Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1991-05-06 w 3 AGENDA r I I CITY OF LAKE OS EGO DEVELOPMENT REVIE►I�] BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE • Monday,May 6, 1.991 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Agenda Book APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 1989 September 5, 1990 PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS � PUBLIC HEARING ,t DR 13-90, a request by Green Street Architecture fora approval to construct a 35 PP 35,000 square foot mixed use center comprised of the following uses: a) 11,000 square foot retail use; b) 17,800 square foot office use; and c) 6,200 square foot daycare use. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the • intersection of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive north of Kruse Way, otherwise described as Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 lE 6. Staff coordinator is Robert GIta tteo A in Play g Director. DR 7-9Q Iod. 3-91)1VAR 8-91, a request by BOOR\A Architects fora royal to modify A.10 of the original approval and a variance in order to increase the height of the proposed cyclone fence which borders the soccer field along Melrose from 6' to 12' high. The site is located at 55 Kingsgate (Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC). Staff coordinator is Hamill Pishvaie, Development, Review Planner, ;zD 6-91\VAR 9--91 f�-h1 , a request by Dimension Homes, Inc. for approval of the creation of two parcels from a 10,157 sq, ft. parcel. Also the applicant is seeking approval of two variances as follows: a) a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel • abut a public street for a minimum of 25 ft. Parcel B is proposed to have no frontage on a public street; and b) a Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Development Standard which requires each dwelling to provide two off—street parking spaces in addition to a carport or garage; The applicant proposes to provide no spaces which comply with the standard. The applicant is also proposing a Future Streets Plan' serving propertywithin 250' of the aPPlicant'ssite. • The site is located at 5302 Rosewood Street (Tax Lot 3703 of Tax Map 2 lE I8AB), Staff coordinator"'. is Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, y i V ti • SD 9-91\SD 10-.91\SD 11-911YAR 11-91(a—c)\HR 4-91, a request by Kenneth Guenther for approval of a lc.t line adjustment, a three parcel minor partition, a 4—lot subdivision, approval of the$ subdivision of.yi historic landmark site, and three variances as follows: a) a 32 ft. Cass 2 variance to the 65 ft. lot width required in the R-10 zone, : .' b) a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. None of the proposed parcels or lots abut a public street; and c) a Class II variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard in order to build on slopes greater than 50%. The applicant proposes to develop 1,103 sq. ft. of the site which exceeds 50% slope. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Court (Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902, 1905 and 2600 of Tax Map 2 1E 9CC). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler. Associate Planner. • GENERAL PLANNING OTHER BUSINESS —Findings, Conclusions and Order • ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to • cctne and go as you please. DR33?Members: ,Staff: R is t H.Foster,Chair Tom Coffee,Planning Director S� Stanaway,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner A.Bloomer Hamid Pishvaie,Dev,Review Planner R.;tert D.Greaves Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Gzer Remy Jane Heisler,Associate Planner • N.Starr Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Sci; n J,Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Jude Lichtenstein,Assistant Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,DRB Secretary • Kathy Avery,PC Secretary STAFFREPORT • ' . , ., . ' n nOF LAKE .. • • , . . .. , . . PLANNING DIVISION ISION , APPLICANT: FILE NO,: Richard Eckard &J. Michael Moody DR 13-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Nick Bunick Robert Galante LEGAL.DTION• DATE OF- ESCRIP REPORT: Tax Lot 107 of • Tax Map 2 1E 6 April 1991 • • i. DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: ' May 6, 1991 Northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview , and Westlake Drives NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: • ". . " 0 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Westlake • R-5 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant proposes to construct a 35,000 sq, ft. retail/office center in five buildings, Two are proposed to be two stories in height and three are proposed at one story in height, ,.if if II. APPLICABLE CRITEI . A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies General Policy I, II, III T ` Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I r Weak Foundation Soil Policies ' z General Policy I, IV 0 , . DR 13-90 Page 1 of 7 • • Social Resource Policies General Policy I, V Commercial Land Use Policies General Policy III, V Commercial Land Use Policies Specific District Policies VI • Kruse-North Commercial District Transportation Land Use Policies • General Policy IV B. y of Lake Qawego ning Orlin; • v. LOC 48.'20-48.155 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) C. City of Lake Oswego Development code: .... LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures r , LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval ., D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standatth: 2.005-2.040 Building Design r 4.005-4.040 Wetlands 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights 6.005-6.040 Transit 7,005-7.040 Parldng &Loading Standard 8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping 10.005 - 10.040 Fences 11.005 - 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development p eat 13.005 - 13.040 J Weak Foundation Soils ` ' 14.005- 14.040 Utility Standard • 16,005- 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control " 18.005 - 18,040 Access • 19.005- 19,040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 20 005 -20,040 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways , E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55,010-55,130 • III. FINDINGS 4' A. Existing Conditions: • 1. The site is about 2,6 acres in size and contains a small wetland. °r DR 13-90 Page 2 of 7 1 f 1 + 2. The site drains from the northeast to the southwest at an average slope of 3.5 percent. ...:.' ',. ' 3. The west half of the site has mature oak and ash trees and a well vegetated native understory. 4. Additional site information is found in the following exhibits: Exhibit 3, Applicant's Written Submittal Exhibit 13,Topographical and Tree Survey Exhibit 14, Wetlands Study and Delineation Exhibit 16,Preliminary Soils Investigation Exhibit 22, ATEP Traffic Impact Study , 5. The site borders two collector streets, Westlake and Parkview Drives. 6. w'A public storm drain line exists in Parkview Drive, Water lines exist in both Parkview and Westlake Drives. However, hydrants are not sufficiently • lactated to serve the site. Sanitary sewer connection is available at the ' 1 southwest corner of the site, B. History/Background: The site is part of the Westlake PUD which was approved by the City in 1980. The original approval and subsequent modifications are illustrated in Exhibits 24 through 29. No changes were proposed to the 3 acre neighborhood commercial site. The neighborhood commercial site is regulated by specific Plan policies (Plan, page 116) and by the Final Plan and Program Ordinance 1783. The Final Plan and Fr (Exhibit 27) which was adopted by and establishes other site criteria as follows: lists the uses allowed on the site 1. Maximum size—35,000 sq. ft. 2. Height—30' or two stories, whichever is less ' 3, Setbacks—none required 4. Lot coverage—50 percent 5. Parking—current code • 6. Lot area—minimum 5,000 sq. ft. 7. Lot width—50' minimum 8. Signage—up to 150 sq, ft. or current City code (32 sq. ft. maximum) C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval; As per LOC 49.615, the following criteria must be considered when evaluating development proposals: • L The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval, . The applicant has submitted documents marked as exhibits, which accompany this report, A review of those exhibits demonstrates that a number of issues ' should be addressed in more detail prior to any decision. Those issues are discussed below. • DR 13-90 ' Page 3 of 7 pz f• • ' r y n " 0 .. ', ' Times1 The applicant's narrative states that 63 percent of the trees on the saved. However, a comparison of the tree survey (Exhibit 13) and the site plan (Exhibit 4) illustrates that about 55 of 99 trees, or about 55% are proposed to be saved. Of those 55, about 20 appear to be in jeopardy due to paving, building construction, or grading to construct the wetland mitigation area. It should be , ' noted that the soils report(Exhibit 16) appears to indicate that the upper topsoil will require substantial excavation which will affect trees in areas of proposed improvements. These conditions may make it difficult to preserve that native grade around trees and the "over—excavation"of the site,placement of rock base and paving may rob the soil of the groundwater moisture necessaryto rese the trees on this site. p rve Also note that the trees between retail building "A" and retail building "B" are not shown to be located in planting areas (See Landscape Plan, Exhibit 9). The applicant should demonstrate through the redesign of the site plans and by the provision of evidence from qualified experts that trees can be saved as proposed. Staff review of Plan policies which require preservation of the wooded character of Lake Oswego and review of the original conditions of PUD 3-80 illustrates that particular emphasis should be placed on the care of trees within the Westlake PUD and that specifically the preservation of groundwater, and water flow, which affects the trees should be considered. To insure the preservation of trees and to ✓ provide support to the development proposal, the following items were recommended to the applicant: 0 ., 1 ,:: 1. preserve the Preserve a large area of trees along Westlake Drive and with the native understory intact, trees 2. Provide expert evidence that the proposed development will not detrimentally effect trees both on and off the site, 3. Describe the measures that will be taken before, during and after construction to maximize the preservation of trees. • The changes made in the applicant's proposal since it was reviewed at the pre— application conference are significant; however, the applicant has not addressed the staff recommendations to the degree that approval can be recommended. The letter from a consultingarborist L)mmitment regardin tree care.(Exhibit letter does not sufficiently tes a sfuupport conclusion that the current proposal will save substantial areas of trees,• a ,. Wel A review of the wetland study and delineation prepared by Shapiro and Associates in February of 1991 of the site was consiered to be as wetland ee band tit hat the wetland illustrates tvalues were area • almost all uniformly low, While staff takes no exception to the report, a recent visit to the site illustrated that additional hydrophitic vegetation was now visible, These plants should now be inventoried to demonstrate that no rare and endangered plant materials are present (See Landscape Standard, 8.035(5)1, In addition, the site should be investigated to determine whether red legged frogs migrate from • • DR 13-90 Page4of7 { nearby breeding areas. The Division of State Lands has demonstrated their desire to preserve the breeding and habitat areas required for this frog. Some conflict may exist in the evidence regarding the delineated wetland's size. The Shapiro report lists the "unsurveyed" site as approximately 1600 sq. ft.; however, the Division of State Lands' letter describes a 2500 sq. ft. wetland. The 2500 sq. ft wetland is apparently from their review of a Shapiro & Associates letter(December 3, 1990) which is not in the current record. The size of the wetland and the amount of fill within the wetland will determine whether a fill permit is required from the Division of State Lands and will determine the size of the mitigation area required. The area now proposed for mitigation appears to be ,•. about 1700 sq. ft. in size. t Accessrfraffic: The applicant's traffic analysis and executive summary (Exhibits 21 and 22) illustrate that the proposed development will generate less traffic than originally projected for the Kruse Way corridor and that all intersections will operate at service level "D" or better after construction. The traffic study recommends that two driveways be constructed as shown and that both driveways be constructed to w provide two exit lanes, one for left turns and one for right turns. The study also `• t.,` recommends that Westlake Drive be reconstructed to provide a left turn lane for both Parkview Drive and the northerly driveway. The applicant's site plan (Exhibit 4) does not illustrate all of the recommendations of the study. However, the staff recommends that the northerly driveway be restricted to right—in, right— out to minimize conflicts on Westlake Drive and to preserve the median. ° It should be noted that the driveway on Westlake Drive will cause the loss of ' some significant trees, but it should relieve some of the conflict that could occur at Parkview Drive. The Parkview intersection should also improve over its :i.' present condition with the extension of Parkview to Carman Drive. That extension is now under construction. ti Building Design: The applicant does not illustrate final color, material 0,'signature plans; however, the applicant has indicated the following to staff: 1. Roofing: composition shingles, black. 2. Siding: chanel—lock masonite (or similar), terra cotta or earth tone colors, . 3. Awnings: dark green with white letters, only the letters would be lighted. 4. Windows: white. Staff recommends roofing be revised to a cedar shingle to match the single family homes abutting the site. Building materials and colors should be finalized, Authority for Development: ' Some questions have been raised regarding the authority to proceed with a proposal that appears to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps; ' however, specific Plan language (p, 116) identifies this site as the Kruse— Neighborhood Commercial District, The applicant lists the Plan language shown on page 116, but does not address the relevant policies, The Zoning Map . recognizes the approved PUD. , 411) DR 13-90 Page 5 of 7 1 • r 1 The Development Ordinance at 49.090(2) allows Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) which were approved prior to September 15, 1981 to occur pursuant to such approvals. However, the physical development of a particular site for which 0 , all approvals had not been received prior to September 15, 1981 shall be subject to review for conformance with those standards applicable to specific site improvements, construction and design. These requirements are listed in the"Applicable Criteria" section of this report. C. Conclusion: ° The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal meets the applicable criteria • • as proposed. Additional evidence should be provided and plans and reports should be coordinated to avoid conflict. • GI l III. RECOMMENDATION This proposal raises a number if issues. Many address subjective criteria and address t already—stated public concerns. Since the concerns listed regarding the trees and wetlands require expert knowledge and many require redesign, staff recommends that the public hearing be held to provide an opportunity for public comment and the review of expert evidence. Following the hearing, the Board can provide direction to the applicant and the public can be given an opportunity to review any new evidence prior to a final hearing. .. . . EXHIBITS A. 0 . . , ,.. ,. 1, Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map • 3, Applicant's Narrative 4. Site Plan 5. Elevations (Retail Building A) • 6. Elevations (Retail Building B) 7. Elevations (Office Buildings A and B) 8. Elevations (Office/Retail Building) 9, Landscape Plan 10. Grading Plan 11. Utility Plan , 12. Lighting Plan 13. Topographic and Tree Survey 14, Wetland Study and Delineation, Shapiro 15. Wetland Mitigation Plan, March 8, 1991 (February 19, 1991) 16. Preliminary Soils Inspection ,• 17. Phosphorous Removal Worksheet ' 18, Division of State Lands Letter of October 29, 1991 • 19, Division of State Lands Letter of February 1, 1991 20. Consulting Arborist, Bill Owen's Letter of January 28, 1991 21, ATEP Executive Summary of Traffic Impact, February 22, 1991 22, ATEP Traffic Impact Study, November 13, 1990 • 23, Traffic Impact Study for Westlake' Carl Buttke, 1984 24, Ordinance 1783 25. PA 3-79, Findings, Conclusions & Order DR 13-90 Page6of7 •.u.iwu 26. PUD 3-80, Phase I,Westlake PUD , • 27. Final Development Plan and Program 28. ODPS 2-84-207 Modification to PUD s 29. ODPS 2--84-255 Modification to Final Plan and Program • 30. PD 6-89/SD 25-89-776 Westlake '89,Findings, Conclusions &Order 31. LUBA No. 90-067 Final Opinion and Order, Westlake '89. 32. Lighting Data 33. General Westlake Letter from Stephanie Compion,received May 1990 34. . Letter from Gordon and Le Landgren, March 13, 1991 35. Letter from Ray and Laura Sahlberg, April 15, 1991 36. Letter from Emery and Mary Ann Sundberg, April 24, 1991 1 RailsAux • • ,. v. b ` • •t . N .r • .0 • • v , DR 13-90 Page7of7 • 4. dry, r i .' + ' W + 1 1 F • r.. • •, •.tip: • • • • • • 6 • • 11.4 • • _ t i t' n' OFUVE. vil.'. ow A as glu _Jeli ' ':- .. ' ,,..„:„.. wE AOOWCREE �� 4 ., • ' OW �� A V 5 : r, x o. tr COUNT ti J n aK STERLING9 } / lnarl;ty • `,. V1 TI M y `., V' w",'Aq •1• , a ':"'� a • _ s a7.5a',Id"' OR5@ERU ' LR• ti '.'' p.;.], t ' 1 al•C•FT r�l:(12f- dal.+v 9 - 66t,n ,�4 — S,a•nL',Ca•N.:. • �•7,t,.'D •F*- . . 91' '-b n `o �',,„ 1a,a� y �• ,fit 121 ;` ,' ,1 2601.6C 1 30 ,,'�h• Jr (.r *_ 8,01 Ac, ^ `;° A 1° ��0y�a,$ 11 8 r•P..�..'`D1 N 1 r+ •1� 'r—.� ` �k 0 { _j i t�f� f1� IZ,OOACyt. •19 ....P.,,„.. .: '� q ' N 6^,tq' I. yr„ =,5' Jder=+. • . /, • g180 Ac. �� L. �zs, o s. ,.erg op ,:.� C�•k? i ri. r 00,. EO N8F 0.47A c,Rc,e49 1 ti :. V.' J— - ` 4 �c • aos `" ry n J ~rM�'�▪'''i- . 2 I ' 6 V A > ,o SE E ill C+J, m h Opt + � ' �; aft ki ,� Tom' `ENICA / . h v1ES o �.o t. �i • , 101 '..\„( id• 15 • OR.z. 'pc T r jd r • 'M. 494' i 91 IOEt�#r 1 ` Leo,e° 6fi,cs 1r .fi r„ r ,r n .[/1.5.9 ''' r J./,17 ,.. 1, TPOCf 8 ` ,. Ieqrtr " = '�.+ ` SEE «cit , . TE rca I COV T, p tir kr t u,+ ^ A '�r r . , ` q y ZQ r.x: ,Or • 42 ' I E 6 Dr q a1,� e, .s'' +, .r SEE ! x' '` t :a •; h e ,$, 100 �, iV) P :;/ A .4 ' RAL:' '+ r,......„ : \Q` c7. � , 4 1 �t s tiFoi v 1) 1' A fir�� S� O2 Cl14co i AR V h clac4 �,�f .as3° 037Ac, ��� +� i A 10 4 � 106 5 o.ae Py �� 3 76Ac • • It 14 � � a °9 a,"` r' �. . KRUaE' 1� �s r.s.' "I 1» re o M r u ki_ aa'.eT ,,, ,,, _ 4, M N Hi•+s'7 U.'W 1.4 N____ _`_1 ,5 • �• 4^JeV b• a GJr�9p.J,dTq M W V . .._. t` 1 • EXHIBIT • .,; • C.. I ~"l v' i • r.'. • • • • • • i4 1 i `. • '.1'r • ai 41, • ':.•'....• t1 1 1 •' / • '2 . ., . %,. -,0„.;....* I . . ,,;2_1 sty i % \ ., . . ' / :•• a 4 • Z . • C4-12 .-: : se ---,Jr.-14:kki .10 \_,\---- , •.• • R :..a7.° elpOrnte Office Park i I •� . + ! . 's •�� ♦.• '• �•` : � • • a 114';\-; i. "1' - • r • •• itireCe. .. . • • i A / \ t . . 1 , * ,,.. dielfrifv..••••ole...• .41P.,014111.),i•44.41114.1%.1„ 40 41°.• vo ,,*(foi Oa /* *.r"------4 0 II% Ihr.., Vtea/,, . •••nriiillail ' i : -1-1 ' : :.. i •- '• . ••• tt ;-,-..--e: ../1 t. • •01,/,' • opt.H spAct,.•••• \ 1 1 . I- • • rJ' •••,I \ °Pm OhAC• c1• ••i .}•• ~ •• w 0! 6 Q `t►-to Rol. •,•• j.f ••• •00••, • • ° .I•• �.r... • / • .....,..? fripri4; 0,. ••,•,,Viertre.46 ,Voin ..i.....* • • ' • ••V• :h * •• ,• �, .• •' rIr•,f-y-t..^-r,[.7.��:� ,_(!�•a,,,, tV of f • • ' W • • • •ea ad Apo, + • • • • •.. • ilea �• �{{ • r, . ..* *"'koN -..� •A • � ''irk• •7 • • I• `��� �. • ,' ,: ! ,-�•�.., •, :..: iieRi • • •064 t; LD Stake t a. r.•. N G ., '. ...L 4,. :, . ' KfttJJr: WAY 0. j�•i ••• .„. ,.,..,, .. ., ..,,,.....„ „.,.. .., ,.,... VICINITY • , .. . . . . . . . • MAP r •?.,,,„,.., .44 ' EXHIBIT 14 .. Il ° D R„ 13-1 U, k . • , . • . • .. . •. .- • , .z• •• • •.,... • •„.• .••. , . ., • '.• .. • ' • • • . . . , • • ,•• • • . . • • • . •• . . , • .• . . • . . • ••• . ••••, •d . • . • • • • 4 . • , • ,,. ••, . . • , • t • ' A . , . • . .• - * V • u d • • • .1 41 ..Mt 1 •I r'ri 13, 1 'i k•-..,1-,a,,r:-,„.._',4.4..44 t.11.1:.._4n_=.,,' ® _ awlfiMuwiy w.ww a-m =M. ...... ,1 , 1, ,11 •' w i y • wm11 rr ..... 1A ., .11 ` wnlLiwwnx ' L,wow�w ww. r,f j 4 ' 00 I w' S KRUSE OAKS • 1JI�711 E t/s j . . GO, OREGON . , .. , , . . . . .. .. Development Review Board Submittal 17 August 1990 • . • GREENSTREET ,. EXHIBIT r' a 31 . ARCHITECTUlZE0C213-ct(3 " • • • o • • x.. • • • • • y. 1• 1 4 t • • • • • • 1 • • • TABLE OF C Page Project Team 1 Project Summary 2-3 Comprehensive Plan Compliance 4 • r Zoning .". .._ Ordinance Compliance 5-6 Q: ^ Development Ordinance Compliance 7-11 • Development Schedule • 12 Data Summary Drawings 13 Vicinity Map " Site Plan LI ST'�I 14 Retail Elevations 15 'S S T ui Bldg. A - Bldg. B 16 Retail Elevations 17 Office Elevations - BldgOffice/Retail Elevations . B 18 • ~ 19 Landscape Plan 20 Grading Plan Site LiesPlan ghtingPlan 21 22 Survey 24 24 Lighting Information 25-27 Attachments Soils Evaluation A Phosphorous Removal Efficiency Equation Computation Worksheet B ,' . ., AD A . it Ae • • 4. • • • r • `fv • •r .• • c • • A' ` • • PROJECT TEAM • OWNER: Rick Eckard and Michael Moody Lake Oswego Bay Company P.O.Box 2222 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 635-4777 s , ARCHITECTS: Randy R. Tomic and Matthew F. Miller Greenstreet Architecture 17685 SW 65th, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 684-5225 • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Christopher Freshley • 1020 SW Taylor, Suite 355 • Portland, OR 97205 • 222-9881 • • • • ' CIVIL ENGINEERING: Roy Priest ;3M Priest Engineering 5340 SE Hacienda St. Hillsboro, OR 97123 649-2927 • • • F • • • • • • • • ; 1 • • • • • PROJECT SUMMARY EXISTING CONDITIONS0 ' 1 . A 2 . 6 acre Neighborhood Commercial District, located in the northeast ' quadrant of the intersection of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive north of Kruse Way. 2. The site is bounded on the west by Westlake Drive the south by Parkview Drive. and on 3. Adjacent uses are: Single Family Residential on the northeast, and east; Multi-Family on the south; and common space on the northwest. n 4 . a. Part of the Westlake Master Plan. b. Designated in Comprehensive Plan as a 35, 000 s Neighborhood Commercial District. ' f' { 5. Physical Conditions: a. Generally flat open area on the eastern portion of the site. #r Westlake Drive.b. Wooded flat area on the western portion adjacent to PROPOSAL• 1 . Construct a 35, 000 square foot mixed use center comprised • of the following uses: a. Retail `' b. Office 11 , 000 s. f. c. Office/Retail : 17, 800 s . f. 60200 s, f. 2. The retail portion is located in the southwest the site. corner of a. The retail use is divided between two single story structures; a 6450 s. f. parallel to Parkview Drive and a 4550 s. f. parallel to Westlake Drive. b. The focus of the retail use is a plaza at the confluence df the two structures. two primary puposes: The plaza serves 1 . Provide an internal focus for activates relating to its use, such as: dining, 9� gathering, etc. •'.2. Provide external visual interest and a physical connection to the off site pedestrian circulation system. c. The office buildings are located at the northwest and - southeast portions of the site plan, each building is of a two-story 8900 s. f. configuration. d. The office/retail is a 6200 s. f. one-story buildin located at the northeast corner of the site. 41)1 g J04. 4. 0. • 3. The development of the site will occur in a maximum of four phases, beginning with the construction of the retail buildings and their associated ket demand will determine the timing of theasubsequentMarphases. 4 . No variances will be required by this proposal. • . •: b•' t• • • 1 N • r COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE , 1 . The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan has been approved by LCDC. The proposed development exists within the plan and has • therefore, met the test of the state goals This project will be in compliance with the acomprehensive. plan and the state goals and guidelines. 2. The following information is included within the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan specific parcel. (page 116) and references this a. VI Kruse - North Neighborhood Commercial District v A residential area is planned for the 230-acre area " r north of Kruse Way, bounded by Melrose Street and properties fronting Fosberg Road and Carman Drive. A neighborhood commercial center of three acres or less is planned to serve this residential area , located • centrally within the residential area, not on Kruse Way. This neighborhood commercial center should be designed to assure: - location of not more than 35, 000 square feet of , retail commercial activity, to serve the shopping needs of the adjacent residential areas. ny N b - shared access points on collector streets and a unified site plan for the three acre site, to `' assure internal circulation and to prevent traffic congestion on residential streets. - development standard which encourages private • development in accord with: • -- height and setback compatible with the district and adjacent residential areas. ,�►,. -- structural and vegetation buffers to separate adjacent residential areas from noise, traffic and congestion. - pedestrian walkways, bikeways and safe bike storage, providing a convenient safe alternative to auto travel. -- street furniture and landscaped areas situated to encourage social interaction. shared parking facilities and walkways to r encourage pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Parking lots should be designed with adequate trees and landscaping, in accord with Air Quality and Quiet Enviornment Elements of this Plan. ,' -- public transit service. 4110 — , . , r • ZONING ORDINANCE P " ' --N COMPLIANCE 1 . 48. 300 Zone • • This project is designated neighborhood commercial. - } 48. 300 (1) describes the To provide land near or residentialwithiine of zone : commercial activites. " • areas for 0 2. 48. 305 Uses Permitted . • zoning ordinance.- No uses are not proposed that are permitted by the 3. 48. 310 Site Development Limitations R . Setbacks (48. 310. 1)wired: none required Setbacks re ' an q for Structures ' .✓ 2 . Sedbparks, ref. ODPS 2-84 Westlake P.U.D. a. 1a Provided: • 0 ' for all parking. b. From north property 10 ' for structure,p y line: - 20 ' for structure, westa end. c. From easteast end. A" - 25 property line: • for structure, north end. ' - 25 ' for structure, south end. • • d. From south property line: Center of street: minimum 33 '-6", minimum 15 ' from curb. ,e , e. From west property line: minimum 25 ' . ' B. F.A.R. (48. 310. 2) Maximum 35, 000 s. f. maximum floor area allowed e' ` Comprehensive Plan, page 116. r See C. Lot Coverage None required by 10. 3) zone. ' : t • D. Vehicle Trip Maximum (48 . 310. 4) No requirement E. Building Height (48. 310. 5) - 30 ' maximum allowed • -- 25 ' maximum shown F. Special Requirements (48, 315) 1 . 48. 315. 1 • All business, service, repair, processing, p'�t , storage or merchandise displayed on abutting or adjacent to a residential zone shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed Unless screened from the residential Zone by a is 5 1 Y , buffer area planted with • ear- obscuring landscaping at leastrnd 6ufeet1high. - The development of the east and northeast 4111 property line will include a 6 ' high sight d obscuring landscaping. - The plaza area is located at the farthest point away from the residential area and is screened by the building structure, 2. 48.315.5 • • Each commercial area identified on the City' s Comprehensive Plan Map also is described in the text of • Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific �,. • conditions for each area, other than those areasidentified in subsections 6, 7, are by this reference made prtnofBthistcha section, are conditions and limitations of each zone. Ater and ` This � proposa� is in compliance with all standards estabilished by the Comprehensive Plan. 3 . 48 . 530 The required vision clearance distance at the intersection of an access driveway and a street is 10 ' . Both driveways are well ' `. Y in excess of this requirement. ;'a \ .?Y'r .. e• v i• i a .ram r ip 1, ,n Y t ,y, • i d I • ° :: : . ' • r a, i •. • II, • DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE & STANDARD COMPLIANCE 0 - . 2 . 020 Building Design The intent of the design effort was to establish a "Village character" for the proposed P P project. The resultant design utilized the following techniques to • support this theme: 1. The Site Plan - The organization of the buildings on the site • , establish a "quad" at the center of the site plan. - This "quad" plan orients the major site activities such as parking & traffic movement a internal to the site, therefore screening the most disruptive elements from the adjacent• residential zones . - The plaza area at the southwest corner is the focus of internal pedestrian activity. The plaza also opens to the intersection of ' Parkview and Westlake allowing for visual • ` y; access to the site for motorists and pedestrians . - All existing pedestrian pathways will remain and link-up with a subordinate internal pathway system allowing for ease of access for ' walking traffic to the site. - The Comprehensive Plan (see page 116) requires automobile access to collector streets. Westlake and Parkview are both collector .. .. . ' streets and the site plan shows access points • to both in order to eliminate a disproportionate traffic load on either *+. street. - The site plan is organized in a way that saves 63 % of the existing trees. - The major trees at the perimeter of the site have been retained to lend texture and scale • to the building elevations and to maintain the ', character of the existing walkways. - Major tree groves are retained at the plaza "4. and parking areas to provide shade and : • . reinforce the "Village Character" of the site r '.f organization. 