provide an approved emergency overflow route from the new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the roadside ditch along Pacific Highway, • 13 . That the property owner provide a 50 ' -wide drainage easement to the City along the stream corridor . • • 14 . The applicant pay an outstanding sewer assessment on • the property or apply for segregation of the • assessment. • • .15 . That evidence of completion for the above conditions , be submitted prior to issuance of any building . . permits. - Exhibits • 1 . Applicant ' s Narrative la , April 1 , 1988 Letter from Don Hanson • 2. VAR Request 3 . Site Plan ` 4 , Profile of Proposed Street 5 , Stopping Sight Distance Map and Table 6 , Tax Map • 7 , Street Vacation Map • 8 , Glenmorrie Water Cooperative Letter 9 . Oregon State Highway Division Letter . • 10 , Vicinity Map 11. Soils Reconnaissance • SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/P0 5-88 • • Page 11 of 11 • r • •,. ... • . • . . . • . • • • 9 , V • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ M ". 410 APPLICATION FOR: MAJOR LAND PARTITION/GLENMORRIE PARR • •' APPLICANT O/ WNER: RI CHARD P. WATERMAN P.O. BOX 144 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 REPRESENTED BY: OTAK, INC. P.O. BOX 1379 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 CONTACT: DON HANSON • SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a formal request 1.30-acre site into three separateparcels. to divide e • The site is located at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Cherry downtown Lake Oswego. The site slopes enastsout of contains a drainage ravine in the southeast portion of the site which passes under both Cher culvert. Access to the proposed three Lane dlots lisc taken wfromnCh Lane by constructing a public roach which extends from the henry southeast corner towards the center of the site. A preliminary site plan is attached which shows the access road and lot configurations. to the adjoining � Access parcel to the north T.L.( 6600) is6. currently provided by a driveway off Pacific Highway for the existing single family'residence. City staff is concerned that this parcel would be landlocked if the owner divided it up into homesites and access onto Pacific Highway was denied. The applicant proposes creating an access tract to resolve this issue, it is shown along with a future street configuration for T.L. 600 on the attached site plan. COMPLIANCE: Lake Oswego Development Ordinance Standards Section 1.005 Historical Preservation There are no existing historic structures or natural features on the site. Section 2_005 Buildin 3 Desi • an Single family detached homes are not . ordinance standards. subject to development ' Design and construction, of these homes will be monitored by the building permit process. J. EXHIBIT .•'1_ 1 r2 (VW ) ISOC24aE-CRAa4.1Y ir ... . . • 4 • Section 3.005 Stream Corridors 3.005 - A stream corridor, which is identified on Oswego Hydrologythe Lake map in the comprehensive plan does exist on site e. n is shown on the attached site plan. 3 .015 - Buffer Zone - a minimum 25-foot building setback is v provided adjacent to the existing stream corridor.addition a 5-foot construction li1nit setback is 2n provided. These setbacks are il:; ;trated on the site plan. 3 .020 - (1) Construction within the corridor will be limited ' h. to: one public road crossing and underground utility installation. 3 .020 - (3) A. No building construction or other site structures are proposed within the stream : : I corridor buffer area. B. The road crossing proposed is imperative to develop the site, provide adequate safe circulation and access and allow for emergency vehicle access to the three proposed homes. The utilities will be installed under the roadway to minimize disturbance„ • ' C. The roadway and lotting pattern is designed to minimize impact on the stream corridor. The three proposed homes are located away from the stream and the access road width has been reduced to minimize fill requirements. D. No density transfers are .requested as part of this application. 3 . 020.4 A. These slopes will be hydroseeded and revegetated with riparian plan material to minimize erosion and make the slope compatible with the stream corridor. B. Drainage Management - Storm drainage from the ti proposed three homes will outfall into the : existing stream corridor. A culvert will be installed under the proposed road crossing, enabling water to run to the existing culvert I under Pacific Highway. " C. No ,realignment of the existing corridor is proposed. 1 -2- ► ' • , • 1 , • I \ 1 . r .v S. D. Open • PSpace - No open space is proposed as part of this project. E. No utility lines are proposed within the stream corridor with the exception of those proposed under the private road crossing. 3 .020 (5) Adequate easements to City standards are proposed over all underground utilities to be constructed • within stream corridor and open space areas. 3.025 Standards for Construction Erosion Control - All disturbed areas with the stream corridor will be hydroseeded and revegetated with indigenous riparian plant material. The existing vegetation is primarily palustrine , scrub shrub, palustrine broadleaf deciduous shrubs and palustrine forested materials. Proposed revegetation plants will be species selected from these three groups. This will assure that the stream corridor maintains its natural y', state and aesthetic quality and continues to accommod,-te wildlife habitat. This indigenous revegetation will also minimize erosion and maintain ground water quality within all stream corridor - r. . areas on site. ' 3.030 Standards for Maintenance The revegetation will ultimately return open spaces to , , y their "maintenance free" natural state. • Section 4.005 Wetlands There are no wetlands on the site. ;" Section 5.005 Street Lihts , No new street lights are proposed as part of the minor partition. Private driveways will be illuminated from the proposed houses and the existing residence. Section 6.005 Transit • This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does not apply. • Section 7.005 Parking This development does not • • • P generate a parking and loading need; therefore, this standard does not apply. -3- • y: 1 • Section 8° 005 Park and O en S ace Fmk, -thet €e-l�e 44.;,_ae -` V ti1r12 f to-J`7 'r s 5 01 J e ��m�ns,� - s fie'^ rear S*40t C fix,i, 2. . :„ Section 9.005 Landsca 'n Screening and Buffering This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does f 'I not apply. Section 10. • 005 Fences No fences will be constructed over of installing fences will be left to feet tindividual lot choice. All fences will comply with Loc.50.350° carers. q Sect on 11.00 Drainage Standard for Ria;n ' r Dev o ment This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does not apply° oe Section 12°005 Dre naQe Standard for Major Deve'inp went No alternation of direction of the existing drainage k result from this partition. Roof Drainage from the single family houses will be allowed to percolate within the lot area and family outfall into the existing drainage ravine. Section 13.005 Weak Foundat'on Soils The soils existing on site are suitable for single family home 51 construction and associated site improvements. " Section 14°005 ` `Nrl • Atilit Standar A. Water - The site will be served by extending a line in from an existing main in Cherry Lane. �. B. Sanitary Sewer - The site will be served b 1 line along the north property line, y an existing 8" C. Sidewalks - No sidewalks are proposed as part of this partition application. D. Street Name Signs - One street name signs is l� g proposed as part of this petition a PP cats on° • E. Traffic Control Signs - No traffic control signs or devices are proposed as part of this partition application. One stop sign is proposed at the intersection of the on-site public road and Cherry Lane, proposed • r } ^, •o ... .. 1. . • F. Street Lights - Na street lights are • this partition application. propose d as part of G. Underground Utilities - Underground utilities will installed to City standards. • be H. Streets - A public street is • lots. Refer to the site planpandoprd to access the three �� ., '•:� - ,aprofiles. I. Television Cable - Underground cable television lines will be coordinate and installed to serve the three lots. `r Section 15. 005 • Residential Densi Density Calculation: Site Area: 1.30 acres/56, 628 s Lot Size/R-15 Zone q• ft. Allowed Density 15, 000 sq. ft. Proposed Density 3.77 Units 3.00 Units The proposed density is in compliance with the R--15 zoning for the property. • Section 6. 005 Hillside otection an E os•on C 0 A detailed erosion control plan will be submitted to C' - ` • review prior to construction. the City for Section 17.005 Flood liies: ,t No floodplains existing on the site; therefore, this standard i does not apply. andard : . • Semen 18.005 Access ` All three lots will be accessed bya will connect to CherryLane, Proposed public road which allows safe access t each lotRfrcm theer to public Theepography • proposed development will generate approximately 30 • per day. Cherry Lane is classified asacollector0streetl� trips Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. by the • Section 19. 005 Site Circulatjon . A public road is proposed which will provide access to the th ree proposed homes. Section 20. 005 Bikewa s and ' al_ ays This is not a major development; therefore, this standard not apply.0 does _ -5- • - f r A. , •t,' 1' 0 , • • • 0 . • • • • • • • 4. 0 4 • • • • • . � . ... . .. V .. ..,.., ... ?.. 4L.. _.'r ... ... ., j! •dry_, • . April 1, 1988 : . Ms. Renee L. Dowlin Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 . RE: SD 12. 88 (3 Lot Major Partition) 1 h Tax Lot 7000, 2 IE 10 DD Dear Renee: The following is in response to your February 26, 1988 letter "• .:j requesting further information on the Waterman Partition: 1. Future streets plan - The layout of the future access road and cul-de-sac for T.L. 7000 to the north of the Waterman . parcel is shown on the site plan. 2 . Glenmorrie Water District - A statement of available service e. is included in our application. The nearest fire hydrant is shown on the site plan. 3 . The centerline to centerline minimum standards are exceeded by the revised site plan attached. 4 . The site plan is stamped by a registered professional Engineer. A centerline profile of the proposed road is included. The site plan demonstrates the extent of cut and fill. A typical cross section of the new road is also included in the application. 5. Drainage - The site slopes toward an existing 15" culvert under Pacific Highway which is shown on the plans. Beyond the culvert, storm water follows natural courses to the Willamette River. The culvert currently ends at the west edge of highway pavement with very little cover. We propose to extend this culvert west 15 ' and construct a ditch inlet N at its end with a dam-like embankment, to ensure water intake. The water course from the culvert inlet to the y proposed on-site road will be rip-rapped to prevent bank erosion. The water course to the west (above the on-site road) will not be altered. • .., EXHIBIT ' i J O. H BIT . . i D12.-SL 1)o4- ' A . f • Ms. Renee L. Dowlin April 1, 1988 Page 2 • 6. Site Distance - A map illustrating site distance requirements of the State Highway Department is included in pra the application. Mr. Waterman has made a tremendous effort to resolving the City' s concerns by negotiating a land acquisition with his neighbor to • realign the access road. OTAK has redesigned than access road to • ':•.. meet the City' s' requirements and provide future access for T.L. 6600 if it ever develops. We feel that our application is complete and contains adequate information for the Development Review Board. Respectfully, • • Don Hanson, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect/Planner110 DH:bw • Encl. • • • 410' t1 . • • . . . .. . • , , • 0 • 'APR. i•z 88 • GLERMORRIE PARTITION • Lake Oswego, Oregon Project #1724 • VARIANCE REQUEST C. Presented to: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO `4 0 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OREGON 97034 (503) 635-0270 • Presented by: • OTAR, INCORPORATED 17355 SW Boones Lake Oswego Road Oswego, OREGON 97035 (503) 635-3618 ' • • April 13, 1988 • • d EXHIBIT � ` • — 1 — afz- -''i� :• i r • • • • • ` r GI,ENHORRTE PARTITION April 13, ?,988 ;y Variance Request SD 12.88 (3 Lot Major Partition) Tax Lot 7000, 21E, 10DD The following is a formal request for a variance to standard 8. 005 Park and Open Space. The open space provided on the ' ' site plan is 6,587 square feet or 11. 60 percent of the total site area. A. The 20% open space req uirement P is excessive if applied to the project. Initially, the 7roposal v la a minor partition. The access road crew ed on sii,,; to solve traffic hazards at the City' s request, has pushed this project into the major partition category. proposal is still for only three (3) homes onoaeconbined total area of 1.30 acrus. Given the configuration of open space surrounding a drainageway, the main intention r'..` of open space is provided. The right of wayreq uire- - quire- - . ' meets consume an inordinant amount of space. Additional open space cannot be provided without limiting the par-• titian to two (2) lots, which is not feasible. B. Providing open space along the drainageway is beneficial for both immediate and downstream neighbors. All access for the three homes will be internal to the site, which will extend the open visual quality along Pacific High- way. The proposed on-site right-of-way resolves Bang- erous access issues and provides future ' legal , access for the neighboring parcels to the north. • C. Given the proposed densityof the project, stream Corr- idor revegetation effort and right-of-way requirements, ;„ • this variance is the minimum required to ensure feas- ibility. D. This request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive '� Plan. Theo ens ace P p provided meets the stream corridor protection criteria. DH:sw/1724 b - 2 - M ' . r r«• • i /rzr:N I ! / :4() , . • 4 nr ,` ' fir 1 k / ^ L n -J. ........r.... ______ L-\7 . - , • •• . _.,. ..._ - .....-tri-i' 1=� ,-� i .. .,.....- . Ice..?...s._ 1 .... i j ...•-• • .- •.. in 1 , \,.,c, ..,.,.tri.... . NI . ......* ,„,,, \ , v .. : ,. .. ti , ... , . .. . . / • 'F0,0\ �N .— 4., °:c , .. ..\1 / 'STREETE• 1 \N ;1/ J7--- • . SA "k rtio • '''"......"•.. . �y4) jo,w' .,fib—' e,'/✓.1 , •• . ••• .. / I. ... ,....-•"J.:: 1......, 441 C�,'dt .--- i \ .. i'., ..r�� r:-'0 / �� .. ' �` �3ar1 r`►'` 1i, .,aw .jai► �•��/,� - i • TOr. • 1 '-s-a /" , �" � •' •+, / C»W /I• `'�°�,,,N "'""� ~- .-""� 4A��V Jh . �'• J.i r''�/ ice / �0 01, . , 0 It a _ 44 _�, y�.� y• t a •o----- -'_� /yam I { /� �+/dry+ r r. :.j •'� •�./•,._ �..�'4•'.� ;J�T�� i �` ,aji ��� •� ,�..r.'.•�..• I 1 . • I'�•'L7'�( o1• WQ� ,. Q ,-t ARC r0 , '.• - .� e1'1 IM+Ts E3�P "+ 5 ` ' '•- •• Imo,011p lam• i '_ \ 1 ~•/ram•' - •' / •i+ , o '• -...1..-< p5. 1p- .. ' ), ..-- r/c9. ,10,/ .6/0 , ..7 SITE PLAt -'‘' • ,, 'iy. ../. --•:„..-1,....;,..-.4. ..._.. . ,,,., -;.,,....-,.... ...,..„-:-"...---:,,,.-„,-... A ......--":••": , . ...........................2.,..,..--• iiiikMAJ ... i „a . ' • i'h��, tak. ` anpinYYrY .` `,f��'`N�,G� � al 7+`8 McOl-�j landscape ° o : Gv 1 Q 0 (� . `-ti ,�, �,ss�w Maui Ivry�nar Uu bsw.a�oa 57cw Yury v j . Yv�((3�i •711�1t a fI. � �y'�5��RI h)i. L .�.� � ....,, „vrV' •1..:'�ha$r 4,�t`, IS0.7�673•�til� .. t�.'•ar: '.r'h'u , 4:,1 w . iM E.OM Matt.ih laved WA 00660,06)69i0]SI • ,i tI 1 _,.'r I i 1 I i f. ; I i • , p i . , I I • r 1 . ' . , / y • t Ii tI ., I• ' II I I III ( ' 1 : , ,'6% 0 ' / ' ' ! I , 1 I III I1 II II ( , I � � I . 'ID'111l j • • . • /I.!In p • . ; , I . I •, I , p •� • , r , ; I i Rural . I. , j s. w . . . ro Htii . I *, ' ,. , I I , • ... ; 1HH tis o2� 4 I HH I � I s i , 1I • Ii I I , I• . . 0Q oi, , II j k •. co v • l 41 ! . , I i i • I , �� • �� • •1 I o I ; , �.ot 1 t' m I , I I l.,. a� I :..,. . .. 12i , , j I .,Y . 1. tk kyai: 651'' ! • I I , I I . • I r • r` i ' �� I 1 g_. . i . } .�...,.w L .,.,,. ,. _ . ..... .i t.,. 1 . i '�yQG� , • 0 ! OF3 IQ 1, 1 ! 1 p • • I H 1 ; L I I I ! o eo GJi 21b 1 ' I . . y II I .... •--rn � 20 , . , . , . i. i �1`f m 1 I `, I � i . 1 � 1 ' i 1 �tyt►D•Il�ennq II,I. I j 1 p • l.' �n I , f I , r,, ' � j. �J— .� ` .O i i 1 . _. • .' (. 1.'..+ j I ! i `• r I ? • • , . N CO 1 I �, p� • • _ w I 1 MO Ol F I e. o I • 2 d1�017 l �aYY , I : . ►l 1-1 ou i�-1 TAB I• 'LOT 706 ryit V../ . , sc/� N 'I =5? V I k , I , • • , 1 / •• J ••t .. • .:ten-._ a .la n..• • ..r••uwr•.r. x rwx..r • I - • 1 , • . • . Y « w ' .•r r . . •.-.. • •. k '• � �.tee . • •,=w.., • »»_..x«_. j • + • • • 1 Y ♦ • • • • • 1 Lx x • r. _ati� _,.x«• x..__.., ; 1 «..•_r `•+•""'`rr `= .«t..• .� {O r. .... .. . . • :—I I. • ................ ., a.♦ , • • � r • ,.Y. , ' { ♦1..,.w I � .•/I�• 1 • ♦ ' n.$ — .............. . • • _..r•r.1�4—.• ♦x..1....�,.• 1 ! i ,. •• I`• ...»}_.,._... x ..". ..,. .,, max.. , I.ux......1 , •-. + —'ice — +• ' c ,.a • 1«, ._r 1 1 • i • le. • } . • h y T!p • I w.. . • • • ,lwtl\� • • • ® � . r •. . .. _ . • EXHIBIT • A GLE✓lJMooRRt� • • I • • Arcnueaf,p c. PROJECT A J o IZ Pb.12T I`(`1 O J�-1 _ ,L . >r�a�2� 41 BY L,.�.• P-" ,x w Aoonoa#ofry pd. C K. 8 D A T E -_._ �'J(__=O Q PAGE _,___,. O F • • • c..014 cPn I.Of*On 970.14 (5o3)05.361n . • - • �: �. 64, & , � . • r. . .. • ' • A 6. Design ' ' ' ' g• Speed for Broke Reaction Braking stopping Sight Distance ' Speed Coefficient .. f p Condition Tinto Distance Distance Imps) Irnph) of Friction on Loyola fioundod "' �M ', (sec) (ft) f I CompUtoda forpoet h t r" y. 20 � ,! 26 2,6 73.3- 73,3 0,40 , •+• „5 ,. 24.26 2.6 33.3. 33.3 106.7.106,7 . . v 30 88,0. 91.7 , 0,3E 12G•12G z,G 36 28•30 60,6. 64,8 102,7-110.0 0,36 177,3.195.7 100.100 N `�, 36-40 32-36 2,6 117,3.128,3 0 74,7- 85,7 177,3.195,7 260.200 450 36-40 2,6 132.0.146,7 32 135.0.16 ,7 217,0-313,3 225.250 0,32 36,0.166,7' 267,0-313,3 c. 60 44 60 2'6 146,7.165.E 0,31 172,0.217, 2'!G•32G �.. 66 2.5 161,3.183,3 0.307 318.7-382.7 32G•400 m • 60 46 65 2,6 178,0.201,7 0,30 215,1-277,8 376,4-461,1 400.475 62-6006 5 2,5 256.0.336,1 432,0.537,8 450.650 .. 70 ,70 2.5 201,7-2380,3 0.20 310,0-413,8 601.6.633,8 347.7-485,6 55, . 6 • t, ,; 2,5 -212J•268,7 0,2E G49,4.724,0 550-726 400,E-683,3 613,1.840,0 626 8G0 aDifforont values for the same speed result from using Unequal copfticlonts of friction QO ! Tabl© III.1. Stoppingsight 9ht distance (wet moments,. a• .R a, CO Pt • a •. j . 410 • 410 . . . . • • . • a ii. ,,,,• .i7"7 vf, 1 y!evf,• F•rs.f 1 jjt•y� , • '•\ IS ' 1 t ,._ •., r.'+r,.. ` ..Sr .. l.. I- i i-s'y4,�'' ,A... 4 't'f .4 'rt.rr� t • i , .p •f{ •" I t,y'.7 'CC344OA • • v t }.V'r {...>.. • p,� :,t, •415�•� `�rY :...%97"..e:..o w ti 8.4a't 6.1a4: ,q['7.7�/• {t I 0 V'•...t i• <r.,.. ' s Pl'` �'•� • '' a `i '" S .a s-7.,Sj• ,• •j s v •' � r des r ✓ l - • �C 1.- r g • `t. / • r{ y� het kid ` a,:. • '', ..",.� _ 6.40 4 ;'>ti LI,J 1.. ��",Jr?.�M , . i,3 �r<�J V't _ .y.. :r-ZI r#11Y\t 1-1"'• •'e 3r61' •.r .rJ �; •,IQ ' + /�•jj,•�,tai+�r'�\ + t f ±;'\ • h4.,1•:.;'II • xir^;•64.03 .. rj' i• •"am t.. {�,' :;:{ ,� t �Q y Jo . 31114F ♦�..•,QQ 7,1460 " y It:-....,,.yo 'S, r.:iai r C}r r.7•o * . n �� �J �:. 'I, ,<.� }: 79J29_W 1 V, e . , s . . � T .°+y,•v ,. •;•r i,v •# ' ..'" • • ,,at`� 'I6�•,I0' -/ t C ZIO� .'.4 ` ^Jdy',Al t3b c`,�r.. , . + •�y1.L Mi ', a r 8\ J'.9v"a a•W, •i. ' i • �� ti t. Ih '•f 'L. " . , • • 1 • N., _ -•,rJl..-.re •`•t.- • • . .242:•9L9' 3•.. \ 7100 `1 `, i tii..•".+a t _ .� :. �. •1r �;, rr. �. 6 6 00 ' • I p i, X•t ...,t.:. 7 wve.c..rts t 6..s • `w .. '.pc ,,�,. =��n :1'. • • 118i55 • ` '• / -��N" 'Q`ISda'.S7W ,:udo-/t iy'r�f"yr `Ii, S.•k, ,!�' Q N Y 1]��jj X :o0 9, • �t a • •.a u '.rx`v� i.fyt.Z ' �*.S ; - N•• ,5{'2GP0 rl ¢,5 rw 1t'i,,.t)<,"j=•` t .' • •'`'r •v: -•,5. ♦• `s.. r` a ( �( i ' d o' J s `j 6 8 81• ` X... }�p,•. w�+ "4 ".•>� �;/•4'./Pt t . ... / .. "r .1' i f ..1y ‘"''•W04." ,,',1�" i"tNnSi Itl 'l "! , • •3,••..lfl • ..a w• sJ;.vY• � r' r,ti"C �'J `J,\,,t i .t.,, i I f.t' .p....:.., C'• , :„ , of ra- •1 N44 " I {. . b: r, tf' �� • i 'l y }, Y �•1 e'{1 '"44�q u.{j,•y`11/4,1. l�01 t:t 1 .. J3 i(' ' "r .'i'.I.- :',` / 11 t, til '•"I ''{�`"• •Vr t•1 , t h. • t .....r• ''• 1 t�' y`••• i'!';l•, y)E rh ,'iu jt� • / 7 x: ;i t�N,tjyti tJ ` !. ;. �,�fl p ,} �r�l�w +'t '�•tis �,� t xs i ' S�-'it llY.. l i k!` ° > 4 F +�'f r.4 k ,• 1 �1rl'.1i'y,� f ,.Z♦� r• .J +.:' o t`d'1'r r 1yr! i~ L "�~ 4t �. `Jr S..1�°i1"'' I ) •: ty' •�`i\ F. •. .- .c+'.1-/ �ti • • ..- t �. • i rr''a'o 41: i /FYI f' •f^ >. * ... • :. , t d t1,t ".. °y+ra t{l } r {z h r1 •ttj,L••��\rl:.; 24, v. r ' " �• t4' wC• h,74.1, -• I� •t•• r './ ..f We �if}O�t`t X`v••:...yy,w�.r. 1• L}? y p ...r.. .r,z;g', ( 2...ef1 T ,. t. ,,��•• i • s.n . e . *':"�r'1' 'x., 'M4, '' ."�7ai ` a4�4�.f Yi •1' '� ' .. & t..•r, ,g:f r1': 4 ,•�\n t {+.. - • y,t,Jr^;i,�'.� 6;1=7.;:t{1�, 1a,: ,tr'i_`. i t-", 'A 5i-k R-,' ��►,^'aS\K• i T`�� i'.re . ,1r L.� i., .. 2 x- ..� L'A •.:tax t,, , .py 't x. Y •+ili". 'rY h •k�%\, ."S ! •!"'�. O , . t ti•r'Y1w x•.i")rf Y•�tn,r�.� , A v - �' r,y' :,'•7 r",••��,, `�"�'.� ,;,`; `• ti� i.ps�l'•:fiir•y t 31'' t•:: i• . ,r • ",.F t., 1 l Q r''r"3,, 4,..,,,° i,, l:;t ,ti3;,..., �.` t iti d. 7ti• ,,.1w.+ '1• 41�p °t� �y-` �Jt 1' ` ,li 1, t *A r .. 41 1 ry'n -:a irj rt t�� •' _ '�.> .l r ti siti�.`rrrit RS ,4..••t��ii�yy J y 1 t ity� d.. • ' ''k • s 1,a. K•. i 5t '/"tJ1 >:. //.I6 r^+. r 14 [i H k '/ F,t, r 'tt-'' i �. .�.t .•� q:4B, {{!�eve(f.y'�• /�:1-77r-11 n'•..y-•-t- - ',• ` 1�S,.■v �(}y �,.i ),V•1�1,ri 14 t r{1f ►:,''.A`,�� x.,'•4,1 Xr•7t.�--. 1X21••1t,1'- -^ram"....rlrl-, U ' r. . •• 0 `` J ,,v,4 N,,i1 ,,,, •J/.., µr'{ !r/1•1'/l n t/`et k y,,r,..•"•�azir rT ;y w •- < -.-C��:`�.r:, d' r\'Ki,.� aa•'a.i{� r. t• f a'1 t.`�t,r I.tl4•in h ..,, , i n..'v...> ,••, \• t/ ar 1 1 t .^ , yr C .1.r• „ tv1�y� V 'L,� t'••>1 �i. b t - ti•,, ' i�i^• I.�0 • 4. i •�-"1 .Jrry/ \ 1 .n;. isI,ttvi 4 .. r")S i S ( r_' + �, • n"' �^+•',,,,, : .•1 ..ta. y °` �?�t •1,. '.t l{i" ti.. , f�W1{ •)u '}"yt+ • r /v�.,..f r,-+•ta•"Ny,t.,t�i-'LJ,r," �j'�A'IC.r,,,,,.. A',;,• k f ...yt .i e .1'"4•> ,�' ,\�j1 yL'1 y ' . iC7. t r .: r� )yyrw • .:..' . ' � '•r.f,+i!�i_.. r1` 1 •4 iEzra •\ �' +Ji tr�. iY 1 T rl ri y r'�j1i1 SS•:',. +�j',,y 1j. «•r i♦ .mr C' it ..}. a +t., ..tl 3- ,Iii,- '�'{ 1f •W , ` ,i',I','A,i y U1•y 4t I!•t'^ Y lf,. f •L yH ( L v��y Q ✓ d•P 1 F7r. 9,0.1. I , h Ytl • i -~•'e v�..•MJrr'�af "'. - ."I a', 0 • • l j,: 11.hti iK .�.,.. - .. .'' l,ky'Wt. fr t, tt'I li .• !r�.•tt rp i' +•'t!i•.. lre t a 1 •A •• 'f. l a( Za / i f t jjj • • f A,I.1I ` `, i t>m fly ! tf �r [ a\ ):f�/ �f R+ L' t �•..r 44, c q`i 1r' Opt: •. •1 p� k; a 4 ' w x r ": •3 tip,-r r� ^t t l t V•�. 't • `-„ .Fr' ,y'i17,1. :r, t •1 1't �{ t :� 7re� •'i �1'r ' I w"ti.1 i iiP i t`I. t"p 4, i-i ( L"h ` • • t .7k Jt1 . "v` r. ,4 iiili _ � `I tt/,r At t_ f .r � ' �ln.l ^!v r•..4 y v A ••y 410 •.• •I I a •II"'r r•vIRA' r ..4M fs ' M Ycif t,,,, A✓rl • • �� a41. tx•• . ':, ;'iZ r ','.,•;.+ r 1,."� 1:1, 'u Z4�As t, 4i•, `apt^ W �('`r rt ,1 m� •yet t . --+� _Sf• 1 ,• ," n•t ^t -�i r t /•��il :, i''�I 'F 1 f.. i/ / rr.'�r .� i as.....µ:. t. , i... t t�Y' t� r,.� '�, ,� y, , � 1 J�. , ti- p.ZUD t om- ,_ t;. '1;r a' iss r1 tc ,•4";,•r•\,LRj•�,��),,1,7♦ `6, 11 J t f '{ t t `�.F 7�1 Y 1, •41j7 J t 1 .Vt]'�1t�'� In)./ 'rF wa •'' r 1'•r•f'- . . • )t ,I,.r�{. J�i7h \ `..•1>'. '{,'S,� �'t�'t h'�7f ''Fi'�i ��(FL llll" ,,�I i*}y,tM „ • r 'i S.T��..+�y,+Ct',I.S . Q tl! \. s• ' . ( Rt i' v 7Y'//. t ��f1�,• �.J s"}{!,^ + . l ii�� t N '3�_ a., I r O -.ci'r i• j, i t' `` 'h tr' 1 rt ...1'r .v.. f'V tt,,r�r�i1i" /tt • y, "r•e♦r^. t:.r„• OTtt, ram,t t I �iti r•.;: ?x a•,'t ii'. tGri� +/""b'... �`. P F! ♦yr•t. +�'� >• d •7 414ri„,..1„'rYy.',• vl n i D '`• yd c• _ ti T.6, t` "S, t• e.r 4. �.'1 ;tor 1L41/.1,.t}, .?r'> . µ. . ,. . t{ #n�....:...1 ira ' . . ,� r v�`r-r, � ',4 t r t ; h 1 r� r ,rt 7 ���r .y. +.it'S•�� �i..." , it r, . '..a of A 1. ;•4415 ,,4 ur...'1 1h.1S4-•'.1rtt Nr` L✓r�"�}.l.�f"1 5'J jr, wti rr�.�. t /11 y F. . a r 1 1 + t"�a. .., ( {�1'� T •..is. I 1• /• C ti tii c 4J '' n 1 Y •. ;+•. # �. •r • �♦ '': tY. -1:.� t` r S .y rrr. t r111w.". .> . "It... , .*,,t's.. • I J ';! �.�„•`Q t, "i'�vi q,� 1,,1: � 'i� t r k. �r'w a:�)r��.6 t y��y p '„`, av,r.-t: ,,r.•�r ti{ 'is.« ......-•'•'a p ,.,u wn y` 1.,..'/y [Y / �d 1."' 1"tif 011 s• T `(y 5`.x` /..•�'. • r - 4 =1� �. .x y�r t rl'' 1.`**• .1. Py WY` 'r'1 f%'f"`%.'I Iwl.'j,!.:tt 1 J 40,4�.)�A�k ''�..rj...4e y---. Y.;, •, ••• b' .f 14. 'r tic,'»J• )..L r`b , t':1.`i Fi I .i, r ri',1: [ f"1`y •&p•', I .4 ,. E i, j t�'riF',jl:',V4p .a. ram. \- . • ♦!•y ----�� t•}yt;,`I' ... ,�J1'jjf.. . •-..• 7"'t-',,,if• ,' fi,44�7 •7v..+ . . ._f/'�t ,l Q%!.fr,it-,„,.Bv, ...,,.-�7, h .1 ., - , 2'3 0.0 .!••+. ,C.;:C t,+ ,,..H'L=•-{� I�' > •S(' '1 4'.�• ;� ,417+.1�1 �\ ...42.p... �' „JS°- lbu Y,p cl -' r • .a. • CC S a•�'. S 4. t� •r•J► b,b '4 ♦1�L.� �j.�lrf:• � �Y •at7. Jtht jy i / h e.t� • ♦ t r• c /1!�19, y1►E,`!a iA1 t . a i ♦ �.t.•♦ _LrFFI,t.7.4.•Ct 3. • - , i' 3♦ 1 !'�LG/a/. i� at1� bG'�•+Orot r ``,,• r , �'"/'^n-�"'t. t ,t9'rrS,St.' . y ,' '7 ♦p-•t./, 1... n'•.,I' �s , YY {' L�- r r • .r• • t `• tF, ''•i.. 7)♦ 'i, tM�f �•rZ,' r�t\�„ 7y, y 'r.•, '��„ 1 i'1'�i�µ 3.tt.t 71 ��7 ". r' � t,{ - I ,' w 10 ,.. i �.rh,.,,,I IS tHr/1*• 4t, ,`.y''i}♦ "A"ICI • 3:Rict-t••� I,11`4.M,•,t • N 'N w,• �o :,'"+ 0• t" ,; t c� ' .S H rc I • .„ ."...1 .,„r�*1a.x. 'l j�. ,,,,,,?^f t/,,. f+,�4... yviv, a .tit 0 AA.,4,f4.4,S4.•�.y(• •t�i .`r'.'14•t1 rril'+er:a Slamy.,'�'~.A?1,4714,...Ill" •A ik .1 i 1,... i;i.. a+, '� rt ,''V tir .Lt+`a:`, + •o iC°a•ti t:47-D.1+•„ if .• 3t'�}��:k�•4rT -•",:. >j'1,a �yt;n:1�11�M^'Ck,1_ 01. .t4.4' ,Oti-�i t.". 'W tt.rl vAlt GY .. .,}3,15.••k y. r} 1'. J•'i 1. •u\.•'? r S t •A'jt,,, .,,,,,.l.tra; 0 14,/" .r••• xt}_,.•S t ri, i, a., ." •' .. j' A',,r4. w4. %.,i`�,y11fiv V . +yy�:h • r`'• -•''1 1, ••••. 'tom: •11 -4.f E krr.dl• ,.4....) ••:ZAI5?7'1�• iNt 1.6 r)7'_ .1 1 MI r , •'sip.t, , x J 4 6;7.".'Af4P/ \C ,'iflL •:4r,�".i!• 41.',tti' •, t 'r ti• 1 y'" .'4% t. 'r�\'' h� ..y�l. T 1t M ♦ �'0']J' Cr} ,.7p'.` r'•+W .tl:)}y�; ��••t���t k 1, • 1.1. ` 1 .1' 1 ht tJ:r Jt it, l,lam 1� :�..fitt i ,, ^7bly.1+-1 , {ti ...•', 1• 7f.. t oitlt i'h '»,''1A;.��j,YAK SS67P Y _ ...4 . I L.(.l : !gt...A.' ...' ,, ♦ �f'�.'r \ - � '�'�1•I.tt yt "ti� ^r, {.w�J�t•', n_,'a' •tr�T��"y `'. • tf ' ' \1 .,:„k• yr 11.•J11.+w-• ••i•' -..r 1-e• �'1 t ..af. ; ,....,:, ',.`I• •,,, ,k. "r ``''„�;y1•,�gm i 1�.'.ti,i 1 '.'0�'.'�� t' M • r' •• r / .tr ..,•1t`. •.�;•.•'.'X• 1 1•"'jJ tT•R y' F ,•y.. 4,i•1'..i' •.�1..• .'•..�-.fIQ --•.'Y f�• •�4".•, . 11•.�yY�,`a� "N '•' a t•. .t y ' 1,o.,.'G1 i. .,+'—y.'..h•4 •-•.• 7'.:.•:1• thi •••• . .`� 4 .. i., • 7 t• ♦�y.r�`.. .•�.�.�,"��l•1 1 a'ti „, ..,, ; ., .......� , .. ..... .•. . ... ,.._._.. , . r .. .... ., 3o.t.es. - _ M aa'•v /.•a.T-/+ �a 34 Nre.yS' • o'G• Ar..s?"�d.7 d•.A/ 63300\ G4/./' OGGd Q„ .., ...i .. ' 9.r sT22' 6407 6406 AtAa d 1406 166 5 \ ( 34 385 • 1425 N,\v O \0 \ / / tll c ^i'v o \ \ �/ _ o \ ' / ... �\\ IlIl \\\JOCD J, \ r'11 33 ;as•ae • z•l.i•ver0 l� 34 �,,�.o,• 3 4 /;•� I 16600 ,,a..9Z• • rod.2. • • ° °pA' 6405 "• G SKY , ., • ry`1 5 '1 t ' 6 402 .� ,r�L. l.• wr8s / c,s19' 77 ADD ' w. •.J•d.Z••t{B �w •� ro•fp • '$ts 1460 ° '�1/3"I.P: ah Q ° 7 6 , 6 1- 1 v No 9 /Js' O ZT S. 14Y/” /J q I Y • 660 % '1 a,or 0 '// / /fit/ h O",'• • u u Z. N II 70/ Jo /I -I- :4 ),0 0 . ..• • I. I ", 4 . ,,,,A,',../• ,\ —, 7,-, • rNd� _ o �l�1' 30 ' •f r y � t M Jodi - 7 OG 0 �/ :�c 1. JD ( el N e i `\ v I II . 1' \( ^— 4 �t �\ oz' �S �±p . IOCspa Ra. .2•aJ'a 15 14 o r� .f. 6b30 `° c �10/y a a�3q 1 �xie W 1 / �'l` \ 3t) _� ° ((J. 29 A • J EXHIBIT EXHIBIT "A" ' • . PROPOSED STREET 'VACATION' 41:, 6011.8E6,04.9z) 1 LOTS 26 3Q 31 "OL.IBt y 1MORRIE PARK"' I a o r p a,; 17353 5 W doonli hi, . 101 E 601 5Ufe1 YL.Iouwi WA 90060 17061 693 Wit „..., M'�•_ ........... .............. ..... ........... � I IOSd 0.11.n 51te,i•713 dlncvue WA 911614 061 ISSd941 • • ' . 1' w i , • W ¢' � .• '� DONALD L. MURRAY Consulting Civil Engineer Telephone (503) 234-3661 6548 S.E. 14th • Portland , Oregon 97202' . 41, . . .Of - ' " March 17 , 1988 I c' ' Richard P . Waterman 'APR 1 1C08 P. 0. Box 144 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: SD 12-88 , 3 Lot Minor Partition on Cherry Lane . ', „ . • Dear Sirs : , � ;• This letter is to •confirm that the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative is willing , and has adequate capacity , to provide domestic water service to the proposed minor partition. The estimated static pressure at this location will be 50 # and service will be from 4 { the 6" main in Cherry Lane. There is a fire hydrant approximately 300 feet from the proposed partition that tests 1000 gpm with 20 # residual (tested 1985 L.O.F.D. ) . It will be at least three 44 years until the construction program brings fire flows to the ,.. required 1500 gpm in this area. In addition to, the cost of construction for extending a water • , • . line to your proposed partition from the Cherry Lana main , there will be the per unit fees of $2000 membership , and meter cost plus $600 installation. All fees must be paid before water service is started . Construction plans should be submitted for approval to both the City of Lake Oswego and the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative . Respectfully, II ,0,,,,,,,,o?fid,,,,,, Donald L . Murray r .E. Engineer Glenmorrie Water Cooperative '• S cc . Halvorson L.O. }` 4 ra IBI1 ri VO 11-r•CI440O4 9 41 t / RECEIVED J 2 • ° Oregon State HighwayDivision ,�.�.R. 4.1 DISTRICT 2A MAINTENANCE �'SUPERVISOR �! a,. ., t " PO BOX 565, BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075-0565 PHONE 229-5002 • June 17, 1987 ` In R.pty RNaf to Fin No.t Jerry Baker ' City of Lake Oswego P.O: Box '36.9. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject: Tax Lot Map #21E1ODD Tax Lot 7000, 6600 • • .`"cess proposal for the subject tax lots does not access Ste Highway right-of-way, Highway 43. ' My review of the proposed access to the subdivision of Tax Lot 7000 with potential access to 6600 is as follows: The access to Tax Lot 7000 shouldad possible to the alignmentprovide access align as • I. of the T intersection of Cherry Lane off the Oswego Highway. Site distance improvements 4110 . . should be made so that the minimum of 450 feet of site dis- tance is established and maintained for this private access. The proposal to access Tax Lot 6600 via a private street paralleling the Highway 43 to Cherry Lane would require redesign of the existing Cherry Lane intersection with Highway 43. This redesign would eliminate the 'Y ' type configuration for southbound traffic exiting Highway 43. With a redesign the private road access to Cherry .Lane would operate provided the redevelopment on Tax Lot 6600 is not a high traffic generator, Sincerely, . ---.C2....--4r- 6/" . David A. Willhites P.E. P.L.S. District Maintenance Supervisor xc: Dennis Everson, Clackamas County , ',. Gench Cook, OTAK LHG:cIs ' 4 EXHIBIT , . i,. A j Vic MAP •r:-rti ri♦0 ... A '� •uv.i w: • Ju1..lu• •'': Vf`.74 \\ �1O�.x.. ... i 51C4 a^:\1A5 710_ n5 at o 13 1 .D. s 7...' i 11100 2� '.0) • ,.1� ,I ` .11ua• •W •.• j ‹Z. c14 • HAS l��\�y \/yrr��1;; • J. . . . A .. ` I 2'1I 3 12wn , \A.. ••Y:r3irs ssJs r. t..;A • 1. . . .: II ; • MORNING SK Cl: \ _ ;/� • \\\\11\ � A a J \wkt\ y e�� 1,irf t.-1.1.11.tt.."*.8' r�^ 7 1 I j •i- , i I _ • . I .0 ' ; 1 • 1 6 700 . 'MI \\\ 1/4&'.\...tk's:'s,,...N INV.;*'11 Z ',I'1 *K.;.i......::.:::•::."''\. " A, "-\ '1 z ,1 it \\ ^'�`\ t 1 tk•1,, ,1 ,... 2 •,,�e,r�s tt�_11 • 't ti• !• ` .� .a: . �11'. ., J, t,. , ` , I�I111 1 •% CIJ .'1. i t li . .. • fiaJ0 7 , ,. ... . .. •.. • IC ,: 1 ,`, « ..• \ CAC, .. • 7 44-*---,..., ';Zit:" \ 7 :42 \ I ,i,, /. �1-,,,,-c.-, ''''. * \ ' VL,Zi',.‘.1.-' 1' '' la 1 :%''-' i •' e' '' <:••' '' ' .: ' „ fin\.' \ C +.-jL7Y. fSSd Lry'4r, '!\•J••. } `• ..iv: d A.MCRfl '252V' \``•rr•^' „ � + .� .. -a,� A. �`" (C'riERRY1 gttti"J•` . ?.-1 " 1 :• y! \ . . ..."---.."7"T—:4 .'„,".,,frk iT.V.I\ 4 4.4.—... . ":).6, .. `` • i v — -*et'lI S SAe• NV1;.,:?0,...' ‘ '',..''' ' ' . *. N, '1.\\.t.„.., •, • •,. .. • ✓'=\e 1 \eiA? 1 EXHIBIT .•' ''' : .. - • • -,...-:!,,,i ,,,,,, \T"Arcl.„:1- i E - .1/4,, ‘A ."'" ' ' . • *C.V.40‘i;".....441\ ' �,,. l ,� ,r• t. A- .1/ • 4A,• ' .. „. T• ,Nay ,e. i •• RECE WD AU6 1 2 1987 , " 1- JOHN MCDONALD ENGINEERING SOILS-CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR . 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97222 , (5031 774-0077 • OTAK, Inc. August 11, 1987 17355 SW Booties Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RECONNAISANCE AT GLENMORRIE PARK MINOR LAND PARTITION . • 1 The site is located at Cherry Land and State Highway 14 on the uphill side. The ground surface slopes upward at about 15 percent near the street and then flattens to about 10 percent halfway up the site. There is a tiny intermittent creek on the south side of the site. The soil is Quatama according to the SC,S Soil Survey, and it has a more clayey nature a few feet down so it could have a seasonal perched water table. That is what DOGAMI Bulletin 99 { means when it says the area has a shallow water cable. This is the only hazard listed for the site on the hazard map, and it • would be relevant only if septic tank sewage disposal were contemplated. In my opinion there are no hazards that would prevent development or require special treatment to overcome. Therefore, the site is suitable for residential development. , Very truly yours, /,\ �0 PRO,??- t p :A4 y �r �g1� �O '` EXHIBI Jr• k. M 00° .4 6,..____,____ a . . • • �' _',� V I........C.....1 MEMORANDUM °` EXHIBIT To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members 01248(14440_i2)'' I From: Mayor and City Council ' Date: September 18 , 1990 saC #1., , Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating • , ' . to School Capacity This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5,> 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at ang e .—..I.!. I.!. Lake Oswego School District Board held onl October i2 , 1989. thThe December 5, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data relating to voter approval of a $17,800 ,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7, v.° 1989 . This memorandum contains school district the 1990/1991 elementaryschool informationo]ecncertions for +`, year and concerning residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It contains information received by the City .Council at a. joint , J{ .. .a meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August °�,• 21 , 1990 . As a result of certain determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential ,-ri development that there was a lack of elementry zschoolcapacity , the City Council conducted an inquiry into the necessity forthe enactment of a moratorium on residential development , in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197 . 505-197 . 540 . of denials of residential development applications is A nedteyn y state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware by the exclusion from that definition of actions " in acc rian,.? af a"� with" an acknowledged Plan, City Comprehensive and, ,n the advice ,a; _,, the Attorney , concluded that the exclusion is nt ayp' i . ate " to the current situation . State law does not permit the adoption • of a moratorium without the City first making the findings required by the statute . ` The conclusior of 6 of the : he Council members at the end of that .0 inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not• basis for the Council to make the findings required by tte r_ w to justify the need for a noratorium , g quit' _ state wrl The resulting dilemma is abvioust an the one hand me • Development Review Board denied two applications fir lack of school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies ( a ' pattern which state law classifies as a 7torat"ariumt , and yet the } Council has concluded that facts do not exist t-i make the • a' s, o a , .. e Memo: Development Review Board '"r and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 &` ,' ,.-, r Page 2 required findings under state law that are a precondition to the fi enactment of a moratorium. It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the • City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity. It is o-; ' necessary to have consistency in decision making from application to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council . These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies h ! !';' between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precede^.t . • These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set ' , forth in Attachment No. 1 . ,j.