2. The Exterior Building Design n • In support of the "Village Theme" of the design and to respect the scale of the surrounding neighborhood the following elements have been integrated into the project: •. 7 • it - A maximum of two story construction ,, , - The use of forms which are indigenous to the surrounding area such as: -- Gable roof forms . -- Highly detailed wood exterior materials. -- Glass areas broken down into smaller scale %4 elements through the use of multi-paned '' , k windows.. " '' ' -- Fabric awnings for color and texture change. - The signage program will be backlighted y letters on the fabric awnings similar to the signs used on the Village Center project on ,!yr State Street in Lake Oswego. - All mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and screened from view by parapets . - All trash enclosures will be either free standing wood or integrated into the building R'. (@ Retail) . , 3 . 005 Stream Corridors ; . None exist on the City of Lake Oswego' s Inventory. The storm water drainage ditch on site will be piped underground to the storm drainage system in Parkview Drive. 4. 005 Wetlands None exist on the City of Lake Oswego' s Inventory, however at the request of the City, a wetland of determination was conducted by Mr. Martin Schott . i 'Shapiro & Associates and the Division of State Lands. A small area of about 1 , 600 square feet (1 . 4% of the total site) located at the south edge of the site along , Parkview was determined to meet the three criteria (hydr:,c vegetation, hydric soil indicators, and wetland „ , n•'* hydrology) for classification as a wetland. This area • would probably not meet the wetland hydrology criteria were it not for the existence of the landscape berm , • ' ' sidewalk, and street at Parkview. This marginal wetland • area does not meet the criteria for classification as an "essential wetland" by the Division of State Lands or • the City of Lake Oswego and therefore will be mitigated elsewhere on the site. (Please see site plans and • attachments. ) ' , 5. 005 Street Lights Street lighting currently exists on Westlake and Parkview. Parking lot lighting will be mounted on a maximum 22so . . . y 8 ' foot poles with fixtures maintaining . 5 FC illumination , 1 with metal halide fixtures per data submitted. ; ".I7 6. 005 Transit System 1J. A Tri-met stop (line 38) exists two blocks south of the . ,;: site at the intersection of Westlake Drive and Kruse 1 Way. Westlake Drive is not currently served by Tri-met. • • 7. 005 Parking and Loading wig The parking g provided is in excess of the city' s requirements, see "Data" , page 13. Due to t..e nature of ,i the intended use ' s all loading will occur at the parking "" ' lot side of the buildings . r 8. 005 Park and Open Space ' ' '" \ ,• This requirement is met by landscaping standard. +9 � °;, 9 . 005 Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering " ,t This project, as designed, proposes 29% site area for landscaping. Street trees exist on Westlake and Parkview. . A . - This proposal provides for: - The retension of existing major tree massing internally, and at the perimeter. - The addition of complimentary landscaping on the eastern portion of the site which is presently void of ;« trees. - High canopy trees will be located at the eastern portion of the site to provide additional screening above the existing 6 ' fence. 10 . 005 Fences A fence currentlyexists on the east property line. A matching 6 ' wood fence will be added to the west and south eleavations of the office/retail building. `' `•,, 11 . 005 Drainage Standard for Major Development Drainage is per plans, see Utility Plan (page 22) and Data Summary (page 13) . 1 . All drainage management measures ( i.e. inlets, • manholes, water quality control manholes, detention control manholes, etc. ) will be located within paved • parking areas of the site, or in landscape buffer areas adjacent to paved parking areas and/or public • rights--of--way. The facilities will be loca'r,:ed within easements granted to the City for the purpose of ownership/maintenance, and access will not be '` � , limited. h 2 . The drainage system will be composed of elements designed to "trap" pollutants at t!^`; point of -entry to the drainage system to minimize pollutants in the 9 ^ � y r .' ,n r f S v 7 1+Jej, 4 6 r \•. . 7� .r rf r rti` :w storm water runoff. Additional filtering elements a '� will be provided (i.e. water quality swale, pond, ; , settling basin, etc. ) . 3 . This property is located within a previously developed PUD and substantial urbanization has occurred around the property. No changes in drainage patterns are anticipated that would impact adjacent properties. A s; 4 . Thic property is part of a previously developed PUD { for which regional detention has been provided as a part of the original PUD development, 5 . Storm water quality control measures will be 3 necessary, as evidenced by the attached Phosphorous Removal Efficiency Equation Computation Worksheet. The water quality control measures will be taken in the manner necessary to adhere to Lake Oswego codes. A water quality swale will be constructed along the north and west side of "Retail B" and the south side 1: of "Retail A" . The water quality s+wales will drain into the wetland mitigation area at the southwest • corner of the site, which will in turn drain into the ! ' existing storm line at the southwest: corner of "Retail A" . .. ` ',' 13 . 005 Weak Foundation Soils �M This site is within areas designated for potential weak foundation soils. Preliminary Soils engineering reports indicate that the soils are adequate for the buildings wit proposed. Specific engineering will be done during t r• Construction Documents Phase of the project. See g he ' attachments. r attac .4 r 14 . 005 Utility Standards - Per Plans 16. 005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control This site is essentially flat and all areas will be ' '1 adequately drained, see Utility Plan (page 22) . 17. 005 Flood Plains None exist on the City of Lake Oswego's Inventory. 18. 005 Access Two access points are provided, see Site Plan (page 15) . 19. 005 Site Circulation, Driveways , and Private Streets. y All internal circulation meets the requirements of this 1 cif section, see Site Plan (page 15) . y, ; 10 • ,r • A. �, 11 • 20. 005 Site Circulation, Bikeways, and Walkways . All internal circulation systems connect with the existing external walkway system, see Site Plan �r (page 15) Chapter 55 Tree Cutting All major trees have bee,1 located, identified and ' inventoried. 63 % of the existing major trees have been retained. An arborist hus been commissioned to assure that the remaining trees will remain healthy during and after construction. d b Chapter 47 Signs A monument sign will be located at the corner of Westlake & Parkview. The design will be submitted at a M later date. Wall mounted signage will be raised letter mounted directly to the wall surface and painted a contrasting color. The maximum height will be 12" ; the message and style will be determined by the individual tenant. Fabric back- lit letters in white placed on fabric awnings for tenants are proposed. No signs will exceed one foot in height. Style, message and layout will be at the tenant ' s discretion. • V 0 Y 1 • u r 1 . • 11 n • • S v + 1 r , t , ' DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Construction for project is anticipated to begin within % .; 180 days of the completion of City' s approval process. Y ,• .; The actual construction time is approximately six ' months. A final schedule will be provided prior to the request for a demolition permit. , S „l J r� Y.. , . t d d , • 12 • • • a. .s' xE' DATA SUMMARY tr Site Area Total 115, 795 SF (100 %) 1 Landscape Area 34, 481 SF (29 %) 9 Sidewalks/Plaza • 11, 928 SF (10 %) Parking Area 45, 836 SF (39 %) Building Area (footprint) 25, 149. SF (22 %) • Building Area (total) 35, 000 ,SF Tree Count: • 99 trees 5" and over - 63 saved - 36 cut Required Parking: 1000 :r 28, 8 SF Office / Retail @ 300 SF 117 spaces Tri-met Reduction NA Pedestrian Access Reduction x . 90 ' Total Spaces Required 106 Parking Provided: 4 HC r' 49 Compact ° 72 Standard Total Spaces Provided 125 Spaces 4 Ill) . .. . , , 13 • - : tg y w a '•. �� .t •: r • • ' • l� Y • • • • • • 1.! c1 • • • ti A l' A • , • • 4 . • A C�. to , • 0 0 0 .. . .n / INp`tR11 Ill! I tt l ) f ! n 111 �� b E, GREENSTIEET •d� I t '`' , 1 II C II �[Iy�C • i li EIcju /r 10 x din 14 4 C Co � CG (I r G c I �� 1120'161 1 E - Itl b' 7E'O' I j+ t6 IN'tl :60' i I r i 16 fr r�m o� xro' 16'0' 1 16 G' "6 o' I h' 6 n c CJ it 11 11 G G C f' OI'E'IC /f,'ETAL 111/ I C C I 1 ( '`I ) 4n `C �4 C n " r x G L MAY! 1 Va C I; 1 > / 9 D C ,• 1 I I I � LT) I q NI [1'l f. ; C G In IIL I I „efiV Y ,IJI I 1 y 1 C C W C L W W �p / /�/ w / } 1•. I •'6' \ 1\ l• C 6 ,{ I I6 U' � •tl U'\IR b' ®e „ '1C C tit: IkAN1 } �': 41. 'Er :II I 1� 1 ) E1 , ••tl U'Aiu'o' 11iIY "� ' 1 1 tf) IUC II 1I I I I�_ I Ih u' E E 3 a n ) E I ,., I U y I I ,y= 1 `Ix At 1 ti \vj n I' f J 1 I I I I 11 I i N i�"� e 11 C , p V " '). I I �} , t tl OH K:� I • + ' ' J "E 1 1?E-TAp-'A' '' 1 MNGAQ•1+wunnt,IY,1.; , A?f I+ 31i�PLAN I • �y _. Y� t. 1 II I Ua ni 1WU UI i l ,, ,„ < hl'tltrp elr;lfu 1 I,rn - J.• 11 If ' - • I w t IN- Pt..AN »vy5 �,�� I/16•I O' - PANS..rla'11Ah,1' . . • . f , I• l> E r . ' • 1 n• 1' GHELP�5T11EEf ov , ., �,n IY 1 ,Y\), •\'1'r II .\ fy11\U•n'\ .\ (\y� ItlSl-- ; , ykersvt 1Y � �w r,�,11��� 15 nllr lY� Y \v p P _ 1, 1 • I�1 ,\, � RI 1 V`Y.w 4/a R 1"1 _ a'14, j '}fq�/'V,,� / _ 1.` 1 ,, Y I A} A \'A 1 1 � hn 1.n. Iun Y.1 t. 0� r',J Yl r� I 1 11 ��N It ,1 1 r ii� '•y �x/: rl�A I Ip�,A 1V,�'� A b \V nn,•••en..a:>e - • • • / 1\111. '-- ) ' 1.0 __ 4.,, A . „ , ,,„ 1 wia \ ,. .,, Ril 1 ti / I1 HARDY CL Qt. ►q�:YN Y<X1UNT 7 .f/ 1 J1411j. 1 , 12 1 .� a , r n.fi CCU ,we en.•en-• 'r7MYu • 1 f LL 9eYe r T /�• A M 1 f � l; ,(-Inn n tl r-nr- n ,e'r f�n r=3 r- == I111 4, A nr-irlClnn - - NOFETH EILEVATION - RETAIL ""A" 3/16 ,1 1'-6 , 1 1 ,. •.•,. ,, ,. , / EH / \F1Ti'\ V 6 .. , . ... . VV 1111LII1 . _�.��I l[ : -�I 111 ll�l _ , i t r ---'-1 --. i u_= r- . __Ik1I�rP-i r-�------ 1111 7,1-_-- _ r_-, I 1 Zli •.�1 I lr ii lr ii lr II it- _ lr inr lr SOUTH ELEVATION - RETAIL 'IA° Y 3/I61 .ji-0 �• a 1 i, ...__.-.-. Y t� 011 Cy{ ., .._ (1) I i ® f. - --.____..... , II NfAGI IYJt) ',•»! Y1 .c: w I (I' 1 II r I II frijt1 (( • .I[1[1�[I l_ C:.� I[11 lUflhlIllill J�1_ I 1 It III ir!1ll1ffl �r --it-- it 1r n tit it it II ii 1I it 1r �Ir w4 MJYI RRWD•$mnae,N,i, • e WEST ELEVATION - RETAIL "A" EAST ELE,ATION -RETAIL "A" rt1 3rlt+� I•© 1 • 40 . • \• 40 \ r a i Y 'I�aa 1 �• 4 • •••. '-.'‘.;J .. .„, ,,..... . , 11 0 ... , • ., . ...:•,:,'.,.‘....',...'..:.' . .. . ..• .... �1. .1'� i. �i[11�,1Silnitt,t, ',,1,��[ [.5 .� 1��-C'�,`�`�t1 ltlt 1,j�� �h.. =.�lyy 1 > > h [1, .'.. ' ,�� ,el �s ' ,', /k. .' i ', �..CC Y .;. "(: i' �ii V tt t til i a h, tiilt nt AA/A � [ ` 1Y1, li �i . ( '' '{ , rl _..�, Gf.l[i , 0, •:•a hY i•1,$ `!d 4,1finP / 'l�) V 1 4: 'I,i0f1/ ;,Vtl ily k. ,`.�h//.,1,ytv ! :cuu : tittJ))""'"� • 11,' µ� ,D,.�� [' j 1 �_'tr'.-. .g ' r. • a , a+.ll,/cV ear.ee..l awn { �: ''1''fy'[,1 `';7 ._. - � ./�1\�• Vl.1X`..,461 ,' ''� � \.�,��5+t � 1 A Y (cl lit .�.,){ �� w',',:.. ,, A'���rt .� �/ ' • �x 'i�a 'f.. ._. _lid ____.. IQ II. Pi' . .: i - , wRiNCM DAK[12- _ ,1�I l,'r, � I1 IY I N' CR[47�N[CRO! LIGBNOP N � LL _ I ► .� t r1 i r,EAST ELEVATION - RETAIL "13" 31w'.t'-0 R O l E 1l� 1I1 Iii11iiiii ' ti [j� �- �, f Vi r 1 r --1 r , ru`�"-'- II l r---i r all`�Ir lr -, r 1 r it 1 r l r-_ 1 r ri VVV`Yv WEST ELEVATIONRETAIL "B" • -,. 3!14' ii t'-C -max - -.-.- .......i,.. i �N. q , L'p � I ®Niiiiii >.\. 1 IIIt�r_� 1IIILLL �_ ._ .. 1111111111I1L. EJIILIII[IJll1 l i Ir 1f Ir lit 11 1 r lr it Ir —1r 1[� it ,lr 11 Ir In `— ti.,rwSOUTH ELEVATION - RETAIL "B" NORTH ELEVATION - RETAIL '5" 3_._ _---- ®_ - 31tb a p-t, ta , b+ V. ti a 1 I 1 y > ;A1b l ciiE[-NstAEET ,' e J1 1,�`t 1"41 I 1/ A .V A AI y : 1i'r (, Ky M/CHI 1. .1mozimsci �V1`1�C`^{� • 111 /J7 F fir.-u._._.8. ,,'��YI' 4� I'�'" 1 1S,1.1 '11112 I.yb,t�D ��1)•\-1 . ' a .. , (J tYlt�‘ --r..11. _ �...,.._.. ..�... _.�" 1W MM4\IN .10!! , ,1.W/ r ri F '^ C 1 ' w. ay. 1w 11 1l ND!'�, t I - 1 1 I WU Y7C Yi .Kl •—J ".' It yf^1 y1, "•, 1 I i 1 I ' ja 'n�111 Wn.�t r: t1 ... _iI $ +1Y YN->,,'�tt it I11 (VV. ,-,,, j • 1 J tr r •.Y - ,,,"ti;, ,,,„ alb ,,,,,, •��... - rat .a l ';! "a A' Pi \1 ' J i ti . : o ' _ �.Iv ''; a' n lr �i1�iU n y W I 41.„ WEST ELEVATION - OFFICE "Al! m ,J . _i,t. // 11111\1111.111 _1� W11111111 1 1 11114 - -I . 1 $ -ICi $r -- r 1 $ s 1111111 111111111l1I11111i1lII1 111IitII r- r -_, 11 1r ` AR ELEVATION OFFICg "A" 4 "5" ' site' ..i'.p .r_ rii • tLl. 1li..1.__ _1d , I _ L_TIthlUi111.11111 -1..1 : \ .. - 1 .1 r 1 r' ' ._ �� ( w It AlA)1.[)1 IY4t1 • " � ,. ,. • 1 I I1.1 � 1 11, t]M[III I 1 1 1 l A Pi1161bJ//i ,N.1 r 1r it 1r63 - ii it if it ii 1 roe.Y0b1 IT1 • k SIDE ELEVATION OFsICE "A" 4 "5" ' Y. .. 4 4 Via, +> + � ,d : Y 1 , ,1.♦ E 1 i 1 1 } .k, \ .� •,1 t . 0 0 li. 0 • la rep�lFSy OfEENSTREET nuuul • //Alli6, .1*P.. .. I. u 11 ' , IAA; ii I � � B " n,uyJ w1uwl.t�w •'. " pp 1 WEST ELEVATION - OFPIC>i / RETAIL �' , �'l.�/j we 4rt t r�'i /fir (14 ' {% d 111'N— _____EFI. ____ ___ _ _ �. � T p in- r. fl 11 I� 11 !MITI _iffiLit ]C� m m :a 8 ff j ka 1rIII n �rir- �r —�r Ir��.�r �r�-~� C_lCI r_-_�r I it 1r-rr` -ir----1r1r I r") cia ` EAST ELEVATION_-O PICE / RETAIL (Y ' . w . _� V 3/Ib'•I'•C) �rII 7 t�.' • eF.. • • in m• - — IT,— ....... EFI . . l 1 I lid illill ii till I !7: .., ,71Ces1111ff1E11 1 iffiF111111111f1{ •11 WMJ 1IN6A0.1•r..rw• Na I. • r r Ir lr r i,r ir .- _.rr. r-] r i r If �r r I r �r �r� -- .r r K NORTH ELE' ATION - OPPICra / RETAIL ;..� � O 11'•O --` SOUTH Ef-EV 1,TION ._:,.: ,.*,' U i x S _ - OFFICE / RETAIL CO ' 0 • �i u 1, $ v r l f �I, J ; . . . . '.. : .,.• :**. • ..'• ' Y.1. ; ..... • .t„,4.1..14.4.1,1(..,... .....• .j..,, ,, ,.ay,.,a , . ,,...... ,11111.1111 11.111 rl 1 • . cal . . S./ .. ' 'Ne:r* ''31-14 c'l 0".•tik."...:,. 4,, ,"'4%.‘, ININJ'IN''s 4. . tnM,e• ' . , 1 cd Li 1, • e elf,.C 11.,,4 4 , • • , 1 ..„v.....-,,,,,7,:::,..........•1 =' • .''. 4., , .:' „ , . • kr." •'' • . " '' ,, I , to.litt:$c.. 7 oh,i Ia. s,• (E1 U. al . *,.. G ore •1•.' ;3 :4 e•Pv e!.ct... ht h'..tielt'... ,th , l •• io1 el !a • /41 et',,,,•• 4 y - ........-..-..- 1 7.- ---• o a vsiss".• 6.,pi.E•1•. P._ 'it, ••••.,„ i "6:g::;1141.%:1,1:::::111.:::::1‘11:::::::•1:71". 1111.4 4.1141 4.161,11,1 I I 111 a.'' . 0 ' : I-''' • . . C ' i.1,,1,i.•. ....‘34ik """1 L..::::4444::*.',;,•ii'l,. 16 y 16.1111111 611.yitm r tn l''' ....•CY : . .• . 0 . . , . il 1 \ A ' ,Fii-rd..:: ., ?,r.t7iv.i...21Y• .rt...-e•1• •I11 -: .....1.':-.74VAt g 1. .1 t2 ,,,,e 1 r Y11.40.•.101;111 "'""1:::'::,',,,,-.1:14..,0., iI " " 'e:11:1:.:,,,, .4 •( +PI•••.') k..2* ---'1 < " 44 a:',':,',1„ . 6•MN I.ly.4,01.1610.1... .. . y . 1 , • 0) 1 1 ...„1., . '.' ''• . ' I (Ito /NN)) • -• -.••• • 1 CO , 4 C ( SCSAA.,_, k,z tz e-yd.. - LI'' r•he i i..h. ( 416•14 1011.1 " "To:X.1111111. V 4 i 4 -• ; , • 1. Z,e, 6117Cia 4 "..-" 11'''''/VII:;1... ' '" ''''...!:',II: :10. •1•11 1 411 1.• • Cr.)1.../.., N ( 1 .......u• \ 1 ; ,........11•11.1141;0 11 a111.1 1Zr.... 1'....Y111 4C1/ • .. . ' )\1.1.4 '..,- •• _if\ ,:::, ,„.., (.. . 7..4) 1 ., - yr 4. - I ..,,,,.,... -..., :.11--,;::?...V4."' 4. -2'r 's _sk , 1I (kr-ca -le'At- 7.1, ' ""4•61111.4 11,, 1. <!•••• k id ....... -. .... 4 1, ha h,• ;4 hl...) "i I') 1,..'h •ti '1„..L.-=..p.e-3......P.,...P.. ' 'et - , (.0 . • i ......a rikj) ir II ..,. .., .,,,,, . •., . ••••.4.1 111 11 01 1••• yy.1. .... ' / i . ' • • , .;... , (c* -*Z I 1 /* c P1 0 PP. 1 ( ; •' ,.. • r( .14.0. .1•1' 0 Pa.., .. 1 1 L., t. ' • 1 I I b 1,•••• t/ 1..W.. - r{r V 0. •'• ittl . . ,, • . • • .• 1 "'el e) 1.,ft, • A.. . . , ' (4'. 0 '141 e- ) r _ i 1 . :. 4... 6 . • 4 ' \ 1 Fe. '4 ) 1 i I .i 11111/43 I\ , ___..• t.,...,. . .t. , ire 4. •IN ' \ • ) 0_ , 4. ,,`" t,,-,I 1,1 14.1.te, . ) , d'...1 II *41 0",,, 1 ; " -k S1/4.,iftv 8 sa. i . .'1"'"''''' '' , -. . • ,. i , , *r•it,'".I.... :. -.--. .. A .,,, , . ,' li'PO if k I V ' , •00 .4. V iP i 'A.A.= A -rI..-I ., 'r.7i;II' . '• . .L., '• ' -..,* 1,a ., • N, , P. y ",,/ / 1 111.111 111 X I 1 1 \ (44* 4r.‘ tel 4•74 -...." ( 1 ) •I• i rf.', ....- ---- . , ‘4% ,rd ,) P 1 t,,A11r t t''" kriTAl. A' 6 1.Th A;',..- - 14 ; 1,1 A*.• s , ,, , 0 ; 1 1,„eve•4. - i • •. , 1,11110 V.. , , a lit 1.P.s. • . . 9'Ail,,.• n••• '. '• ,10 I ....Cr, 1 r , 1 ( , 6 IPIP....4.. 1,, 1 ••('''. . V fi a .. ) -,Alp 1 li, .._ . 4 ,....,_.• . .._.... .„. • 4," ) I 14 -- - -- "T 4 h. ( P..- " II t JS/‘‘..1?' ' V T y ' 1 ) .11 ) 1011 '••• - - (ti0.1‘ iy:.:,.1/V 11 v r ( ,t,I.., 4,1•4. :f ' .• RI . '.. ." el 1.100 P!. 1 LiCO x ,.4,•... , Landscape Plan L . . t' 0 a .......L aso• II 0}.At a 1..‘G• 0. ...-.... --.....-.. , - ----- , .-. ' 0 0 • ,. r • . , , ., • . • . • k t 1 f ,y p r.� 0 . • • /tl avitamiiiiGliEtM :W + _.--...:- u`'�11Lllltq -''114.'2.1Q_.._.. F1�• 1? tl l tH' l ,'r i'61 roe Li OFF B. f A �EEZ 1 :oy li III 1 1 I 1 I » l, ..1: i, hl l 1,1 1 .� i L ./ 1 I 1 r fly f I bA •J i , i 11 I ' 1 i OFFK E/k'ETA1 *I 4/ LICy.761 y 4. I llI ' N:11 4 . . : ' 1� i , ' - i ` a .4 ,M-Y ( i Jar I M. I N i I CO i i I ,' i ,,' ',,, 7y6 i r i III iilj Npp Iljqter y r1 Ill/ { 1 :yy :el 1/� / 1 f I I i �r1\1 ,3 l'i '',.'''':', . F.. .:. ! i I I V 1 4;�b 4a �.)it, i ; l Uf-F I(:L.�. Y *.v r 1 : C-14-' f.'E11,( ./.4. � i 4/ rf1'J•M6 f wN4LJ,; I 1 ,. l .. rt " I[NGAtl • .wunoe,N,J.d m \ i E I i .� PLAN V H JI ry r,l r.a<, • .r ' t i;4L (3PAC)ING P1 AN .A. aA • r6 Y ............ ' '•,' } a " b e'' ' / fic,t 7t1tn: 1 V3V f3HEE1SAFEET . I f J F uiul NCI . t . 147iQi A11111111 t-ail, I j 111I IAl 1 1 1 '1Iw111KM1a WO .•h �� • J \ 1111I.en•.,IIS v " ! OFFICU'F3' 11 \ \ ::...,...:,•...,-,,,4•..1:... t. Ltl ( ( ( ti Ht -1 ( i -: ••' , mitt/Ir Wtit ^ LWf.IP .', • I (T _ vi \, L CN FIGS/kETAL w • • VIrn 'n Q .• - - 1 t / 8 .et CI { ^ PO ` Uri/ f t],p t 111 ill V9 , Ik.$ ,� L (1 I ° yf3� r y • Ire S . 1 I it I j OFFK,L't' UTILITY PLAN • + tr t 4 : ( u an1Ur wltr ' w ,111 p,C.tiki \ n..t 4UfN II.O.+1 &WAIe aW1t1 1VAVIG';tnrtii 6 P tiurr ijt UTILIT)a Pt AN % 'I ct i± —1 1! 0 . . ' . L.... b • 0 ,0 �• . a uN Kla No syo 'II, eqo NV No 7'VP iVV .gsu aqn 1✓i'U lacy Iry lepu yay leo mg typo, "W..foKl Pp �1; �7 -u1a .w__aa 041 au'"uto.13161 uba oh our-olri-'LL• LSl oE.-61.11,yy.-_o—'.1. of a• •, au lUu rwly tlaau [;oq llaa INV fgia 1WV lgly 1 u as abr 'nie , �• r� a>w oh, on-�abi'uYart`ubt o !!V V r 1S4 !{ya igyV hog /�[y*�a,� aa7��1 1 W aUCI\$1 l�G I ua or -oa ulia olio u2u--o"up i oo oh, oh ob o» oh, a1 f !n al a o» on oh, ow oh, oh, oh oh Alit nt Il' to rl+rtl rl+r i , II) o. uiu' abf uiu cc., 1 I' I1 ohs oh Oil a»� li•l a 1.4s Ir br 7 In p oUu u1u on, a • au Inca at4 n.n n• .� ai .1. oh ohs uba I o» Oil oh ��11 Iua u+ m.a4 two ♦%raa a4a oia l r aU a1tt.4naa•,:lA Iv OFFICE:13' oU U uw oet Ia In lir iri sit oh „� (<) �: '1 u u u'n, aw . Iai o» a s oh. n o» an In elm alai too + a I u1 ,n oh ,d ant a ..* t ��I 0 u' uL oh .:.a 'S ,w nS aL n s • Ufa Nlala OW • bU Iir o1s oh oh oh oh oh oh ' • U� I ui1 to, at 1lM tlbu ba t 1 oh St ni ,n a1a ,r th tit In ai+• ,iv IA oh u• LEGCPU 1 ul oh u:. •3, ,1• oh o1. niu oSu oh oh oL oh u' Ulf uia 1 _n7, 'a x"j***AW Ynry IIuka '� In uir ill oh ala do tia aw oh oiI o a r( oft lei fA f;a :Anlawa!eaa+.1 f� I ll .0 'S IA p1, ter oi• oh, oh V►r Y oh IiI 11. 419 ab• oh t too I onla nala�laia co u\L) ed. 1n fit an oh n» oh 1 z txrwwarr.uu 1 04 la stood st. sir as 1aa oh '1iu aia Idr ,Ir ,i+ �M Ilia Il. oh UU, a •uo bva ull r'/t:lUu,loon •L i1• ab .la its aU ,w 1 aSr I I t,•' , , do oh 1b. s.w 7n oh aia ono an fda ii. IL oh eh aL al. 11aua wto r.fu CnA3Awe a tts•1a1A! ui. 61- as i1• oh oh s1. aL tiar oh o. aw.>u nvavt utr sua•w,n r a ,» d• 16 to od al 74 oh I� uS „b 'u u�r ulu a n aaneaava, ib, tdr ah, oh ah all a6 114 an oh Aaa ' i r �n a$ alud,1 tb 111 74 fb a ,d I}ta ''1 au fah d ,ai ob aia u a nli oh +la I" slr al, a, Alt oh �Ir ,37 {I4 oh aiu a�, ai„ ,&, u'w oh o "au OFh KJE /1? TAI, a h cia ti. •A cif oh. ,w IA I' oh do an one s on o4 , Iau 'n eL +4 oh oh sil sit do t.a sa fir a:e� ,.. uSa ul I do ,u oh uw o 1» tia rbl aL 1r oh oh 1,1 Ibll 1 • 14 ,119 11 11 aQ s �' aSt ab 1) 1i+ ala ab a8 rSr an a e uL u r a•r as a•r tr as r • ,anu ) 1a4 ono tin 11• 7 71r on) oh 71u tic 1i7 do Inc ton \ r VY. d. ,ia ai 64 tat, rd• tda ta:. Iia 1 sio to I aL ilu ai t1 la 1 u a At ,rlu \l/�Ifda ih oh oh du 74. 71a an th ti4 aL ✓�`\r1 ,ui uSu a76 t1r 1 r$ Ir1e I ad,I alal / I +►`.� a' Iia fn 7Ss fb eis a1 oh I t1. a , low 0 aka do 1L sh sla at. asa ais ono slo aL di I u u�a1 „;t ui Ik 11a d 'At i ti 014 of 14 sL aka rA oia oh oho oh s1t oL at 1[, sin Iw sat ,au u q ulr,1 oii u u1. 1d. h 'L ri. ad 7n u, Ii, Iia In In r S\ t taru ll' sL aL it el at ill Jo tii do in u n'l abs !obi o' 1 ` 1 ^ 'b 7L on 7h Ids in d) 1 1oh eia rL rie tla aw aL aie a ' ,w o. 1 , nuu uA uw 1sUv h an ain • s:r do 7d, lob I1ful chi 1Lf •t1` uh u it a. sua 11e ala abr 110 +b oh aiu aia sA, h siM aL sL kJI al 1' o a s AMIu ,i ' u n uba gib) ail 1L aL oh doh a a r'+ • u» ,d as aia al. an ,e;, an fir tbo 114 111 1h lit f a n ,Ar 1i1'u V U q Uba ilia I✓t ah fin f4 ,� tiErLAX g ! uSe H . •►rnluaha I •,. u, aleaa au 14114I uSJ 'S iLl: [11 r tla. lam I r r t'7 i, i1a liu ui4 ,in u a I uV u11 a s 7wu ysiJ a u7 oohs nil uS1 U r K 'p}7� YL+ u3u o6r� n» utA a q fao }} )� IIb I614 ,H IeUU 1 � �1 �aa t „Sa ail n ua.uuo l•1IIA' • t. tau0 .n r• • wso• . 1s 64 11.�. 1 1y a a AAIU k a" uiu ow obit oh ubl u r nba uiy oh uis• , i '' do e» S is aia ow un nit u • . IIftt oh •K4 V.A.' taw W obr au ohuti ra. laaa USn L111 oh ubra a �,,r ��f�l SITb LICN-11`IhfG PLAN oh tans at, aa. as oh IL ohs u» on oho ash, obi oh uba lit. , a 1.16,1 0• aun ti p ^V� I _ N1a 4l1(71 . • oOd • ,: • ., ` if • t s lr" 11• tiM`l ^, r•°1 I I I I fill1 a 1 I I 1 �x i I I • 1 Al 1 1 ji1 Inn■Anr[AI YM • ral Ynlnlll1lI{{al Aw01SCMl / ■ N nS tt 1/1.YCnO11,iM IIIL YY ■�' ) !�111 u, 1 II ,� aaaM f ruNn,Iw1a1 • 1 1 I I ...a Y! /fl lfq 1 1I? •11 S •1/ 1.111.11000 M14110.1//p-1 IIIY IIf GII f �`O� , W1nINV 1!V MNIk IYAMY W PS 1ANM11SY 4 /1 rV1 1 if■.» •i1 •�jl t. 1Y1 nY NnnYEnN u N,IY•A1 Aw KtSAri p„l. , > r r I ;y' 1 t I I X. a•.i ry1�Y YINul1� j i la I J I eu If 1 cif! .1P� ■Ii Alf,w. r j 1 / `\\ �u 1:ZIP' 0 111 MI '"h } I I I YI'i ,} 11 �u I •�f KC� sx ZIP' y (I ■11 14+CAI VAIN .I'11nY YANYSI I 1 ; 1®l4•IS Ix WW1(SAW 4 •11 Al' •4f, 1 1 It,i I l •W 1/•1Yt 11 i 1/•1Y, 11 11•Y1Y 11YM 1f 11•oul 71 I • W ••1i •y II 0.M AI IrnA, II I11••8N V/ +, , `i 11•OM II 11'1v1M ff1111 1f e: 1 •q ii tYAw ii ilr ou•r • 1p ww I, 11•■MfMA(;' ' ‘11 ail Ii ni 11 1•oAw II 1•AW N 1 It•aA, YI 1•811 N 11•GM " 4 1 64 ..I.-;4_ • d 1 n•Yu1 a �roM\\.ir ii•a°""uI ' •Il •,1- - !1'YrA1tiM Ii /i W i! :AH I I �l It•nM M Ir AYI t1 i" •1 ��\]11 u non a.tf 1..81. (0 • I ti Ir aN �- 1 •1 •e1 tl 11•n4 Sit N•M* Y YYYYI 1,. I VI /1 •V tit • d II w411 1 N jIj 1 HI 11 wi 11 1'Wi1 M fY't1 ` •l■ \ 11 11•lllw 11 Ir■w V >eau \\::( \` \ l\ 11 11'nu N 1:AYI M iiw �141 eu 1 til I I.A.11 •H •f1 `F • jIu, 1•INt '1'`, '1 \''t .1, ." .v adlr^\\\ \II r. " , 0 - _ •,v, .., ' i ---, -) '..,_, I' 1 4 ! AEML4D.Ihonno,IL i i l ww i 1wlw I III 1'I I UPAII III d + �Ya■.•1W 1 ull'IINI Mai �if1,1��p}�J... nlI/ill•1 V •l� / y r 111N AnlweYw •„.1.wuL I,11"Y 1Y11 Iw.NY- --I CO e 04110 8 1 Jurisdictional • Wetland Determination t. . . , • for Kruse Oaks Project • Prepared for Greenstreet Architecture !'r .• • ' Y • Prepared by Martin Schott, Ph.D. • SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1020 S.W. Taylor Suite 610 Portland, Oregon 97205 • • February 19, 1991 • • ,y. • • • • • • 1 l 1• J,ry. 4• A 1 • q ... I ' I l" TABLE OF CONTENTS , . ,, , Page I. INTRODUCTION A. General Site Description B. Wetland Definition and Authority I II. OBJECTIVE 1 e III. METHOD 1 A, Literature Review 133 •�;r Site-Specific Investigation 3 1. Vegetation 3 2. Soils 4 3. Hydrology 6 4. Wetland Determination 4 IV. RESULTS 7 A. Federal Method for Wetlatiu Delineation •• Investigation 8 1. Vegetation 8 2, Soils 11 3. Hydrology 11 4. Wetland Determination 13 B. Wetland Functions and Values 13 4 V. • SUMMARY 15 Y VI. REFERENCES 16 t. Y • • r • ' w +' • •rr• TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) T 1A Page • List of Tables t • Table 1 Definitions of Indicator Status 4 , Table 2 Hydric Soil Indicators 5 Table 3 Hydrologic Regimes and Wetland Characteristics 6 Table 4 List of Observed Plant Species in Wetland Areas 8 Table 5 List of Observed Plant Species in Upland Areas • 10 Table 6 Summary of Vegetation Data 10 �' Table 7 Summary of Soils Data 11 • Table 8 Summary of Hydrology Data 13 • Table 9 Summary of Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology Data 13 • List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 • Figure 2 Sample Plot Locations 9 Figure 3 Soils Map 12 Figure 4 Approximate Wetland Areas 14 APPENDICES Appendix A 17 Appendix B • • 28 • •• • • • • • ',a r • • • • • • • • + _ •h. • • • J } • I. INTRODUCTION • A• GENERAL SITE• DESCRIPTION The Kruse Oaks project site is located in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6, T2S, R1E, VJ,M, e and Parkview drives form the western and southern boundaries respectively (Figure 1). The site is approximately 2.9 acres, and is rectangular in shape. The entire area surrounding the site has been recently developed, and the site has been zoned for commercial development, The site slopes gently (3.5 percent) to the south, and includes no natural e w . However, there is a ditch that runs through the site from the northwest corner to the south central boundary. The ditch appears to have been abandoned, and no longer serves any function, The n a.• of the ditch has been blocked off, and water is diverted to the west, norther portion There are two plant communities on the site. The eastern half of the site used t II cultivation, and was planted to a pasture mix prior to 1975 (USDA, SCS 1985), Additionally, there is a plow line against the remnants of a fence that separated the field from the adjoiningi • community. The second community is dominated by deciduous trees, but there is evidence h t th community used to be dominated by Douglas firs. Currently there are only a few Douglas firs on the site, but Douglas fir stumps ‘sere observed in most of the forested community. B . WETLAND DEFINITION AND AUTHORITY Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and through Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been giens the responsibility he Section 404 mend rig process, the U.S. Army discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters and adjacen wetlands ofauthority the StatesUnit to edas (Federal Register, 1986), The following definition of wetlands is used by the Co federal agencies for administering the Section 404 permit program (Federal Register, 1980, 119 )other • "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequencyand `y. duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do sup ort prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." p Because site conditions suggest est wetlands are present, and federal regulations control filling of the presence and extent of wetlands should be determined in order to assess the implication this may have on any future development plans, II. OBJECTIVE a. �s The purpose of this study was to use methods suggested in the Federal Manual for ldenti in Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989) to determine the presence and extent of wetlands and subject property in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, If wetlands were determined to be present, the wetland bounties were delineated, III. METHODS The analysis of wetlands conducted on this site was based on the method developed • and other federal agencies for implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, by theCorpsho This method 1 2/18/9 l • • y,. 1 11 I 1 I I I I I I I II •••, I • . I • . 1 41 . ' • Ty - Cr 4 or Ta)-72p---77.- ,. .. ':. .• 0 �• • )).--11-10 ': 44 '': .• . • . i •0•'4�•• •. •, • r • ,, ---r1-- al ./, \ ,.. w1 • • � :.- 7fefpolnte Office Pa k • RI • , •� i •� `tic( la . . s o IP • . _...-� I •• , •fit} •s.•t• • �ii� •, dook opoi .11 • 4 d;rF;akf J • • I 0401/ • ti 1I ••• •. • •jp • •� — a..•\N •.-.. •• • ,. .n T • ,, a..•-0r•--.4. e 4 • • r q I 1-. : I di P.r"c� ••••• ed CPTN dMQ fir• •I♦• •� • •• O• • io :r/ w •i • I• •., , •::: ••,IAA•, • • ..•• •�... / "...4 .41.1111,4111111,7414..V.efil ‘,....1 Os-c."IIPIA4:4* as::0Yeti liu....- Up ....t.Sta.z......k.t....e. re ' 4.4.. . . ' ii , 1,.., .... . Ike 49Z.911 o-41111killy..110 A - •V ••• , 00 • . il • • • YIciN'IYJAP _ . , • ., .• • LAKE OSWEGO ,• OREGON . 