• The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintai-•: a consistency between state and local law. The ComprehensiveAla policies , with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied n " ` unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium, 3e'2 a,:se 411 ,, : : :_.: facts will change over time , so may the conclusions concerij3 '" r, Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of .the fadtial preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff wilill update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular y', basis , in coordination with the school district, and keep t:e ° ' Council and District aware of the chang ing circumstances . Future Planning staff reports will rely' addressing the school capacity issue : The this ml expects the : if Comprehensive Plan compliav, e based on the school apacit; issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development -.:, ': '. application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set forth in this memorandum: This issue is not static and Will a with us for the foreseeable Elture . The improve the current data exchange effortsCbetweenLtne Ois rt :t and the City. D� » . _ .s The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving develo:-... .t approvals are aware •. ° of the current school capacity situatin understand that the Council is very • and has the authority to enact concerned about t"tis ts �µ •' 'I' 'Ustii2!.� by h�.a facts . a rit�C3t �riUlil at later a s : TheCouncillate appropriate ? •�irecr,, sr. 3EE to d,�,,,,+ .-,.. reviewed t_� the Jhace to be i to luded in the approval :r le r s �t . .e a't_! bodies , to .ac.Lti osllulIr7`t t't17 7Ur F? s - prova„es the factual findings 'bE the Council0 ' 1 ' '. with regard to t,te school capacity issue upon• in whict tt ? ,1ntsrPrea.isnsare based• r..tachment •Vo. 2 iy ,» e a Factual information reliedupon r_�a in1inj, a4 support those findings .• attachment Rio. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies : i .. . ; .► ,,. + • 4111 Memo: Development Review Board . and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 •"' + Page 3 The City Council sincerely expresses its s of the Development Review Board who have been1facedrwithethembers difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, ' and who have done so with asoaewhol�alism and obvious great concern for the community Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 yi o • • t. . ID . . f 4 • • • • • 40 - ..- .. • • r .. , ti • '1 • •' • • • • • • • • • 1• tl • t •y 1 u • A a s _ in ATTACHMENT NO. 1 y,• FACTUAL FINDINGS --7 9-18-90) The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact of development on the ability of the District to meet its legal obligations to educate the children of the District. A . significant portion of the School District lies outside the City limits and the City has no control over the impacts of growth occurring outside its boundaries. communi�atinn from otherThe City has received no jurisdictions served by the District That thy ,pErceive a problem or intend to limit development due ' to school capacity problems . The District has provided the City the following facts : ` •• f •' 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove ::::::: Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to. provide an urban level of service at that school . The Lake Grove ElementarySchool population was significantly reduced for' the1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 was 530 students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 was 453 students . The adjusted forcast for the 1990-91 school year is 500 students . • 2 . The District has short term plans in place that addres.; ,the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . By implementing these plans , the District stated it gill • continue to provide an educational experience students that meets District standar , to its 3 . Through use of the short term plan, the District oan accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 , 772 elementary students . 4 • The District as of June 1 sch000l enrollment of 3 , 241� ; 1990 , had an elementary students . 3a ;ac9 )n .,a •., ,N• capacity and current pro:ect ' i i ins � on Oct Abe + 9 -,,-: District by implementing the short tarn plan dill 1 ,.., unused additional elementarystudents . city wile that will accommodate 3- , nts . 5 . TheDistrict has a long .� addition t term plan to provide a,�a�.L:», o the 3 9 Seats t_ be lade 3vailabie t•,r.� .• " ` the short eec, la 1 4, • additional ele �entar, These long term plans �ncl : � �; � facilities . �' scr.�• and remo eli 7'; .�•tL ,t .1 . .,. y '1rt 3 , 772 J�•t .r •7 S c'='ltlnuati"�' )f N" 4'jC:1rr«�?. ate nor �ra �.1;w 2 ;� ace; ° m��69are f growth, �i : : new student , :n''`o the 1191-92 sv:1 , 1 ,'h�•�r, ' 1 o -: ' • ' ' ' : '''' '''. • Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 2 • 7 . The earliest completion date for the new school ' authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election ° .. , is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students. i'� . 8 . The District as a practice does not construct facilities in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet a • current demand at completion and not stand empty or ty be underutilized. „ 9 . The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the Di.sttict does not attempt to project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student •`Y' • counts . Based on these comparisons, modificar.igns to the computer program factors are. made if warranted . The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been quite accurate. The physical counting of children in the district on a regular basis , as the data base for projections, does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. �, By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerni.��•; development approvals and v school scant lots with the actual growth in population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not.3 quantifiable and direct relationship between the school � ' i. population and those two factors that will assist the Di. tri iN making short term student projections , Otner factors , sacs as Market reception, interest rates , the health of the bra; >n economy and family size of buyers and sellers of exiting nomes ;' economy :also affect the number of new children in the District ' ; population. Based upon the ..`; p present level of sophistication of :. the City and '�istrict planning processes , it is not `�ossihle r • predict with any degree of certainty how soon o f ter l;_)r.,, i:nildre from new r .s � ,_ntia1 i p .s willenter isystem, . • . . .. • _ 1 ' . . . . .. . . ,. . . , • . . . . . . . . .. , _ . , . • 1, t , . • , • ...t'b. 00 Attachment No.1 1 September 18, 1990 w' . Page 3 , • The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base by an approximate 2:1 margin. The old tax base was S19 ,542 ,310 . The new tax base is S29,975,000 . The new tax base contains levy authorization above that levied by the District in the current • fiscal year and is intended to fund growth, staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the ' November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of • support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989, $17,800,000 facilitybond issue passed by a substantial margin. , • The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by growth. During the middle 1980 ' s , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students . The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. AN Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of Funding measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was r , . delayed . The growth was anticipated but .the community debate ` ' ' over how to best address the impacts of growth hail delayed the • , provision of the District 's solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts , �' enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant try ORS 19" . 520 . • • The District has the responsibility under state law to educate the children of the District. The Council views the District :as � , •. • ! an expert in educational matters . The Council accepts the �"'', a . statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards , ,u , • • • • Atty/Correspond-7 , • • t. a uu i ti �7 a, 4. $ II. • 'r , . . • 0 . .. , , , ( ,/''). ` • 0 • ' d i•• • • • ', ' • . II I. u.Y r • - • • • U ," . 7 , ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ''• a 1 . B'L11 Korach, Lake Oswego School District. Elementary Enrollment - August 8 , 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing : - Building permits by year, single-family, graph - Building permits by year, multi-family, graph •u - Total. single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989 - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 • - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 3 . Class size and public Office of Educational Research o yandImprovement,: Politics aU�SC'apeceas , Education Department o of 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General„ June 11 ,• 1979 5 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City July 31 , 1989Council, Ye 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District , July 5 , 19.89 ,with attachments �• 7 . Proceedings of 9 joint City Council/School Board meetin.4,July 31 , 1989 6 , 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August_ 8 • 1939 • a . Letter from Susan Brody , Director, Depart-lent. 4 a Conservation and Development , :.ated august 8 , ?919an`. 1 10 . 4andouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School ,,,,,peri•teh ;_Y :: ' a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom spacet- 5. Enrollment projections , service level, and shoo ail; i Y term solutions y , • . Lake /e L")swe jo School Dl7tr L'.w.t : The y cYymY�y11 Y Bun1♦..'� Facts , �i 1.J, iL t�.5.� + `Yr s •1.�. .1 ' Y II .3 . Transcript excerpt from Augu.t Development :. Board meeting ' tape incladin. excerpt also suomittw � � N • . 1 ( YY uy ° Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 2 13. Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14. Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 StLdent Factor" submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24, 1989 7 16. Letter from, Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8 , 1989 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, Chamber members, dated July 28 , 1989 19 . Letter Erom Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20 , 1989 20 . Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8 , 1989, 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7 , 1989 22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated A,Igust 5 , 1939 • 23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clark , dated August 6 , 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25 . Letter from Lynora Saunders , Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 26 . Letter from D.R, Norris , dated July 29 , 1989 • 27 . Letter from Judith D. r)maki , dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles dales, Staff V4,ce President for Governmental -affairs , ° Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14 , 1989 29 . Gregory 7. Meadors letter, dated august 13 , 1939 30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14 , 1989 " . •1 31 . Denby and 5oug tie tiler letter, sated August 14 , 198') 32 , Carol Webt. letter, d• ted august 14 , 1989 • Y / Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 PAS e 3 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 34. C 'bbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14 , 1989 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14 , 1989 37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14, 1989 38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13 , 1989 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 41. Jane Culberton letter, dated August 9 14 , 1989 • 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1909, including ,tta :ted ' newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach 's memorandum datel July 5, 1989 43 . Deborah B . Feldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 44 . Steven M . Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989 45 . Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14 , 1989 46 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14 , 1989 ' 47 . Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 Ai 48 • Marilyn Roberts letter , dated August ; 3 19g9, .� f 49 . Mary Avery letter, dated August 11 , 1939 50 . Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1a89 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , lama 52 . Richard M . Bullock letter, dated August 11 , g l93 53 . Charley D. Ruttan letter, dated August g , 1939 54 , William Srans n letter, 1ate`9 August 11 , 1?:39 �. . . 53 . 4111 '`far;i Ne(th,auser latter, dated Au usr_ 10 , laga 56 . Charles A . ns ` . is lal�a tar-tut, dated !, ♦ ,•+' 1. M-, a ... • Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 :p :..,'•.`: Page 4 p 57. Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14 , 1989 . 59. Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989 r , 60 . Karen Griffin. League of Women Voters letter, - S. dated June 20, 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 • �'` 62 . Letter from Rick newton, dated August 15, '1989 63 . Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 , 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick F . Stone, dated August 11 , 1989 65 . Viap of City and District boundaries , 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989 , submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 67 . Bill Korach , "Questions and Answers : How is the School District Coping with Growth . " [Presented to City Council at ` Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 . ! ' 68 . Bond issue information, November 1989 , prepared by Lake , Oswego School District. 69 . Election results , November 7 , 1989 , Lake Oswego School District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond . - " -0 . Report from Superintendent , �.r 7 , 1990 . ake Os ego School District , Ma., -1 . Enrollment_ Report , Lake Oswego Sschool DL.stri::t , :runt,. ; , • 1990 , _ 2 . Memorandum from Sandra tcorhelik regarding school c-RpAc ty -,.. a residential developr1ent activity, August 10 , 1900 , -3 . Lake 7sl e'o Elementary School enrollment sta . i; r, i,,, . �. 21 , 1990 , -';a' -1 Memorandum Wr Peter.ter : . '-fiarvey re•gar-lirtig rg?5i 9eot . 1 ' 1 • t ' calcultions , august 2i , 1990 ,• . ytty,rCorrespond- H .." • .7 i 0.r 110 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 A-.11 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS } ( 9-18-90) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the V , framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land " use applications , one Specific Policy has besn focused upon by " .,.,� �• ; those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have ' also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of those policies, it is necessary to restate the rationale for the "' City' s interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are the regulatory language of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1989 , and 1973 which required local jurisdictions to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals . A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as : " [A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local yovesrnnent that 1 . interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems , educational facilities, recreational facilities , natural resources and air and water quality management programs . 4 'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the - geographic area covered and functional and nalt .iral • activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General nature ' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily a.• indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of governments , semi -public and private agencies , and ; ti '`'• • citizens of Oregon have been considered and nr. .arnm:a ;a ta•; 1,1 ' much as possible. ' Land ' includes 'rater, h•tn ;,., r fats Ill subsurface, and the air. " '�'`� • At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in '1at .tre , is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines .'tra : -.' • " S ! uggested approaches iesi fined t,a ail .i ties and want e, in preparation , adoption and iMplementati. an of comprenenst'�� +� plans in compliance •pith ;oils and to ail state agencies ana special districts in the preparation , adoption and im lern•�ntvrt ,N of plans, programs and regulatians in compliance ditn jails . Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies , cities , counties and special districts to a siig1e ao rNacn . " M 1�• ,, ti U i b 6. . Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 2 The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives , General Policies and Specific Policies in the following way, "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are short statements of the purpose of the policies, General Policies , which are major methods of achieving objectives , Specific ' Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General Policies, . . . " There are also strategies for carrying out the Plan found in r Volume II, which is the background information and supporting documentation for the Plan. The language has historically been applied as follows : The general policies of the Plan are the portions which are "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application , must conclude that the applicable general policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been followed. Each land use decision . must identify and explain why the requirements of the .applicable - - • general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. !. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general "- . policy, the hearing body will be guided in its decit�.Dn na�;_n1 . , the specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element . In c • many cases the specific policies for a general policy are extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations `.. K to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory .de? nt a are the general policies then each provision of a specific poly .,' • will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an application or project to be approved . There is no provision f.^r the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions )f tale p Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general policy, but perhaps not td the letter of a subsection ,f tine r: the specific policies for the general policy , the appli :lr, i '- y. project as a .mule mu:at he denied if the specific p!^11 :ie;s ar•,., • construed to be regulatory in natJre. All regulatory stan •Iar .4 must be �'omplied with in or lier r r an appLi, ati )n to e apprh a ; . :! . r . . _ lb i / Attachment No. 3 . September 18, 1990 : :: Page 3 The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a " specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point . This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with that state law definitions which govern local land use planning and at the sane time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that dent ' into the original Plan development . Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discussed below. Nogeneralpolicy p specifically requires th,'rt adequate a, school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few sped is ; ; • policies and it is from these references that the policies become applicable in the review of a development application . ., `,, 1. Overall Density General Policy I . /, 4. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average ` residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, • including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage safety. ns 9 and public J• Specific Policy 3 : The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Osw0go School District, to assure that school capacities and .," •vr. expansion costs are considered . " This policy requires t•tat the Comprehensive Plan density be suon ,� that the planned densities do not result in land uses tna,; dill ' exceed the capacity i ty o f p public facilities systems av� . La;oLz t ! c- r planned . This policy re"^ulates Comprehensiv? Plan hard .ensiti s and is not applicable in the development review stage . The ../ - appropriateness of tte Plan map des inet i an br Hone ,ys" an a given site is not an issue in a hearing )n a . •ral )p-el; a p p l L v a t L m r: . 1• . 0 i.. . .'', , Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 4 2. Impact Management General Policy II The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals ~ comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval granted. specific Policy 6: encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review. " This policy is the one most directly focusr..d upon in the development review process . is policy 'chOol that a •y�r ' "' detailed review of projects take placeanditdirec requires directs that 'j City seek capacity information from the District . The development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encour.•a,din,4 tne� 410 ~ District to provide the City with school capacity inf�armation . The July 5, 1989 report from the District, and the July 31 , 1989 , October 3 , 1989, and August 21 , 1990 joint meetings of this coordination and "encouragement" . Because opfr the e `vairiety of factors that impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict, with a great degree of accuracy , school populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncerr_aln au •; unpredictable when a child from a home or a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population . However, 1, once a buildin3 permit has been issued for a dwelling, it nec;iyt .;reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in this near time frame (3-6 months ) . By monitoring actual school • populations and outstanding building p•. •mits , Eoreca•;t i;;y :-: 1 ',3-6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable ;egr.e reliaoility . . ! ' If this coordination results in the development of (Ian which supports the findings required by the state moratorium sttit ,r,a to establish a capacity shortage , a moratorium on building par•-ii t °' can be enacted in sufficient tine to minimize the inf. lo�, )f .'e °'� students t ) t; e district . " . • 3 . Impact Management General Policy V. 4, The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate • public services and facilities . 0 - . :-.. . .., 0 _• C Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 5 Specific Policy 3: • Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of public services except in instances where "m the developer pays all costs of providing additional required capacity, subject to City Council approval. " The general policy requires the City to plan and program for the +F' provision of adequate facilities . The City cannot plan or a program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the City to plan facilities for the school. Through the enactment of the • moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis due to a lack of school capacity . The moratorium statute is available to temporarily prohibit, on a system wide basis , land " 'i A . uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools . 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III • The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Services Boundary, with a logic services: logical planned extension of basic M , A• . �. To establish priorities for the phased extension of services , • the City will identify areas within the Urban Services , I Boundary as follows: 91 ♦ , (1 ) Lands suitable for near future development ( IMMEDIATE GROWTH) (2) Lands in longrange g growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. • •' ~ : � •. Specific Policy 4 : New development shall be served by an urban level of the following: of services a. Water • b. Sanitary sewer c. Adequate streets , including collectors �' • : d. Transportation facilitiese. Open space and trails , as per Open Space Element f . City policy protection g. City fire protection h. Parks and recreation facilities as0. "•" Recreation Elemetlt per Parks and .. ,' a , • • Attachment No, 3 0September 18, 1990 ;I Page 6 i. Adequate drainage r j . S%",i10ol Services shall be available or committed prior development. Such facilities or services may beo approval of concurrently with the land development for which provided necessar y if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of approval of the development, or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as •performance bonds. " The Urban Services Boundary Policies 'direct that the City def in Y the future growth area for which it intends to be the major e ; i provider of public services . Within the ultimate growth area , General Policy TII directs that basic services willbe r extended and that the phasing of service extensions he Ei(rst„t�f immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizanle r ; areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan . Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of the general policy. The specific logically policy almost seems misplaced,and would be more 10 g I placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Manacement General Policy III, discussed above , P , which addresses the impacts of development on services . It i notable that the specific policies for that genera:, policy ,lo h.), ' require the type of precise Eit in timing between Jt velopm,en." approvals and the provision of services that is contained? in Specific Policy 4 . • • • The most relevant language of this general policy to the Lsil hand is that the City will "manage and phase" �'"logical planned" extension P growth with a °�. ', tt, nsinn of "heal:;" services . The S,, ,,,� District is logically planning � � �� demands generated by The district, provide new facilities t . sere,growth . The district in eneral, provides facilities in res lire school ,� i;. r. .y; ponse to 9emanc-gin :; i .; anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department , f • a-•1 Conservation and Development urges recognition t �" identifies schools , with 3nitire se .his , �r 7' "responsive" along police and fire services , �s . responsive facilities . The Direct )r draws a .�i7rin7r �,,n, a. ,_. planning purposes , between tnese responsive f transportation, water, sewage d�v . litir9y n r 'ter words " and drainage Eacilitirrs vi� i - 7 ^rust at nd, steer than - c:construction . " allow or resi��yn,; ; �, ID Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 • Page 7 Specific Policy 4, on the other hand, directs that schools be • available or committed "prior to approval" of development. if that has not occurred, the specific p policy states that schools may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development. " The specific policy contradicts the language of its general ' policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of , the language of this specific policy . A defacto moratorium resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this general policy. 3:n summary, the three general policies listed above , which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of specific development application, when read together, require .�.� City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth , the .. coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and - evaluate applications and determine impacts . School capacity is F' . • " ' a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will imp.ac.t a the school syste,7 is not precise . A quasi-judicial he.ar, ing )n i single land use application is not the a which to make determinations concerning systemiwide ate fschoolorum2 'nin capacity . There is not reliable data concerning future impact-1 " y that will result from a single application or the timing of those ;'. impacts . The current level of coordination and planning, with continual monitoring of actual school ponula.ian Ifit is determined �han �e5 f. these policies , school l exceeded, withcertainty, gnat ac ��a �a�� +. `.,/ .r�� ! .�., the City Council may employ tie a" 3:e ��.• mor.atorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school .`. a .ili : ie w 4. '.' dh le the district implements programs to correct the prao:.am , • ,. At`Y IC.�rrespond_ ! • • - e .Irk • r M r• r 2 r • • r • j• • • r. 1 .•,r I , • • r• • i A�, : - - 1. r• .. , 1 ,„ A 1 1 •: • "" r' h 1; LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent ' l j SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation ` One of the primary ry goals of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative a approach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, an approach which has guided our efforts to cope with the problems created by burgeoning elementary enrollment. With every elementary school in the district having now been affected by the growth in Lake Oswego, all the communities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which weM11 have defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego, District Standards b. Equal opportunity—The district has a responsibility (Board Policy 6110) to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children of the district." Student-teacher ratio--The district believes that smaller classes facilitate increased teacher- studcr,c interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, allow for m thorouch student diagnosis and evaluation, and provide the potential for greater flexibilu', inc teaching strategies, including more individualized i.istruction to address individual diffcrc in students. nc es • ' Elementary school size--The district has established a range of approximately 350.500 student~ • as the ideal size of an elementary school. The district believes than an elementary school ' should be a stable, secure environment within which each child can develop and he recoaniied A ,•• as a unique individual, As the school " • additional strains are placed on students,population teachers, and parents as they attempt sto communicate N and to wore. closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment. rt`tudents, s Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong commitment to muintarnine neighborhood schools, knowing that preserving a sense of identity and identification with a • particular school is a strong community value, However, when the neighborhood school concept conflicts with the concept of equal educational opportunity, the district ultimately must give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program. . .for all children of wt comparable grade levels," :'ile Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the commu cikrmpleted its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long-term approaches todray• h is ine the dramaticmcre„ses , elementary enrollment. Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, the • � iool district has developed participatory decision-making staff meetings and conducting community and staff curve ,pro`csse.s, such as holding both .crmmunit� ,irt1 ,` snipe solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, to gather information and Opinions and to l;l,��� cci munity opened their homes fdr a senes of five coffees this by district radministrators,s or tne ,rc, l Nn ,u: `:t,:r gibers, and parents to provide an additional Forum for discussion of the enrollment options .tiem �l n•gii , N n bu the district. P _ �i�nvir.r ,t The' cuhninatron of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Study C cora,rdtrable o Committee, inelucl�tte •, ,��, opportunities for participation by the community and by staff, is represented by the ndi%[dual rectirnmendations of the members of the enrollmendatturt hs ent committee and by the t'ollowine recomm .i.. sUpenntendcnt, • l the 4 ' �.p. .. ...•�t ...'i!. ... fir. .. , ',' rd S/„ 1 F SUPERIENDENT'S RrCOMMENDATION FOR LAIC:,, GROVE ELEMIEN'TAR'�' SCHOOL N"T 4 INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS : ''ire school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as being approximately 500 students. ''' a Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, which, as you know, has been ' L- r:'tocated at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students, .gain excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits. housing under construction. the r�. i tuber of elementary students per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market. re rs my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove' School • ;emulation within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-9 t school '.ear. The following reference points are relevant to my recommendation: 1, Lake Grove School has had to shoulder the burden of coping with the impact of significant growth in enrollment for a longer time than has any other elementary school in the district; 2. Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase in enrollment of arty elementary school in the district; 3, • Lake Grove School still has the potential for enormous growth within its attendance boundaries: 4. Lake Grove School will begin renovation and remodeling this summer with the removal of asbestos ; , " 'i., and the construction of a covered play area. Y,.. CONCLUSIONS ze zonditions affecting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require the school disc let to tam: strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake Grove School :::: 'aghout the 1990-91 school year 1. by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove student population to • the optimal size of an elementary school as defined by district standards for the Start of the 199ti-,)I school year; • • Y '~' 2. by designing an enrollment strategy to assure that Lake Grove School will not reach a student population that jeopardizes the district's responsibility to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children in the district." LANE GROVE RECOMMENDATION Ci,v a the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additional e..:as ooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for Laic Grog.: Y ' ' 5.:.l'x�i to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions. I therefore recommend to the Board of 2.. eziors the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year: 1, Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant Elementart, School i'or :he ; ' 1990-91 school year. This option alone provides for a projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School. • 2. Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant Elementary School for the l990-91 school .e.ir. T hi, opuon will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove School toy approximately 500 students. 3. Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance area to attend r River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied. I am recommending an area `aiter;,li'. referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated ry y.ri Board of D'r._,.:o'rs to attend the new school in 1991.92. This option will allow us to utilize existing p is„r,tont spa,,.. •t within the district as well as help to pre...tint Lake Grove from significantly ax,:a.;utttg the .�c!ini,;i -it,: { for distract elementary Schools, f; a. Designate other neighborhoods %here lane-Beale development is wheduled to cake r i.a.,. ;,'r .;i,;r,,.. wide elementary school attendance until the new elementari school boundaries are a•tahiisiieJ I,'r me 1991-92 school year, This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom spat..; tciihin he disiriLt as well as to help prevent Lake Grove from a�ccecding the optimal size for district elementary ••,.hoot' "' T`::s ' commendation will continue to require that the district provide adequate support 'crs ices to Lake Gro e E:e^-.i..:.tary School, including administrative assistance. li , , Y` SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS } 1 Uplands Elementary School currentlyhas a ' ' �. population of 559 students and is proj+acted for 595 students Or , -` October 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeling ,' 't plus the continued use of portable classrooms, Uplands Elementary School should have the classroom spade to , r " accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year without significantly compromising t 1 district standards. • CONCLUSIONS The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance .} ^.•\• �» y boundaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal ' �, educational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and ` ,,,. , , +1 the resources to allow uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the .. , 7. district's other elementary schools, i RECOMMENDATION I recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within. y i the .. current Uplands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. This . • ', option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, including admini� r' ' ',assistance. t au tc w ' h • ;'e SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELE11ENT,.1RY SCHOOL I\FORNIATION AND ASSUMPTIONS , Forest Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on ' " October 1, 1990, With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through `,.- —,...modeling, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to accommodate the erowth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year. CONCLUSIONS y`ae district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance ccundarics until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district a + equal ::. :.ucational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom sp,wc and -ae resources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program '...parable to that of the district's other elementary schools, RECOMMENDATION b -ticomrtend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within .he .:.^ant Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990.91 school ,e,tr, V , s option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. ti;, .. , e 4 -• J '1 `. y J'• „r M .` +. i ., k ,n a ,. . .• . •• • ,• '•' • , • ' • .t.n ••;. • • '• . . • •• '"4) •. ;?' ..• . . • ' . • •,• ••• • 0 4. •• . • ' • , . • ..,•, , • * •A' ' • . , •:. • , °-1•A •* '• " ••• i•• ' A . . .' „ ••• • , ..• • • ° • # jy • .... •. ,. . .. :-.. . . . ... „ / . . . ......._ p) 9/4/90VI I� ' e i 9/4/90 1 Asultu ri. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY r�1,�NAGEa'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager SUBJECT: Follow-Up on Residential Lot Calculation DATE: August 28, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a clues Lion came up regarding how the vacant single-family zoned lots were calculated. Sandra Korbelik, Senor Planner, has advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by number of subdivisions and minor partition lots v counting he addin• the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tota last offex stiiscal ng l is end 90), 198: '9, and then subtracting single-family building permits approved last fiscal y The calculation of 857 vacant lots included both large tracts of vacant land P and year. ;.. scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established nei hbor of the 857 are found in scatted in lots g hac�ds, The bulk • There was also a request to determine the geographic areas of the City are located. This would require considerable manual work on thepart where these lotsn staff to accumulate. of the Planning It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other the update of the moratorium report, material for inclusion in Respectfully submitted, A (.....".-7.„..e— ter C. Harvey City Manager ,, , 40 J .. . . . ► 380 a A‘E'°i_E POST OPP' BO\ 164 LAKEOSA%E�:.O OREG;Oti11"034 a1)• . Y 4 z1 c.' ri. •LM ;r, J ♦ , I e . ,. .t J go p °g: Lake Oswe Elementary Enrollment 7�'ir � August 211, 1990 V 4 Adjusted I Projection Forecast Capacity Enrollment #♦of • Portabics Bryant 513* 529 502 %,I„, aorest Hills ')' , 403 403 391 370 rpa Hallinan 330 330 437 • { Lake Grove 600 500 5 ""�`',`- 453 �::. L . 4 • 1 II Palisades I I 344 328 River Grove 4., ,; 299 299 1 • • •• 305 2 • , fI al,' ah/ Uplands 595 595 I 6l 574 ,, • Y7 I Westridae 409 i '.•`' `o , 9 `�0 460 393 , TOTAL 3.393 93 , z 3.241 10 , . k• �,f / r 1, y ,4 a' , • • . p♦. '`� 4 , � Y is * r r� �+•• _ I' .{.. - _ : N � U rMZ� Y ri , YA h . 0 . , .. x ' e t,. • r r, . I ♦. L. iM. l ti 0 ; .... ', r7 .:: t • 4. •``� M9. .,e - , Y, • y 41 Ix. •►A o •,', ', ?: ..: . (.:, 777 MEMORANDUM UM l• � TO: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior PlannCr� I lea•A•heeosws i �e Outs o SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School o+�aan 9�o9 Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity P+anninq sas•s�s•azsa ATE• Attancr t p 14.4.Q__ enoinoonno s00•e35•0270 City wCouncil has requested a periodic briefingregarding a�,.air9 •�)���+�go School District element g g the status of the Lake =oo•aos•0090elementary school capacity. As you know, the City has r established a regular system of communicating residential development activity to de F"x the school district to assist in forecasting classroom LAtheW soa•e,s•OZ69demand. This report contains school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementa ry school year and a .r' summary of residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/1990. 1. School District Forecasts ' • ' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR Capacity for ; h�l 1990/1 91� Adjusted F_�recast 0 Bryant 1990/1�91 Forest Hills S29 513 391 .403 Hallhian 437 Lake Grove ^ Palisades Rivergrove 345 5003 l 414 3444 99 w Uplands 644 599 • r Westridge S9� .. Total Students 3,772 • 3,393' T q C ..� 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments roction of new rlother ' f .L agencies or district wide programs, i _;,,+ The adjusted forecast total and the enrollmentprojection 1989 are the Same. The adjusted forecast, howsatoedta�rbuOctober, 1, individual school figures due to subsequent element decisions. of enrollment �,ec;sions. �. 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conse range up to a to of 600 students, rvative, and may • --) a The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove a .• M � o e is conservative. Student • demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek • ` subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the Rivergrove School. The size of that demand is difficult �1 ficult to forecast, J' i i • 1 1s0 ::: ...,...:,:: : The school district has created the flexibility to accommodate an additional 379 students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Starting with the '„ subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new elementary school will provide for an increased district capacity of 500 students. 2. Residential Development Activity The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this ' last fiscal year. These figures gores supplement the information distributed to City Council August 1989, which had stopped at June 30, 1989, A. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED v' 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR ,. Single Family 400 Houses u Multi Family 39 Units Total 439 Dwellings B. SIN1'GLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED •, " I989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Zone ' Lumber of otc R-15 63 R-10 • 117 `' R-7r5 31 R-5 al. Total Lots Approved 37.2 The City continues to experience an active development market, bdth through the subdivision of land and issuance of building permits. There were 682 new ` dwelling units in 1988/1989, the preceding fiscal year. When compared to the 1989/1990 figure, it is evident that the single family market continues to be • strong. The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline in available multifamily land. • 3. Conclusions { ,. Information presented to Council in August, o 1,89 during the builcang morarcriu m deliberations indicated there were a total of 885 vacant single family zoneu lots within the city limits, A veny gross update of this vacant lot figur with the last :; fiscal years development activity indicates there are roughly 35; vacant lots as ':f ti • :Lily 1, 1990, This new vacant lot figure was ac nieved by adding 385 (existing vacant lots) to 372 recently approved lots) and subtracting 400 'single fami:'r building. pe—ts). ., • I . 1 I • r • • ,}..• • .,•" t �• • F 1 ° There are several variables which are not taken into consideration through ` ough this 1. Recently approved,Iots are subdivisions of previously counted existin lots. Therefore, the parent lot(s) should be subtracted from the total t recently approved lots. Otherwise, these parent lots are double counted. �� 2. Some vacant lots can not be built upon since theyare space, or are part of a double lot ownership with anexisti asideuse open ,•, straddling both lots. • • • L1 •r . I. • •• , ; `, ly • r1 • • • • • i• k • ix , { - M LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT ' Office of Supenntendent • eitit:CX,LNIENT REPORT Date 6190 ELEMENTARY K 1 2 3 1 5 6 Spec Total Oct w• .r Sollool Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec I Pup I -or ^vcrsr S •T•ztetc*fills 2.0 52 3.0 75 2.0 43 2 0 51 2,0 40 2,5 56 2 0 47 1 0 10 16 51 3741 :i1aye 00 0 50 114- 4.0 95 40 96 3.5 82 35 85 40 86 0 0' 01 24 01 5581 „ .a 3.0 63; 4 0 87 3.0 66 3.0 69 4.0 92 4 0 83 4 4 921 1 0 101 26 01 5621 Total 5.0 115 12.0 276. 9.0 204 9.0 216 9.5 214 10.0 224 10 0 2251 2 01 201 66 51 1 4941 Soars"Zoe 8rrac1: 6.0 122 2,0 43 2.0 48 2.0 49 2.5 56 2.0 35 2 0 39 0 0 0 18 5 3921 -atlfran 2.0 39 2.0 40 2.0 40 2.0 46 2.5 58 2.0 41 3 0 71 0 0 01 15 51 3351 ` tsxres 2.0 37 2.0 49 2.0 43 2.0 42 2.0 53 3.0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 01 287 ' , A,. =ww$rove 2.0 43 2.0 38 2.0 43 2.0 47 1.5 42 1 5 34 1 0 25 0 0 0 12 01 2-21 o- nab 2.0 52 3 0 65 2.0 51 2.5 58 2.5 61 3 0 64 3 0 85 0 0 0 18 01 4361 Total 14 01 293 11.0 2351 10.0 225 10.5 242 11 0 270 11 5 237 9 0 2201 0 01 I 01 ' "221 i',E. ?v'uTAL 1 19 01 4081 23 01 5 t 11 19.0( 429 19 5 458 20 5 4841 21 5 461 19 0 4451 2 31 20 143 5. 3 2161 SECONDARY Junior High High School %,..i 7 8 Total Oct.1 9 10I1 :1 12 Total I2611 2::71 498-or•4 I.NHS 259 2501. 2301 2041 9431 ' 2501 2511 501 d o 9 25 c^ j..akendoe 230 ,.181 22.1 ,.50I - 'etal I 5111 4881 9241 8 Total I 4891 4681 4531 4541 ' -N. Growth Analysts October 196 October 1968 to t989 ' rumen: NOc oer r• �1. '�-�" 1 6 N S N • i-- S � V • S t =�" = I ' 3081 1 4611 1 473 1 494 + 467 + 5cC 0 4941 - ' 4041 4251 I 4401 4721 494 4,5-1 C.5 Ei -• - C061 05' I ?5-1 9921 ;491 33! I t _-ALS i 5 66'1 i 5 5291 1 3 Y y J .1 • ... 9 �k• ••1- 1 ; w ' • y‘---"'"----.-.. r...",- _., I , C-''I / grigl.i..t... 1\T ..i-'.,.. r -I0--1,--c-).—.T,- "- I.' / ` [ ,. �'� 1 1 • / F+��1C ..';:,.:,'.'.,,'....•r...,,4„.;,i..,.'-:.,, J Ikr.N 9 , , 1r ,w. ir u . ,.... . N �� - . • •- .$1,....cp . .;t, 1\ .0. i .. ,. �.. _ , O.oT 1 rr ..---. (;:;)--------..„ / i sS� •ram.. ., • To rAv► ,6so 4q,r•r 1. s R 1 GH'1.or W,4,kr 11 ,• , CLENMORRI� PARK p.r, ` ,• A . , MAJOR PARTITION) crr } + NoKllt 1"+•r,7t b/l I r ' Otak . 4 EXHIBIT EX-`—HIgIT C . . ..7.......,.....,..- . 1.1a w,...1.,1 U,11.MM1b11gN1� •- ,,,., /�� Ij C J am . • .. , eli . . . , , .. 1 . , . .. ,4 r. ,-... ' - • • ) ♦ _A . ' f + - ' Y r ' ;fir.. i a w d . , 0 el r.. ...._____J, ...• • . .. . ... . • . ‘) --I-F. ' •. r.. . . • / ,,,,,,,, r) ( hr°I 6 .., ' w \................••••—•........ ..ft• I1 Vr/ • \ J r- v Ii C I ...\ d . . . . .. i). ram t i 7r_ �_ iA . ... rti 111.x.\i ( ''h.•. •• t ,• O. Ito , (-•• •\,...___________,,,)\ • • • alAu� , •o � �' 1 li ! LiiiLi C;1:22) ,. ,../".".."9 / �` Agar , /0.. Ii ToYA� . ` 4.1;*0 Sq PI'M'. 7 la EXHIBIT KIGHror WAY__lI,Goo tig.t-r, o in elPA4P •__.. G40° tiq, VT. GLENMORRIE PARK , MAJOR PARTITION % Now ►"=4d_d' . , ()talc . . 'wn r.••r.M W M1 " • OW Ins.4.#461 i • •1 . . , `+ • II ... -jam • • + 1.1• • �, GROSS PROJECT AREA (INC, 982 SF, 86.24'51' E PROPOSED PARTITION CPENESPACE TALS) 11,TO619 SF S.F.21%N 6,79 (U) I FOR DICK WATERMAN 4/8/93 - C�'zI 81309r • 7�Q„ 2gA,B9 (M1 I' ° �'�}fj IAsH r • :::" •ill�10 •uy�I TRACT 3 __---� N \ •` APR 91993 \ t; As } _ _ : c '' '' awlrl II •4 9�/It ,l, y'.�., • \ \\ A t%‘e. \ lb Firi.,,' N.'. Vt7 888.4stF ItiIi . ts, i \ 15 • TAX LOT 6800 t \ sal �\:Sr ��4,��. A�+H"" ••. u n' (''.)hmL ;Ropos: �\ \ .\ �U�R gLDp Lldl `°P 414 IbftEpsoN SPACE `� • T R ACT \ _Q_, 11 0 0., f`�� •.41,--,-d . 4� ,s \ p (4 die /4;000*-I , ' As 1 tiul r • C� 44? 1 5,322 SF / 3 10 Is i EA 15 7137 SF 11 J 'Q IA / /511`� \ I U', �\1, \ / r r•Q IV 14' • , / 6 rmron rr•• ASN i' 1 '� �� \., TAX LOT 6900 \ o I,6�Q .•P , e7oq-.y' c411111%;SF • rn4\7 Co `~—SWEAR BOG I a 1.7J�• ot�10'05 w 1AI:eo BO 01 iii, Arii, TO BE EXCHANGED n ; .` \, VIA PENDING PROPERTY LINE , �� ADJUSTMENT PROCESS ' TRACT 28 \ TRACT 29A t; I I.4 a. 0 \ it r....1 dlsr HOUSE TRACT 29 • 0 �30 1 \ '�/111111, n 23ao • a 1 = 30 rit0157111111 • / EXHIBITo sulrv>ron 1 G!19ERi5bN Dr,4. .r.•.+ f���'lif _ IDi26 WILENit10E AVE. uxE asweco, en ,u,4" �""•as % 02.F86.IC0 4-cll) iYa31 aaro ±cCssoN �� i , (503) e30-7590 Grim • t2/JI/es ✓ ENGINEERING Joe fit-3, i� .. •.---_ �" GLEFIMORRIEI EXI5t 6�WA1ER ,. ,. „ ;, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . °, t. ;'! .CUL'TURA.L RESOURCES INVENTORY ° ' ' FIELD FORD 1988-1989 };.' { I°(IST. NAME: Shepard, H. L. , House STYLE: Arts and IJATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1918 COMMON NAME. Crafts OR IGINAL USE: Residence RESOURCE TYPE: ADDRESS: 1515 Cherry Lane Bui1.d. ng OWNER: Busher, Tyr: Architecture PRESENTResidence C. ADDITION: Glenmorrie USE; Residence ARCH. BLDR. : Unknown Park , T R S: 2S lE 14BB BLOCK,: N/A TAX LOT: 2300 LOT �c� ` p: Lake Oswego A .. LOT 17I;ZE: 1.5 acre ZONE; [215 PLAN TYPE SHAPE: Asymmetrical NO. OF STORIES: 2 1/2 FOUNDATION MATERIAL: Concrete BASEMENT: Yes `' EXHIBIT ROOF FORM ORM & MATERIALS: Multi-gable; red tile C�6��� _. Y WALL CONSTRUCTION: Wood p .8g�„ao, , STRUCTURAL FRAME: Stud PRIMARY WINDOW TYPE: Double-hung sash ' .. .,,4, : 0 EX TERIOR SURFACING MATERT.A DECORATIVE FEATURES: Cli ed � Stucco opening in buttressed entrance wrarte fixae ' round headed , OTHER: Recessed, Full-width porch su orted by re columns; shed wall dormers; rectangular bargesimple square P elevation a CONDITION: Good and deck on w. 4 ' EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS ADDITIONS: Windows altered, brackets removed, (n.d. ) ; deck addition (n ' d` ) � porch • � lr. NOTEWORTHY LANDSCAPE FEATURES: Massive addition, ''��;'� ' front yard; stream crosses property oaks in " ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES: Two-car clipped, gable roof+ garage has stucco siding; red Mile, garage doors replaced, (n . d , ) 1 SETTING:_� Located on west side of Highway slopes uphill from right-of-way; :� on 1 a r � II Y% area comprised of postWorldi�War residences NOTES: RECORDCR(S) :` Koler orrson Mi SHPO # : 3g3� DATE: January 1989 _ FIELD , ,, 0 •• v 1 ' h • • ./ • / .:-.. .. • •'• "... ..• .:., '•-•.:...... .'', .:_. '; ' • . ' - ....;' 'A., 'A '••• . ' ' .' .......''' z:••'.. • •,. : .....:‘,: ,...,:., •." .•'. . ,.•,;.•', •..::: ..4......*.,:'.... 2; •••..,:, '.I :,::• ,...-.• , . , .. . . .., .. . . • 4tt . ,.. ,... CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO .., :... ..;..- CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY . •-'-'.:•1,•,0 '•• . / • , '., .,,..-..,...,,...,...,•,,,,., ADDRESS_ 15_15 CHERRY LANE TAX MAP/LOT 25 1E 141313/2300 SHPO# ROLL/FRAN fE# ___ •'• `,..".'..-.',.4: ,.. • ..... . • •* *'' . ....." -4': a v.. ..4"N,`i't. . •' . ,• . . .., •1 '7 . • ' .,:'.....44.t:V.i'.11.44".... , ... 4 • 4, ' '• ., ,...L.ANTI . .. . . ..- ','.:.,:-.,1,`,,,,," k".- . ., .• . • ',I, '.,''.l'k •.0' 3 , ''*Wilt .•'...11,4,' ''1 ' ,!,Ji rp\,"i•i r. ... . ',.•:. : .i., , .14,dr„,10;-,,' .::.,,p.,;+1 ,•!.,/,,JA,..- '•••••,',:c 'L if; . .- . . •:, • ';''..;- :.' ..N.Z:tio '17. f., . ',..,•E!.-.1 ....i.,:,,..•*•••••...•;,,,. :lt,t.,ztt`14;.c', *".fg'Ii-,'',ct4N ./ii ,• ; ";;:,11irlit,,,r,„.,_ ,fil.,_44 , is• 110,1,,,,i,;:•, q' l'.'',1'..'t.• .Y, .%if le''''f;4,.1'.Pie' 4*',//i'j',11 ,`i'; ''y . ., ' :,• ; ...N`d3";..1 r.at 0.t"., '1.•4444.4/,''7"-il.,'",'...,.A:t.e......^ ef"^f.it'Ast...0.44114,;41''' ;!lrffs;‘, ,. ,,..•li,,!,`,:',..:-',,•'''',:".t,..:,.-,',1,,l,r‘11:,,:s.:•::,'"1,."..e .: .,. -•,,,..•.,,,, ::•',- i'i'.f?;,,,i..11,;: ,jiic li.,N, .,. . , A .- • .. - •.'..: . .„..„. .,--;, f_.•.,• . ...y,„;.., . :,...3,,'•^'A.' ;':':i.,:',;-3.'. ,•,,....11,s'f',,,A.4"".-"k.r.' .0. "..'1,:^0 4 ,. 1,0, .,..',, tl. . '• • ••• • '•4'4•t . •'''''. ••'' '''r -• •:' '''c •, • ,' ''' -,, • -.;',A)-; '•• ',..qt,- ',; . :/P . .. .,. .7 .. ' . 't...'•... ' • •',s•'. ' ' ', " .' i. • ' *,ta..77,:t`7•4'.410.1..1) l..'" ...:• 4'c' ''' x ' ' '•'• ' ',A' . . . . . '' ' :: ..' 4'*' . ....'..3. • ' •.• ;. .4., •,,'?.., -.7.. A?-• ' 4 1 ., : ,^;4•;•••44.0%.,.1",42,44:4^k^0.;r'''.. "..-71...r.',..".. • "'. -,,,e-.. • • . ' • • . . . .. i •.. ' ,,, : , ..4. • .. ... '''' .'.'". ..'''..--•• .'4, ''.6k'r.. 'ti. •'. 1'4.f•.''T."•.' • ...' ''':•;.'..b.^A''''. •.:; •: ' • •'• '.''• • •,' ,•:, ,f'„,...,__,. •• . . , .. ,. ... '. . . 0 0 ., 4 .,.; •,.:';i ' '. ,i,.,A , '', • , ., ,..^".- ...„. j.: ,:-. .. ' '' ' '*,#•'""'''A''1,'. 4. ,. . . . .;'0,.*.. •:',;,,f^.. '. • • '. .. ,••••, •'- ' ' ''". •••t •*'• '''..'''''."'' .'''* •' ''.. • '— ' .''• 1 . . • ..' ..• , '• ' ,:. "i..•,',:.^..;:.. '. ::',,•1•,...'•. .,•:.''' , •• ' ."',' .','...,.'•' „.;''. ' • :, ‘' .•';, , '4: '• ''' . . . , • .,, ...''! •'.• . . •• ., • •. 000 , 3. • ' . _ .. . . . "• ' .. . . . .. At •,. ' ( .• ) . , . ; •...;, 1 . • ..- •. ..,, ., • . . At . lir . . \ . , . . .t . . • •7' .. , ' 1 I =7 77--`''-'.",••• __,.. , " ' • ' . t. 4 i \"•: ./#1 \ \ • . ., •‘ .• 71. ';:::...i.'t"''''' Z . • • , •` • .0\ -7•1\7-'....— -.--"H- '' ...., ,...., < • 4 ••. ' "'""••44...—.. 7-'71 ..,..__.7:1-1, -,4-''' ........ I''''''' ..i • . . • I t . . . . . . . . • . II t - ,j_ / .„,,,- . , • .. . , ltl•,' '`,.• tf .... 1.1 . ,.,. . . 4 ' , a ' • 4. , t..., ... ,......4, ' ''Ll • ) , a . . ' . .• , t ,/ i • • • +., , , • ,, •,. . , • .g- 0 i ...-• .. ., .:, _..... ., ••,Av/ • • . . . • i. „ , ,,',,,• i .,4 k . ,) .., •, . .,. , ....',.• • . . I .• v • . , • . , ..r . . III 1 . • • , • A h .. • I, (DATE: 'MU:- 1(-1,4• ...• .. . • 0., . .,: .. -,.., • • • • 0o . . . • . . ,.,. . ,\ . k • ' • • • a C .ki •, ,, . ,. i 0 . • . . • . • .. • • 0 , 0 0 . . • . , _ • ,' v .. w ,,.. 