1 Vicin►tyFigurep use QaksMa 4 • is commonly referred to as the Unified Federal Method (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Two levels of investigation have been conducted for the the wetlands on the subject property: (1) review and analysis of existing site-specific literature and • (2) a site-specific investigation to adequately determine the presence and extent of wetlands. The methods used in each of these two tasks are described below, • A . LITERATURE REVIEW A review of existing information was conducted to identify any wetlands or any site characteristics that would indicate wetlands on the subject property. Several valuable resource documents were PP ' available for preliminary review of the site conditions (see Reference section for complete listing). • • USDA, SCS, 1985. Hydric Soils of Oregon. • USDA, SCS, 1985. Soil Survey of the Clackamas County Area, Oregon. Data sources were reviewed and used to gather preliminary information about the vegetative, and hydrologic characteristics of the site prior to the site investigation. soils. B . SITE-SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION An Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method (Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989, pp. 35-39) was used to determine the wetland s �,: boundaries. Using this method, vegetative, soils, and hydrologic parameters were examined for wetland characteristir�s. In order to determine the presence and extent of wetlands on the site, representative sampling plots were established, The plots were located in the central portion of areas with homogeneous vegetation. A homogeneous area of vegetation can be composed of a single species of grass, or a number of species that together make up a distinctive lan t commuunity If an area of homogeneous veget ation extended over a range of topographic levels, a sample plot was located within each topographic level. At each sample plot, vegetation, soils, and hydrology field data were collected and recorded on a data form (see Appendix A), After several plots were investigated, plant communities of similar composition and character were identified. Where these plant communities recurred, additional sample plots were not deemed necessary to accurately determine the presence and extent of wetland areas. Wherever new plant zommunities or community composition variation were observed, additional sample plots were established and the sampling procedure implemented. I . Vegetation Plants must be specifically adapted for life under saturated or anaerobic conditions to grow in ,;etlands, Such plants are commonly referred to as hydrophytic vegetation, The Corps U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have determined the estimatedprobabilityplant and the occurrence in wetlands, and have assigned an "indicator statu " to each pecies}t reflect species' their f:ndings, Accordingly,plants may be categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), f cultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL). Definitions for each indicator status are listed in Table 1, Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are onsidered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. • 3 2/18/0 i • r ;. ' At each sample plot, vegetation was described by �� • „ L. occurring within the herb, shrub and tree strata. For each sample lot ' radius, and shrubs within afive-foot radius of estimating the cover of each plant species v don ominant a form. All species within the ra plot were recordedp plot, within a 3U-foot the center of the plot were identified and recorded species were determined. Dominant specie are thosethat, whenocum la ive y totaled, and descending order of abundance, immediately exceed 50% of4 stratum, plus any additional species immediately representing for a cumulatively in the aerial cover the each vegetative .V for each vegetative stratum. individually l' niing 20% or more of total aerial cover The indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetation stratum was used to determine the presence of•,vetland vegetation. g on TABLE I DEFINITIONS OF INDICATOR STATUS • :, 4 SI •,. Indicator Symbol Definition . N y i , • OBL Obligate. Species that occur almost always (estimated probability >y9<<) in �' , FACW Facultative wetland. Species that us probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found rin n in wetlands i etlan (estimated ° r FAC wetlands. � ,.• :.• Facultative. Species that are equally likely to occur in we nonwetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66%). wetlands or FACU0 . : •t ,,•, Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in n - “ill' < .. probability non (estimated ;. ,} 67 to 99%) but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPL Upland. Species that occur almost always in nonwetlands under conditions (estimated probability>99%) L' norn�al No indicator, Species for which insufficient information was available determine an indicator status, to e 1 s.: . . 4 . • ' Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delinea tion, 1989, Reed, 1988 ` A sample plot was considered to have wetland vegetation dominant species present have an indicator status of FAC, FACW, g if more than 50% of the number of 50% of the dominant species were OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, or OBL, In addition, if 2 d hydrology were present, the area was considered a "problem area and hydric" soils ande wetland :dentifierl as hydrophytic, wetland"and the vegetation was Soils One characteristic of wetlands is hvdric soils, Hydric soils are , coded, or ponded long enough during the growing defined as soils that are saturated, ' . season to develop anaerobic conditions in the 4 2/18/91 • • • !. . ,. .. t ' ,ti't V• upper part of the soil profile (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987). The Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS), has . : compiled a lisf of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the • • SCS that meet hydric soil criteria. A map unit of upland (nonwetland) soil may have inclusions of hyiric soil, and vice versa. These inclusions may not be delineated on the SCS maps; therefore, field examination of soil conditions is important in order to determine if hydric soil inclusions exist. Because of wet, anaerobic conditions, hydric soils exhibit certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Such characteristics or indicators include: high organi', content, accumulation of sulfidic material, greenish or bluish grey color(gley formation), spots or blotches J of orange color (mottling), and/or dark soil colors (low soil chroma), Hydric soil indicators are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Hydric Indicator Diagnostic Criteria • 7 ` Organic content • >50% by volume Sulfidic n terial • "Rotten egg" odor. Soil color • Mottling, 'r, • Dark soil matrix color. • Gleyed colors. Water saturation • In poorlydrained soils or very i.� • poorly drained soils with low A permeability, groundwater table at less than 1,5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually a week or more) ` during the growing season. Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989, USDA 1975, Soil samples were obtained at each representative sampling plot either by digging a soil pit or using • a soil auger to excavate down to a depth of at least 18 inches, Soil samples were then examined for .hydric indicators, Organic content was estimated visually and texturally; sulfidic material was determined by the presence of sulfide gases ("rotten egg" odor); and soil colors were determined by using a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell Color, 1988). Munsell soil color charts standardize soil color by using three color components: hue, value, and chroma. Additionally, if soils were abserved to be saturated within 18 inches of the surface during the growing season, they were identified as hydric, Hydric soils were assumed to be present in any sampling plot where the vegetation community consists of either all dominant species with an indicator status of obligate, or all dominant species with an indicator status of facultative wetland or obligate, and an abrupt wetland boundary. In those areas, soil data were not collected, ; 5 2/18/91 • } •:r 3 . Hydrology ,1, Water must be present in order for wetlands to exist; however, it need not be presente . the entire year. Wetland hydrology is con3icicred to be present when there ispermanent o throughout t inundation, or soil saturation for a significant period (usually a week or mor ) during gowing �� ,, season (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). owing Indicators of wetland hydrology, including areas of ponding or soil saturation; evidence ° • i �•- previous water inundation or saturation, such as algae of • �`�'f w root channels; and drainage patterns, were exanuned at each sampling soil mottling along live indicators of wetland hydrology were observed, it was assumed that wetland hydrology' Whereo positiveo %, • a significant period of the growing season. Table 3 summarizes some of the yydrolicccre is for is• f that can be encountered and their wetland characteristics. • ' TABLE 3 HYDROLOGIC REGIMES AND u:.. WETLAND CHA RACTERISTICS Degree of Inundation Duration* of Inundation or Saturation or Saturation Wetland • Characteristics A. • Permanently inundated** h , 100°Io present Semipermanently to nearly >75% - <100% permanently inundated or present saturated*** Regularly inundated or ' saturated >25% - <75% usually present 410 • Seasonally inundated or >12A5% - <2 % often present -esent Irregularly inundated or saturated >5% - <12.5% often absent `t Intermittently or never inundated or saturated <5% absent percent of growing season **inundation > 6.6 ft. mean water depth ***inundation < or= 6.6 ft, mean water depth A • r a'. Sources; Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,January1987 � Clark and Benforado, 1981, � • 4 A Wetland Determination %egetation, soil, and hydrology data for each sampling plot were examined presence or absence of wetlands. Under the Cogs regulation, if all three parameters exhibited 6 2/18/91 . wetland characteristics, o•r normally would have exhibited wetland characteristics for a significant • period (usually one we;k or more) during the growing season, then a positive wetland determination was made for that area of homogeneous vegetation cover represented by the sampling plot. If any one of the parameters did not exhibit positive wetland indicators, the area was determined to be upland (nonwetland), unless problem or disturbed areas were encountered, In disturbed areas, field indicators of one or more of the three wetland parameters are obliterated or not present because of recent change. Disturbed areas include both wetlands and nonwetlands that have been modified to varyuing degrees by human activity (e.g., clearing of original vegetation, filling, excavation, and construction) or natural events (e.g., avalanches, mudslides, fire, volcanic • deposition, and beaver dams). In determining if a disturbed area is a wetland, both onsite observations and offsite research can be used. Historical records, aerial photographs, and preexisting soil surveys and wetland or vegetation inventories can reveal previous undisturbed conditions. Recent onsite observations may reveal remnants of parameters (vegetation, soils, and 1 the presence or absence of hydrologic indicators) that were later lost to disturbance. In addition, undisturbed areas adjacent or nearby may be used as reference sites to det rmine the former undisturbed conditions of the project site. In problem areas, it is difficult to determine if an area is a wetland because field wetland indicators ' may be absent at certain times of the year. The difficulty in identification is generally related t0 4 normal environmental conditions, and not the result of human activities or catastrophic natural events, as is the case with disturbed areas. Examples of problem areas include wetlands on glacial till, highly variable seasonal wetlands, and wetlands where only 25 to 50% of the dominant plants are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, but the area contains hydric soils and hydrologic indicators. ' Artificial wetlands are included in this section because their identification presents problems similar ,. to some of the natural problem-area wetlands (Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating , Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989). ,a IV. RESULTS The Kruse Oaks site (SHAPIRO # 650020) was investigated for the presence of wetlands on November 31, 1990, and February 12, 1991. The site is located on the northeast corner of • Westlake and Parkview Drives in Lake Oswego. Five sample plots were established in areas of homogenous vegetation (Figure 2). Data were collected and recorded on standard wetland data forms, and wetland determinations were made (Appendix summarizes the data for the three wetland criteria (veeton, soils, and hydrology)., The g discussion A. The sites current use is primarily open space. The pasture community appears to be maintained by mowing. All of the grass was a uniform height as if the grass had been mowed, The forested community has been relatively undisturbed, and is dominated by native vegetation, There are several trails through the site, and there is a small play fort at the northeastern edge of the forest, • • Before conducting the field study the literature on the site was reviewed and a preliminary site visit was made. Prior to sampling the entire site was walked to become acquainted with the site, and to Identify possible wetland areas, Sample plot were established in possible wetland areas and adjoining upland areas, 7 11' : 2l18191 ' p ti w • 0 ., ''' ;''. , ' Gw A. FEDERAL METHOD FOR WETLAND DELINEATION INVESTIGATION 1 . Vegetation There are two principle plant communities on the site; pasture and deciduous forest. The pasture community comprises the eastern half of the site, and the forested community is on the western N half. The pasture area appears to be comprised of a standard pasturean as been . • a pasture for at least 16 years. The pasture area had been farmed in the past, which,wasilndi indicated by a plow line adjacent to the forested area. The pasture area had been mowed during the last growing season, and there were no seed heads to identify the grass species, However, it was possible to identify most of the species present, and the dominant species include: quack grass, tall fescue,perennial rye S grass, and Kentucky bluegrass. The forested community was dominated by Oregon white oak, but there were three small patches rr or clumps of Oregon ash. Most of the area used to be dominated by Douglas firs, but the had `4 been logged out in the past, and presently there are only a few Douglas firs on the site. The shrub layer under the oaks is dominated by ocean spray and California hazel nut, and rose, Douglas ' hawthorn, Douglas spirea, and ninebark are also present. California hazel nut was found under two of the patches of Oregon ash. The third patch of Oregon ash had a shrub layer dominated by Douglas hawthorns, and ninebark. Most of the herbaceous layer was dominated but there were several patches of slough sedge, The slough sedge was found in smallclumps,Fand was found under both the oak and ash. Tables 4 list the plant species observed in the we lands, and Table 5 lists the plant species observed in the uplands, Table 6 summarizes the vegetation data for the sample plots, TABLE 4 LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES IN WETLAND AREAS410 ... .f... : AT THE KRUSE OAKS SITE IN LAKE OSWEGO, ORE CON Wetland Scientifie Name Common Name • Indicator Status Trees: Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Shrubs and Small Trees: ' Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FAC FAC+ Salix sp. Willow Sambucus racemosa FAC-OBL .„ Spiraea douglasii red elderberry FACU Douglas spiraea FACW • •• Grasses and Forbes: Carey obnupta , Phalaris arundinacea slough sedge OBL Poa sp, reed canarygrass FACW bluegrass ': • UPL-FACW • * As defined in Table 1, 8 2/1 i3/91 ' • • • 0 0 0 . • I I f I -- -.--________ • I III I r A�s 1� m ii _____......._____ • 11�b1s C0M ^ 1 A7 COM I �Ielr ell 111) es or as'.IG•7 s711s) Seale 1 It1Ct1 — 80 feet I i I e11 (Aft O3H0o pOa1 mum t 4.1 City 111041 /2 ° : 1• • ) :: 13 I8 —• -sot 1 I' '\II{te 00 �� 017E..EARN 9401 \ l• 0-1tuN uwg7 �,I i U AIk 41 rl Plot 4 • !1 le N 34 1..1'•M sr IY7M .1 1 rt • ,o w 1 11'04f Y O�w N 3-1/Aw /a .1 f'�'1/ a M�-_-�.�.�� 11 1.11•A1) 11 1r 1•Ia•LAN 10 1/•ASS I 1 w••7 \ !1 11'OM 11 t�CA4 11 1-1 i•Afl -I pi1 i 11•M M 1. out > / y b 11 14'0" o s g le s:oke ,t N a 1.oM �7 • v 1.• r Aft yam' OIt 53 0 to OM N 11` �l 1�:MN t.'. IPlot 81a, .» 1.•IIM N c: :r Gm 1 �� 1•t1•oM // 11•w 10 0i1O 1•�tr Out47C• II J u II Out 11 1'Outu11:4.:2:°1:41 O7 �� - N II'OM >0 IY Aft V •O 11 O IM Oaf fl 17`Af/ 1/ 'uIt�� i v om sa se curt es •A 1�4I ( 4;�• ;7,.\\ 111p 1.OM a1 11'n1 11 O ; 1 IYOM 71 setmo p 'AI �11 �1\\'1\ e7/ 1 Ir Ot�t4f 11'oWN 'a ' 1 \1 � 1! '71 � 70 11'04f`?I, / I7 OM71t1'Af1 ~ 10' (ut"Q~ !'�' .>1 0/711 11.OMY 1.1/•OM 10O11 OI s. 1rAs. aIYM .1 A, \ 11 IYOM1114'OIAi1 ( � I �� j'O'�'tML ; fr; 7Y oAa Il\ \__ r1•pWN / • Plot 5 . I I y `�'..........1 _� T� Ora ii i oM\ '•-•,...---"` ••- ,.. L.. . . 11 le OM I \Ou. • 1111 • I kg •` :" �v�\ �- d'. tb\ l/ _ - _..-. f 1, ''tea I ' I I' `"'�� 1 -w \ Figure 2 �\ I I ��, ° Sample Plot Locations Kruse Oaks • • 'v V TABLE 5 LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES IN UPLAND AREAS AT THE KRUSE OAKS SITE IN LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON . .. ; :11-•• Wetland Sciendfie Name Common Name Indicator Status* Trees: Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Quercus garryana Oregon white oak UPL Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood PAC Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir UPL , Shrubs and Small Trees: Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn FAC Corylus cornuta californica Hazel nut UPL Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark VAC+ Rosa*canina dog rose UPL Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea FACW 1'accinium parvifolium red huckleberry UPL `• Grasses and Forbes: .4gropyron repens quackgrass FACU Carex obnupta slough sedge 013E Festuca arundinacea tall fescue FACU- ' Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass FACU Poa pratensis Kentucly bluegrass FACU Polystichum munitum sword-fern UPL Pteridium aquilinum Bracken FACU Trifolium repens white clover FACU+ x As defined in Table 1, x* Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed, 1988) were assigned an indicator status based on field observations and habitat information from the literature, TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF VEGETATION DATA AT THE CRUSE OAKS SITE •• IN LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • % of#of dominant • • Vegetation species that are Plot# Determination FAC, FACW, or OBL l non-hydrophytic 0 • hydrophytic 66 3 non-hydrophytic 50 4 Hydrophytic 100 • 5 non-hydrophytic 0 0 • 10 2/18/91 + ' - 'V IY' 2 . Soils The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1985) mapped most of the site as having Aloha soils, but the southwest corner of the site may have Cove soils. The size of the site makes it difficult to locate the site on the soils map accurately. Most of the site was verified as having Aloha soils, but '.::�• • there were a few areas that appeared to he transitional between Aloha and Cove soils, and there were a few small inclusions that appear to be Cove soils. Cove soils are typically found on nearly level areas(<2 percent slopes). The overall slope of the site is nearly 3.5 percent. However, three small inclusions of Cove soils were found on the site (Figure 3). Cove soils are listed as hydric soils (USDA, SCS, 1985), And Aloha soils are not considered as hydric soils. Table 7 is a summary of the soils data for the sample plots. • TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF SOILS DATA AT THE KRUSE OAKS SITE IN LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • • • Hydric Plot# Determination Basis for Determination 1 Non-h y di ie High chromas, Hydric Low chromas (10YR 3/2-10YR 3/1) with mottles (10YR 4/4). 3 Hydric Low chromas (10YR 3/1), w. 4 Hydric Low chromas (10YR 3/1). 5 Non-hydric High Chromas (10YR 4/3). a �: 3 . Hydrology The hydrology of the site has been alter with the development of the surrounding area. There is no natural drainage pattern on the site, but a drainage ditch runs through the site, The ditch is approximately 24-28 inches deep. However, the upper end of the ditch (north end) has been blocked off, and the water diverted towards the west by another ditch, There had been a heavy • • rain the day before the site visit, and the ditch was almost dry. Additionally, there has been recent • development to the north and east of the site, and water is diverted away from the site by storm drains. The only water entering the site is from rain. There was a little surface water at the lower end of the pasture area, but the soil was not saturated in at least the upper 24 inches, Two of the .nclusions of Cove like soils were not saturated within the top 24 inches, The third Cove inclusion mad water within 12 inches of the surface, and had saturated soils. The hydrology of this area has . . seen enhanced by a landscape mound that was built at the southern boundary of the site, and when o the ditch was built the excavated material was side cast to the east. Table 8 is a summary of the h• ydrological data for the sample plots. • r • . • ,0 •' , , 11 2/18/91 , AI • llfi I II I � °�.--4----____�-f~ r -7'- II.t .rc �, I I d - - 3 I / 17°GM ° ,/ a /CR fi.1D,1111[1'1 43 • II / LI,+, CO. 1/ �', a«w!i IA g .o. 1 7 .!tc till I Ieu ell ulau d ar�!'w•7 al/») roia Dale, I I I S 1 inch = 80 feet 370C Dr °11 Ur/&race Kw,11 OW 0 40.1 arr.71fa! N! \•!! eb I ^\I_ 17'" °' °» p1 °b°� �'71j fnlM>dr rr Cr Trutt II j Y Pt NtU$c]bl°r w7C* .y4.0 ap d(lRN lItt Q INK. • rate SAY rot 401 \ietsi) \1 l "- !�•+mr valK i. ''''''''''........,,.................„......................................„..„1 \\I. 4.).Iftral kimmit ((re, ° es ' ty _! eei0 eb �• 1 ! 1f°M y I_•11.OPP !7 1Y°4 ! 11 on eonN !-l/.s1 I • �_� e11 i ireu H r.aa,e io ii: '1 I. 7 ti1 1 1 won Irr 31 14'Cut /1 1.11.I, >> :I 1`` a 7 e/� \ 8 i ii°NI 31 w iron n 7is1 I [..... 1 "-1✓, S01 e� M7?,` n t0 : JY sew.* ti 11 7�IOr N1 u eN y� II Strom'from t1 ii ox n 7r v71'� I \• et e �ll,�-"�'\\\ ,.'L jI j jj:N 71 17•fj h it a°bix I�,. I. N \ L �I I�'p�/t°� 11• 71•41x MI !/'ONI ' 4 .e1 \� 1/ 17 'roux r0"1 a !7 AIN t 7!A'` C 11 IC IW >a it'Asa a !1•o.x I 1 :II If 11 10'ax II 1d11u1 M le WAS I , "`{{i... 7t es Ill a 427 Alt ';';c i,tirr ! �) - Pt !! °I! Ii 1 �O' 1clArt W\\ •i I \�\l�� \ 70I 1 u.7 1 .4111N � ` \:'• ` r•+�"'_• 1s am I �el,r� �..: Ir 1 I 14 rf+!' t.�+.. -4 a O170 0°) -'_mow \ �, ,'' \ljts • to • 3111 • • 1 I "�.-�.. -.sf l e •Ir i7'w. II ;1-`--`1�j brb rb • \ • �� `_ -.N.\ I1I �I`� 1 1 ',� Figure 3 • �• Soils Map Kruse Oaks • • • ,'.. .. . .I .. 1. .' _ •ter r.. _S . , TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY DATA AT THE KRUSE OAKS SITE IN LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON +'`' Hydric Plot# Determination Basis for Determination 1 • Upland No indicators. 2 Upland No indicators, • 4 Upland No indicators. • Wetland Saturated soil, water within 12 V 5 Upland inches of surface. No indicators, 4 . Wetland Detr:'rmination Most of the site is upland, but there is one small area that has indicators of all three (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) wetland criteria Y gy) (Figure 4) (Table 9). The wetland is dominated by Oregon ash and Douglas hawthorn, and both are classified as hydrophytic species. The soil appears Cove soil series, which has been identified as a hydric soil. Finally, the wetland indicatorsd to be the wetland hydrology. The wetland would be classified as a palustrine forestedawetland, The of ^ wetland is approximately 1t500 Square feet. The size of the wetland is an estimate because the wetland boundary was estimated, and has not been surveyed. and. 1Y TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF UNIFIED FEDERAL METHOD DATA ",x AT THE KRUSE OAKS SITE ` ' ' IN LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON ',' 4 Wetland Plot# Vegetation Soils Hydrology Y gY Determination 1 Non-hydrophytic Non-h dric Hydrophytic Hydric Upland Upland 3 Non-hydrophytic Hydric Uplan land dUpland , �r. Hydrophytic H5ydric Wetland Upland Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric U Wetland pland Upland ,. B " WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES • The wetland was evaluated using• modified version of the Reppert method, Generally, the ; wetland scored low values for the eight functions evaluated by the Reppert method (Appendix- 13 2/18/91 t , ' E 1. t. 1 +.1 • •1 1', o I I I I fe�W11M/fJj YAP I t _ R M tMlM11•t11 InkfTIl ra•I[,•ll ' I / ' CLIGANAf CCmitr,a ILO* — "'°� . t �� 1 inch - 80 feet I`` N" ---�,�R� (I Or.130•t 1i11,) 1 Scale: 1 l�1L tan Ontea q.01 4M1/4-1 RN,111g1 �1�1) s tl I I I •1. YlliWIGS I►m 111A//lC ntl+n W W A ftlt h I :11 �� O)i •3/ Mil •p0111 ] Mt/Ircllxet al v Urt S(**AY AAO WAWA D.YL • • I7 '-1 I Y • • • 11A•o 1/Y Ro..m I. / • �.V nITRr vl mK I , .• it 4 e.tlM 1 1 1 I ! I1 •V •.1R ! I • 1\ ��/ 1.01 13.A991 ���,,...rr+••��1 O.wf YAK II i 18 ,V I 1 f .w'� ' • / 1 O•floM 4.NKil ' 1 i1 •.4AAlt 1 ' \111r1•/f ' �', 1 •Nbi 11.OM N 1-t1'DAM 11 IYoAI LJAli f� ••!1 ).OM 1/ 11•IP.NI )a 11•/IN HIV. yA1 •M I 1r OM 11 U'CM it 1-11•Am •IL 1y-•/� • IY 1R N IC OM n Ir A91 �' 7{ 1 •'1 1 le 6W 11 le ow n 10 OM Ile11 le Afl I -I I , 1 -8 f1'oM It 7Y 1W1 )! 1-Ir Afl I`• 1 a • •1�. 1•oM U 11'eM 7,1 f1 { 1 ' I 1 •/ NrN \ iv cm 11 1/'oM 1 ��, 1 p 0.7 M Ir OM U 1II o.Ai•'GW N 11•A91 OIM-fro41 a 1rDM oMN troll eM/1 1•DM A911elAA%1lAslAiifi.i.1s11k.111."1a1\1.111...........l.4 i.r\'', ' ,lI 1'1v1•0 .\.......... .w)w,... • l 1 V t/ r o41 ot I.'DM of 1.'0.4 NI I 11 IY tlU 1/ 4os4 st )I.DAs . i I I .1+( „ I 1 "fit llll III \ ^ 11 1t••M N !1'19/ jj 3 4' I wh q li �� . t: r _ 1 • .. , ' �'`.--'; ',, U .4or 33.1o' 111.111�•�• !► 0 Y 1� ..' • NNN .1N • �, Figure 4 • , 1'. . ` I n1• i` \ Wetland Delineation , • I\l\ (k\\4/(I\. • Kruse Oaks Approximate Boun r • . •A ➢ .Y- / •, 4 ' �t p ' •d , ^ • .+ . 0 •r. The primary ary reasons for the low values are: The small size of the wetland; No direct connection • with a water body, the limited size of the associated watershed, and its proximity to pollution sources. The main characteristic that adds value to the wetland is its being a forested which are generally considered to have higher values than other wetland types. . • V• SUMMARY , Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and through the Section 404 permitting process, the Engineers has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge o fill Corps of into wetlands of the United States. In January 1989, the Federal Interagencyfor Wetland Delineation released the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictinal We Hand which discusses the criteria and recommends methods to identify and delineate wetlands. Hands, M; this method, wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology Under to have a positive wetland determination, unless problem or disturbed areas b are encountered. Using this method, the (Kruse Oaks, SHAPIRO 650020) site was investigated on (February 12, 1991) for the presence of wetlands, b 1_, There are two primary plant communities on the Kruse Oaks site; pasture and deciduous The pasture is dominated by non-hydric vegetation, yd ology, Most of the forested community is dominated by Oregon whiteoak,'whi hd is .rpland hydrology, The soils under the oaks appears to be the Aloha soil series, and the hydrology i upland. upland , The s, are three small patch of Oregon ash within the forested community, an the pahes opflOre� There are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, The soil under two of the patches appeargon ash transitional between Aloha and Cove soils, with the soils being more like Cove soils tan Aloha, {' The soils under these two patches have indicators of hydric soils, indicators of wetland hydrology in these two areas, The third patch of�Oregon there not dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, its soils appear to be the Cove soil series, and the f area is wetland hydrology. The wetland is approximately 1600 square feet, and drains into the lower f portion of the ditch that runs through the site, The wetland has low values for the wetlander functions examined, • 15 2/18/91 r e .0t VI. REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, EC. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification ofWetlands Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlif Service, ;� #FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 p.p. pub. b; N Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. ArmyEngineers Mississippi, g peers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental nv Idendying and Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U S.D.A, Soil Conservation Service, Washington,D,C. Cooperative technical publication. 138 pp, anon Federal Register, 1986, "33 CFR Parts 320 through Engineers; Final Rule," Vol. 51, No, 219, 00. 410206-41259ryS�Gove of the Corps of Office, Washington, D.C. Government Punting Federal Register, 19821 "Title 33: Navigation and Programs of the Corps of Engineers: Vol. 7No Navigable138 Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory story V Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ' p. 31810, U.S. Government Federal Register, 1980. "40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines for S Disposal Sites of Dredged or Fill Material," Vol. 45, No. 249 pa8ification Sf Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ' pp' 8.5352`85353, U.S. Hitchcock,!sl C.L.C,L and A. Cronquist, 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest,. Universit Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, ) of Reed, PIB., Jr., 1988, National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Bio. Rpt. 88(2 ). 244 National Summary, pp. Reppert, R,T,, Sigleo W,, Stakhiv, E., Messman, L. and C. Beyers, 1979, Wetland Valu Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. UIS, Arm es • for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 109 pp. S Corps of Engineers, Institute • U.S, Department of Amculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1985, County Area, Oregon. USDA, Soil Conservation service, Portland, Orl egon 293packamas g pI • U.S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Staff, 1975, Soil Taxonomy, A Basic System for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, U.S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Washington, D.C. 754 pp. rvahon 'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1985, Hydric Soils of the United States, Prepared in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, t A •a• t*� yf0 . . • 16 ♦. ;I 2/18/91 ji. A • 'L, APPENDIX A 0 .,..,... :,....,.. .,... ... .. ........,.....,..., :: . , . . . . • .. . . .. .. . :.... .t .. . . . . • . . . . ..,. . ., ..., _, ., ... ..,..,.. .... . . . ,. . . . . .. , . . . ... • • • " . .. .., , . .. ..... . . .:. . . . i,I g7 p 1 { • Y• 17 2/18/91 Y WETLAND DETERMINATION ‘' INTERMEDlATE•LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD , VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Pro)acUSite: �� < Cl •� Vag. Unit ��'Field Investiyator(s); 1 '" ' �i'' Date: I /;/i/ Herb b Brver,F, Indicator % Areal Cover Midpoints of Cover0 ', ..' 3 .r..1 . ,A� /S~‘.1., T •m• fl 10 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Plumber Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints •.r ,. ,ter 'i slum►+ oe sclee _.. ' 2 3 _ 1 4 5 6 _ •--- Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints ..__••- Snollna Sooclea 1 2 . 3 ��--- Q �— ' 5 um of nts Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum ofdpo ii points Tree agrsres I% ceverl • 1 2 3 ----- F4 �` 5 Sum Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints -- Percent of dominant species that are 0131.0 FACW and/or FAC _` Nydrophytic vegetation? 4/0 rr Comments: l` • Cover classes (midpoints); T41% (none); 1 . 1.5% (3.0); 2 6• 4 • 26.50% (38,0); 5 a 51.75% (63,0); 6 . 76.95% (85,5); 7 . 961100%5% 1(98'p3 15\25% (20,5); " To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints, Then cumulative) midpoints of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded • Y sum the midpoints of the contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% specks of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk, ' • WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPUNG PROCEDURE 1 Project/Site: � n /1 ; �r Field Investlgator(s); ` t� Lr ` Veg. Unit N: �t ei� ------- Data: ' 11. — SOILS • Series/ i phase: ;/L is , Soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Subgroup:•• No ` Undetermined • Soil a Histosol? Yes` Soil Mottled? No'' - Histic opldodon present? Yes No o< Yes No_. Cloyed? Yes__._ No pC j Horizon Sample Soil Type/ Matrix .Horizo" booth Mottle Clay Organic ..12.agth- Text ire ; r -* — _ L /py,:Y -�stle[_ l atent /" _. 11,_._ t_i,L fs Sto � . 10 �'Y •f i cy O ---- o - -- m _ ---- Comments: Hydrlc Sells? ,__&e Basle X.144: • 4 S 4u.. c' /Ui71 1xyY.�/ HYDROLOGY Ground surface Inundated? Yes No l/ t Is the soil saturated? Yea v ` No Surface water depth: r _ r• +, Depth to the froe.standing water In pit/soil probe hole: + ' Mark .other field indicators of surface inundation of 911 saturation below: Oxidized root zones �' ,/ Water•stafned leaves Water marks — Drift lines /--- Surface acourod areas . -•'/- , Water-borne sediment deposits Wetland drainage patterns ------.LLG.LL .., Morphological plant adaptations Additional hydrologic Indicators: • Comments: 4,---•c/AN tir./ l / Wetland / e -5 � hydrology? w .. --- Basis 1; SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes_Nolte''` • �,r Disturbed Area? �e' _ Problem Area? i�. , Basle Comments: ,.-t,_ /gas '' • . •;la ry Is the hydrophy c vegetation criterion met? c.. is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes_ Nol is the Wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes-- Notr t' Yes_ Notes Is the Vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes_ Now' • • 0: Nationale for jurisdictional decision: WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE•LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNiT SAMPLING PROCEDURE • Project/Site; t.v�•,-t Gjj ��t' / Field Investlgatlon(s): 14!, < / L.- 7( Vag. Unit 0: - w 7�• ,/75 / Data: ,g,,,, Indicator % Areal Cover' Midpoint' of Cover Herb & Bry nhvle Soecles Sta its Cover Class, Class Rank" • • 3 ... • 4 6 7 8 10 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Shrub Species 1 1/L. t� / 1(—r- bPL /t • 2 3 4 5 4 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Sapling end Smell Tree Species 1 2 • w • 4 • Sum of Midpoints • Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Tree Species f°,4 9over) 2 3 d 5 • Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpointsts/ Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW and/or FAC 4r k Hydrophytic vegetation? `�' . :•Comments; • / Cover classes (midpoints); T<1% (none); 1 . 1.5% (3.0); 2 a 6.15% (10.5); 3 . 16.25% (20,5); 4 ■ 26.50% (38.0); 5 . 51.75% (63.0); 6 . 76,95% (85.5); 7 • 96.100% (98.0). To determine the dominants, first rank tho species by their midpoints, Then cumulatively sum the midpoints of the .,. ' midpoints of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints Is Immediately exceeded. All species • contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% •1 of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk, 1 Plant species does not appear on the National List(Reed, 1988), Indicator status assigned based on field 4 ' observations and habitat information from the literature. ' • '. . ' ^ WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: /ter .LAC. �U 2 s Veg. Unit Z 7 Field Investigetor(s): j11. cf. `f_lW Date: �iS /i/ r • • SOILS SCS Mapping Unit: 1 e.L �-._ Field Identification: g./.-•• r.y, ( �c,4, _ Subgroup:"" Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes ` No_ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes— No_� .v-- Hlstic eplpedon present? Yes No Is the soli Mottled? Yes ✓'' No— Cloyed? Yes No 1---2- Horizon Soil Matrix Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic Horizon Depth Texture Color of Mottles Color Content .L C--,� fir, e L 16 y/°_yam/ - - /3 .Y-2'AIL S C L /e y4 . -3/z rr yr:0 F"T_ Landformaopo raphy: 3 5 6. S Z. / ____, Comments: • V . r•:� t� t e. �.•�...._ .Ett t1.tt, ,,.., t r& r J�� /s Hydric Coils? V.,'C Basis I . ('A "t••--•t..e Si nee y/6 r HYDROLOGY ' s Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes No Z r Surface Water depth: Is the soli saturated? Yes No Lr Depth to saturation: Depth to the free-standing water In pltsoll probe hole: _/...._ Mark other field Indicators of surface Inundation of soil saturation below: o / Oxidized root zones Water-stained leaves J Water / marksSurface scoured areas �J Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns • Water-borne sediment deposits Morphological plant adaptations r Comments: //,s r'!�t r..:,` ^� S�CJ Ft #14 44.C� • Wetland Hydrology? iL ' Basis /Ue•, ,.i.ef c e•c - S SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes N` Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No Disturbed Area? /1v Basis: Problem Area? ,, ___ Basis: • Comments: s the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes 1�No_ s the hydric soil criterion met? Yes t,No_ s the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No Y' • •s the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes_ No • .at,onale for Jurisdictional decision: 1 • WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UN T SAMPLING PROCEDURE �• Project/Site: /�w -a C s /4 Field Investlgatlon(s): 96r. cr &. A' Veg. Unit k: i'l" �� Dote: 2//✓`+'/ Indicator % • Areal Cover' Midpoint of Cover Her & Bryophyte, Species ,_Staff Cover Class Class 1 $ IC 5/.. Ne �•�� r,, c+;, Rank- 1 J i __ 4 5 _ 6 7 __ _. 8 ---- ---- 9 0 — _ Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints' • Shrpb Species 1 /'/4.?'' /h„i l.'ML YO ' , 2 4 5 --- Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Saollne and Small Tree Species 2L I 4 I , 4.I. ,' 11 0 . �r t, ,` , F ''•. 5 11l ��1 I j�511 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints __—__. Tree Species (% Ceverl • 1 2 _ 3 5 — a.. Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints ` t Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC ° Hydr ph tic v�yl? _ Comments: e( n�+\, /•� .,.i CI,c • Cover classes (midpoints); Tel% (none): 1 ■ 1.5% (3.0); 2 . 6-15% (10,5); 3 . 16.25% (20.5); • 4 •v 26.50% (38.0), 5 Is51.75"/° (63,0); 6 . 76.95% (85,5); 7 . 96-100% (98,0), w '• To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints, Then cumulatively sum the midpoints of the • midpoints of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded. All species contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk, 1 Plant species does not appear on the National List(Reed, 1988). Indicator status assigned based on field ' observations and habitat information from the literature, . • • I. • c WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE ,. Project/Site: �1„,,!_e. {;(, � -- Veg. Unll Field Investigator(s): •/: .3 "'� rF `r`��! Date: 2 r 3' F/ , SOILS SCS Mapping Unit: �f s Field Identification: �° �� Subgroup:** 'Is the soil on the hydric sails list? p;.. Is the Sall a Histasoi? Yes No Is the soli Mottled? Yes No�^ Hlatic eplpedon present? Yes— Na v " • Yes = Na Gleyed? Yes No Horizon Soil Matrix ' Horizon �eo►t, Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic color of ies -)_sr ' _' � %D y'/i„ .St1112L Content .—.r.._ Landform/Topography: 1. .i �'( rr•'' Comments: t. h .• / Hydrlc So11s1 ,"�`' Basis c I.: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: �� r 't Is the soil saturated? Yes No y' Depth to the free-standing water In plt/soll probe hole: Depth to saturation: -? , Mark other field Indicators of surface Inundation of soil saturation below: Oxidized root zones • Water stained leaves . Water marks Drift lines - Surface scoured areas Waterborne sediment deposits Wetland drainage patterns Morphological plant adaptations 5., / :mac•r • Basis WetlandHydrology? 44? • „ .t r, /7,'y 9;,«, �f.c�. r t,2_02 c• > :: `. ,/ , �/L't"C"f' h �:f.lt,.:v.1 4. .ye►•t•.Y 2YClc---L L..., 7�•�.. .. SUMMARY • Jo normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 17No` °`t Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Disturbed Area? ./-✓4'` Yes No/! Problem Area? Basis: Basis: Domments: . s the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? s the hydric soli criterion met? Yes_ No_� s the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes k No_ Yes_ N s the vegetation unit or plot wetland? ot . atronale for jurisdictional decision: Yes Not . • ,, • _ WETLAND DETERMINATION • } INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: /•:,�� ,. c s 0 Field InvestigatIon(a): itr.. t;; t, 7r- Veg, Unit I: / / ° '( Date: .7� 7 f Indicator °/u Areal Cover' Midpoint' of Cover Herb & Brvoo vte Species Cover (;lass Class Rank** C 3 4 5 _— _ 7 __ �._, a 9 — 10 N' Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints I , Shrub Species 1 .rL � ��'L ; _ 2 f�- , '/ ) A f • 5 • Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints ti Sapling end Smell Tree_Species t 0 . , 2 -- 3 _ a 5 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints s; Tree Species f% Covert • • y ' 3 4 ' 5 i Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints • • Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAO - Hydrophytic vegetation? ./'✓G> Comments; • • Cover classes (midpoints); T<1% (none); I a 1.5% (3,0); 2 a 6.15% (10,5); 3 e 16.25% (20,5); • • d = 26.50°S (36.0); 5 . 51.75% (63,0); 6 a 76.95% (85,5); 7 a 96.100% (98,0), " To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints, Then cumulatively sum the midpoints of the midpoints of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceed'd, All species �► contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% , of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk, 0 ' I Kant species does not appear on the National List(Reed, 1988), Indicator status assigned based on field observations and habitat information from the literature, • WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PF1OCEDURE Project/Site: r_..r E. Field Investigator(s): jt'•::S ( rr Vag. Unll y I'� v Data: 2 /S` i SOILS • ' SCS Mapping Unit: _,), ‘ ti ''. • Field Identification: ` Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Subgroup:" Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No � Yes No `� Hlstic mpipmdon present? Yes _ No v Is the soil Mottled? Yes�� No Gleyed7 Yea N°,f • Horizon Soil Matrix Mottle Occurrence Horizon Depth Gloy Organic � ��, �- Color o! tIottlne 1} , - 7- C' [ /�©�'3 l' — C_a_lor _content /�.> 3/2 -.3// 7 y,�y ,fi 00 Landlorm/Topograph { e • Comments: Hydric Solis? .i• '- Basis •, HYDROLOGY • 1s the ground surface Inundated? Yes No `'''''' • Is the soil saturated? Yes No 4j Surface water depth: ��� Depth to the freestanding water In pit/soil probe hole: Depth to saturation: Mark other field indicators of surface Inundation of soil saturation below: ,�r Oxidized root zones ! Watermarks /Water-stained leaves Drift lines Surface scoured areas Waterborne sediment deposits - Wetland drainage patterns Morphcloglcal plant adaptations • Comments: +IJetiand Hydrology? �i- ;, Basis SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 1''No •,as the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significant) disturbed • ?Area? /�,� y Yes_ No r/ 'robiem Area? Baslst r.an•,t,ients: Basis; s the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? s the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No r r. Yes _ No • • • s the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes the Vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Yes • atonal° for Jurisdictional decision: No•� • WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE.LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNiT SAMP NG PROCEDURE • Project/Site; ✓ « ` le• . Field inveitlgillon(e), 4,. �+�+- 4 c Veg. Unit 0: • Indicator %Areal Cover' Midpoint' of Cover {� / Herb & Brvoohvte Sutras_ 1 �::. , ,�_ -ScGYEt_ Clark --...cam____ .r,�. ••. /rC"C� .,..-. Rank• 2 >>• (i.. J.t.•C 4 -- 5 6 —___. . 7 8 �a� 9 �---�. 10 �` Sum of Midpoints '"' —'--------- • Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Shrub Species/ • 4 -S r, /, s f � �C. T _ Sum of Midpoints — Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints .... - .Pllno_stadt Small Tree Sus I t �.. • 3 - 2 . 4 5 Sum of Midpoints Dominance Threshold Number Equals 501%x Sum of Midpoints t� 1 �ra� r .�C" U ' 2 J 4 5 _ '---�� Sum of Midpoints -- Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50%x Sum of Midpoints Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC Hydrophyfic vegetation? V,, Comments: • none ' Cover classes (midpoints); Tti°/° (none); 1 1.5% (3.0); 2 .16.15,° (10,5); 3 a 16.25% (20,5); ". 4 . 26.50V. (38.0); 5 : 51.75% (63,0); 6 w 76.95°.%° (85,5); 7 e 96.100% (90,0), ' To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints, Then cumulatively sum the midpoints of the midpoints of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded. All species 411 1 . ' , contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk,1 Plant species does not appear on the National List(Reed, 1 088), Indicator status assigned based on fie r ` observations and habitat information from the literature. Id ` • ai t � . 1. . .; WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Slta: l�... .. C-c C....;C....;/L; t Field Invoatlgator(s): J::/• ce 4 .�1,_ Veg. Unitn a r,. Dote: > i • e SOILS SCS Mapping Unit: !`�+�-� /14 /•. • Field Identification: (4 y...` Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Subgroup: Yes L/ No "•C °' Is the soil a Histosol? Is the soil Mottled? Yes No Hlstic epipadon present? Yes_ No u Yes_• No ✓ Gle ed? Yes No Y �/ Horizon Soll Matrix Mottle Occurrence Giey Organic Horizon Depth Texture .14 _ G -1L S L. Oalror Color ,�f Mo� tt Colo — Content 71-7-274 Landform/Topography: �4,-e Ai :. S .)"/, Comments: Hydrlc 50115? `•�.( Basis �_s. �.•...�� HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes No Is the Boll saturated? Yes G''' No Depth to saturation:Surface Water depth: - , Depth to the free-standing Water in pit/soll probe hole: -��7---- / 11 Mark other field Indicators of surface InundatIon of soil saturation below: Oxidized root zones v Water marks Water-stained leaves Drift Ilnes Surface scoured areas tt'''� Wetland drainage patterns Water-borne sediment deposits Morphological plant adaptations Comments; /.e,.,..!(y.-, e'L-C_ 94if�RC...".'.e.l' .Ld•-•s.vc 'Z\i I^-..-YC:•1.. C.✓t,7�[' r Wetland Hydrology? t t Basis Cu)! l,._ :.�. J. /C " ' SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes C Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No e ` Disturbed Area? 1/iy ' No Basis: ,"...= --J / • �� `� Problem Area? rV: �' ---_.., Basis: ' Comments: 4, 's the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes 2-"No ' }ti vr s the hydric soil criterion met? Yes L'No� • s the Wetland hydrology criterion met? Yos /rNo s the vegetation unit or plot Wetland? Yes - Nor q Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: r,4 — • j;. r 1 • APPENDIX B • • • • . • • • • • J . 28 r 2/18/I1 •' u MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR EXISTING FORESTED WETLAND Values Basis for Evaluation .' 1 NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION Low A, Food Chain Support Low Low over all values 1. Net Primary Production Moderate Forested wetla.,,d • 2. Mode of Transportation Low Little potential to export plant material 3. Food Chain Support Low Low diversity of animals B. General Habitat Low Low habitat diversity C, Special Habitat Low Na special features • 2 AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Low To small and disturbed SANCTUARIES, REFUGES 3 HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT Low Isolated, and most water FUNCTION diverted away from site A. Hydrologic Periodicity Low Seldom inundated B. Elevation in Basin Low Not associated with water system, hydrologically isolated 4 SHORELINE PROTECTION N/A 5 STORAGE OF STORM AND Low Small size, and isolated A,FLOOD WATER A. Flood Storage Factor Low ' Water diverted away from site, small size B. Flood Retardation Factor High > 30 percent woody (Vegetation Cover) vegetation 6 L AURA GROUNDWATER LowSmall size, low LE ►. . t ' r 7 WATER PURIFICATION Low Low scores for most categories , A. Wetland Type 1. Hydroperiod Low '' Intermittently flooded 0 2. Vegetation Density Moderate Coverage between 50-80% B. Area and Waste Low Low Loading Relationships values for all categories 1. Total Wetland Size Low Small size 2. Proportion of water to Low Little to no surface water Wetland 3. Proportion of Runoff Low RetainedLittle to no runoff in Wetland C. Location Factors Moderate Frost free days 175-250 1, Frost Free Days 2: Location Related to Low Pollution Sources Not in proximity to point or non-point sources of pollution 8 CULTURAL VALUES (Economic, Aesthetics, Low-Moderate Small size, but in urban • Recreational,Archaeological Sites) environment r , gip` t' • .. l . Y • 11 0 • 0 0 • • 1 r \ . • -c. l 1 . 1 /, ,r \` ,1• \ ..—gym • l • 'Ili .� .. ) 1 t .� / l `s - >"Y�rim �'G,'raU/2�: y, . . ., �` ( \ ‘ i 1 �� 0( , e" 1 (.." ✓ �� �QOr7: U �cU' 16G5 + /J� o • G • +ONN.°GTr�N/ /N� s�51rNNi.•c ,�_ �, y .�,,`� ,,,_\ 4 \ .fl5:r'Itit:� pRVPrO Go/lrpvas .�: .. . .r I. � 1• AAti' Wank .440pN4 tyNb✓1M,, 774, 'S *, I/ g..� �,- - --_ - R�1 W.4t:kkrtY M,�Y, p///,5 oBJ..ay.Fnvti .fir ..._, e J. ``\ C/TYit�' 05W96d ,gw!i w/s; ° • --' Spit tW.•i r fD,Q FrEti ;�v 7, 1.1YD/t/4 54/L5 /4/EX/Sr/h;a War e \I. c-•''' , 4h` 'r ,OF /a,tha F ✓ 2.01,7 :' .44-e e 604 s \ • ' • • ' ' , t _j� c� I GI +T MN7 #8tE HYO, 01...d./c eavoirr,1K \' �... \. 0 ` e ._ '7�,►N R f"IrNTJE�Ai 9/c WiIL`/� <S1L17A�RGW�i°� V ..__ _ --._-� 7b QE r�Fi�ri77 J ,3YDEVE I'd /7 Lu5/ f�t+J /�� / Sd/R!/3S t E�l�a�lrr5 ,+R�.1 1s APPRnVM4r�Y /7�d c�yd�4E -5t Co• ) gy/677,4,s 7 re) ,, A,(4,4/ F ", W ' .5 R c. q ✓�' • /toil _ �����I b (r }+ becN �1 .��fXiNa� tariFot�A .7 . k � c�, s ,c t',�4s r>%.4NrI %v (t,2gr.1E6ys t t os/�> s.�ays,y 8544- (' 1k cdv4wrf) w_' .wo,Nrlid,A•+ 1,Vrr,I4.F M)r/ 4J7cy ,4A5,4 w► . 5 ✓� PNvr.�4:.6 • ,9Y' ,S' C . EXHIBIT , st4W/,Qe i 15 ' . F f 1 ;V i f � . • • • • 4 1 M.(• 1 • 4• • • •r. YT '` ^• 1 •a • eeUNRUCTOON Uls•eoTION 5405 N.Lngoon AVenuo L.ATeN1ALM INSPECTION C.[MIAAL AIULYCU P.0.Box Y7126 no/..ocartlucTrvc Ti WILDING aaNTIFIc,ci ,' ,'-• •MY31W .eL TA T11.0 Portland,Oregon 97217-0126 LOLL Ttl ,. Phone:(503)789.1776 A.ri `ae FAX:289.1918 • August 14 , 1990 Greenstreet Architecture 17685 SW 65th, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Attention: Mr. Matthew F. Miller, Partner A Kruse Oaks Lake Oswego, Oregon Gentlemen: We would like to confirm our inspection on August 14 , 1990 proposed site of the Kruse Oaks Commercial Center on the northeast corner of Westlake and Parkview Drive in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The purpose of the inspection was to provide a preliminary geotechnical review of the property which will be followed at a latter date prior to construction by a detailed geotechni • investigation and report. cal The site is a gradually southwester)} sloping parcel above street grade with the east half covered by a field of grass westerly half is heavily vegetated by brush and trees whereas the Soils and Geolo v Soils in the project area consist of a sequence ' ` �, • of fine grain sediments (silts and sands u+l throughout the Willamette and Tualatin Valleys.found) extensively units consist of bedrock of volcanic origin. he basalt The ninrknown to deeply weathered and highly fractured, with the weathered contact between the silt and basalt a residual reddish and brown clay. Locally there is a wide variety of constituent materials, from boulders through cobbles to interstitial clay. We foresee no major , geotechnical problems with the founding of one • and two story wood frame structures on this site using conventional • spread footings. It • Page 1 of 2 d EXHIBIT P i •• •At.A I.I11WL immtnroN IV t:LkMlil.Ike WJAUC AA/o otmaciVts Al RtRORT}ANT sl/Wurnin A►toe I tAmolustow.IMo•fAT/or Cl ITWIRANOAIIt WTtNOco►ORTHLUSt or ow wrong 0.40 Notftwca►citwo4 . n N1111 t m im ar YNC« mfro t+A AI.1 t•OAt O+11k flco WITHtkh OIAI WRIrtvol Alnmpar/Am%• � ,13 b t 1 s \ �t • Greenstreet Architecture August 14, 1990 Page 2 of 2 It is known the upper rooted thus that topsoil unit is quite deep and heav requiring excavation. The clayey silt soils are highly moisture sensitive and take special excavation and ha 7 the high moisture periods of the year. ndling during ,. We understand that the existing drainage way and be taken to the existing storm sewer. site drainage will We will be available for further design and construction ph consultation.t during the remaining project. Respectfully, NORTHWEST TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.410,11,4„._0r Charles R. Lane, P.E. �V`�'O �/`�` vice president S�‘a�iN�4+ , Report Number: 337072 • v OREGON ipkeSR. x'. 0 .. . ; £ CEIVED FROM 503 289 1918 • , • • `, D I '', N-30-91 WED 17 s 43 r, ug PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY EQUATION COMPUTATION WORKSHEET q ect Name: i y2.r.., P� k:- S (Lick)._ U3A- rcm. ,4 LA 'y FA-u Lo.1°. 0 City File Number — _� • Stonnwater Quality Control Facilities,when required, shall be designed to achieve a phosphorous removal efficiency as calculated from the following equation: .. a. Rpa100-24.5/Rv. Where: Rp 0 Required phosphorous removal efficiency. Rv Average site runoff coefficient. Rvm (Al x0.7) + (A/x03) + (A3x0.05) + (A4x0.0) Where: Alin the fraction of total area that is impervious and is not treated by a stormwater quality control facility AZ the fraction'of total arta that is impervious and is treated by a stormwater quality control facility, the fraction of total area that is pervious and that is vegetated or a water body. (i.e. grass,tees,landscaping,wetlands,ponds, etc.) • 0• . A4 = the fraction of total area where nmoff is collected and retained on site with no direct discharge to the downstream drainage system. Al - z'43o / 11519S a: 0102, (umrraa,4►m puviov+Ama) •(tag war) �J- 11%�95 . - 4,`11 4Wtatid trapervina mu) (Jowl ar%) A3 - 3 0 5 to7 / 11 tarl c ae O t PL_.4 (venrlrlad par►dw�era.) (total arar) a �� A4 1111 ' 0 / 11%71; n o i. OmnruI,rd) (taal►Ira) - • (( I ,x 0.7) + ( Co ,x0,3)+ ( auo4- x 0.05) + C_..0 x0,0) ez ?, z4i • (3) (A4) • Ra in 100- 24.5/ , .tz - — I .Z97 71 EXHIBIT • `(' When Rpis1-7 Z er Q Igss, no additional stormwater quality control facilities are When Rp is rent y than zero,additional stormwnter quality control facilities a D1:t'16-�-(() , • a 4 S-30-91 UED 17 s.43 u, tit • .`. 4 � T PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY EQUATION ` • COMPUTATION WORKSHEET 410 , . .^' erect Name: A►G 1,1..:ris-�e.. or,— '1''( Fbareo Li f a c.ly File Number:_____ y Stormwater Quality Control Facilities,when required,shall be designed to achieve a phosphorous removal efficiency as calculated from the following equation: • Rpztluo-24.5/Rv„ Where: Rp =Required phosphorous removal efficiency. . Rv=Average site runoff coefficient. Rv = (Al x0.7) + (Al x03) + (A3x0.05) + (A4x0.0) Where: Ali the fraction of total area that is impervious and is not treated by a stormwater quality control facility • A2 =the fraction of total area that is impervious and is treated by a storrnwater r'' quality control facility. 0 A3 at the fraction of total area that is pervious and that is vegetated or a water body. ( .e. grass,trees,landscaping,wetlands,ponds,etc.) . A4 = the fraction of total area where runoff is collected and retained on site with no direct discharge to the downstream drainage system. Ai is 6S"tell .J� IIS19S la 01117 7 NuistasaillnIperviava area) (w.al ura) .r O@oaLsd imPe viral nu) (mat area) A3 r: 34 J I1S-c _,. 0 1.4 5 otioutful porvioau area) Octal area) A4 Rs 0 / I►571S. o (ono twined) (,oul anu) IA • Rv .( oilS7 x0.7) + ( 0 x0.3)+ ( 0 " x 0.05) + ( 0 x0.0) = _0 '3I (At) (A2) (lu) 04) • When Rp is Tern or f esm, no additional stormwater quality control facilities are required, When Rp is.stenkr_thalizim additional stormwater quality control facilities are required. 1 v-: •.•.• Division of State Lands , ^'iGOIbSCHMIbT •: 775 SUMMER STREET, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE(503)378-3805 • , ,, ORE+uONSTATE October 29, 1990 LAN°BOARD 1 i .„ kat_04.N bscHMIDT NOV 1 c„...lemor Rsar +POBERTS Matthew F. Miller Gw,uyoiSIM Greenstreet Architecture / -' vMEEKER 17685 SW 65th, Suite 200 ' , 5racv7rteesurer Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re: Wetland Determination, T2S R1E S6 Dear Mr . Miller: This letter is to follow up our phone conversation last month regarding the possibility of wetlands at a parcel `. • on the northeast corner of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive north of Kruse Way in Lake Oswego . Since we have no information specific to that parcel, I reviewed the Soil Conservation Service soil survey for that area �t (Clackamas County, sheet #i) . There are bands of Cove silty clay loam, a hydric (wetland) soil, in that area . ' '` ,. Since I cannot tell exactly where your parcel lies with ., .� • respect to the soil survey air photo, I have enclosed a copy of the soil survey sheet and indicated the hydric soil in that area with yellow highlighter . - IH 1 • Generally, the Cove soil indicates probable wetlands • unless the area has been subject to fill or drainage in the past . In an urbanizing area such as that, the ' F„' ' —� natural vegetation is often disturbed (mowed, seeded to lawn or such) , making wetland determination more difficult . For these reasons , if your parcel does L"' correspond to the hydric soil area , an environmental consultant familiar with wetland determinations should� 11 hired to evaluate the site. As I recall from our phone conversation, you had a particular consultant in mind. If you would like a list ; of consultants , please give me a call . Once we receive oN and review a copy ut the consultant ' s findings , we will provide you with our agency' s written Confirmation of '" concurrence with or exceptions to the report , and a • ', formal jurisdictional determination. " 1 EXHIBIT r , is . pR-tD. I �; • Y , 111 4 , DIVISION* February 1, 1991 STATE LANDS r, • STATE LAND BOARD „: 1 BARBARA ROBERTS °S .. .., Governor . n Matthew F.. Miller PHIL k EISLING • , Secretary of State Greenstreet Architecture pl 17685 SW 65th, Suite 200 StateANTHONY MEEKER Stale Treasurer Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re : Wetland Determination, Westlake and Parkview Dr. i. , Lake Oswego T2S R1E S6 .! Dear Mr . Miller: '.� I have reviewed the wetland "reconnaissance" of the above . - '1 site conducted by Martin Schott of Shapiro & Associates as reported to you in a letter dated December 3 , 1990 . Ordinarily, I require documentation of any wetland 4 *•` determination, including data sheets of sample points and r a map of the resultant delineation. Soil characteristics ` . in particular are not well documented in the letter . a '., (Any soil exhibiting hydric characteristics will be ,.., considered a hydric soil in that location. ) Based on the information provided, I would concur that ` ' the pasture area is not wetland. The 2500 square foot wetland is , I presume, the ash wetland area . The 'd Division of state Lands requires a fill permit for fill cx alteration of 50 cubic yards or more of material . A _' 2500 square foot area filled to a depth of one foot would involve 93 cubic yards . If the entire area is not subject to alteration and/or the fill is less than 50 cubic yards, no permit is required. If you are , uncertain, you may wish to contact Bill Parks , who is a r' permit coordinator for that area . Please call if you have any questions . I apologize for the delay in responding . ,y Sincerely, =\:),.(v\- \--- C- ‘NL,LI,k0,in , . s • f/4..• .. Janet C. Morlan . Y 0, . Wetlands Program JCMJjcm . ^•. 