1J'. c, tt. ,. ,;,y STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Address : 1515 Cherry Lane Historic Name: Shepard, Henry, House This .Arts and Crafts style home was built in 1917 by Henry L. and Clara Shepard. The Shepards were the fourth family to settle in the Glenmorrie area, after the Moreys, the Owens, and the Twinings . According to Herbert E. Yates, a lifetime residen the neighborhood, Shepard refused to buy fire insurance, t a ( ,' relying on a sturdy concrete and tile house built with little wood for his insurance y. "So exacting was he in the matter �� folic of bricks for his fireplace that he rejected the first lot which now form the fireplace at the Trueblood home [16540 Pacific . ". Highway] , " commented Mr. Yates , An old concrete reservoir, which P . F. Morey--the original , ° developer of the area--used for drinking water, functions i basement for the Shepard house. The P . F. Morey estate,�screatell a 4 ' from bits of land which Morey purchased over time, was platted and offered as real estate by Morey' s oldest son Fred after his father' s death. The elder Morey spared no resources in creatin the finest farm, resplendent with orchards, wells, roads, exotic plantings and outbuildings . The availability of such resources made it easier for The Glenmorrie Company, Fred Morey' s real estate holding investment firm, to sell off lots . The company also provided a Glenmorrie bus for a period • , . transport to whichprovided •�prospective buyers and later on, area residents . The Shepard house is a very good example of an American architectural type derived from European vernacular traditions . ' • Asymmetrical form and massing, stucco siding material, multilight windows and timber detailing are characteristic of the type . g t 'k red tile roof is usually associated with Mediterranean The antecedents . It is not known if the exterior walls are solid concrete; if so, this house would an early example of the use of concrete construction. The detached �` vocabulary of the main buildin garage repeats the design the house contribute to the historicecharacter mature rofsthe e�pr surround The house is significant as a fine example of the Arts pand eCrafts style. Bibliography: Clackamas County Cultural Resource Inventor ty^ r : Department of Transportation and Development, 1984 , Ticor Title Company, Oregon City, OR. 4 Yates, Herbert E, , Recorded Interview for in ' ' . . 10Their Own Words, " oral history project for Lake Oswego Library, 1974 . (r�rl r ,... .«.\tJV l.�n i..- a ° I d Aaiuq Ilr 411.:. ,•1 F �_ • \Al l.nY' R �r 1 _, oamcco ,..«+" .. 1.1�.. 1 r 1 1 7n41h^•nlr • t \, -, tf,+.- ~tE G:- � �1 t. Ill71m .xbt .1 /\\� I Iln rb ,:pill �V� 1,( �`v.� I _It I ^a' J 71 o.,n..r. jj . nnnhl n,1 r'. . • IJi ■ ,�"p \!_l .�.... Inti;" r' 1. ar 1, ,. / , J.. _'_�1 •'�\\\ "'T�r@�1IIIt� t , M�- i 1_.._..y ,\\:.'I`^41,.,-Au I /\�..�'�\ \t \1+,--'jp` . 11 AYrrl.e re - . •1 ..,... ��.�. ��F 11.... ....�.i�l��l� ,� I �_..._.«..?" �1CC "u,�.w.. 17 [errnlle �� 1.1e if .we� � '�{��L, "'R` �C 1 + �`•`t:",7yC+7MSu-''t.• l..l,>'�. ,{•.i�/. t Ill Inert j . _ • AF�s 1E \.w I �•"Y �;'17;r . .a,.. +..1—I� �._�-.fw""•;,�.+11+. 7 ., _'I'�.^!/ �� It Mdr..t ndl.l ! tQ r_�y 1- V.rIHn{lr..l ilill ' - rtia fir T//���1, r - ,,,�) - l. , -., ,. Pl.Illr.l 11 I / 1 11.44100.Mint �' At, 11,�•,.g `l �/ I -..�i1` \.` y,'7'R^ �. 111-• 4�//•//r/ It. Nnlrano lr .lil� lrrvi �At e 'l..-.. 1 \ �1 / / 11. re.b. pr.., � m.•++ r 11 t ; e 1' /! !�i• , .,. e'' / It, I,pp.r Dr i�edu • 7'�e,`C:I al' . • F� �wr l0, l ID '''i►/'� t. :-1//�� i 70. [err nx.dl Ynlilill' w 7 -t �J�• '`" ��/, i,�`, /- ` •' ae� I ,r l \O� '_' ", u,� U r,,�r 71. nbtucelu P. -sst". '"1O el`I ,�� 7 r 77• Newt eb.dlunl l b `\'E ® 10 :� l �, �� rr 1�1� / u. J..n nxtdlunll 71 • ``tip--7� ` � v� +prs rr Ij� ; 'ul ,i t ''''� l •:'' if: a„tYle.nx.Jlxnit 7 l �tK S"w) 4 +ry ' 1 /�---+ 't' 1 1[. OrC/IbOI of lvd1 I�� O J[R/ IG �''» .•.I •-7' fj 1,� rr/ tly , ,• ./ 77. DidOrc nlr.e nb/d '^ 3: L 1 lM '' F��..ra t �.• JI� ^ `ti: „ ' 1 ..-. -;Ks1� , Ir, �`M,.�\(�1.. 7R. 0113100ton 0044 9Vt��f� uric �.9.'. ? ,r ( fTF uorl r (.y,' If. Child.nmd 11 • �� 6 , I t"' r' !' i ;. Itl. t,d e.. I I x .j f ,.. ` C7 :.,) ..., II ' ILJ ; ch.ry`Ri!':.tt,-, �t ..44 IIda 1, r'd. ��' �", f.,, .,• r_.. s. .01 la' if' , ,1 . -\ '1(r jilt• /' I 11.4 Circle �1 I' /i'•t ' i fexl.lde frl.l hnnt if .ten .1, r)Lltt ('•11.y �/�y/C [�i i_.� \\!��j(/ ,a'.' L„/ _1.„..y5^� 1..._ ..A.,1"� ��,!I:II,' I1aigl.dMeLdlr. .. 1 f .n, %,'et) . `.4 v ,-�11� r, E^'W�' .Ms.r `H� "�� T, li ' r y . nnu n.Un• "-r n:. Jfi '' • ' ,y'`�I2, I.; e40 e..11n0-..1.ral .1-_/c1. d r"' lyI 1• .n.Y.rxbtJ''''"+ .r ...�._ ..• L •r . r, �>',q,� {f � JJJJ"''/�Tii.l � I i r... tlemu'I na.11 �.,, f. \/If - _�r 41 AI`w1� 1..� f ROT //� >T~'�^ea.�I' li, rT'� ~ 11 I'IfbHap.1 efM IIneJ • I __ ®' . "^,�ur t�,�.,• `:i,� w �I'��� r••.i .,\ ���, I9. Node. a.ld�d '. ' sf.r 'r. y/ h C, .,•^i'1 ,l�„- {tl ClN11M11 hr 111 rvl• - I ` I I 1 I. n ram ad - `— - •+• _ e,/: ti 01. I'4lc ,Ile.., �_ f7 t ... r ( Il,ll i n nr:roo ue 1^I l� 1• ,,d0.- F tll/ .l. Iw`• (( -h lel:11 Iln.. 7 �, t -, •' r' - 05400 ,� 1. h III 9 1 �l r�' �'h? .I - �'`. �.� I .,�� R•�F IS�r'¶, 'S'.I,n.'. I;{;. 6 ,'�, f Rt1 i`"� I 1Ira! l �` `rue^ • / �iva�re i -,.L -•w -1 �s .` `h �y x • o, •r`" - .. ..• . • " .M I I �( �/ - . nf1I'���1 tli /�, ak:,.�� nuMo ,♦ .. .. . . 1 lip r�- y' `/ + 1 1....d 1M� G a c,[j',I r(J..+��\� ^� n I Y1. II / kr\ n i T y .er 1>I •i'r 1 ., . - • y`J /e 1 j1 c q ,n. . :1 ml N 2 G �`, \ +t l '1 • 7JV(t',rr.., , . '•' Il//7 y.- 11 m D). 4 %4 0 � `1"a�lt-r- - mammon E.X I$fi N 6 r'�+ G G I,,st'�y:1,,. r_� 1« ?.r , )44 r �� to r#' i ""if - 51:1- imv..4 p (1 ''l�,a tNm. -.r..! f '.ter . [,/ti )4�4.• � �lT;\� C •J'1 "-'N d `, ./„, �^.1 17`, r r 'yy (�c �. tl.: (l rr,. ( fla1.IM l 11 .., . . • ',t'y I �q 1 `�.r` �.9' ltw���p-r'1 •• ! ', r J �1l?'N �i_ fj `� �,,��1\�ry•" r(+ 8 1 ft ♦t1 { l k rr�� ,li Il, * t. ,.. r s.� t \'�- ,�� it,i,;I: °i..0-/[xl n-�,�„�r r., au ✓ - '•�,-'t�1,1H� .� �.`� !I R , P WAYS; _�\AS.Ti Ek P•LAN L'e '• ,� 'y �. ., t� ti C�y�7 MAP ,_„ .v^ c .Ir/r``.P 4., s 6� lie\���Q � Ml1I" 1I I I I. jy �� ru11Rtoi n YEA - �/i-�4. it r..Ilnl `1 �' '•L /\ cl -> /71��J :. I �•, ,�� N � .�. EXHIBIT .+ram •-;,� Nl�t {I� �] II / Q V S YYeGo ,1N,r�t 45 . %.-,Iyi (Jt .� n=?' -�.I l .N_lwz IIJ 1 f ��/ AND VICINITY ( 0 ( 114v�,��it U 'I f,I:4.,�/rl,��� ;.. 1I lfll • - II 11' ' .+. '- t t t 1 ++ .... l7N,b , .K -1 / .,..1 t� ,. Y',: 1 4,tyt,4 fl u�.._ li t j. f!cd�iA l `�. . ' 4. r. • .: • • EXHIBIT vV� : . ''.. ,.. -: 0 ORDINANCE NO. 1981 h, • 11,-e3�ft) •^ ' r. A GENERAL ORDINANCE OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO MENDING LOC CHAPTERS 42 AND 44 TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR PATHWAY ROUTE DECISION MAKING The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: • Section 1 . LOC Chapter 42 is amended by the addition of r 9 following sections: the "42 . 900 Purpose . It is the purpose of LOC 42.9U5-42. 920 to ,} process that will provide an opportunity tablish a ` r� input into the decision making y for early and meaningful process concerning the route and design of City pathways identified on the Pathway Corridor Map . 42. 905 Definitions. 1 for the purpose of LOC 42. 900 to 42.920, the following terms shall mean: 1 . Corridor map - The city-widea ' .:;• the Pathway. Master Plan , that depictsallpcorriidorsopted awithins, a rt the of City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors, . potential corridors and those corridors designated for use as i part of the regional pathway system. 2. Hearing body - the three person group ap Mayor, with the consent of the Council, to act asthe tto�c ,c;isiond be maker in the process established by LOC 42.900 to 42 .920. The group shall be composed of one member each from the P Commission, Development Review Board and Parks, Recreationlanning Open Space Committee. 3 . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee The ad hoc committee, appointed by the City Council, to oversee activities and facility development • of ,parks, recreation and open space facilities . 4 . Pathway - ,A public improvement to be located within a corridor identified. on„the corridor map and designed for the purpose of providing bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian access and use. A pathway may be designed for a single or a combination of uses. 5. Pathway Master Plan - A document that 1 definition of terms, - policies, guidelines, athwayvs for • ; corridor list and map, g `p Y types , fa public review and plan administration. 6. Pathway route - The actual location of a pathway within a corridor. n Ordinance No. 1981 Page 1 t • • t .♦.. n .I ' j 7 . Preliminary engineering - The study of the design , "' .►. • , .. . .,.. location and cost estimate of a pathway within a corrr. route 0 , i : ` 42. 910 First Informational Public Meeting. . w 6 1 r , ; 1 . When it has beenc proposed by City Council or the city staff that a pathway or pathways should be constructed within thct City an informational public meeting shall be held. The meeting shall be held prior to the preliminary engineering of a specific _ , pathway route. The meeting shall be conducted by City staff .,,q, The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public of the intention of the City to designate a pathway rout...e or routes and to design and construct a pathway . At the informational meeting a concepts for pathway route and design shall be presented staff and an opportunity presented for discussionofthe by City ' and presentation of recommendation by the public. More than one proposed pathway' can be described during any meeting. 2. Notice of the informational meeting shall be posted in three places along the proposed pathway corridor as shown on the corridor map, mailed to the affected neighborhood association and mailed to the owners and residents of property bordering the pathway corridor or corridors. The notices shall be mailed and posted at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. -.,, :. . 42.915 Second i.,, ormational Public Meeting. Upon completion of Preliminary design of a pathwayor engineering of the route and pathways, a second informational public r.' meeting shall be held. The notice for the meeting shall be the same as that provided for by LOC 42 .910 ( 2 ) . The meeting shall be " conducted by City staff. The purpose present for public informatic�nt of the meeting is to proposed pathway route or routes and design and to provide the public an opportunity questions concerningthe nad to ask proposed route and design and to offer alternative routes and designs for City staff consideration. If public recommendations or suggestions were made at the first f'• informational meeting and were not incorporated into the proposed route, and design the staff shall explain the reasons ror not incorporating the recommendations or: suggestions . More than one . pathway' can be discussed during any meeting. • 42.920 _ Public Hearing, Review, Appeal..: 1. No sooner. than 14 days after the meeting held pursuant to LOC 42. 915, the hearing body shall conduct a public hearing concerning the proposedpathwayv ' p route and design. The hearing body may adopt rules to govern the hearing one pathway can be considered _ durin a process. More than notice for the hearing shall be thegsameuaslthatc aprov The provided for by . LOC 42 ,910 ( 2 ) . The purpose of the hearing is to allow for public . • - comment on the issue of whether the propo. ed pathway route and b a. Ordinance No. 1981 Page 2 f N i• design is in substantial compliance with the guidelines established in eIV of the Pathway Master Plan and City Standards ,• �, Plans and Specifications . The hearing body decision shall be the plans for the approved route and design. The date of the decision is the date the chair of the hearing body certifies the sr • accuracy of the documents comprising the decision . 4 . A person who participated in the hearing before the hearing body and who is dissatisfied by the decision may appeal that decision to the City Council by filing a nol° .ice of their'. appeal with the City Recorder within 10 days of the date of the decision. The City Council shall give notice and conduct its hearing in the same manner as that set forth in ;subsection 1 of this section. The City Council may affirm, revise , modify, reject or remand the decision of the hearing body . The decision of the City Council is final. A person dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may challenge that decision only by Writ of Review , pursuant to ORS Ch . 34 . " Section 2. LOC Chapter 44 .374 is amended to read it follows : "44.374 Application. All street improvements within the ` of Lake Oswego shall begoverned b jurisdiction of the City Y the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of Chapter 49. Decisions concerning the route and design of • pathways identified Master Plan Corridor Mapshallbemade pursuantt to City Pathway 42 .920 and are not subject to the to LOC 42.900 provisions of this chapter. The City Engineer shall recommend to the City Council, Planning Commission or Development Review Board, as the case may be , ' r _, design and construction standards for any street construction or ' reconstruction. The City Council, Planning Commission, and . Development Review Board may condition ,' . approval of any development activity upon the dedication and improvement of any street or highway in accordance with provisions of this Code. " Read for the first time by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 17th day of January , 1989 . . AYES: CHURCHILL, HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHAM, FAWCETT, HOLSTEIN, ANDERSON NOES : NONE ABSTAIN: NONE i. EXCUSED: NONE Read for the second time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 7th day of February i 1989. .tii , Ordinance No. 1981 Page 3 . ti .w r • • i,. AYES : HOLMAN, MAYOR SCHLENKER, DURHAM, FAWCETT, HOLSTEIN, ANDERSON, CHURCHILL ' NOES : NONE • ABSTAIN : NONE EXCUSED: NONE r. 7 �!4 / :" ),:...i.. Zed .. .1.- (' Z., ok..JY:4 , -./7 4r ...---- , ,---,.Alice L. Schlenker, t1ayor ATTEST : 4., 4• `V, ,' S Kr i Hitchcock , Ci ty Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM : r., . , ,-- c- /fdi7e.,.../...--___-• • . . . 47 s M. Coleman y Attorney , • V #yi Y • I 40 .• . Ordinance No. 1981 Page 9 • �. w Adc d by City Council IDecemt," 20 , 1988 ' J . LAN .� 11. 1 N/A1 V� • CITY OFPATH LAKE OSWEGO,WAYS MASTERp OREGbN , ' INTRODUCTION •y The Pathways Master Plan is a synthesis of research, testimony and analysis contributed by the Pathways Advisory Subcommittee , Parks and Recreation Commission, Conservancy Commission, Planning Commission, individual citizens, neighborhood associations , School District and City staff. It represents hundreds of hours • of community involvement. This Plan is intended to establish a flexible framework within which this community can develop 'a / • functional, safe and cost effective pathway system to meet community needs. The adoption of this document by the City Council fulfills the requirement for a Pathways Master Plan found in the Comprehensive Plan. It establishes guidelines for locating pathways , guidelines for their development, funding sources, and public ,., hearing process to insure continuing community involvement and a process for revision and updating the Plan and map. The Master Plan also contains a corridor location map based on existing community need. • Pathways located on arterial or collector rights-of-way and/or with a high rate of usage are considered to be major pathways . '. Minor pathways' serve to enhance neighborhood circulation and/or provide a linkage with publicly owned lands or facilities . - V I. PLAN OBJECTIVES t• 0 OBJECTIVE 1 - The principal objective of the Pathways Master Plan is to direct development of a pleasant and safe pathway system for the enjoyment of Lake Oswego citizens and pathway users . OBJECTIVE 2 - A second objective of the Plan is the encouragement of continued citizen participation in the development of specific pathway routes and pathways. The key to this continued involvement of the public is the public review process specified in the Plan as it may take many years to accomplish during which time the participants may change. OBJECTIVE 3 - The third objective of the Plan is to preserve ' s the character and integrity of the neighborhoods through which the pathway passes by ensuring that the design, location, width and type of material used in the ' construction of each pathway is (consistent with public safety) in keeping with the existing neighborhood• environment and character. ` r EXHIBIT I U4;1Qab� • l2 Nto 4-92 • • Substantial effort will be made during the planning and construction process to keep any adverse environmental impact regarding trees , landscaping and other amenities to an absolute minimum. OBJECTIVE 4 - The final objective of the Plan is the • provision of a plan document that can be published for wide distribution to citizens , special interest and service groups, neighborhood associY.'- ions, development industry , • City staff , and City officia ' . "I II. DEFINITIONS {aj ` For the purpose of this Pathways Master Plan, the following definitions shall apply: ; City - The City of Lake Oswego. In reference to rights-of- way. City includes all rights-of-way within the City ' s jurisdictional boundaries , including those that are not the responsibility of the City. ( Interstates, State Highways , and County Roads/Bridges) . Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lake Oswego. • Corridor -. An existing or potential public right-of-way or 410 . easement that is designated for pathway use. A corridor includes the entire width of the right-of-way or easement and indicates a general alignment linking activity centers . Corridor Map - The city-wide map that depicts all corridors within the City designated for pathways. The map shows existing corridors , potential corridors , and those corridors ' - designated for use aspart of the re •g regional pathway system. 1 e Final Engineering - The final pathway route locations , design, and cost estimate cf a pathway as approved by the public review body. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee - The ad hoc committee, appointed by City Council to oversee activities and facility development for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Open Space . • Pathways Advisory Committee - The subcommittee of the Parks , Recreation and Open Space Committee established to develop and oversee the city-wide Pathways Master Plan. • Pathway - A public improvement to be located within a corridor identified on the corridor map and designed for the purpose of providing bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian dl access and use. A pathway may be designed for a single or a • combination of uses . • Pathways Master Plan • Page 2 ' • •o-. 'r t • M� . w .. • • l4 • Pathways Master Plan - A document that provides for definition of terms, policies, guidelines, pathway types , corridor list and map, public review , and plan d administration. Pathway Route - The actual location of a pathway within a corridor. Preliminary Engineering - The study of the design, route .v location, and cost estimate of a pathway within a corridor. Y. III. MASTER PLAN POLICIES 1 . The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee, in concert with the Pathways Advisory Committee and City staff , shall seledt pathway types for given pathway routes to meet community needs at reasonable public expense . 2. Pathway route planning shall be required for new private developments at the preliminary design stage in accordance with the corridors, policies, pathway guidelines , and types contained in the Pathways Master Plan. 3 . The developer of a new development located along a corridor and/or route shall be required to provide sufficient right-of-way or easement for the pathway adjacent to the new development. The developer may deposit funds, sufficient to cover pathway development costs as determined by City staff , into a City pathway fund or construct the A pathway. pathway to be constructed in concert with a new development shall be in accordance with Sections IV of the Pathways Master Plan and be reviewed and approved under the procedures specified for Minor and Major Developments in the Development Code . • 4 . The City will use a variety of funding measures and sources, involving both the private and public sectors , to implement the Pathways Master Plan. 3. On-street parking shall be required to be removed , • ' restricted and/or prohibited, where necessary , along pathway routes to reduce conflicts between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes and to provide adequate safety to pathway users by Traffic Control Board action. The prohibition or removal of on-street parking shall be a consideration of the preliminary engineering study of a pathway route . , 6 . Street trees and/or landscaping that occurs in and adjacent to pathway routes shall be either removed or modified toprovide adequate width for pathways and the safety of pathway "1 users. The removal and/or modification of street trees or u. J 4Ik _• landscaping shall be a consideration of the preliminary • engineering study of a pathway route . r, •, • Pathways Master Plan Page 3 oj: i ` to w' "b ° ` • • t4 v .. ^GO.. - .. . 1, 7• Provide for separate bicycle and a ' wherever feasible. Pedestrian pathways 8 . Assist interested residents to maintain equestrian easements and pathways, develop suitable new equestrian pat compatible with neighborhoods and residential areas , and develop an equestrian pathway connecting facilities likepathways , with existing equestrian the Hunt Club pathways (i .e . Tryon State Park ) . 9. Encourage expansion of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian safety , recreation and education children, teenagers, and adults . Programs for • 10. Direct the Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Police Departments to work with the School District to zce pedestrian/bicycle safetydevelop events programs , and pathway promotional including bicycle and running events, field trips tours pathway improvement projects and safety classes. 11. The Metropolitan Service District Regional Bic • policies shall be considered in anymencycle Plan implementation actions of the PathwayspMasterment Plan , any a • All routes shown on the regional network shall identified in the master plan map. be b. ORS 366. 514 requires local f` establish footpaths and bicycleftrails, with to . .,; exceptions , wherever a street is being constructedcertain reconstructed or relocated using State Highway Fundrevenues. Footpaths and bicycle trails are not required to be established under this law: q fired ( 1 ) "where the establishment of such paths and trails would be contrary �. . to public safety: " (2) "if the cost of establishing such paths - trails would be excessively disproportiod onate t the need or probable use: " or ° ( 3) "where sparsity of available ways or other indicatefactors�on cother +� ., absence of any need for such an Paths and trails . " . 1. absence 1 <►„ d Encourage participation by citizens , neighborhood associations, school organizations in oups, service clubs, and military . • pathway projects for • the purpose of reducing •costs and fostering community fellowship and pride , 13. Hold public hearings on p preliminary engineering studies athway of routes . q. � ' Pathways Master Plan • ri . Page 4 fy y s:, p • a , jj 14. Utilize as necessary an ad hoc citizens ' Pathway Advisory Committee to assist City staff (Public Works, Planning , Parks and Recreation) at all levels including planning, grant application, education programs, volunteer activities, and annual evaluation of pathway implementation and prioritization. 1 IV. PATHWAY DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES The following guidelines are factors to be considered by + t ,.? those involved in the selection of pathway corridors and routes . The list is not exclusive and other relevant factors may be ' '• ; . considered as necessary. Corridor and routing decisions should be in substantial compliance with these guidelines. Pathway Corridors • ;s , 1. Safety - Will the corridor provide a pathway route that • is physically safe for cyclists, pedestrians, and/or equestrians regarding personal security and conflicts with motorized vehicles . 2 . Feasibility - Is the corridor feasible for pathway • ti •` construction, and is it a cost effective way in making pathway , connections. 3 . Connectivity - Does the corridor provide optimal ' rr ,., connection of neighborhoods, schools, parks, open space, public facilities , and/or commercial areas. •4. Pleasant - wherever possible, have landscaping scenic . corridors and viewpoints included. V. Pathway Routes 1 . As conditions allow , pedestrian pathways may be separate from streets, utilizing: :: ;` a . alleys ° • •. b. -side/back lot lines c . dedicated but not constructed street rights-of-ways d. overpasses and protected crosswalks e . pathway easements f. public utility easements g . railroad rights-of-way h. sidewalks located in street rights-of-way i . areas adjacent to stream corridors • :;' "� j . Willamette Greenway q 2 . Where pathways are in street rights-of-way , provide for pedestrian pathways separate from bicycle pathways when possible , Combined bicycle and pedestrian pathways only when physical ' ,. ., „ • . . Pathways Master Plan Page 5 4 • , , G ... ` . ' r % l U' • • separation of cyclists and pedestrians along street right-of-way ;gym: has been determined by a preliminary engineering study to be impractical. . 3 . Provide signs to establish safe right-cif-way along routes where bicycle and pedestrian pathways must share the roadside. 4 . Where equestrian pathways are donstructed on steep and/or poorly drained areas, the pathway should be designed to assure the safety of horse and rider and minimal impact on the surrounding environment. S . Where located in street rights-of-way , equestrian pathways should have adequate signs . 6 . Where equestrian and pedestrian pathway use is combined , • the pathway shall have adequate width to assure the safety of both horseback rider and pedestrian. The design should provide for the preservation of the pedestrian portion of the pathway from damage due to horses. 7 . 1 %e location of a pathway route in a corridor will be determined by an analysis of the following and other relevant • factors: .+.: a . right-of-way width b. general topography and terrain limitations c. major barriers - lake , canal, railroad tracks , arterial streets, etc. d . location of existing pathways e. land development projects along the route f . land ownership g. vertical and horizontal street , alignment conditions h. parking and landscape elements i . cost effectiveness j. safety k . neighborhood environment and character Pathway Types The following pathway types apply to the design and • construction of pathways until appropriate standards are adopted and included in the City' s Standards , Plans and Specifications . The standards have been endorsed by the City 's Engineering department , incorporate minimum standards for the safety of the `~ users, and are based on the Guide for Development of New Bicycle • Facilities , 1981 published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . • .• . • Pathways Master Plan Pace 6 • s .. 0. I i• , • A athwa type for a given P Y YP pathway route will be selected on an analysis of: ,. a . projected users : cyclists , walkers , runners , horseback riders and/or combinations thereof . b. general topography and terrain limitations • c.. citizen desires d. funding Typical Pathway Types: • A . Arterial Street - four to five lanes B. Collector or Arterial - paths off roadway C . Collector or Neighborhood Street - with 50 feet r.o.w. ` D. Improvised Pathway Atypical Pathway Types: E . Arterial or Collector Street - one-way bike pathway adjacent to parking lane F . Off-Street Equestrian (secondarily pedestrian) G. Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian V. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS A., F "1 The Pathways Master Plan corridor map shows the general alignment for existing g and potential corridors for pathway routes . ' that link activity centers such as schools , residential areas, ''• public facilities, parks and open space, view corridors and commercial areas. The depicted corridors are the result of extensive participation with the Pathways Committee, Parks and �� . • Recreation Committee and the Planning Commission. Participants have been individual citizens, neighborhood associations , special interest groups , City staff and City officials . To assure continued citizen involvement in the development of pathways within the City , a public review process with the `'` ` • • following characteristics should be adopted as a P part of the City Code and followed in making a routing decision. Prior to preliminary engineering an informational public - • meeting is held during which the proposed routing and type is . • • discussed and public concerns aired. A preliminary engineering design is then prepared and discussed with the public at a second informational public meeting. A proposed design is then the subject of a public hearing. The hearing will be conducted by a --: . .- 3 member group consisting of one member each from the Planning Commission, Development Review Board, and the Parks , Recreation and Open Space Committee to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the Council + The hearing body after considering public input will then approve, modify or reject the proposed ' route and design. A g person who does not like the decision may .. appeal the decision to the City Council , Pathways Master Plan Page 7 , 4. d .. , . , * + /' • .. .. ` 41140. VI. ADMINISTRATION , '..''. The administration of the Pathways Master Plan will be the responsibility of the City staff . Staff will provide ongoing assistance and information regarding the Plan to interested citizens, neighborhood groups , • r '. school organizations and servicef t briefings to other City employees, appointed eCity sta£bodies will provide elected officials to further understanding of the Plan. In carrying out this responsibility staff should: 1 . Provide staff support to the Pathway Advisory Committee/parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee . w; tYf 2. Be responsible for holdinginformal , reo;ardin pu�_ lic meetings g preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes in accordance with City Code. 3 . Provide an annual review and report on pathway route construction and improvement priorities to the Pathway Advisory n '' Committee, Parks Recreation and Open Space Committee , Planning Commission, and City Council. The report will be made avai lable to the public. { .4 . Assure that pathway routes are included in the design of 0 —.. ' streets, subdivisions, and site planning of lot developments located in or adjacent to pathway corridors shown on the Pathway Corridor Map contained in the Plan. 5. Initiate and carry out preliminary engineering studies 6 . Be responsible for assuring that pathway route priorities are coordinated with capital improvement projects, and where feasible, pathway routes are integrated in capital improvement projects. 7 . Develop and maintain a current inventory of existin bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian pathways and all rights-9f- way and easements created or designated as pathway corridors. 8. Provide ongoing maintenance of existing and future • pathway routes. • VII . FUNDING MEASURES AND SOURCES The implementation of the Pathways Master Plan will geneunds a continuous need for funding until the Plan is completed. Funds will be needed to • nderteke publish the Plan, provide staff support , preliminary engineering studies of pathway routes, constLuction► provide for ongoing maintenance, and produce related publications and carry out related programs . • Pathways Master Plan Page 8 v te. ,of i • :,. £ . y Y The City will need to use a variety of funding measures and • •i sources, that involve' both the public and private sectors, which will include but may not be limited to the following: 1. The use of at least 1% of State Highway Fund monies, as required by state statute. 2. City Fund monies to provide staff support : 3 . Establishment of a Capital Improvement Program, based on an annually evaluated pathway route construction priority list . 4 . Construction of pathways in conjunction with other public facility construction projects, i . e. streets, sewer, water or stormwater lines. • 5. Use existing City Fund accounts and financial practices to allow deposition of funds , sufficient to cover proportionate , , : pathway development cost, by developers of projects located ri adjacent to pathway routes in lieu of constructing an isolated �+ ..'.y pathway segment. • •,.• p 6 . Establishment of Local Improvement Districts. 7. Bond measures ,N 8 . In-kind contributions by interested citizens performing ''•' �, volunteer maintenance and related programs . .: 9 . Grants. VIII . PRIORITIES 4. As a part of the development of this plan the Committee, ' •- • after extensive public participation, has identified the following corridors as those which are currently of the greatest public need: • 1 . Upper Drive 2. Quarry Road 3 . Iron Mt . Blvd. 4. Kerr Road 5 . Sundeleaf Drive 6. Stafford Road 7 . South Shore 8. Bryant Road 9 . Royce Way "I ln. Riverfront Path 11 . Jean Road i 12. Reese Road • ` Pathways Master Plan ` Page 9 + . • i a.. The City Council is urged to consider this listing during its budgetary decision making process. The omission of a corridor from this list is not intended to preclude the City from taking advantage of an opportunity to develop a pathway in conjunction with another public improvement project or a new development. This listing will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to refle' t the best judgment of the committee as to current public need. IX. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT • The Parks , Recreation and Open Space Committee will at least annually hold a public hearing on this master plan. The purpose is to receive public input on suggested changes and improvements to the plan, to discuss the priorities listed in $'VIII of this plan, and to consider requests for addition of new corridors . After a public hearing is held on any proposed amendments the Committee, by motion, may amend this plan. Any person dissatisfied with such a decision may appeal that decision to the City Council or the Council may review a decision on its own motion. • { (masterplan•)rm • • :R. .. 1 • t. • Pathways Master Plan Page 10 i, t!' okjKE � -N, , ..' 1.1.,4.45. ,... (4 .,,..:,,' ).f, . ...,.. . .: . ,. .... 4 .. OREGO,4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1993 611Pliotion Due Daly Meeting Dates A.•y (Fridays, typically) Pltui..& Zone Amendment Other Applications Second &Fourth Mondays • • (Typically) ;4., November 13, 1992, . . November 25, 1992 (Wednesday) January 11 .. : , . 0 November 25, 1992 (Wednesday) December 11, 1992 January 25 December 11, 1992 . December 24, 1992 . ,February 8 December 24, 1992 (Thursday) . .January 8 February 22 . „; January 8 January 22 March 8 January22 February 5 March 22 • . February 12 February 26 April 12 February 26 March 12 , , April 26 . March 12 • March 26 May 1 U • March 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ♦ . . . . . .April 9 May 24 ' ' April 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .April 30 . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . .. . . ,June 14 `,W May 7 May 14 .Tune 28 b ty .• II SEE OTHER SIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SCHEDULE 'S, ' a ,; 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635.0290• Building Division:(503)635-0390 • PAX(503)635.0269 ` :lt. " • • Illikk � r , '1 " y• 1 1' \id � ,. ♦ - + " f e . Q • REGON • - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1993 Application Due Dolga Meeting Dates (Fridays, typically) First and Thlrri MnnAayc i ;^ (typically) , • November 20, 1992 January 4 December 4, 1992 January 20 (Wednesday) December 18, 1992 . . . . February 1 • December 30, 1992 (Thursday) February 17 (Wednesday) January 15 • March 1 January 29 March 15 February-26 .1.9 April 5 March 5 April 19 • March„lel t Maya April May 17 • April 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .June 7 _ ' •. May 7 • June 21 SEE OTHER SIDE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE , h • inRn92.11«led;de.