775 Summer Stem jan. 354 •. k" o .,,,... „„., ,..,...,,, ........; 4 EXHIBIT cc. kedsweg " annang Depar„meP . ,' , Jim Goudzwaar443,111.0d, Corps of Engineers • " '„` Martin Schott, Shapiro & Associates, Inc. . Port '•, ©t, t3_ce, • • WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES , • Tree and Landscape Consulting ServicesA . P.O. BOX 641,PORTLAND,OREGON 97207 503/222-7007 303/656-7057 W N P '1 , ,11... . l I/ �- , 51\Y1r January 28, 1991 "! r-EB �. .1.991 N.: Robert Galante, Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Galante: I have been retained by Baycorp Development, Inc. as ,� Consultant on their Kruse Oak Arboricultural assess the condition of the trees showntMo be instructions are the project plan dated 8/12/90, Sheet L, ps preserved on t determine their conditions as to potential for survey, and to survival in this construction design. Preservation/ tq , To that end, I have seen the property and trees in a general overview. on two occasions Based on the two visits, I can say there are some trees which appear to be sound and worth others which are not. Preserving and However, until I am provided with a set of plans showing specifics for final building envelopes parking grades, placement of sewer storm drains, utility lines, etc. , lot, the property is staked related specifically to thos and cannot pas, I proceed further. Then, on a tree by tree basis, I can do ►, the definitive consultive tasks necessary preservation on this project, to maximize tree I am instructed by my clients that as Bonn as they have a plans for the project, I will be provided the plans necessaryprovto '. develop the tree analysis to ,' ysis necessary and work with the construction team to complete the ` project. My clients have made it clear to me ,' that it is their firm desire to save as many trees as possible this project because they recognize their amenity value to the e development and to the neighborhood at large. It is for specific purpose that I was retained. • that '' r''5•41401''`, INSPECTION,DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OP •' "'K' TREES,SHRUgS AND RELATED PLANTINe "�+-r'�r CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING,TRANSPLANTING,PRESERVATION,MAI `1 . E X H I q 0 T !Y a. ARBOREAL PLANNING,COMPREHENSIVE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS.DULY SANCTIONS r POR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES.LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COUR �R. 13 • A H. Robert Galante • City of Lake Oswego Page 2 , I am awaiting instructions from my clients as to further activity on the project. P -ase contact me if you have questions in this matter relat• •`a* he abo . ank you. • Very trr /// ,, . W 11 • ,/ / -n, B S. , , C.A. American Society of Consulting Arborists #114 cc: Mike Moody, Baycorp Development . • • o. • ` 41, Y ! • • • n , ` �. .. ... a • • 1• . ` is r 1 .1. 1•: w. 1 Ir S� 0�IA TAD' ?bANSPORTATION ` I GINFERING,1-.% R ANNINO (ATEP) (503) es8-9,23.2 (503) 743-4491 l 1 MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 22, 1991 i TO: City of Lake Oswego 1 Y FROM: Dick Wuelk, P.E., T.E • PROJECT: Kruse Oaks Commercial Center SUBJECT: Executive Summary of Traffic Impact fi In conducting the traffic impact review for the above mentioned project, the following facts and findings are summarized for your review. a) The traffic analysis conducted for this project is consistent with the other traffic impact work done in the area during the past 10 years, The analysis • indicates that this development will not adversely impact the surrounding 1 street system. The current traffic patterns with this development are consistent with the previous traffic assumptions and conclusions contained in the previous traffic reports. See the attached list of traffic reports, t b) The proposed development will generate less traffic than originallyprojected in the early 1980 traffic studies done for the Kruse Way Corridor. j c) With the extension of Parkway Avenue to Carmen Drive the impact of this • . development on the Westlake Area will be reduced. p EXHIBIT R 1 3-�i D `. • Kruse Oaks Commercial Center February 22, 1991 • •• r Page 2 d) All of the intersections within the study area will operate at a level of service D or better after construction. • { Y.I •I • • • • 411) r •. •1 1 Y .. y Y +• • r ,r • 41 • fi "r 1 „ , a •F . f'. It r1J Kruse Oaks Commercial Center Page 3 February 22, 1991 List of previous traffic studies st - 1976 Kruse Way Study - 1978 Transportation Plan for Lake Oswego ' , - Original 1979 Traffic Report for Westlake PUD, Carl Buttke - 1983 Kruse Way Corridor Study; by Carl Buttke - 1984 Traffic study for the Westlake ODPS Modification - 1990 Traffic study for the Westlake Elementary School. i e p.. Y r . . • { • • i, • .. J,.• II r x 1 .. ... I t J r.. r.• . ,. • .� ..u .✓ .�. �,` rr r .. M kvY'f r� �•r, Y ll , 1• • y h': b,I :r. • • • • • • • • S r i t a ' •• • • • • � r • a • • r I A _ .. • • . . Jy ' M`- ■V i ,' SS OCIATED . 'ii - ,.I± •ANSPOR TA TION CINEERING & "~ ANNING r7� % 6 !.i� A d EP 1 (508J 636--9.23.E (503) 743_449 f 0 C:rit.y,....„:.. ....„....:4,„:44 11 DATE: } November 13, 1990 9 1992 TO: City of Lake Oswego • FROM: Dick W oelk, P.E., T.E J PROJECT: Kruse Oaks Commercial Center SUBJECT: Traffic Impact requested by City staff. Associated Transportation Engineering and Planning conducted a review of the proposed development and have (Rollo has p a e av Wi conclusions. made the following �'• a) The development will generate approximately pp ately 1,565 trips per day, 240 trips + during the pm peak hour ( 175 in and 65 out). b) The existing intersection of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive operates at an acceptable level of service C without the development. c) The intersection of Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive will of service D with the development as proposed with two driveways. ie operate level e) All of the intersections within the study area will operate at a level • II) D or better after construction of the dev eo epment l p of service . y ' ' EXHIBIT i2_-2.-- .: t712 1 `-CI 0 a$• Kruse Oaks Commercial Center November 13, 199(1 • Page 2 f) The intersection of Kruse Way and Kruse Oaks (Westlake) currently operates at a level of service C. . g) The intersection of Kruse Way and Kruse Oaks (Westlake) will operate at • a level of service C with the development. h) Both driveways from the development operate with levels of service C or better with the development. • i) Based on this analysis, the development will not adversely impact the surrounding street system. Based on tl'.e analysis conducted, the following recommendations are made: 1) The development be constructed with two driveways, one on Westlake Drive and one on Parkview Drive. This will enable the traffic generated by the development to circulate better and reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding street system. 2) The Westlake Drive be reconstructed to provide a left turn lane for both ° Parkway Drive and for the northerly driveway into the development. 3) Both driveways be constructed to provide two exit lanes, one for left turns • and one for right turns. • a ` 410 • . • .• • r' / a .1 4 . .. NORTH • MEIR05E ac dI'•....lo TP`ro3 nR • V,� a' ry • 1•11 0.1 • 11' • E •1, 1i • k 17 4 . 44666416004. 446466•611 44 . 66660611 1 1 • 1 1 1 1. •! 1 1 •.• 14.1 1 • 4.__ //;br-5' PARKWAY DRIVE • • kr a. aS WS •_ • KRUSE WAY KRliSE 0AK5 mi„..AIi" C.EN1" ER ►-XISfiING TRAFFIC VOI r PM PEAK E P riow 1 ,. • • • 1 , . NORTH MEI,ROSE S TREE T y ,.. \\*Ny----iN\s\. . .,, i- 4,T, ,,,, Ty :: :'\ ..< r r T� • IN j11—'1___..; ......\--• Cit Y mummer 92 PARKWAY ORIVE / • , • i 01 M y 100..rt �„ 0 e-0 ''''''N.---......._ --) . Q f I KRUSE WAY r, KRUSE OAKS R TAIL GENTER r'� FR A 1 ,a 1 T V , y ,� flui y �1 FI V 1� V/ 1 , e. PM ro\i< • A y l Y ' ' ' ' 4 '! 0 NORTH • MEI,SOSE • • • ....,.1,. N /'..---iil'iC%.\\ . v....,16 • ..< .,....1....„) QR SItE �. . /L030 11140 • :'1 �•r-03 _ PARKWAY °RIVE 7 ., • tao..l.'� 4'.L,t ..+ R.130 1045-o 4-640 . • . til.a8 .1)\.., \ KRUSE WAY ., .. KRU OAKS R�1`AIL GEN1'ER • . Y.a.' 1"O1'Alr 1'R. IG 'v.t �U S my, PEAK I IR /A\ T r. J • 1 r • 0. e- • �� • "` P. S ,. +. �: 1 • a • . • , . . . . , • • • •'-*•• . • • • • . •, • •*. - . , •, . . • , • •• •• ••••• . •••, . . •-• •«* • • • • • • '•••• •, "•• . ' ,; • • . •• ' • ••• . • •. . " • . • • V • • - - ,• :••• • • • •. s• . ".‘ '.•• • • • . , '• 1 : • • • . • • • •\' - •.‘• . • e • :�.�.- TRIP GENERATION BY ECUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION �� I:ENTERS UNDER 260K i''' PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE C 820 TYPE OF LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER „`;` TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY + t VALUE OF X = 11 VALUE OF A : 0.65 VALUE OF 8 : 5.62 PASSBY X : 40.00X XIN 50.001 X OUT 50.110% EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(X)) + B e:, LN(T) = 7.178631 PASS BY NEW TRIPS -' TOTAL TRIPS 1311 524 787 W .. , ;:` VEHICLE IN = 656 262 393 VEHICLES OUT = 656 262 393 Y . Y ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS . DATE: 13-Nov-90 ;r4' LAND USE 0 830 '• TYPE OF LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER TINE PERIOD; AM PEAK VALUE OF X 11 VALUE OF A : 0.6 . � VALUE OF B = 2.4 PASSBY 1 = 40.00X XIN 70.00% 1 OUT 30.001 a EQUATION 1 LNCT) : ACLH(X)) + B { LNCT) = 3.838737 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 46 19 28 VEHICLE IN : 33 13 20 VEHICLES OUT = 14 6 8 C + i 4 . • 0. .r ... it I- '._, ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM • �` PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS { DATE: 13-Nov-90 • LAND USE 8 820 • TYPE OF LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER ,a. ,< TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF X = 11 1, VALUE OF A = 0.52 VALUE OF B = 4.84 PASSBY 1 = 40.00% 1IN 84.80% 1 OUT 16.001 EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(")) + B " `_ LN(T) = 5.286905 PASS BY NEW TRIPS . . ; TOTAL TRIPS 198 79 119 VEHICLE IN = 16b 66 180 VEHICLES OUT = 32 13 19 • tn, I. TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LIS ED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITH LOGS PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS I DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE Q 710 TYPE OF LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE . 04F+1. .: TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY VALUE OF I = 17 :' n VALUE OF A = 0.75 I '''', ; VALUE OF B = 3.77 PAS58Y I = 0.881 ' ZIN 50.00% 1 OUT 50.00% EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(X)) + D LN(T) = 5.894918 PASS BY NEW TRIPS � TOTAL TRIPS 363 0 363 VEHICLE IN = 182 8 182 VEHICLES OUT = 182 0 182 • • o 1 iv y Y i� t 6 tl . J7 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE 0 710 TYPE OF LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE ; TINE PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE OF X = 17 ,; VALUE OF A = 8.86 • VALUE OF B - 1.34 PASSBY x = 8.00Z %IN 87.80% �` 1 OUT 13.QOZ YP 111 '' EQUATION 1 LN(T) g A(LN(X)) + B LN(T) : 3.776563 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 44 8 44 VEHICLE IN = 38 0 38 r . VEHICLES OUT = 6 8 6 i S R.• 1. .t ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP 6ENERATIUN PROGRAM PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS $,i DATE: 13-Nov-90 4s `e ,' • LAND USE t 710 TYPE OF LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE • . ` TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF X = 17 '' VALUE OF A = 0.83 VALUE OF B = 1.46 PASSBY 1 = 8.00Z XIN 84.801 X OUT 16.BBZ • EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(X)) f B LN(T) = 3,811567 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 45 8 45 1.` VEHICLE IN - 38 8 38 • VEHICLES OUT - 7 8 7 • I. r 4w Y ' 4 *. ,. ... a If rwAi yh P ` N, rr �• ` r.. 'Ar TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITHOUT LOGS R `. PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS °! _ DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE 0 565 TYPE OF LAND USE DAY CARE TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY ,., VALUE OF X = 6.2 ; VALUE OF A = 67 VALUE OF B = I PASS BY X = 8.00% u, XIN 50.80% X OUT 50.88% EQUATION 2 (T) = A(X) + B PASS BY NEW TRIPS • TOTAL TRIPS= 415 0 415 VEHICLE IN = 208 8 208 ` VEHICLES OUT : 288 0 208 TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITHOUT LOGS PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE I 565 TYPE OF LAND USE DAY CARE TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE OF X = 6.2 VALUE OF A = 11.365 VALUE OF B = 1 PASS BY X : 0.80% XIN 50.80Z Z OUT 50.08% EQUATION 2 (T) = A(X) + B PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS= 78 8 70 VEHICLE IN = 35 8 35 .. VEHICLES OUT : 35 0 35 .r` S i M'. .a . t i • A J .0+ : ., • r . t a `� TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITHOUT LOGS PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE 4 565 TYPE OF LAND USE DAY CARE r TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE OF I - 6.2 =a ' VALUE OF A : 11.365 VALUE OF B : 6 PASS BY X : 0.80Z ZIN 53.00Z Z OUT 47.80Z EQUATION 2 (T) = A(X) + B d ; PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS: 78 0 70 } 1 J d • VEHICLE IN = 37 B 37 , VEHICLES OUT : 33 0 33 1 TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITHOUT LOGS PROJECT: KRUSE OAKS DATE: 13-Nov-90 LAND USE 1 565 TYPE OF LAND USE DAY CARE TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK : VALUE OF X = 6.2 VALUE OF A = 12.302 VALUE OF B = b >'• PASS BY Z = 0.00Z ZIN 48.00Z X OUT 52.00% 0 EQUATION 2 (T) = A(X) + B , ,•' PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS: 76 0 76 F, ,�. VEHICLE IN =.' 37 8 37 ; 1 , •. VEHICLES OUT = 40 0 40 , yt • 1 1 Y 0. f 4 4 iI� { 2 • , I." • • 1, '1 1.. r' t r { 'w N • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS y Page-1 .' . ff4f44444f444f44fff44fff4fff44ff4444ff4f444444f4ffffiff{f444ffff4f4ff IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 10000 NAME OF THE EAST;NEST STREET PARKVIEW NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTLAKE . NAME OF THE ANALYST DW • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS fu/dd/yy) 11/13/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL N : � INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH !.UNTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES pi .. , ,' • • EB WB NB SD LEFT ---- ---- ---- 63 0 14 THRU -- 0 403 252 y A RIGHT -- 17 79 0 .. • NUMBER OF LANES • + ! ED WB NB SB LANES -- I 1 I • h.♦ F ♦ . 'r K 1'r—` . r r , ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE 0 ' ., GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND --- ___ HETBOUND 1.80 90 28 N NORTHBOUND 8.08 98 20 N SOUTHBOUND 8.00 98 28 Nop VEHICLE COMPOSITION n Z SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION • AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES roi 4 ' - EASTBOUND ——— --- ___ WESTBOUND 8 0 0 ' a NORTHBOUND 8 8 8 SOUTHBOUND 1 8 0 0 .• . t.f + + .�•t4 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 18-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.80 5.58 r MAJOR LEFTS , SB 5.80 5.80 LBO 5.00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6.50 6.58 0,10 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL.-OF-SERVICE Page-3 •I POTEN- ACTUAL }'• • FLOW- TIAL MOVEMEN T SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITYMOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH MINOR STREET • NB LEFT 77 317 313 > 313 > 236 > C RIGHT 21 634 634 > 35B 634 > 253 613 )C A • • MAJOR STREET • SB LEFT 17 6B3 683 683 666 A • • • • • • • • • • YI n e 'M, • • • • I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ffftffffffffflfffffffffffftffftfffftffffffffffffffffftffffffffffffftf • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 18880 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET PARKVIEW • NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTLAKE NAME OF THE ANALYST DU DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (ae/dd/yy) 11/13/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION: WITH DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL • °w. INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH ti CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN ° , • • TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED WB NB SD LEFT -- 83 0 54 THRU -- 8 403 264 RIGHT -- 38 139 B NGMDER OF LANES ED WO NB SB LANES 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PP PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- EASTBOUND --- --- — WESTBOUND 8.80 90 20 N• G� NORTHBOUND 0.80 90 28 N , SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N t: p VEHICLE COMPOSITION X SU TRUCKS Z COMBINATION 4� AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES . a, EASTBOUND --- --- -- �, WESTBOUND 8 0 8 NORTHBOUND 8 8 8 SOUTHBOUND 8 8 8 CRITICAL GAPS { TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. I.!Mil '• (Table 18-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS `''r'' WB 5.50 5.50 0.80 5.58 MAJOR LEFTS SB .5.80 5.00 8.08 5.88 MINOR LEFTS WB 6.58 6.50 8.00 6.50 , 0 . ,, Y , y e , n { 1 . CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Pdge-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH •ry• D MINOR STREET HD LEFT 181 279 261 > 261 > 159 ) D > 388 > 169 >0 1 , RIGHT 37 689 689 > 609 > 573 > A MAJOR STREET SO LEFT 66 629 629 629 563 A • ' n • • 1 � 1 ' FV r.. • w k tl . ® , '- N y • ill P . 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALITED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ffffffffffffftOffffftfffffffffffffffffffiftffffffffllfffffffflIfftfffff IDENTIFYING INFORMATION .( AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 31 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 • AREA POPULATION 180000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SITE DRIVEWAY , + , • NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTLAKE • NAME OF THE ANALYST OW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 11/13/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAY, OTHER INFORMATION: WITH DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN ill) TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB NB NB SB LEFT 13 8 44 THRU -- 8 426 252 RIGHT -- 15 38 8 NUMBER OF LANES • (. ED NB NB SB LANES -- 1 1 1 1 r ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS • EASTBOUND --- --- - WESTBOUND 0.88 98 28 N NORTHBOUND 8.08 98 28 N , 4.47i. '_ SOUTHBOUND 8.08 90 20 N *.rr VEHICLE COMPOSITION X SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 8 0 ,.`. r� NORTHBOUND 8 8 e f' " ` SOUTHBOUND 8 8 8 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 18-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.58 8.88 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.80 5.00 8.88 5.80 MINOR LEFTS ' WB 6.50 6.50 8.00 6.50 I'. , . . ..:f •a' a + .. CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF—SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c a C - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 16 362 289 ) 289 ) 273 ) C y > 408 ) 374 )B RIGHT 18 635 635 ) 635 ) 616 ) A MAJOR STREET • SB LEFT 54 707 707 707 653 A y; , 1. s , ' . . 0 . a . a. + • .. . . ) .� .tom , .. . ,.' ,. , +. ''.� .. ,'' _ ,, • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ff}#}#ffff##}tfff}t#f#f#ttt}ff#ft##}}ffff}f#ff#f##ff#ff}#t}t#f}tt#fff IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 38 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 108080 • NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET PARKVIEW NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTLAKE • NAME OF THE ANALYST OW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS tea/dd/yy) II/13/98 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC ONE DRIVEWAY Y� •I M INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL .N, INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION .` MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB 49 NB SB LEFT -- 95 8 98 . THRU -- 8 403 252 RIGHT -- 45 98 8 ` NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB ' ' LANES 1 l 2 .' d, • . r ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 • PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND --- --- - WESTBOUND 6.88 98 28 N NORTHBOUND 8.80 90 28 N SOUTHBOUND 0:90 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION X SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RIPS VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES • EASTBOUND --- --- WESTBOUND 0 8 0 NORTHBOUND 0 8 8 SOUTHBOUND 8 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS C ar TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 18-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.08 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.80 8.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 r , • �1A CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 • at s Jr POTEN- ACTUAL • FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 116 275 242 > 242 > 126 ) D > 301 ) 130 >0 RIGHT 55 629 629 > 629 ) 574 ) A .F 4 • MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 120 673 673 .673 553 A • • • A • • • • • • • p ��� CARL H. Bll7`fKE, INC. q. CONSULTING TRANSPORTATION ENGWEEA P.O. BOX 636 6i PORTLAND. OREGON 97207 MI 503 d+ 223.4728 1 , September 16, 1984 Mr. Nawzad Othman OTAK 15110 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego,g OR 97034 Re: Westlake Development Plan - Rearrangement of Land Uses • ,.. . Dear Nawzad: =n accordance with your request, I have analyzed the traffic impact at the intersect' ;; of Kruse Way and Westlake Drive as a result of rearranging the land uses within Westlake P .U.D . . Table 1 indicates the resulting level of service at ter_ section with the the =n„__previously approved plan and for this proposed :an for both the low and high range of residential devel opmen;, . • :AELE I • ESTIMATED LEVEL OF SERVICE use Way and Westlake Drive { , • Percent of -eve_ c: , 4 . Level D Serv_ce Previously Approved 1 00 a -, =rcpcsed Low Range of Residential Dev . 96 D High Range of Residential Lev . 101 • _',1 _- - • '' EXHIBIT 4 •tr to • e /•1 ,s' 4 ;' 4 x / • + • • } Mr. hawmad Othran September _E , c; Re : Rearrangement of Land Uses ' Attached to this letter is a summary of the vehicle trip 1 generation estimates for the land affecting Westlake Drive, a summary of the vehicle trip distribution for Westlake, including J +' a network map, and a diagram indicating the resulting PM peak hour traffic movements at Kruse Way and Westlake Drive . • If you have any• questions concerning this letter, please contact me at your convenience . Sincerely, • • CARL H. BUTTKE, :NC . d-A•k°4=1 , • Carl H. aut;;ke , P .?. '! President A:; . is 1, ft• • • • • r - . . y. • • ;r UIESTLAKE AND CENTERPOIHTE IRATE OF VEHICLE TRIP 6EHERATION " Ir:flER RAISE OF i4, 198 RESIDEHIIAL4 DEVELOPAEHT 4It .. 24 HR. PA PI HI PA PK HR 24 HR. TRIP ENTER EXIT 2-VAT PA PK HR PA PK HR tr WO. LAHD USE SIZE UNITS RATE RATE RATE TRIPS ENTER EXIT VirLAKE • 1 SINGLE FAAILT 198 D.U. 9.8 0.63 0.37 1940 125 73 3 SI116LE FAAILT 291 D.U. 9.8 ,0.43 0.37 2852 183 106 3 PARK 12 •ACRE • 4 0.75 0.75 72 • 9 9 3 COAAERCIAL 3 ACRE 340 17 17 1020 51 51 4 AULTI-FAAILT 494 D.U. 5.6 0.4 0.2 2766 198 99 4 CHURCH 4 ACRE 35 1 2.5 • .. 140 4 10 a Tan: 8790 570 350 ..,.- !';1., ,,: H163 IN GE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPAEHT - :11DtR 14, 1984 .T :4 24 HR. PA PK HR PA PK HR 24 HR. TRIP ENTER EXIT 2-VAT PK a•r LaT :lFL. LAND U " SIZE UNITS RATE RATE RATE TRIPS PA EHTHR PA PK HR ENTER HR 4:lI.L SINGLE FAAILT 248 D.U. 4.8 SINGLE FAAILT 407 D.U. 9.8 0.43 0.37 2430 156 91 63 0.37 : PARK 12 ACRE 6 0.75 r�.•;S 3972 2569 1., LDAAERCIAI 3 ACRE 340 17 17 1020 51. AULTI-FAAIIY 556 D.U. 5.4 0.4 3114 222 11 1 CHURCH 4 ACRE 35 1 2.5 140 4 10 , ... TOTAL , 10765 698 424 • T, . • .. 't u • A« r. CARL H, BUITKE, INC. `� CONSULTING TM S✓"OATATION thtahaR u' R. 1 . • C 0 0 ` ' , % ';'.•.. . : * • ` / ^y� • • 1.' ) 4 . . • w r• e I • • ' 1 KI10$Is WAY .i. • FIGUIil. 1 ' , 1 W1.`I'Wr1I11( MAP • �1 ♦ (121 • WE$TLAl.l PM Prieu • rr� ' • WESTLA}E AND CENTRE POINT . PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION OF ENTERING TRAP LOW RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FIC SEPTEMBER 15 1984 , ' • • TO FROM EXTERNAL ZONES 12-17 INTERNAL P PR HR 13 ZONE ENTER 12 s • 14 15 16 1 125 49 2 , 51 3. 3 183 10 1 . 1 13 4 8 4 18398 71 4 4 S9 3 0 5 77 46 4 S6 • 4 2 0 4 63 0 44 ' 7 175 93 0 0 3 0 1 8 82 39 2 26 11 iy 9 10 2r 66 1216 8 1 1 8 1 4 11 0 0 10 0 11 r 40 21 TOTAL 4 908 387 20 20 274 34 159 ixI i , I ,u'FSTLAKE AND CENTRE POINT I'iei FEAR HOUR VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUT ION OF EXITING TFAFIC LOU RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 1984 FROM TO EXTERNAL ZONES 12-17 y:'WTERNAL PM PR HR • ZONE EXIT 12 13 14 iJ 16 17 1 73 31 1 51 31 1 23 .; '� 3 108 4610 1 1 13 3 13 4 • 5 99 43 2 32 ;3 1 6 • 10 6 3 0 3 3 1 e 6 6759 �S 0 3 00 1 4 8 41 `8 14 14 176 41 1 ` 10 1�' 8 0 U 13 1 �-, 11 5 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 b: .; 7C� 21 21 AL 1095 538 307 • 53 11+_ % • • • N; CARL H, BUTTKE, INC. :. 1 ttOIS.!1'wr •11140M4• )II • • • '4;.1ESTLAKE AND CENTRE POINT Fn PEAK: HOUR VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIP.UTION OF ENTERING TRAFFIC r SH RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ='TEf1P.ER 15, 1984 - 1 TO FROM EXTERNAL ZONES 12-17 . :STERNAL PM PK HR ZONE ENTER 14 13 14 15 • 16 17 1 156 61 2 51 . 10 3 3 13 5 36 , < 3 256 100 3 • 6 4 222 87 6 5 4 2 00 00 1 71 7 49 7 175 93 0 3 0 0 0 •. � 8 103 48 2 2 4 46 11 19 10• 9 29 14 1 339 3 14 19 9 0 0 4 11 40 21 1 1 10 4 "C'AL 1064 450 21 21 324 41 190 • N . r • W �AKE AND CENTRE POINT -'". EAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION OF EXITING TRAFFIC `:ar RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SSP—EMBER 15, 1984 `'ROM TO EXTERNAL ZONES 12-17 : :...=aNAL PM PFC HR ZONE EXIT 12 13 i4 15 16 17 1 92 40 2 29 3 51 10 1 2 1 13 17 151 -� 3 3 4 111 tag 2 48 g `6 510 6 0 2 36 3 .,0 6 5 0 0 3 0 1 7 675 358 14 14 1 1 1 8 17 29 1 1 17 42 73 9 • 10 11 9 0 0 `� 1 • 11 5 3 0 0 4 0 1 ; 1104 579 ., i 0 1 ..3 23 335 38 152 • CARL H. 8UTTKE, INC. • CNSUL11hG TRANSPORTAtION CNWHC[h • gi. : • . 1 ` e ! * f • • „.'� • 0,1 Legend: Pi 00 it Low Range• of b Residential Dev. • 5 (00)a High Range of 0— Residential Dev. .> . �, win a P 't•- i 9 s (toss, *-- *s (I 3 Asa _ ,G r ss (SS) ^' Mass • (310) la COS" Vt3s') i'Ltin .4 7 I f IGRusa WAY ty tv. 1 i• s • `./ • f• • i • i, 1 ,i 1 • YEAR 2000 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC KxRUSE WAY AND WE T i i .dS�JAr ,...yam • i • • CARL H BUrn<E,INC :5'/S,,.' J•111045.:•"/..TIQI16'.G.i1EIIP . 7` r •� 1_ . •i 'ry. i • • • • •. a • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. 1783 • A SPECIAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REZONING CERTAIN ' PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF KRUSE WAY BETWEEN CARMAN DRIVE AND 1-5 , KNOWN AS THE WESTLAKE PUD, FROM TEE COUNTY R-20 AND pti01ZO �N r20 THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE • The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows : 1 . The request to rezone the property described in Section 3 of this ordinance from the County R-20 and R-30 zones to the Planned Unit Development zone came before the City Council at its meeting of December 16 , 1980 . A public hearing was held and the Council concluded that the requested change should be granted . • 2. The zoning map of the City of Lake Oswego is amended to • designate the property described in Section 3 of this ordinance • as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The "Final Development Plans and Program for Westlake" dated December 16 , 1980 is adopted as the zoning for the described property . The Plan and • . Program is identified as Exhibit "A" of this ordinance and by this reference is incorporated herein . 3 . The property which is the subject of the rezone granted by this ordinance is described as follows : A tract of land situated in the South one-half of Section 6 , Township 2 South , Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian , County of Clackamas , State of Oregon , more particularly . • described as follows : • Commencing at the South one-quarter corner of said Section 6 ; thence North 76°03 ' 18" West 1481 . 72 feet to a point on the Northerly line of Kruse Way 85 . 00 feet from centerline opposite engineers centerline station 490+00 and the point of beginning of the tract herein to be described ; thence along said Northerly line on the arc of a 2779 ,16 foot radius curve to the left , through a central angle of • 14°04 ' 15" , an arc distance of 682 .51 feet ( the chord bears y'' South 76°43 ' 22" East 680 . 80 feet) to a point opposite engineers centerline station 497+03 . 54 P.C.S . ; thence • ,continuing along said Northerly line on the arc of a spiral ( the chord bears South 86°26 ' 03" East 393 . 91 feet) to a point opposite engineers centerline station 501+03 . 54 P .T. .;, thence continuing along said Northerly line, South 86°18 ' 47" East 396 . 50 feet to a point opposite engineers centerline station 505+00 P.O.T. ; thence continuing along said Northerly line , South 87°45 ' 30" East 1214 . 99 feet to a point opposite engineers centerline station 517+15 . 26 P.S . ; thence continuing along said Northerly line on the arc of a spiral ( the chord bears South 86 °24 ' 56 " East 405 . 07 feet) to a • point opposite engineers centerline station 521+15 . 26 P.S .C . ; thence continuing along said Northerly line on the arc of a 2939 . 16 foot radius curve to the right , through a 1 EXHIBIT . • . ;. '` i .. ..-i�+rlrryL cnt�ag�,angle of 14°15 ° 16" , an arc distance of 731 . 22 feet (thee chord bears South 76°37 ' 52" East 729 .34 feet) to the uth_.1ine.of said Section 6 ; thence along said South line, South• 87°46 '49n East 74 .36 feet to the Westerly line of S .W . t, Canaan Drive, Market Road No. 31 , ( 60 feet wide) ; thence along said Westerly line, North 16°59 ' 52" East 25 .94, feet ' along W point of curvature; thence continuing along said Westerly line on the arc of a 984 .93 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 1°30 ' 19" , an arc distance of 25.88 feet (the chord bears North 17°45 ' 02" East 25.88 feet) to the North line of a fifty foot strip described as Parcel IV, Exhibit A-2 in Deed to the Corpor- - ' ation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of • Latter-Day Saints and recorded under Film No. 76-40313, Deed Records, on November 10, 1976; thence along said North line , North 87°46 '49" West 162.07 feet to the East line of that certain tract described as Parcel III, Exhibit A-2 in said Latter-Day Saints tract; thence along said East line North 1°27 ' 38 " East 841 . 80 feet to the South 1': ne of that certain tract described as Parcel I, Exhibit A-1 in said Latter-Day Saints Tract; thence along said South line South 88°13 ' 32" • East 390 . 72 feet to the East line of said Section 6 ; thence r along the East line of said Section 6 , North 1°30 ' 14" East 1748 .96 feet to the East quarter corner of said Section 6; thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 6 , North 87°53 'O1" West 5245 .97 feet to the Easterly line of Interstate Highway 5 ; thence along said Easterly line, South 1°16 ' 18" West 676 .43 feet to a point opposite engineers centerline station C 85+69 . 24 P. S . ; thence continuing along said Easterly line, South 5°16127" East 188 .26 feet to a point opposite engineers centerline station C 87+69 . 24 P.S .C. ; thence continuing along said Easterly line on the arc of a 631 . 20 foot radius curve to the left , through a • r , central angle of 15°32 ' 21 " , and arc distance of 171 .19 feet ( the chord bears South 16°57 ' 40" East 170 . 66 feet) to a point opposite engineers centerline station 89+G3 . 48 P.C.S . ; thence along the arc of a spiral ( the chord bears South 29 °06 ' 18 " Fast 128 .19 feet) to the centerline of Ball Creek; thence along the centerline of Ball Creek the following bearings and distance: North 27°59 '30" East 119 .14 feet, • North 37°41 ' 39" East 139 . 01 feet , North 56°46 ' 06 " East 173 .35 feet, North 47°25 ' 10" East 251 . 25 feet , North . 64°58 ' 59" East 165 . 53 feet, North 74°21 ' 28" East 129 . 81 feet, South 84 °04 ' 17" East 112 .35 feet; thence leaving said centerline of., Ball Creek South 15°26 ' 15" East 204 . 55 feet to a point of curvature; thence on the arc of a 175 .00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 79 00 00 , an arc distance of 241 .29 feet ( the chord bears • South 54°56 ' 15" East 222 . 63 feet) to a point of reverse curvature ; thence on the arc of a 250 .00 • Ordinance No . 1783 Page 2 • e , , foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 90°00 ' 00 " , an arc distance of 392 . 70 ( the chord bears South 49°26 ' 15 " East 353 . 55 feet) to a point of tangency; thence •p y A South 4 °26 ' 15" East 427 . 72 feet to a point of curvature ; thence on the arc of a 400 .00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 53°59 ' 30" an arc distance of 376 . 93 feet ( the chord bears South 22°33 ' 30" West 363 .14 feet) to a point of reverse curvature; thence a 815 .54 foot radius curve to the left, through nat central of angle of 29°14 '30" an arc distance of 416 .22 feet ( the chord bears South 34°56 ' 00" West 411. 72 feet) to a point of tangency; thence South 20°18 '45" West 167 .25 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 237 .87 acres more ; f or less . This Legal Description is based on a boundary control survey by John W. Hawthorne dated February 7 , 1979 . 4 . The "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Westlake" , dated January 20, 1981 , identified as Exhibit "B" of this ordinance and by this reference incorporated herein, is adopted as the basis for the Council ' s decision to rezone . grant the f 5 . The required dedication of land and public facilities to be made as a ;` part of the PUD development shall be made at the time of approval of the final plat for each phase of the develop-went. Acceptance by the City of such dedications shall occur as a part of the final plat approval process . 6 . On or after the effective date of this ordinance the applicant shall file with the City Recorder and Planning Director of the City and the County Clerk for. Clackamas County the documentation of this PUD approval required by LOC 53 . 400 and LOC 53 .410 . Proof of compliance with LOC 53 .410 shall be fur-wished to the City Recorder. 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 f 1981 . day .YE5 : : NOES : ABSTAIN: 4 ABSENT: ead for the second time by title only and enacted at the regular xteeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the day of , 1981 . rdinance No , 1783 age 3 • Pia AYES: _ _ • NOES : • ABSTAIN • . ABSENT: • � . Hera amp„ • .ATTEST: , Mayor • • APPROVED AS TO FORM e en: • us lty eCC raer a es M• o eman sty Attorney Q•i• 0'. a• ' ti• • • • " "r= -a.nce No re = ,� 178 3 • • a .: a da BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ' OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 An Amendment to the PA 3-79 t. Comprehensive Plan Open Space ) Y Land Use Policy Element ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND Concerning Deletion of the ) ORDER Kruse Oaks as Open Space ) Proposed for Acquisition ) V Nature of the Application ' This application for a major plan amendment was initiated by Homesite Development Corporation and proposes amendment of the ;;,•,,_., •,,. ^ • P Open Space Land Use Policy Element by the deletion of the Kruse Oaks from the list of areas identified as Public Open Space pro- r: posed for acquisition appearing at pages 89 and 90 of Volume I of rY 1 the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Hearing _� The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered w the application at its December 10 , 1979 meeting , and by its order V ` _ O dated February 11 , 1980 recommended denial of the proposed amend- ment. The City Council held public hearings on the proposed _ c amendment on February 26 and December 16 , 1980 . Criteria Major Comprehensive Plan amendments are governed by LOC _ -„ 56 .100 through 56 .170 and by the criteria found on pages 121 and '' _� 122 of Volume t of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan . Addition- :w ally , such Plan amendments must comply with any applicable state- wide planning goals . ht;n"711•1ED• • a i ' EXHIBIT 601• Faze 2 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND /� -•OR DER E R • �� ^cnh,,, moA:ts •ap , !3 _0 , 0 ��' Conclusion • 2 The City Council concludes the proposed amendment is con- , z 3 sistent with and promotes the implementation of the Plan Public ` 4 Open Space General Policies I and III and Statewide Planning Goals • and 10 . 6 Findings and Reasons The Comprehensive 'lan Public Open Space Plan includes , as S an area proposed for public acquisition, a 20 acre portion of the g 40 to 50 acre Kruse Oak Forest . Plan, Volume I , pp . 88 , 89 . The °. 10 amendment proposed would delete the 20 acre portion of the Kruse 11 Oak Forest from the Public Open Space Plan but would not affect y = 12 that area' s status as a "Distinctive Natural Area . " The entire r , 13 area in question is located within the property which is the sub- ject of the proposed Westlake PUD. The effect of the proposed 1' amendment is to remove the obligation stated in the Plan that the ' : 16 20 acre site be held in public ownership. 4 17 The question of whether the subject portion of the Kruse 18 Oaks should be purchased as Public Open Space was presented to the 19 voters of the City on November 7 , 1978 . The measure failed . On 20 two occasions in 1979 the Council declined to again place the , , , 21 question of the purchase before the voters . 22 The Council first considered the requested amendment at its " = 2 3 February 26 , 1980 meeting . The matter was before the Council on a recommendation by the Planning Commission that the request be • denied . The Council , after the public hearing , determined that 0 " . • :6 the decision on this request and the decision on the request for • ?age 2 FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS 1 AND ORDER i J q 5,. . approval of the Westlake PUD were closely interrelated and neither request should be decided without reference to the other. The • Council continued its consideration of this request until` q the • Westlake PUD proposal came before it. Both matters were con- . sidered by the City Council at its December 16 , 1980 meeting . • The areas identified by the Plan as Public Open Spaces are to be managed in a natural open state and available for public use. They are so identified because of their value to the com- s R munity as natural areas , their fragile nature which requires pro- tection, or the difficulty and expense anticipated for development of the sites . Plan Volume I , pp . 8.7 . The Plan text concludes , y without discussion, that public ownership of the sites is the only u'• . way of preserving their value to the community as development 1- - Y: occurs in the area. The Final Plan and Program for the Westlake PUD and the proposal for Phase I of that development , as submitted by Home- y- .. Site, are designed to meet the objectives of the Open Space Policies without requiring that ownership of the Kruse Oaks be ! placed with the public. The Final Plan and Program, dated December 16 , 1980, Exhibit BD of that document, the Phase I ap- proval and the Declaration of Restrictions for Phase I , dated OY December 16 , 1980 , taken together provide assurance that Open 23 Yy Space General Policy 1 and III can be satisfied without the public bearing the cost of purchase of the twenty acre site , The Oaks area has been physically surveyed yed by the developer, City staff and representatives of the Conservancy" ' Y Commission to 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , j 1I • +. determine the twenty acre area of most value'. The Westlake PUD L. e" •° approvals have defined the area and it will be kept free from 4 :'+ development. Access is limited but available to the public. The Phase I development in the balance of the Kruse Oak Forest is Via;;. - conditioned to protect the Forest to the extent possible while allowing development to occur, as provided for in the Protection , Open Space Policies, P1:.t,: Vol . I, P Pp . 88 . The Westlake PUD proposals for preservation , protection and v use of the Kruse Oaks were reviewed by the City Conservancy W r 9 ' Commission and the League of Women Voters , West Clackamas County . _. . �_ Both groups have been closely monitoring the proposed development ' Ai 12 in the area of Kruse Oaks and were concerned about insuring that the Comprehensive Plan Policies were complied with as a part of a =' the development approvals .p Both groups concluded that the Y = proposed development scheme for the Kruse Oaks meets the Plan requirements . Further, the Planning Commission considered the.. Westlake PUD proposals at its November 24 , 1980 meeting . It t '` L S recommended approval of the PUD, also determining that the scheme : ;•> a t to preserve the Kruse Oaks meets the Plan requirements. The three recommendations are very persuasive to the Council . The Findings of Fact and Conclusions cf Law for Westlake , incorporated as Exhibit B of Ordinance 1783 , at pages 4-10 , , , discuss how the proposed development of the Kruse Oaks area is y"°' ..44 ..• consistent with Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 10 and that Y2 " r , discussion is incorporated and relied upon neren . t `' - - 4 FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND I ;n IT IS ORDERED bythe City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that the following amendments be made to Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan for Lake Oswego: '' :.1: 1 . The reference to "Kruse Oaks" , numbered paragraph 3 , • , ." page 89 in the "Public Open Space Proposed for Acquisition" 4 section is deleted . 2 . The reference to "Kruse Oaks" , numbered "3" on the - "Planned City Open Space System" map on page 88 is deleted . I certify that this Order was presented to and approved by -- the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. , Dated this day of ------, 1981 . • • C. Herald Zampoel1 , Mayor ,c '. { `, 4 + 1 +. �:: ::... .4 ::,,.. pi ' 5 FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS , AND ORDER z tr_ p?•"1 1 t � ' • • 1 '.1 i• N i ♦ Y r • • • J L1 L•7 r_=..I I� \% e. I ,„ F.t B 1 1 i4')i BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 -4 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • Request for Approval pproval of ) PUD 3-8'O Phase IA Westlake PUD ) Phase I ) ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ) ORDER o ,, Nature of the Application This application is for the approval of the plan for Phase I S of the Westlake Planned Unit Development. Pursuant to LOC 53 .310 the application includes a request for preliminary approval of the . subdivision plat for Phase I. == - Hearings The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered ',z the application at its meeting of November 24 , 1980 and W .. recommended its approval . The City Council held a public hearing on the application at its meeting of December 16 , 1980 and made a tentative decision to approve the application. A, portion . N of that decision was reconsidered at its meeting of Januiary c 82 Y 6 , 4 ca u ? 1981 . �+11( Criteria gj Approval of a phase of a Planned Unit Development is Da governed by LOC Chapters 44 and 53 . Li,, T • ° Con'clusion z 4 - The City Council concludes that the application for Phase I . • ,‘ , if approval is consistent with the Final Development Plan and Program '' for Westlake (Exhibit A of Ordinance 1783 ) and .the r 4 EXHIBIT BIT LOC Chapter 44 . - EXHIBI 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER D � � / . t • • • • 1 Findings and Reasons 2 The Planning Commission and the City Council considered the 3 request for Phase T approvalconcurrently with the request for • 4 approval of the Overall Development Plan and Program for We ,: .stlake. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Westlake dated 5 January 20, 1981, adopted as Exhibit B of Ordinance 1783, are by this reference adopted as the findings and conclusions 4 of law to support the approval _ 8 of Phase I. ' P Those Findings and Conclusions do not specifically address 1:1,. compliance of the Phase I , preliminary plat with the require- T7 11 ments of LOC Chapter 44 . However, LOC 53.310 specificall y, a)1 • . for concurrent review of the overall PUD application and the r 1 preliminary .plat application for a particular lar phase. A comparison 14 of the specific technical requirements of LOC Chapter 44 with the o „', ,�. requirements of LOC Chapter 53 leads to the conclusion that, while • a W = t < c "'' language differences exist, the substantive requirements and " ' • LL W ` oc 17 factual information required by both chapters . � W P is substantially the ' S IS same. The purpose of both Code chapters is to require the submis- 5W lg, sion of adequate information and documentation about a even ' • ''< < y ZJ g 1. uj development proposal to allow for review of a proposal for y 21 compliance with substantive provisions of the City Code zoning and 0 22 subdivision requirements. The Final Development Plan and Program • 0 . . `' that `~ the necessary factual information has been presented . -a,,a. ; _ .. .. • .ne zacz,ual information ,. presented in the 26 staff report on PUD 3-80 , dated November er 12 , 1980, presents 10 Id... Page INDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND . c . c • • f✓ , . M • r 1 'o y• o adequate factual support for the conclusion that the requirements .� of LOC Chapter 44 are met by the proposed Phase I preliminary i 3 plat, if the conditions attached by the Council are 'satisfied. y _ The Final Development i Plan and Program for Westlake (Exhibit A of m . Ordinance 1783) is the zoning for the area. Exhibit B of • o Ordinance 1783 presents adequate factual support for the I ,. conclusion that Phase I is consistent with the Final Plan and Program. IT IS ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i j 2,:, LAKE OSWEGO y• that: 1 . Phase I approval PP for the Westlake PUD is granted. 2. Exhibit BA of the proceedings consideringthe a ` - Westlake "' PUD (POD 3-80) is approved as the preliminary plat for Phase I of the Westlake PUD " 3 . Phase I approval and the , pr•eliminarf plat approval, granted by paragraphs <l and 2 of this Order, are S � . granted subject " c to compliance with the following 22 conditions: w = � 1. The applicant provide a petition to form a local . t improvement district (LID) for signal installation< l,I at the Kruse Way access point. b r,. • � 2. All streets, collector and residential, shall be 4 �-� constructed in conformance with the City Street Y Standards (LOC 44 . 371 - 44 .580) , and that, curbs be : . . required on collector streets. y �' -�—.'`�' ��a • �..�,• . , ., .� �. _ .... Rolled curbs will• . .. also be required on all non-collector streets unless the City Ehgineer is provided documentation that 1013 • 3 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 . i ! r w • • having no curbs will facilitate drainage and no I , ° rrpmature deterioration of road beds . 3 3 • Sidewalks shall be provided along at least one side o 4 - all through streets in Phase I, exc ept along Westlaka 5 Drive where the sidewalk will be incorporated within ���' 6 the bike path. The sidewalks should be a five foot_ 7 wide facility of concreteasphalt and should meand & or to save significant trees. Choice of mater ials is 9 subject to approval of the City Engineer. Sidewalk • easements should be where necessary ecessary to allow 11 g meandering, and the sidewalks should be designed as • part of the overall utility and street design. T f ,• ri n easements shall be shown on the final plat. • Q 4. It is the responsibility of the developer to have all _� sidewalks within Phase I constructed within - s s � � � five year! of the date of this Order, or within one year after 8C � 4 . constructed,of the homes in Phase I are const � ` � ' T. '-.' r� whichever comes first. The City Council , at its option, can prc t M vide for the sidewalk construction sooner using the LI process. : 2- 5 . The applicant shall provide an agreement to dedicate T a- the necessary right-of-way along Melrose Street at n . ...r suc time as requested by the City Engineer. 6. The variable setbacks d re neste are approved,pprrwed primaril for the purpose of • preserving -e tree s and.._..:._.._ ._.. other.. _ .. ve• , Lion. Page 7 . Building coverage shall not exceed 30% on any lot. 4 - F�:VDi 1 .0 r1 1 01 !j "~ 4 p • .r 1 8 . The final engineering design with respect to )'" drainage must clearly demonstrate to the satis- 3 . . faction of the City Engineer the intent of main- •4 • *. taining the ground dater table and water flow in the o 5 open space areas in the oak/ash forest. This will 6 require intricate and accurate flow rate calcu- 1 ` A rations, catch basin designs and special 8 structures . a� 9 . The sidewalk/bike path along Westlake Drive shall be • q 10 - eight feet wide and meander within the right-of-way . , g 11 and within easement areas adjacent to the east side . . . g 1 of the roadway. The easements shall be shown on the 1;• 3 final plat of Phase I. The sidewalk/bikepath shall be constructed in conjunction with street con- • ` • c c- ':5 struction. • W C ID 10 . , Westlake Drive shall be of special design to enhance .q W Y. 0 I 1O y:7 o • . the entrance of the develolxnent . and to save as many �W 0 S �"� significant trees as ' possible. This should be a r L divided roadway with landscaped median and its � " 'D location within the right-of-way should vary as ii y" necessary to save significant trees. oalpat11 . Westlake Drive, at its intersection with Kruse Way , •;, ..,' shall be construed as a three lane facility, 40 feet ' ' . f•.,g :4 . wide. • S ,4 .fit .• . At east two of street par ing spaces , in sa ltion r' . to the garage parking space, shall be provided for 72;e 5 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER a 101 . U u .r '1 Yc . r., • b, a, 1 , 1i.�•' 1 each lot. These spaces may be in the right of- gay ,, 2 • but may not block the sidewalks. p z 3 13. Each building permit application shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer'or Planning • Director with respect to the removal of trees at t1 6 time of building permit application. A tree cuttir 7 survey for each lot must accompany the building , ''>\ 8 1. . :mit application. 9 ' 14 . ' The Declaration of Restrictions for Phase I of the Westlake project shall contain a special provision r ''.', 21 • designed to adequately control the cutting of tree: within each lot developed with a house on it s , , i C 13 individual homeowners will not be allowed to r- •wE I4 trees except for trees which are a hazard d_i.seasec ryPl' 15 , or where approval has been granted by the City . • .. s <v, I6 15. A certified arborist shall be engaged by the . J y k 17 developer to make periodic insp ections during „ VX 1$ lit > < construction to make recommendations for ...: ',. .. �' ig �r : construction methods for streets, sidewalks and ., q PtP , , L 5 - •7 • › `0 utilities, the intent being to promote and ensure 4 N 1 1 < 21 the preservation of natural vegetation. The arborist sh 11 time the inspections to ensure that + t', r.1P ' , .T. :3 . p �, m the construction methods employed are closely " . :[ monitored; however, the period between insoecti -s r sha not exceed r tour weeks. `Copiesy of the P p r 0. 4 . recommendations shall be submitted to the City and ' ^* 1011 Page 6. - FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND ODDER t • } / - 1 the recommendations shall be followed by the 2 developer and eachengaged P person in developing �F _ within Phase I. 16. • The developer shall reach an agreement with the 5 ' developer of the highway commercial area to the ti'6 of Phase I in order to guarantee, in a manner 7 satisfactory to the City, that the storm water 8 detention facility on that site will be construe ' 9 in conjunction with the other Phase I utilities , r 10 necessary to maintain the natural rate of run-of: ' 1, from the entire PUD for a ten year frequency 12 storm. : 1 17. Standard street lighting is required throughout c . ... , ' 14 �,m project. • � 0 15 , 18. All private utility installations shall be design, ,• - <° 16 before recording of the final plat, so that } N 17 easements can be determined and shown on the plat - ' ax is 44. S 19 . The SO-foot right-of-way of the proposed -'< p posed Westlake ,' =': Ig • Drive be supplemented with up to an additional to cy 20 *� foot road and utility easements on both sides , as " . ' < 21 necessitated by design. • c 22 • - 20 . The applicant isdevelop n 23 Pp permitted to Phase I -y7 streets and utilities in two sub-phases , the size 24 and boundaries of which shall be subject to the�.. approval of the ci ty Eng ineer. • Page 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER1. r I r , G � IN , :- ., .. , .. .. • .1 ,. .:. 1 , „vi, . • . . i. . ti • 21 . Prior to construction of streets and utilities, lities, the r, .�.' 2 developer shall P provide the City withplan showin 3 a showing! '• . 4 . how trees will be protected adjacent to work areas, 22. Street trees are required only in open areas s where 5 tree cover is minimal or non-existent. 6 4 . The document entitled "Declarations of Restrictions" 7 identified as Exhibit BJ (dated December 16; 1980 - amended) of the ' 8 • proceedings considering the Westlake ' PUD is approved as the • 9 Covenants and Restrictions applicable to Phase I . 10 I certify that this Order was presented to and approved by' I 11 the 'City Council of Lake Oswego. E 12 • Dated this 7th dayof A 'ril ' , --- � , l�81. . .: m 1 13 0 14 • 15 •0+\__,t\ ' . . C. Herald Campbdll,,a or H y 16 , a > � 17 ` O . sc 18 W J `W 19 W _20 1 • r ' V r. A c 22 0 23 1 24 W �S Y6 Page I 8 FINDINGS , (CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1013 • .. 1 :=,- FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN • i, c AND PROGRAM FOR WESTLAKE , ':' ' ' le' Section 1 . Introduction � 1. •This final development plan and program is submitted under the terms of Chapter 53 of the Lake Oswego Code. It shall � Y be the sole basis for evaluation of all phases of the Westlake development on any issues that it addresses. The final .development plan and program includes certain documents recuired by Chapter 53 and a written text specifying the criteria for ', -� evaluation of the various phases . . Section 2. Exhibits l , The following exhibits are attached and incorporated herein by reference in order to meet the requirements of the Code sections indicated : 1 . Amended Exhibit K - Land Use Maps specifying ' densities and uses . 33 .320 ( 1) ( a) 2 . Exhibit BA - Final Proposed Layout. 53 . 310 i 53 .320( 1) ( a) - ( b) . , ..... 3 . Exhibit BB - Utility Plan. 53 .320( 1) (b) , 53 , 3541.('e)• 4 Exhibit BC - Open Space and Phase I. JU`"`-"- ' ''- —�' 53 .320 ( 1) ( a-c) . 5 . Exhibit BD - Open Space . 53 . 320( 1) (c) . FEB 11 E:at 6 . Exhibit BE - Open Space Easements . 53 . 320( 1 ) ( b) ; 53 .350 ( e) . 7 . Amended Exhibit K, BA - Westlake Land Use Density & Zistribution. 53 .350 ( a) - ( b) . ' 1 - - FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8 PROGRAM FOR WESTLAE ( DECEMBER 15 , 1980 ) . . `. Exhibit "A" , Ordinance No . 1763 EXH1B T 1 OR )3- • 4 . 1 8 . Exhibit BJ dated December 16 , 1980, Declaration of Restrictions . 53 .350 ( c) t 9 . Exhibit BG G and Amended Application dated 10/24/80 Stages for Development of Private and Public Facilities. 53.350(d) (e) . , 10. Exhibit 8 - Letter of Authorization from LDS Church . v` 53.350( f) . 11. Exhibit M, 0, AE, and AF - Drainage reports . 53.320(2) (b) . +`. Section 3 . Standards for Final P lan and Program • 1. Uses . • A. The type of uses allowed in any given phase and • y area of the development will be those in dicated on amended Exhibit K. B. The only use allowed in those areas indicate ' �• single-family uses is single-family dwellings , whi ° for which may include attached dwellings . C • The uses allowedV in those areas indicated for • , .:ulti-family uses are single-family dwellings , two-ra 7 miy dwell - ings and multi-family dwellings . ` • D . The use of the four acre site adjacent '•.� ; �'aY designated as a char ;h site w;, 3 to Kruse `. 4 - . 11 be allowed only as a `' conditional use, after approval has been obtained following the procedures and standards in effect at the time of application • the use . The site for is intended as a multi-purpose church center ar,d allowed uses include facilities for annual conferences of `'mcers within the Milwaukie to Tigard area , a chapel for p . _poly regular0 ,, '� services , Bishops and Stake Presidents and 'clerks .. ' a µ-�_cs , a combination recreational and cultural hall , includinc mo I 2 FINAL DEVELOPMENTPROGRAMa;c' _ — r y r 1 � i ' n 7 basketball court and .stage, a kitchen, church classrooms and z, •' ; 2 church leaders ' offices . All parking will be accommodated within the designated four acre site. . • E . (1) The uses allowed on the three acre neighborhood commercial site include: " a. Variety or dry goods store. b. Bakery. c. Barbershop. d. Beauty shop . e . Clothes cleaning pickup agency, i nclud; ng pressing . , ... _ ill f . Confectionery. '., ‘• A :. ', ii g . Delicatessen. • h. Drugstore, including fountain. F i. Florist shop. j . Frozen foodYlocker, excluding wholesale storage. k . Garden stores a; ;;, 1 . Grocery store, including meat market. by l m. Hardware store. : n . Laundry pickup agency. o. Office or clinic for the. following :vllowing . ( 1) Accountant. .: .• . ^ Q ( 2) Architect or designer . . ,. ( 3) Attotne y at law . , •( 4 ) Dentist. 3 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PROGRAM c`tr'1M FOR W STLAK ( DECEMSER 16 , 1980 ) .4t" 138 ; it.' dr / (5 ) Doctor or other practitioner of the •�, • • healing arts . ( 6)• Engineer or surveyor. • (7) Insurance agent. ,, • ( 8) Real estate agent. o. Radio or television service shop with incidental sales . (2) Conditional uses permitted . • a. Bowling alley or comparable ,commercial amuse- • ment, or facilities related to the conduct of recreational • activity. b . Building supply outlet. c. Automobile service station . d . Restaurant (excluding drive--in types) . .�r •`. ( 3 ) Other similar uses which provide roods and services principally to the residents of the development and . '; other residential neighborhoods in the vicinity may be allowed after approval by the City staff. ( 4 ) Total building square footage for the neighbor- . f .. hood commercial site shall not exceed 35 ,000 square feet. • ( 5 ) Limitations on use. Uses on the site shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: . •t a. All business , service , repair, processing , storage and merchandise display shall be ' conducted wholly within an enclosed building •' except for the following : ( 1) Off-street parking or loading • w � ( 2 ) Drive-in windows . • 4 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PROGRAM V ,o ; .:3 ;; M P ( 3 ) Display of merchandise along the_wall of a +'. the buildingnot extendingmore than Or �� ,� • • three feet from the wall and not in a required yard ( 4 ) Display• of plants . b. Items produced or wares and merchandise handled shall be limited to those sold at retail on the premises . ' c. Signs are subject to review and approval by the City pursuant to the regulations pertaining to signs as appli- 3 ' 1-. cable at the time of application subject to the following '"A additional requirements; signs shall not be larger than one ,. square foot for every foot of lot. frontage along streets other u' �: than alleys , or one hundred fifty square feet, whichever is less . r Signs shall be limited to those identifying the commercial establishment. If illuminated, the signs shall not be of an : + ;,: intermittent flashing type and shall no create or reflect sub- , ; stantial glare, beyond the property line . Signs shall not project • above the building containing the business which the sign identi- ::ies . • 2 . Accessory Uses . ,ti A structure or use incidential and subordinate to the main use of the property are allowed . Section 4 . Density • . , "., , , The residential densities for each area within the • hl A . development will be those• specified on amended Exhibit K. The unit numbers identified for any given area are limited to that • " area and may not be transferred between areas . ; ° Section 5 . Open Space . There will be a total of 46 acres of open space . The _ .- location of approximately 41 acres is indicated on Exhibit BD . 1 3 8 - .; 5 - FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & ?ROCRAM ° • 4 .F 1. • - . r • The remaining balance of approximately 5 acres shall be '• . distributed equally between multi-family areas 2 and 4 and single-family area 5 , and will take into account drainage ways . Section 6. Utility Easements The utility easements over the 41 acres of open space will be located as indicated on Exhibit BE. Through the 12 acre +'. park site the easements will be located with the approval of the of the City Engineer. Easements located in the 20 acre open space area adjacent to Kruse Way will be subject to the following conditions: 1 . The development easements will be 10 feet in width . The temporary construction easements shall be 10 feet in width, five feet on each side of the permanent easement. When the improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City of Lake Oswego, then temporary easements will be terminated . A. 2. The easements are to be staked and all construction , , shall occur within its limits . The construction shall be ac- complished in such a manner as to minimize the adverse affects 1 K•" .upon the existing vegetation. The City must approve all trees that are to be removed prior to their removal. The placing of • equipment and materials for storage shall not occur within the easement area, unless it is immediately being used for construction . 