>1992.1 ; • • - 4# ; a . .• • .4 ` 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635.0290• Building Division:(503)635.0390 • PAX(503)635.0269 1 (\ s ., is r ~ AGENDA (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAR 1N ' ,,9 1 I� �. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE + A Monday,April 19, 1993 L . . . . 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER :: Agenda Boole " . II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '' IV• PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING SD 19—y2�-1 ,a request by OTAK, Inc. Y j involving a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 37: Douglas—fir Grove SE of Hallinanr of a major partition to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot panel. The parcels are both proposed to be 21 256s) square feet in area. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Cass I variance to the , Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage, but will take access from Wells Street, et, '.r which is a private street. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44.390 which limits a cui de—sac or dead end street to no more than 1,000 feet in len ` modified Future Streets Pia., as recommended is proposed to be up to 1,800 feetnnth• • ength in o ;rder terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future. The applicant's proposal includes ta • Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required byLOC 49.1 r applicant has upgraded this application from minor to major partition becuse it involves the creation�e of a street through widening of an existing public easement. , and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 (Tax Lot 1 ra a.Tax Ivlalo2 lE 1.Dween Gans Road coordinator is Michael lt. y'hgeler,Aso „patp pia e P 0 D), Staff S�elik�eration. �'� �n inued fr�m A nr:� a �n� c -,tyA l- , a request by Kruse WayPlaza single family residential planned developmen , a Class tI evariance to er Edwards) ds) for approval of a 16 to allow cc from a private street for Lots 10-12, and a future street plan to serve propertiesOlocated north of thess subject site. The site is located east of Pifcington Road n the north and south sides of Rosewood �' Street(Tax Lots 3300& 3400 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AB and Tax Lot l00 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AC), Staff coordinator is ) 1993, .l� wa bs.yelonment R y ny Pia r� Continue 1 rrom Aprals i i ' >� $IMod 4— 2 r The applicant is requesting extension on theapproval of NR ' a request by Richard P. Waterman and planned development. A variance to the ark and Open Spat Standardpartition, lot line adjustment approval includes a future streets plan. Also the applicant is requesting approval of the followis denied ng T>'_4 r modifications to the prior approval: ng I. +i do . a. 4'• 4. L •♦ •� N� Y.S• f ' 1• I . r 4. Y • '_ b h` ' 4 ' ', . �„ ' a• A new, additional lot lime adjustment of approximately 1,065 square feet between the two existing parcels,resulting in a reduction of the overall size of the major partition/planned • . ` development and an enlargement of a landmark site. k ` greater than 15 000sq. ft. �,•,1 • b. A revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels each. c. A revision to the area proposed for open space,increasing it from 11.6% (as originally considered) to the minimum 20%requited. d. A revision to the approved right-of-way dedication from 40 ft, to 26 ft. ` ' `' `' i e. A revision to the required right-of-way dedication through creation of a private tract reserved for public access or reservation of a private one-foot strip at the north property line. f. An alternative provi'lion of public water service to the site from the City of Lake Oswego instead 4 of the Glenmorrie•Water Cooperrtive. g. Employment of the protected Solar Building Lint:Option [LOC 57,020(2)] to enable compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance. The site is located at 1515 S. Cherry Lane &vacant site,otherwise described as being west of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD and Tax Lot `• 2300 of Tax Map 2 1E 14BB). Staff coordinator is Michael R.Wheelers Associate Planner. F f A VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII% OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order DR 15-89(Mod. 7-92)-FWL Architects ' SD 56-89(Mod.7-92)/AP 93-01-Thomas H. Nelson V III. ADJOURNMENT • The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to • come and go as you please. l Ra Members: ;off: Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vico-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner William F.Horning Ron Bunch,Senior Planner Lawrence M.Magura Hamid Pishvaie,Dcv.Review Planner Julie Morales Catherine Clark,Associate Planner • -, • Charles Oldham Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Martha F,Stiven Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary ,y Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary • 1 CE • OF ‘Al , QPi '� a' ` yy. ' ' 0 t 1. aC * / � i� r°t EGO \ i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMr3NT 1, Staff Report Addendum • ' ,. \ y9 TO: Development Review Board FROM: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 (Rosewood Planned Development) DATE: April 9, 1993 n.— # The ro osal had originally P Pbeen scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on April 5, 1993. Due to a large number of applications on the agenda, the public hearing was continued to April 19, 1993. This delay provided an opportunity for the applicant to meet with staff in order to address the specific issues, including open space anti setbacks, which were identified in the March 26, 1993 staff report. The applicant has submitted the following exhibits for the Board's review: 4 .'. Exhibit 21 Applicant's Supplemental Narrative, dated April 8, 1993 Exhibit 22 Revised Site Plan for the South Side of Rosewoods Street Based on an analysis of the information above, staff makes the following findings: " Setbacks and O a tare: • 4Staff had originally found that the proposed modifications to the required setbacks could not be supported due to a failure to comply with the requirements of LOC 48.476(2)(a) and (b), [March 26 , 1993 staff report, pages 5 and 6]. As Exhibits 11 and 22 illustrate, the open space area has ,, ---A •w been increased from 25,003 square feet to 27,253 square feet.qIn addition, the proposed 10' ) V., frontage on Rosewood Street will provide an adequate pedestrian access to open space Tract "C" . from within the project, Exhibit 22. • Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets the planned development overlay district „ requirements, as follows: • ' • — The revised site plan provides more open space land than the minimum amount required by • the park and Open Space Standard, Exhibit 22 illustrates an increase in open space land from 20% to 22%, .4 4, 'e 4 180"A" Avenue • I'u.t()flied Box 3(i) • Lik& Oswego,Oregon 9703,1 p Planning Division:(503)635 0290• Building Division:(503)635.0390 • FAX Min)r,15.02 ) 4 . . a1 A. P ,� 1 .d 1 tY �•. I� r 4 ,, + I i. .. I' r " .`'"l;, 1 j V' _ C v . .;\ - The applicant ras provided an adequate access to open space Tract"C" for the future residents in t,4 development. `" Therefore, staff supports the proposed modifications to the side yard setbacks as illustrated on Exhibits 11 and 22. .... �'w CONCLUSION i • Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and staff findings presented in this report .. and the March 26, 1993 staff report, staff concludes that PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application o€certain conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of PD 1-93/VAR 2-93, subject to the following conditions: a A. Prior to Approval of the Final Plat,the Applicant Shall: 1. Submit a final plat which clearly depicts the following information: • a) utility easements; and, b) setbacks as follows: front yard: 20' (25' for garages on Lots 13-15) rear yard: 20' ,'y I side yard: 10' (varied setbacks for Lots 1 7,9, 10, 13 and 14, as illustrated on Exhibits 11 and 22) : 10, _ street side yard: +. 2. Submit a revised site plan illustrating adequate vision clearance areas on Lots 4 and 15 at the intersection of Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. , • 3. Dedicate the proposed 25' x 34' public easement area(Exhibit 4) to the City as public ' J right-of-way.• 4. Label open space Tract "C" as "Private Open Space Tract"C" on the final plat. The following note shall be provided on the plat, as well: :,', "Private open space Tract"C" shall remain in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance,protecting natural processes, providing passive recreational uses, and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed • only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a professional • arborist, and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in this area including landscaping, which are in keeping with the above '.1' d• purpose,must be approved by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings, except play structures or other similar landscape features, shall be allowed in this area." 5. Submit bylaws and yes,covenants and restrictions of the Rosewood Homeowners Association for revi",.,,and approval of the City Attorney to insure the continuing Pb—i'LMTTAIU-93 (Addendum) Page 2 of 4 Y r 1 1 _F' f {' ♦ 1 • • ' •tl 1 r preservation and maintenance of Tract "C". These documents shall address ownership, use, maintenance and liability concerns, and they shall provide the enfon;ement authority to assure reasonable maintenance of this tract at the owners expense. 6. Dedicate 10' of additional right—of—way along the north and south sides of Rosewood j Street. �` 7. Identify all solar lots on the final plat. Show the Protected Solar Building wilding Line for ' Lots 4, 11, 12 and 15 on the plat or on a legal document to be recorded with the plat. • • ° n $. Provide a plat restriction, or other appropriate legal instrument to be recorded at the ' County Recorder's Office, subjecting those lots that abut solar lots to the requirements of LOC 57.035 (protection from future shade). • �; 9. Provide plat and deed restrictions against removal of street trees (if am f they outside the public right—of—way). planted 10. Show utility easements on the final plat for those lots where public and/or private utilities are to be installed. Where utilities or landscaping will be constructed on side or rear lot lines, provide a note to future property owners that removal and/or replacement of fences for public access to utilities shall be at the homeowners expense. 11. Show a 1' reserve strip at the northerly end of Rebecca Lane to be conveyed to the City on the final plat. B. Prior to Approval of hp Ei^si Constniglion pla nsaheARR'Icant_Shall: • • 1. Submit a final landscape plan showing a minimum of one additional street 4 and 15. tree for Lots 2. Submit a final grading plan for review and approval of City Engineer. 3. Submit a final drainage plan, including,design calculations and configuration of the r storm water quality facilities, to the satisfaction of City Engineer, • u 4. Submit a final street lighting plan (for;Rosewood Street and Rebecca Lane)and . a accompanying photometric data, for review and approval of City Engineer. . 5. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook", for review and approval of City Engineer, 6. All streets shall be designed for a 20 year life based on CBR soil values, J '7. All public utilities shall be sized to the City Engineer's satisfaction and extended to the project boundary to the north. 8. Obtain an erosion control NPDES ( ) permit per DEQ requirements. 9, Final construction plans shall show the following information: — Undergrounding of all overl2'ad lines on Rosewood Street (along with new stree t construction) An 8" water line in Rebecca Lane — ( en um) Page 3 of 4 F \ i ,F .�, ' �G I) t • �'f9 M`•X - - A fire hydrant near the rivate proposed G, s,,Beet(Tract "B") 0 : ,. . .:. : ,5 - A 6' good neighbor fence along the west propertyr ;' along with project improvements line which is to be constructed - A barricade at the terminus of Rebecca Lane - A concrete strip as a boundary delineation between the public street(Rebecca , and private street(Tract"B") Lame . - The west end of the private street(25' x 34' public easement area) to be constructed to public street standards within a public right-of-way - The proposed sidewalks on Rosewood Street to be relocated to the north side of the right-of-way and be constructed within the dedicated ririht-of wa r- The vision clearance areas to be measured from future edge of pavement on Rosewood Street(28' wide pavement) C. Duriz orate t(�nn of t_hg Project tke Apn < lll: >.' 1. Adhere to the erosion control guidelines in the Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, as approved by condition B,5. • Lance of nnv B pjldjng P•sjs; 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, accepted and as-builts submitted the City. ��� 7- to 2. Install a 6' good neighbor fence along the westproperty line. ,. E. i42Ct4Recena final B 'ildin �n�..4`t„„ n., • 1. The ro P perry owner shall complete installation of street trees as required by Exhibit t 2 and Condition B.1, above. bi m r [hunid 92,41<rapons>PD 1-93/VAR 2-93/Addendum .�w • , a_ ' 40. ., ..• - 1 h°,, 1- AR - (A en urn)Page4of4 • { r ,; '`'' y 0 } `a #.. 4' I' 'i 7 0 , '..., ' .. .Ar -i r d off. yy d_ i W' 4 ( U M°r tt. 1 \ \ .a A +. ‘„ 5,MP�1 Sr \ \.,..0 ��' REVISIONS TO LOTS 1, 2, . co :i ,• t5 ter. -kr- gQ,.,a v-, o \ \� ,Y\ a , \O ' AND COMMON OPEN SPAS �s W" , \ iy - ,, Y.s. - - - It./..-- 'e .,, ...40 4 • • 3. 4,eo1 NSF ' a ,,. _ . T N'►�.A.�avru >i 1 \ e\� � � \`rxh - J SCALE; 1" •- 30' s )(' ."-S\ ,..., , ,, . ..: ,,,, 6. v f 1 1� i' s n n �- 9 ifi 0I. . 1.d ti k. k' Cct, .. 4 50 Id ' °A 1 tTl 'J \t..t1'° ccl '51-r-, -\ LP 'l� \ 0 0; at 1 b `r3 \ �'\ 1� lU; G'1 O, i ' al �G rl ry n 1.O° 7O -A f•- ��\\ii,i 1\ 1 \ r 1 aim o , 1 T Ln. 01 t mC1 '5� \ tJ u 1 \ ,1�\ e n, \4,050:`5F� 1, ho �, cP u.\ \ OWNER {, : 9 1 \ u_ \o.�tc�. 1 \ r.a \-.0 01 400E SWMORTON DONNE NIIPHIIf.Y PARK CREST, ��+ n '^ , �' \ 1 1 f, `/ AS,r" PORTLAND, OP 0122E 1 t d ' 'v .y APPLICANT / DEVELOPER �5' "� A• 1 ROGER EOWAl10G .> 1 1 �'� ,�140' , , \ 1J \ )(RUSE WAY PLAZA OUt, NIOG "� o ram" TRACT C \ 4500 s.W Krwst WAY, 5 �, LAKE OS EGO, qR orDAS p �� ., r OPEN SPACE 1 (503)035.200D LA 4 7,253 SF F, ( % CIF SITS) 0 1 ENGINEER / SURVEYOR / �• =1 ,* '''' - - ALPHA ENCINCEI1INq INC, • 1 1R r` ( * Ii, 0800 5.W. OAK, /230 — t • ;y� Ali) (5 3)52-000JO/x21 \ �!F 4 PROJECT UANACEII RANbY CIAat10 ' � PROJECT ENCI11rr11` JtRRY PALMER \ ! 411( ill\ y UTILITIES / SERVICES J TR' WATER - CITY Ot lAKE OSWEGO 4, - SEWER - onto 'ul'WERAGE AGENCY � . 5 "y Nei 3 +* .1� 1 POWER - PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC u • {,� ` it, 4 Ilkl, GAS - N:W. NATURAL OAS F 1 . d E• ipr 1 PHONE . U,5 WOO a � CAN - P.qI UTAUTA LADLE hD 1. o\" , fit 'QAS Lel a , , p y iiir. * .. �1 NOD 5 12y5 (>;�'"l > GROSS Slit ARIA 2 05 AC . Ul, c t .WWW, I STREET ARCA 111,014 Sr !'- J L°11 . yl * , /� ..;\ O� CONN SPACE AREA 27,25E sr airl w W "AR AP ' + CONTOURS ALMA ENGINEERING7.25) I q c ,✓ , �' 1 •, OD, hROPOSEO BUILDING ENVELOPF t �jlll� L ` 1 ,�1 � �`^ I 50' I Chi, . iiif 1 y �°QQ •N I ,�1 Y. a y 1 ,/ E1 ,tr• I oil I \ I '` ) t r • • ',Aa . 60� ` �'' ,N\�� , n t . •h h / , ° PROJECt PGStW: ' go " - - 2 - ALPHA ENGINEERING• INC. ENOINEERINO a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . Sl,'R\'El'INc; • u e APPLICATION REFINEMENTS 4.8.93 The public hearing for PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 was postponed from April 5th to April 19th. This postponement has allowed staff and the applicant to clarify some areas of discussion and to revise the agreement. conditions of approval based on the following areas of * �. i) The common open space area has been enlarged to 22% of the gross project area. This has been accomplished by reducing the depths of lots 1-3 and providing an access corridor. The total area of the open space is now 27,253 SF ii) A 10 foot wide access tract has been provided, along the � f. east line of lot 1 to allow residents direct access to the private common open space. A path will be constructed along the access strip that meanders around the existing trees in that access tract. iii) Sideyard setbacks have been revised for lots 1 & 2 to accommodate the inclusion of an access strip adjacent to lot 1: see attached site plan for Tax lot 100. ,i • 267-005h Y" f' j ': fApR y 8 1993 t • 4/ I - i SDI"`13����h 1 Ku III .\/\ \\'r.'r. • yl,i-rt.. it' . 'Hitt/ \1' OAK A I'c)RTI AND, c)Itl;c;LIN 'i72�1 A ioi 4,3,! , ' PM ,• , STAFF REPORT ',• 1 it LA. 'lisma, PLANNING DIVISION- CITY ,. � ti, ' ' : .../ U y APPLICANT: ELF. NO,. Richard P. Waterman SD 12-8 VAR 19-88\ . PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92)\ }e' PROPERTY OWNER: SD 13-92\HR 2-93 ao Richard P, Waterman (TL 7000, 2 1E 10DD); £TAFI: Matthew J. Jankowski (TL 2300, 2 1E 14BB) Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • DATE OF REPORT: ,• Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD; 14BB April 9, 1993 . CATION: DATE OF HEARING,; 1515 S. Cherry Lane &vacant site; West of Hwy. April 19, 1993 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane NEIGHBORHOOD A$ OCIATION: • COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Hallinan 4. R-15 ZONING DESIGNATION: ;• R-15 u APP CANT'S REQUEST -y The applicant is requesting extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition, lot line adjustment and planned development. A variance to the Park and Open Space Standard was denied earlier. The approval includes a future streetsplan. requesting � • Pp Also the applicant is requesti approval of the • following modifications to the prior approval: r A new, a, existing parels,arestilting n lot line justment of a reduction approximately overallysize of t065 he major uare t partitionn/planned the two 'f *' ' • development and an enlargement of a landmark site, P n/p ned .7 •' b, A revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels greater than 15,000 yq, ft, each. , • , le . . . . 114 .'. SD 12--88\VAR 7.9-38\PD 5-88 (Mod, 4-92)\SD 13.-92\HR.2-93 ' Page 1 of 20