3 . The site , after the improvements are completed , shall •r be graded to the surrounding ground level and soil prepared to permit revegetration . . R r The site shall have all materials and equipment L removed from the per anent and temporary easement area . • zr 13Ei • r a • , ,. - . .r«. ..- .�. . ..:k.:a.-My...•n.`�rtr,•if�t�°ta4't rot 'ram r ,r, ♦ a Section 7 . Lot Coverage - In Phase 110 lot coverage will be 30% . Ail subsequent single-family residential phases' shall have a maximum lot' coverage of 35$ . Maximum lot coverage overage in all multi-family residential areas, the church site and the neighborhood commercial rt, ' , h 50% shall be Section S . eight Limitation, Setbacks Size aHna Loading , Lot s p arkin Ii . Single family• uses : • A. Height limitation - 35 feet or two stories an d an attic, whichever is less . B . Setbacks . 1 . The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty .ti' ° '� �� feet• 2. The side yard shall be a minimum of five and the sum'of feet the two side yards • shal, be a ,. , minimum of twenty feet on the side abutting a street except that this yard may be reduced the by amount an existing lot is less than sixtyfeet in width but to not less than ten feet. • 3 . The rear yard shall be a minimum of twenty- five feet. • C . Lot Size , Phase r: i. r The minimum lot area shall be seven thousand square feet, except that the area may bP reduced upon 'approval of the Planning ' P . Commission if this requirement is found to b . . le 138r d • FINAL DEV$LOPMEN^' PLAN 5 PROGRAM fi- • �;., unreasonable or unduly burdensome with respect to specific property, but in no even shall this exception provide fora site area• of of less than five thousand square feet. 2. The minimum lot width at the front building line shall be sixty feet. 3 . The minimum lot depth shall be one hundred 0 feet. x °w D. Lot Size , All Other Phases . • 1. Minimum lot area is 5, 000 square feet per • r e dwelling• L , . • unit. ' 2. The minimum lot width at the front building ld�,ng line shall be 50 feet. .b ' E.. Parking - One space per dwelling unit. 2. Multi-family Uses and Church Uses . A. Height limitation - 45 feet. E. Set backs . +' �' 1 . The front yard shall be r minimum of ten . Y ( feet. .- . 2. The side yard shall not be less than a distance equal to one-half the height of the • principal building . g . C. hot size. . ° 1 . The minimum lot area shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet for each principal bolld .ng and not be less than two thousand 4` scuar�� !e t un t per dwelling it. 4110 a' • 3 - FINAL nWVSLbPMS;JT PLA ,, PROGRAM ( osc8manR 16l 1980 ) , 1388 , • • 2 . The minimum lot width at the front building '" , line shall be fifty feet. ri 3 . The minimum lot depth shall be one hundred feet. . • + D. Parking - Spaces equal to 1.5 times the number of dwelling units. : . A a 3 . Neighborhood commercial uses: '� A. Height limitation - 30 feet or two stories , ' whichever is less . . B . Setbacks - there aLe. no required yards . C. Lot size . 1 . The minimum lot area shall be five thousand square feet. 2. The minimum width at the front building line , shall be fifty feet. D. Parking and loading - As required e q ed by regulations its effect at time of request for building and site app *�./ rova1 . 4 . Church site - Subject to same requirements as multi-family uses except parking and loading requirements will be subject to regulations in effect at time of request for building and site approval . '°+: 5 . Any provision of this section may be modified by the M specific phase approval or the site and building approval . Section 9 . I . . Completion Schedule N . 1 . The required subdivision improv r�. ------ etn e a t s r o r Westlake 9 - FINAL DEVELOPMENT P1AN & PROGRAM r,' FOR WESTLA ,:E ( DEC EMBER 6 , 1980) • Y J • • 3 1 • will be built an six phases . Tnitial ' co phase will commence on a nst"action of the first Pproximately May 1 1981 . phase I will ° consistof entirely* single-family units. . • ` The subd• P ' ivision im rovements necessar requirements and thus make lotsy to meet City saleable will take approximately one year from the date of commencement x�mately mencement of construction on each • phase. Commencement of construction will begin within 18 on each successive phase months of the commencement of construction on the previous phase. The date of completion of the r di living units will be ctated by the absorption rate in the market which will be 4 ' controlled by the economic climate. a ,, 2. This approval P. al is subject to ; • schedule stated in subsection 1 above. compliance with the i : # ' , ove. 4 . . any deadlinewillone year extension be ion for granted upon sixty days prior notice that `. the deadline will not be met. In the event that no such notice =s given, or in the event that a second extension � ,Fr tension is , applicant will be entitled desired; the entitled to the extension upon a s `r mote of the following : showing of one ;• � A. Circumstances beyond the control . ...••' causing delays; of the developer B. Undue hardship caused by failure to grant the . , • Request for a subsequent extension ' majoror substantial amendment shall be treated as a to this -- ,.�. final plan and Program. : : � -=�,.Ion to Conditioning �'_ o,. Phase Approvals �y may be granted The approval of any phase .;: �" ' `�� pG+i�LOPhic,Nx PLAN subject to .. :�ROGr`2�M FOR cS.LAh . ( DEC M8ER 16 , 1980) , .> • • / conditions that are consistent with and intended to carry out ,the terms and intent of this plan and program, and 'applicable City 1;' rw/• ordinances and regulations which govern matters not controlled by this plan and program. Section 11. Declaration of Restrictions for Future Phases ar 'The applicant shall submit for City approval Declarations . • • ;' of Restrictions for each phase, which shall be consistent with this plan and' program. • • • • • t • e i r l ' 11 -- FT:1AL DEVELOPMENT PLAN�nN & PROGRAM y ti . FOR WESTLARE ( DECEMSER 16 , 1980 ) 1391 .., :y • tj. • • {aJ • •YY' *l . { • a , ` • • • • . • • • • r • • ', , .- . ,yam • •} .F• ' • ' • BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION .; v . • . REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS TO ) ' ODPS 2-84-207 THE WESTLAKE PLANNED UNIT ) (Church of Jesus Christ of DEVELOPMENT. ) Latter Day Saints & First City Investment) '.! FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER NATURE OF APPLICATION • , . This application is for modifications to the Westlake Planned Unit �'` Development. The property is' described as Tax Lots 100 , 102 , 103 , 105 and 106 of Tax Map 2 lE 6 . HEARINGS ti 3 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this ,'; application at its meeting of October 8 , 1984 . Following the presentation of exhibits• and testimonyat that hearing, the Planning '. i • Commission voted 4 to 1 with 1 abstention to APPROVE the request as modified. FACTS yY The following is a summary of the facts and testimony presented which were found most relevant to this decision . These facts are presented in more detail in the staff report dated September 27 , 1984 , and the •: ' " applicant 's proposal, Exhibits G through K, dated September 5 , 1984 and the minutes of the hearing. - ' , 1 . The Westlake Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No , 1783 ) was approved in March 1981 consistent with LCDC Goals , applicable. Compe'ehensive Plan policies and Development Ordinance Standards . , 2 . The Westlake PUD - Phase I preliminary plat was approved in April 1981 and later modified into three , ':. subphases : I-A, I-S and I-C. 3 . A one year extension was granted to the Phase i plat in 1982 . 4 . Utilities have been installed to phase I-A. ` " 5 . In January 1984 , the Planning commission approved ODPS 2-83-40 which granted several time extensions • s.• for various PUD phases and for fin ottn completion , 1 ODPS 2-84 ir~ 2713P/ST/mas L_ L._ __ . �,-,� EXHIBIT. �F 4 . r KA PR t a y 1. • I w 1. 6 . The applicant 's proposal involved several text 1 modifications to the final development plan and program i ; n_fir?vision tv aptiQv.?d POD residential densities . ;, 7 . A second portion of the applicant 's proposal y' ' 4 involved density transfer of multi-family phase 1 and single family phase 2 areas (as shown on Exhibit I B) to other redesigned single and multi-family areas `A:'• within the POD (illustrated on Exhibit G) . E 8 . Approval of this density transfer would allow the 7 applicant to pursue a conditional use application (CU 5-85) to site a temple. 9 . The third portion of the applicant' s proposal 5 involved the relocation of the 12 acre park site (shown on Exhibit B) near Kruse Way to the POD 's • northeast area along Melrose Street (Exhibit G) . , • __ 10 . Park relocation would facilitate the possible ` + • location of a City Fire Station adjoining the park , :F • r- 11. The proposal does not involve changes to Phase 1 ' •' _ single family residential or open space areas , the • 4 . 0 acre church site along Kruse Way or . the 3 .0 `', l4 neighborhdod commercial area. • S , Y. -� CRITERIA . • . The request under consideration was a quasi-judicial procedure , ,• _ t h e �': . . .,„ •conduct of which is regulated by LOC 48 .810 . Applicable requirements - of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals ang• City Codes and _• _ Ordinances were applied . The following criteria were found by the y(// ' ` . Planning Commission to be most relevant to this decision: 2.: 1 . LCDC Goal Requirements : • "' Goal 10 - Housing • 2 . Zoning Ordinance provisions : • .. LOC 49 . 400-49 .440 Overall Development plan and Schedule HOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval • p71 -4,,c. 2 ODPS 2--84 . . fill - 2713P/ST/mas tad ` . 1" 3 . .other Code provisions: . Ordinance,No_ 17l�'�_ final Development elan and Program •for West ake Planned Unit Development 'r• ' ` 4 FINDINGS .OF FACT • 5 After consideration of the relevant FACTS and applicable criteria, the Planning commission found that: 'r+ r 6 1.• Many of the. proposed text modifications to the final development plan and schedule will bring portions of 7 Ordinance No. 1783 in compliance with current zoning - ' 6 regulations . �. ,y i M1 9 2 . The proposal does not change the original PUD 's relation to the City Comprehensive Plan. 10 3 . . The proposal conforms with applicable code requirements : . =r :; 11 (LOC 49 . 420 and LOC 49 .440 ) and regulations . 41 .1' , ' 12 4 . The applicable development standards will be reviewed during Development Review Board consideration of each ' T•ti , 13 individual phase . 5 . The proposed preliminary street and Utilities plan is in �ti 14 basic conformance with the original PUD approval . T .0 15 • 6 . The proposal provides an overall site plan which 16 properly relates to and preserves natural features and �. , , , resources . , , ' 17 7 . The proposed modifications provide fob,` land uses , 18 intensities and layout which are compatible with .," ` adjacent developments and planned capacities of public ' t 19 facilities . t • _ �0 8 . The proposed land use site plan will provide clear . guidance for the specific design and coordination of ' future phases . 1 4 tl4 CONCLUSIONS 22 L ,'" The proposal complies with relevant criteria . ` :,-- 23 •ORDER A 24 IT IS ORDERED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswecr .' ' 25 that: � -. 26 ?age 3 ODPS. 2-84 i 2713P/ST/mas . cr ., '-1 /rl I . ODPS 2-84-207 is APPROVED subject to compliance with the ' `• conditions of approval set forth in Condition No. 2 of ..' - this Order . • is .. 3 2 . The conditions for approval for ODPS 2-84-207 are as follows: i ' 4 ;': a. A site plan shall be submitted showing location and 5 type of all land uses proposed, approximate number of r units or square footage of uses . 6 ,, , b . A general utility plan shall be submitted showing 7 streets , utilities , drainage management measures, ,. bike and pedestrian ways and transit locations . 8 c . A statement acknowledging need for. off-site 9 improvements as required . . ,3 . d. These documents shall be submitted to and approved by the City Manager in accordance with LOC 49 . 435 . , -- e . •Amend the final development plan and program for Westlake (Exhibit "A" , Ordinance No. 1783 ) , as follows : (1) Section 3 . 1 . A 'd'',-' 3 type of uses allowed in any Given 4 phase and areas of the development will 15 be those indicated on an amended xhibit ( revised 10/841. or allowed in the QDPS is and/or the un.lerlyina zone unless speci- ficallv prohibited herein. 1+ potion 3 . 1 . B. •- The only use allowed is those 5 areas indicated for single family uses is sincrle s family dwellings which may include attached 19 dwellings or those uses outlined in the underlyina zone unless specifically prohibited s ,el herein 21 ( 3 ) Section 3 . _ 1 . C . - he only use allowed in those areas indicated for sina_le family uses is single '4 A. family dwellings , Which may include attached - . 4 . dwellings or those uses outlined in the 23 underlying zone unless specifi ally prohibited herein. . - 2 ( 4 ) Section 3 . 1 , F . - public uses/facilities s /facilities and 25 institutional uses/facilities in accordance with LOC 48 , 015 ) are conditional uses sub 'ect to .w ?aye 4 ODPS 2-84 2713P/ST/mas • 161i . . - ' . review and approval by the lannina ommissio• _, unless speeccificallyr•pohbi it.ed herein .__�—�� (5 ) action 4 - De_____ t w She residential densitiessffoar each . area within ' the development will• be the ranae soeci`£ied on lumbers identified (forand �iven areahmavnb ..w. t • re �transferred min accordance with 40c 49 . 440 . r (6 ) Section ,5 - Qpen ,Space here will be ,a total of 46 acres of open • space . The location o'f' approximately 41 acres is indicated on revised Exhibit pp (rev sed i J0/84 ) , �' she remaining balance of aporoximately 5 acres • will be distributed between of 8 , Aenteroointe Plat multi-family area 3 and sin le family area 2 of revised Exhibit revised 10 84 alteration ` of the distribution of this 5 acres of open .space may be approved by the cit Manac0er as a minor chance to the ODPS . y !.r (7 ) 'Section 8 . 2 . a . 1 . - Multi family height limitation - 45 feet . h 4 ; • Section 8 . 2 , A. 2 . - Church height limitation - 50 feet (8 ) action 8 . 2 . 8 , 3 . - or churches and related ° red facilities , the requi Yards h sall be a equl two ,d St least principal two-thirds the height of the prin .... structue action 8 . 2 . p , 1 , - Parkv no spaces ecrual to _C • 1 . 5 times the number of dwelling units . Section 8 , 2 , D , 2 . - Churches - one space/60 t ;� sc , ft , _auditorium area for nonfixed seating ; one space/4 seats of fixed seating , _ a a 2 ( 10 ) Section 8 , 5 . - As it currently exists, , ( 11 ) Section 9 . Completion schedule , ' he completion schedule shall be in accordance • a•, with ODPS 2-83-40,?act to any further . modifications approved by the ,itv Manage. 4 �� t U. , ;' - 5 ODPS 2-84 "' 2713P/ST/.pas - • • 1 ••) V 1 • /1, r • Y • / • r l f. Planning Commission approval of ODPS 2-84-207 is conditioned on approval of C•U 5-84-208 . I CERTIFY THAT Tn 5 • a e-______` " , 2 Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego . , ... DATED this 14th day of No• 'ember,1984 . • 5 • 6 • arry osencrantz, chairman g • • • Planning Commission 4 ...... . \.__--- 6,6 ;.e.,, /226/p--e-?.--5--e-", • ' Secretaryg '+ �,• z - 1 ' ATTEST: n =' AYES: Robinette , Rosencrantz, Ross , Weisser , WeXler 16 NOES: Rodrigues ° r' • , � ABSTAIN: Brockman • + m ABSENT: None P �3 .a v • • r+ _3 • y 25 •• . age 6 ODPS 2-84 • 2713P/ST/ma5 r A t61 ? , • ro. 11�- r _ 1 u• !� •. n. . ti • + •'• . ; .1 , BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO '' `R @� est 'r ;bEraJ Qx.e.0 .,. - -- THE FINAL PLAN & PROGRAM FOR ). Moat Lcat� onj WESTLAKE. ) (Westlake ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION & ORDER NATURE OF APPLICATION This application is for modifications to the Westlake final plat and program as follows: • Section 7. Lot ' g Cov• erage Delete existing section - • '' ' . ill "'In phase I lot, coverage will be 30% . All '• subsequent single family residential phases shall have a maximum lot coverage of 35% ' and replace with • • " . . . in phase I, lot coverage will be 30% . All . y subsequent single family residential phases shall have a maximum, lot coverage conforming to the R-5 zones defined in the ,current zoning ordinance . r Section 8 - Height Limitations', Setback, Lot Sizes, Parking and Loading. Amend Section 8 , lB by deleting 1 , 2, and 3 and replacing them with 41 to read as follows : 1 . Setbacks shall be established by the 9 ' Development Review Board at the time of4 . hearing on each phase of PD development . ® Section 8 (1 ) (C) , lot size, phase I : .Change Section 8 -C-3 to read: "The minimum lot. depth shall be ninety feet. * Section 8 (1 ) (D ) Delete 41 , and 42 . Replace with a new 41 to read : : 1 . Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced within planned developments . , However, the tr,„ 1 ODPS 2-84 ( Modification ) 3031P/SM`t: mas al EXHIBIT • r t ; ' . / ' . • . overall density on the site; as establishedir Y . by ODPS 2-84 , may not be exceeded except as • • " , 4 1 under LOC Chapter 49 . The properties Y affected are Tax Lots 100 , 102, 103 and 106 of Tax Map 2 lE 6 . a HEARINGS The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on March ` 11, and continued the hearing to March 25th. Following the presentation of exhibits and testimony at that 3 hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7 - 0 to APPROVE the request as modified herein . • '' FACTS . _ • The following is a summary of the facts and testimony presented Which were found most relevant to this -- presented decision. These. facts are presented in more detail in the 1. • _- staff reports dated February 28 , 1985 and March 14 , 1985 , the applicant' s proposal, Exhibit A, and the minutes 'of the hearings . . -- 1 . The Westlake Planned Development was approved in r March 1981 (Ordinance 1783 ) . The order included a final plan and program which contains restrictions and regulations for the various phases of the PD . ;:.• 2 : The applicant has requested , and the City has �.. approved modifications to ODPS 2-84 which involved _- changes in schedules , allowed density transfer within the PD, and modified the phasing locations . Some of these actions occurred to allow location of , the LDS Temple north of Centerpointe . +a 3 . The applicant has now submitted a request to further modify the final plan and program to allow • flexibility in lot area, dimensions and setbacks and ='� to allow greater lot coverage in the remaining •., single family phases . No increase in overall Y_ `+ density is proposed . • cA 2 ODPS 2-84 ( Modification ) fP • 3031P/SMY4mas try . , :'C . 4 • red. . , , • .. I- C ��.�i. . r ' r • e I''• • • , 4 . The City 's Planned Development ordinance (LOC 48 .470 ;41 • • • - 48 . 490 ) presently allows flexibility in lot areas , dimensions and setbacks . It also allows lot 'i` coverage' to be averaged over the site. '• 4 5 . The criteria for approval of or modifications to `' Ii ODPS are found in LOC 49'.430 and require that the • 'proposal relate to and/or preserve natural features � and resources, be compatible with adjacent '`:"` , ' t developments,. and capacity of public facilities , and provide coordination and direction for future phases . ' CRITERIA _ The request under consideration was a modification to an ODPS, the • p~` �, "' ' ,� - conduct of which is regulated by LOC-49 . 430 :. Applicable requirements ' . ' of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals and City Codes and Ordinances were applied. The following criteria were found by the r . Planning Commission to be most relevant to this decision : L. LCDC Goal Requirements ,� ��•-�..,.. - • ear... _ mot , None; City Comprehensive Plan acknowledged 2 . Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan designations and • • policies: r _ ) ; , .r Residential Land Use Policies 3 . Zoning Ordinance provisions: i', • 'r . LOC 48 . 470 - 48. 490 - Planned Development % ., ' LOC 49 . 400 - 49 .440 - Overall Development Plar, ' . and Schedula, :� 4 . Other criteria: • . Ordinance No . 1783 , ODPS 2-84 __ FINDINGS OF FACT .11-1 After consideration of the relevant FACTS and applicable criteria , ' the Planning Commission found that: N, , , „ 1 . Ordinance 1783 adopted a final plan and program for Westlake. . a ' 3 ODPS 2-84 ( Modification ) • 3031P/SMY:mas e,, ' e s • 1 5 S 3 .r.y tier • ' • • `V / . . . f'• �) F', 7' 2 . The approval of the Westlake Planned Development. • e,3tablished an overall residential density distributed among several specifically designated , V tee--41:1" - ...... ".""a •- • + 3 . The City has modified the final plan and program several times' to revise development schedules and to transfer densities to allow approval of the LDS ` '" Temple north of Centerpointe. Overall density and balance between single family and multi-family phases has not been increased or decreased. 4 . The present request for flexibility in lot areas, dimensions, and setbacks is consistent with the provisions of the City's existing Planned Development overlay zone •and will not increase or r • 'decrease overall densities 'or ratio between single ... ._ and multi-family. Units . , 5 . The request for increase in lot coverage in the remaining single family phases consistent with the provisions of the existing R-5 zone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the intent 1 -- of the original plan and program. = The Commission reviewed the ::.4staff 's discussion ' ''" regarding the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and V•t implementing . ordinances to maintain a single family• character in' s.ingle family developments by -- maintaining •a moderate to high ratio of land to building; and also the ODPS criteria regarding - protection of natural resources and compatibility _ with adjacent: uses; and, found that the staff 's recommendation as modified herein better met applicable policies and codes . However , the Commission felt treat • it was important to provide `). , __ , some flexibility in any given development proposal , . ; and modified the staff recommendation to allow the _� Development Review Board to vary lot coverage as part of review of individual phase plans . REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposal can be made to comply with relevant criteria as modified _ . below, a. • 0 I 4 ODPS 2-84 ( Modification ) , 3031P/SMY :mas t S ° •ORDER • IT IS •ORDERED BY THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF J° uu•waw,. .tba' e LAKE OSWEGC acrerrair • Section 1 . ODPS '2-84 ( Modification) be ,• A 4 • below. granted as set forth in SS2 ' , 5 Section 2. Section 7 , Lot Covers a is modified ° t� read as follows : 6 "In Prt :�e I, lot covers a will be 30$ Qqa� rmil 7 f-am Lresidential phases deve o e at till subsequent sin 1 ,► . a maximum lot covers a of 40$: All su se ensst s farm bases deve ope at R-7.5 R_ uent sin e famil 6 ` maximum of ope ra es as 0 or R_ •densities sha have ., . i . XI 9 reau�,red b those zones . increase maximum lot covers a durino review ment eviea Board may yp incre ual single family phase urin rent tvof asellt for an' q Section 3 . �1 eon thSectioh 8( 1 ) (g7 is mended by deletin 1 , '2, and. 3 and } g rl to read °as f0110WS 1. Setbacks shall be established b the Development TAM _3 Board at the time of the hearin on each phase vCR6Uview ' l _w dev_ elo�ment Section 4 . Section 8 (1 ) (C) ( 3 ) , lot size , Phase 1 is 'amended� nded to reap �'� • � The minimum lot depth shall be pipet feet , " �~ _ Section 5 . � "' ""r Section 8 (1 ) (D) is amender. ) deletin z • replacin with a---new co ,Y._._ �1 and 2 and zead: , . There is no minimum lot size . densit on the si However , the overall te , as establishe b be exceede e�tcept as a owe ODPS 2-84 , may not % ' ;� bonuses under LOC Chatter 49,`-_Y any a Iowa a density y I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVEDt Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. by the . DATED this 8th day of April , 1985 , • • b ' ;;;;:: Larry Rosencrantz , Chairman ' ':' Planning Comm ssion .0 5 ODPS -84 ( Modification ) 3031P/SMY:mas • • aw Jr 1.`z • • ,. I.Ar • ATTEST:• AYES: Rosencrantz , Brockman, Weisser, Wexler , Robinette , p,= Rodrigues , ° NOES: None r . ABSTAIN: None • , J ABSENT: None• 41 • • • , •Yl 5 J ' . • . r aI I''d • ;t. y A • a. 4 • +fir . /k, 1 1! IY °' ..Z ' � ` • r I • .. • • 6 ODES 2-84 (Modiication ) . 3031P/SM ':mas • .1_ .M •_ r • • y r, . 7 1 ; U 1LANNING COMMISSION MINUTE �c a,(*Mod ♦d 1t4�d•�✓ LI Lam:J ^, Mai;ch 2S , 1985 ,� '. The Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 1985 was called to were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianne Brockman,vJean1evners Robinetteenc -` ,1. Thomas Rodrigues , Mel Wexler, Elizabeth Ross , and John Weisser, r , - Staff present were Planning Director Sandra Young and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock , t J1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of March ,ll, 1985. were considered for approval .Commissioner Brockman moved forapproval of the minutes as amended on page three, correcting the vote on CU 1-85 . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ross and �:" Rodrigues, Ross , Weisser, Brockman,,aWexlerland th CChaizmanners voting in favor . Commissioner Robinette abstained, n Rosencrantz n' PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS • F ODPS 2-84 (Modification) - r' Amendments to .the Westlake ODPS Final plan an schedu e , ~M 0 :s . Young presented the staff report . She said the applicant y w " ' requested modification of the finalchanges to the lot size , lot dimensions, lot depth, for Westlakel with ehanges Staff is recommendinga depth, and lot coverage . '` ` lot depths, but pproval of the lot size, lot. dimensions , P , but not recommendingapproval ' , and suggested by the applicant. of the lot coverage as ' � 4. than the coverage percentage Sttaff recommends 40% coverage rather • ,,a'd °" g ggested by the applicant. She said „•. the changes in lot sizes, depth and dimensions Will not affect the ,r density. Ms . Young answered questions for the Commission . Nawzad Othman, OTAK, Inc. 17355 Aoones Ferry Road, spoke in A of the modification application. He said they are asking for 'aalf modification of the lot coverage because they would like the ...: ability to design a variety of homes . ' ;,: of 40% would not allow this flexibility.The recommended lot coverage them to respond to the markets. which crrently isu for ld alar allowlso r w 12, 000 square foot homes . There was discussion as to. Whether than ,• - ' -overage in the R-5 zone included lot o •. the lot coverage including building and parking, this allow parking. Mr . Othman said tnat very little choice in the style and sizeof thehome constructed the lots . on '"s • Youngsaid that LOC 48 .140 says that the lot coverage for the R-5 zone does include Parking, The extra . Parking space is expected to be the driveway. • 4.r . Othman and Ms , Young answered questions for Boa •... . � and members . , • 158 " • T -• A • ,..,::,:, ,,-:.....,,,I,:::,..!.*: :;.:,:'.,...:..,'.,.,•:',.7•:,..',1,',:.,.,...,....:., ...,.:, ...•,..,..-,;•_`:.,,... ,:.,... ..:,.'.'.,....',,,'I-..,''';:;,,f.;1';','....,.''';..;' 7.:'''''::.':'., ''..'. : ! '',.4..•%'*.'.',, ..., ...?!.... ' ' ... :,.,,...".'.'.•..1,':'' .'.' .''. ,.,'''..*'.'''.,' ' :, •i '' .,' '''''. ..''. . ' '''':. •.. . . . . ,.... ,.,... , . _ . ''.'.`'..'..:',.'.. ', ''.' . • • ..- . ''':':,1...•'.. ;.. . ' . , . . ,.'.•.:.-. .. '-r•••... .., ,. ,....• : ' , , •:,••••. . . .,1*...,'• .'.....*,': ... , . ., *—" * n ,.: ,,„-•.".••.. •:.: .., . .... , . .•. ., : : : „.,,,4 ,.„,%.• . : • '... :. .,. .-* .... , ,',' ..:, *.*. ,...., , ,••.• . . . • •..., :,... . ..,, . . ,. . .. . . . ****, :',.,.,,,:, * •* • . • . . ..,, „, ,.. • ,. . . .: :• " • ,, .; • .., . •, ,.., ., . — :,'. •.,,, -. • .•.: . ,. : •••:':".'•:011i,:,,.*n •*' (ii%'1' -: * .. . a ao k:.%1'f . .` ' •- . •. .. . , . . . .,. . , • , • . ...• .n. t, ..•,'!•••• ‘..••'. . ‘,,n, ....,.'•:,. 'l I . ' • •.• ,,, • ,4,a•,.. , • •, '` .• ;0,•..a •,,• ,-•, ', ',., I. a , -••. . '''••a'. '' l'i• ....•:...,• ' , , . ,‘ •• , •, ,.. ' • .' . '' •• . '* a ,•• I ` A, ' t 1. 1 a L . t .(LI U r. � BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL � OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO An Appeal of the Development ) Review Board Approval """ ' of a ) ?D 6--89/5D 25-89-776 4 Request for Approval of a Minor Land Partition, and a ) (Westlake ' 89 ) ) 204-Lot Planned Development p ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER r Ic _ Nature ot.1.22221 This, appeal concerns the DRB approval of Westlake ' 89 , a 204-lot planned development and a minor land partition and ' 1�.a7 •: taken by Michael Hoffman, Karen Blake, Janet Diteman, John __ Diteman, Greg Meadors and Lisa Jackson by their notice of appeal . filed October 2, 1989. The notice raises five issues and the council 's consideration is limited to the issues raised in the_- ' notice of appeal. Hea`gs 0 Hearings were held before the DRB on June 5, June 15, July 5, July 15, August 7, August 21 , September 6, September 18 and o October 2, 1989. The appeal hearing was held before the city council on March 13 , 15 1990 and is based on the record made before the DRB duringits proceedings . 19 Conclusion 20 The city council concludes that PD 6-89/SD 2-89 complies 21 p i es with all applicable criteria. ,1. Ltn Findings argd Reasons .Z3 in , The appellants raised five issues in their appeal P of the 24 DPB 's order: schools, traffic, soils, trees and wetlands . `5 Pursuant to LOC 49 . 625( 4 ) and ( 7) , and ORS 197. 763 , the M to those issues . hearing , " 0 :.6 before the city council was limited No othe 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER a EXHIBIT DR. 13-•d?4 ' • issues were presented tb or considered by the city council . The41" DRB ' s findings and conclusions addressing all other approval criteria are affirmed and incorporated herein. The analysis contained in the March 5 , 1990 staff memorandum to the city manager is also made a part of these findings and conclusions. •F. ra' I. SCHOOLS The findings and legal conclusions contained in the council ' s August 19 , 1989 memorandum submitted to the DRB are incorporated herein. The memorandum and attachments thereto were . adopted by the DRB as part of its decision, and they continue to provide persuasive evidence to support the conclusion that development approval for Westlak.: ' 89 is consistent with the comprehensive plan. � _ I There ere no regulatory standards regarding schools in the comprehensive plan directly applicable to the review of a - single application for development approval , such as Westlake ' 89 . } 4 ‘, The appellants cited to 12 comprehensive plan policies which they claimed were violated by S.estlakt ' 89 because "adequate school capacity does not currently exist and approval of this >• development will only exacerbate an already bad situation . " None • ,� of the policies cited by the appellants , nor any other comprehensive plan policies or review standards , require an applicant for approval of a phase of an ODPS to prove that adequate school capacity exists to serve the development . Neither the language nor the intent of the comprehensive plan Imposes such a regulatory standard. The policies provide 1110 - guidance for planning and coordination between the city and the ?3``'� 2 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER a 1 ' { school district, but they do not impose mandatory review standards retarding schools on individual development applications . ,;' In the consideration cf the school capacity issue within the • . framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering a specific land use aF ''\cation, one specific policy has been focused upon by the v^, appellants as the basis for denial for a lack of school capacity .y - s That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary i 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 th'e rationale for the city ' s __ interpretation that the general policies of the plan are the _ regulatory language of the __ plan. q , ' The city ' s comprehensive plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in x q 1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdictions to adopt -a i4 comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals . �,r • A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state' law as : " [A) generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that 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 , , Itt � , , pe z- educational facilities, recreational facilities , and natural resources .nd air and water quality management programs . 'Comprehensive ' means ali.-inclusive, both in terms of the :11 geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the • plan. 'General nature ' means a summary of policies and • proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily -- indicate specific locations of anyarea , . activity or use . A .r ' ;,' ?age - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER / / / t. 1/ • levels t plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all ... governments, semi-public ande of citizens of Oregon have been consideredageandeacco the411/ , much as possible. ' Land ' includes watr, oth surface and as e b - subsurface and the air. " At the state level each statewide „ planning goal, which are ,_ �. 5 mandatory statewide tatewplanning standards and are general in nature , is accompanied by "guidelines" .. The guidelines are : nS] uggested approaches designed to aid cities Preparation, adoption and implementa'ticn of com counties plans in compliance with goals and to aid stateagencies and special districts in the preparation , adoption and and implementation of plans, programs and regulationsd compliance with in ` ' shall not limit state . goals . Guidelines shall be advisory and districts to a single a agencies, �� cities , counties and special Pproach . _� The city 's plan, a page v explains the difference between ; objectives , general P i • { policies and specific policies in the -•- following way, 0 •f ..• '� "The adopted plan contains objectives , which are short statements of the purpose of the policies , • 4. :5 which are major methods of achieving objectives , -- policiespolicies, which are more detailed tgenera , J -iv_s , specific y . stepsto carry out general :m also strategiesg out the There are for carrying • :S w'olume II, which is the background i Y plan found in nformation and supporting _c documentation for the plan. The language has hi applied as historically been follows : G�,"}.4 ' The general policies of the • "regulatory" in nature.. plan are the portions which are statements„ which constitute yaacomre trehen iv Aland policyel A hearing body,e in order to approveplan as defined by ppolic an application , ��. comprehensive plan haveabeencfollowed�ral policies of the '.`•' gmust'heralentify and explain why the requirementsCrach land use decision policiesofhave been satisfiedth a li the applicable, Nt l general policies are by the a `- applicable to everypplication. Not all decision, al • ...... ,:-age ; - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER . . 08 • In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a • general t..olicy, the hearing body will be guided in its decision making by i.he specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element. R In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are • extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square • footages, and many specific policies contain multiple and very '. detailed subsections . By their nature specific policies are not the "generalized policy statements" defined by state law as a : comprehensive plan. If the specific policies are given the same regulatory 1: weight as the general policies then each provision of a specific • nr t4; policy will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an application or project to be approved. There is no provision for the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions ofIt the plan. When an application or project conforms to the genera: policy , but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of one of the specific policies for that general policy, the application or project as a whole must be denied if the specific policies are • construed to be regulatory in nature . All regulatory standards must be complied with in order for an application to be approved. =` The specific policies are considered during the analysis of 2.1 an application or project . If the staff recommendation' is that a • 24 project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, not'.. . Lhstanding that inconsistency with the 5 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 0 0 • specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent i t with the applicable general policy. '� This approach has been employed in city decision making consistently for 7 years. This methodology imple1ents the in. a manner which is consistent with the state plan law definitions which govern local land use w ' planning and at the san1z time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that went into the The comprehensive plan policies , both general andnd specific , _ appellants,cited by the a as well as others that have some bearing _. on the school issue , are discussed below. -_ ( a) Overall Densit General Policy I :Plan will maintain the overall, average Comprehensive, density of the Urban Service Area within the dca capacity + of planned basic public facilities systems , including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage, including -s safety. and public -- Specific Polic is the detailed studies oL the water,City will assure , using systems , that land uses and densities planned and street Urban Service Area are coordinated with and for the exceed the capacity available or planned for any ot system. " ecific Po•licv 3 : "The City will coordinate :P planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered . " ,. The general . policyregulates the g city in its development of i and modifications to the comprehensive• plan map " . __ -at applicable in the development densities and is review stage. The general :e^licy and two subordinate specific cc policies are concerned with "overall " densities and public facilities as .. implemented by the fill , .......„ .'ae z FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER i "1 it ♦ • ' ° 4 . • comprehensive plan. The appropriateness of a particular plan map designation or zone designation for a given site is not an issue in the review of an individual development application. Therefore, the above quoted general policy and the two specific policies which implement it are not applicable to Westlake ' 89. (b) Overall Density General Policy 11 • dn e sities and land use intensities wills bee allocated on k the basis of land suitability and public facilities capacity. In the adoption of Plan amendments or F. implementing regulations and ordinances, the City will apply the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures reasonable opportunities for residential v development to occur at maximumpermitted Plan ti�` densities subject to compliance with the zoning and development codes , development standards , and with the _` applicable provisions of OAR Division 01 through 20 . " As the language of the policy indicates, it is applicable .._ y_ when the city is considering the adoption of Plan amendment s or • implementing regulations and ordinances . The policy is directed .� to the city 's legislative or large-scale management of its y` planning obligations and responsibilities . The policy is not directed to, and provides no regulatory review standards for, individual development applications such as Westlake ' 89 . The • zoning and density for Westlake ' 89 , as well as the entire Westlake PUD, has already been determined and is not an issue • -_ 1 i n �r the review of this development application for a single phase of . , the overall development . The Westlake ' 89 proposal satisfies • those density standards . (c ) Impact Mena g ve me n ement General Po1ic XI : yY evaluate zoning and delopt propasalse city will comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring the developer to provide solutions before a appropriate approval is granted. " ,p • ` 7 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 11 . `. : •� 1 • Specific Policy 6 : "The City will encourage the • Lake Oswego School District to provide specific �. information on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review. " Residential Density General Policy I : "The City 4 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 policies on density . " The policies cited above require the city to evaluate .e impacts of residential development and whether the overall development densities are "appropriately related" to school capacity . This evaluation occurs through the LOC Ch . 49 development review process. To assist the city in this • evaluation process , the policies encourage the school district to • -- provide pertinent information. It is important to note that the policies anticipate that the evaluation of development • •- P p proposals will be done "comprehensively. " The city , in cooperation with ..1, . the school district , plans for and accommodates the impacts of residential development based on overallgrowth p projections , estimates , impacts , etc. -- not on a project-by-project basis . `. :5 It should be further noted that' evaluating whether -• residential developments are "appropriately related" to school capacity does not require Each development proposal to produce �4 new evidence proving that adequate school capacity exists to • • .. serve that particular project. Rather , the policies anticipate r;,. ,• the city and school district will coordinate their planning functions so that the residential densities permitted by the comprehensive plan and zoning code are consistent with • "appropriately related to" ) and can be accommodated by the :6 r. school district ' s plans for managing growths •• • D3ge • 9 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER t j ' il With regard to schools , the comprehensive plan policies can only be feasibly and effectively implemented on a macro or city- wide basis . An individual deelopment 1 p proposal 's impacts on the school system must be evaluated and accommodated differently than its impacts on other types of public facilities , i . e. , water, sewer, drainage and traffic. A development 's impact on those other types of public facilities can he accurately predicted and physical mitigation measures can be implemented by the developer if necessary . That is not a realistic approach for managing • '1 school capacity. The school district does its planning and " tt' provides services on a system-wide basis and not on the basis of smaller service units . z ,n. A quasi-judicial hearing on a single land use application is not the appropriate forum to make determinations concerning the 4110 appropriate relationship between the level of permitted • y- development and system-wide school capacity. Because of the '! variety of factors that impact school population , it is not accurate or helpful to attempt a prediction of what impact on the school system this individual development approval will have ". and "" when it will have that impact. The evidence suggests that each home site will eventually result in producing anywhere from . 525 -- to .75 children per site. Even accepting the accuracy of that 11 e}.•' -- range, it is impossible to predict at what grade level those 21 children will enter the school system. It is equally uncertain and unpredictable when a home will be built , and when a child •y '' 1 9 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 13 7 LL 1 { from a home that is built on a lot in a newly ap proved pproved • development will enter the school population . 3 • However, once a building permit has been issued for a • dwelling, more accurate predictions can then be made about the 4 impacts on the school system. Therefore , the comprehensive plan 5 policies requiring coordination between development and school b "+ capacity are best served by the school district ' s overall • monitoring and assessment program, rather than altering its planning strategies every time a new development is approved. r. a ORS 197 . 505 - 197 . 540 , the state moratorium statute , • • 10 • provides the mechanism by which local jurisdictions can 11 •',0••;, effectively stop development that will result in overcrowded I' schools. 13 Through the coordination required by this plan policy , data of sufficient detail can be generated to allow the adoption of 5 ` the findings to support a moratorium that are required by ORS 197 . 520 . The comprehensive plan policies under review were • adopted prior to the state moratorium statute. In the absence of that state law, they could. be applied as a complete growth `° management program. However, they must now be interpreted and • . =c applied in a manner that is consistent with tnat superior state law. The state has taken away from the city the authority to =� stop development on the basis of a lack of capacity in public 1 w3 facilities through the use of any mechanism but the state 1; moratorium law . The plan requires coordination with the school 15 district and monitoring of development impacts . The state law «O ?age 0 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Y - provides the mechanism to stop the overcrowding of schools by development, •' The council rejects the appellants ' argument lanning r that for school capacity must be based on the number of unde veloped lots approved bythe city'. There is no accurate way ' ` when development will occur on the undeveloped lot to determine lots . That fact was made clear during the proceedings that led to the Cou ncil 's •' adoption of the August�g 19 , 1990 memorandum. The data submitted by the appellants is in conflict with data submitted c .. y is flawed. Reliance on undeveloped lotsby staff and y' '� p as a measure not result in an accurate and efficient basismeasurement would �- for Planning and developing school capacity . The timing of me �_ development nt is unpredictable. The school district 's methodology is more accurate and better implements the intent of the city ' s comprehensive plan policies . The school district monitors actual + school populations and outstanding building permits , and then • _ evaluates that information in light of historical abs orption :rends and population growth trends in order to assure that its ?lans for school capacity coincide with the antici at -� created b P ed needs y growth. If overcrowding is imminent, the state moratorium statute can be invoked until the district corrects the a �.roblem `` The school district 's data compiled over the last six years demonstrate that there is not a statistically Y quantifiable or .sable correlation between development approvals and school �cpulation growth. That evidence demonstrates why assessing the impacts on the school system of a single development a � II application. • - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 J �,• eL: I' • a 9 y which is proposed at a density within the planned and permitted • density levels , is not an effective planning tool and, thus, does not serve to implement the relevant comprehensive plans policies . 4 The comprehensive plan policies are satisfied because the • ,.• evidence demonstrates that there is adequate school capacity to • 6 accommodate the anticipated need into the 1991-1992 school year. • Furthermore , the policies are satisfied because the evidence also demonstrates that the school district has adequate plans in place • k to accommodate the anticipated need beyond 1991-1992 . As discussed above, the school district ' s methodology for • determining the need and commensurate capacity it needs to plan • for are based, in part, on the overall density levels allowed by the city ' s comprehensive plan and zoning designations . But the .methodology does not depend on the number of units or lots in a single development application, as long as the proposal does not 1 r increase the density allowed by the existing comprehensive plan - 16 C,ey '.� and zoning designation. Therefore , while the policies do not tionstitute a clear and objective regulatory standard applicable y� to individual development applications , nonetheless Westlake ' 89 z .0 • Is consistent with the above policies , and its impacts have been and will be accounted for by the school district ' s planning ` 7.1 ti methodology and coordination with the city . 2y (d) Impact Management General Policy III : "The city will require hew development to pay an equitable share of the costs of public facilities , particularly sewer, water, drainage, parks , open space and streets or • traffic improvements . " a . == Specific Policy 1 : "The City will require new buildings and development to pay an equitable share of Z Pas.. ,2 FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ` 1ii F• v A y identifiable costs of public facilities required r, for or because of the development, including but • not limited to: (a ) Street and traffic safety improvements , including j. off-site ' , :• improvements . • (b) Drainage and surface runoff. (c) Water and sanitary sewer systems . ,,; (d) Buffering from adjacent land uses . (e) Natural resource protection provisions . ( f ) Residential developments will be required to { ,r . provide park and open space land or recreation facilities or fee-in-lieu . " 1: (e ) Impact Management General Policy V: "The city will plan and ` program for the provision of adequate public J•. services and facilities . " 1: Specific Policy 3 : "Prohibit land uses or 1 intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of > i 13 public services except in instances where the developer pays all costs of providing additional required ' 4... capacity, subject to City Council approval . " These policies are essentially concerned with the city ' s to responsibility to plan and pay for required and desirable public facilities. However, the city cannot plan for or fund the school system;_vstem ; that is outside the city 's Y jurisdiction. The city ' s only 19 obligation is to seek assurance that the school district is � :c , adequately coordinating its plans with the city ' s development `1 :ensities. That is why school facilities are deliberately excluded from the public facilities that are listed in General • 22 y3 Policy III and Specific Policy 1 . At far as school capacity is r + concerned, these policies are not applicable to the review of an :ndividual development application . 5 The above policies also provide that developers should pay • 13 .. EXNDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 . , y,. _ . " an equitable share of the identifiable costs of the public ., facilities for which their projects directly create the need. ' That policy is implemented by the city through the site specific 4 exactions required as a part of the development process and the adoption of system development charges in LOC Ch . 39 . It should be noted that the Oregon legislature has taken away the ability of the city to impose a system development charge for schools • . i through the enactment of HB 3224 by the 1989 session. ` (Codified at ORS 223 . 297 - 223 .314 ) . • (g ) Urban Service Boundary General Policy III : "The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban t y_ Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services . " r f To establish priorities for the phased extension of services , the City will identify areas within the Urban ' ;. ' 13 Services Boundary as follows: 4 ( 1 ) Land suitable for near future development ( IMMEDIATE GROWTH) . ti ( 2) Lands in long-range areas ( FUTURE URBANIZABLE ) . ,` ( 3 ) The City will schedule public facilities through a 1.7 capital improvement program and financing plan. '� ;8 Specific Policy 4 : "New development shall be served by an urban level of service of the • 'o following: h (a) water. ( b) Sanitary sewer. (c) Adequate streets . (d) Transportation facilities. Z; (e) Open space and trails . ( f ) City police protection. 23 (g) City fire protection. (h ) Parks and recreation facilities . � ( i ) Adequate drainage , �~ ( j ) Schools . Services shall to available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the I • . . • land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the • \"r time of approval of the development ,' or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions ' .' " • � _ assuring completion, such as performance bonds . " z The Urban Service Boundary policies direct the city to identify short and long-range - growth areas eas to serve as a basis c for the phasing of growth and public facilities. General Policy III directs that services will be extended first to immediate growth areas and then to future urbanizable areas. The policies then direct the city todevelo ry ° ti • ` J p capital improvement programs and . financing plans for the extension of the public facilities . 1 4 As discussed above , specific policies do not stand alone and cannot be read in isolation. Where a specific policy is not l r consistent with the general policy, the intent of the eneral g " ; °•., policy controls. Specific Policy 4 is not consistent with the Y t ,`i , 0 general long range planning purpose of Urban Services Boundary ti . General Policy III . The last paragraph is much to specific for reasonable application and is of no value in in terpreting nter ' pretii�g this general policy. e General Policy III directs the city to "manage:C phase" and ph " uy :growth and to plan for the "logical" extension of basic services ._V As the evidence in the record shows , the school district is l.o icall 9 y planning to provide adequate facilities to serve the 1 •l. anticipated P growth. Managing growth and developing logical plans , :, 1 `3 .o accommodate it does not require that adequate sch ool capacity tr serve future growth be in place , or that funding to increase - :apacity be committed, at the time an individual development -plication is approved. That would not be logical because it rage - - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 1 0u r 1 . y would require the construction of facilities and the commitment of funding far in advance of the actual need. The school district, like school districts in general, provides facilities 1 4 4 ; in response to demand -- not in anticipation of demand. For • planning purposes , a distinction must be drawn between responsive public facilities , such as school, police and fire services , and F those facilities , such as transportation, water, sewage and e drainage, which cart be provided for concurrently with development approval. This approach toplanningfor services z. public services is 1, , � , specifically recognized and approved by the Director of DLCD in her August 8 , 1989 letter to the city council. -y a The "logical" planning for schools that has taken place • satisfies General Policy III . Specific Policy 4 contradicts the 4110 . . v general policy it is intended to implement because it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools are funded and how school districts plan in this state . To require schools to be -+It- constructed or funding committed in anticipation of demand, + rather than in response to demand is contraryto the ` L . practices of • } the Lake Oswego School District . While the concurrent availability standard contained in Specific Policy 4 is applicable to some types of YP public facilities , it is not appropriate, and does not implement the plan 's general policies .1 when it comes to school service and capacity. General Policy III is consistent with Impact Management . :Ieneral Policies II and V, and Residential Density General Policy I in that they all direct the city to work with the school :.strict in order to he assured that the permitted levels of "g1 15 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • . residential density ••.I', and the corresponding P g rate of growth can be accommodated by school facilities and are consistent school districts with the ' plans for handling growth . To the extent- that 1 � Specific Policy 4 is at odds with the school related 4 contained in those general policies S policies, it must be considered superseded. The plan must be construed as a whole, and inconsistent laneua e 9 must be subordinated to, the overall focus of the plan general policies . The city is satisfied that those a general z d policies have been satisfied based on the evidence introduced into this record by the school district �` The plan does not require that the and others . specific policies as regulatory standards to this individualbe applied °'• which is phase application :� proposed to provide housing units within the planned-for density levels . one of the general polici es es require the type of • precise fit and timing between approval °' of an individual development and the provision of school "�+"» se+-vices as in Specific Policy 4 , is contained Ta realistically and feasibly implement the of the 13 comprehensive overall intent x plan practices listed above, it must be recognized that planning � ng school capacity is .' ng for and Providi s different than Planning and providing _ g for roads, water, drainage, etc. Unlike those other sewer, -� public facilities , the planning for and funding of school facilities cannot be logically t, does or efficiently tied to individual development y Furthermore, the cityProposals . • not have direct control over the -.1 development of school facilities or t �� services , the Provision of school Thus , above policies do • not contain any regulatory , '`l 17 - BINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ; 21 r 1 A . • - standards regarding schools that are applicable to the review of v _ the Westlake ' 89 development proposal . 2 • There is currently adequate school ceacity. T the school district has ds as eq uate plans in place uand ewillene capable of accommodating anticipated future demand on school services and facilities , including the impacts of Westlake ' 89. Alternatively , and to the extent that on review it is determined by the reviewing body that the comprehensive plan _ policies relevant to schools are applicable to specific ` development applications , they require, when read together,9 , a showing that: 1 _1 (1 ) The city and school district have logical plans for yy providing an acceptable level of school facilities and services ; ( ) Those plans are ca able of accommodating ''. P p:.esent demand (\.. „47,, . and anticipated future demand ; and 0 .. . . . . . . . ( 3 ) The anticipated im pacts of the individual development have been accounted for and/or can be accommodated by the plans . A. Acceptable Level of Service . The Lake Oswego School District has defined an acceptable "urban level of service" which it seeks to provide. The school district has determined that it is "responsible for providing P ng r physical facilities which are appropriate to instructional and support program activities . „ Coupled with that goal, the school district is committed to providing "essentially the same instructional program, equipment, supplies, facilities and =� transportation for all children of comparable grade levels . One a _ -= �f our most fundamental commitments is that the school district =- must provide the o •� opportunity for all students within the district `age I8 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , 2 2 . .6., 4 to receive the same quality of education. " To implement those goals and thereby maintain an acceptable level of service, the y district has established certain statistical targets for its • teacher/student ratio, and classroom and school sizes. For T example , ,the district seeks to maintain a 1 : 23 teacher/student ratio, classroom sizes of 28 students, and elementary school � ' _ sizes of 350 ' to 500 students . Itis recognized that these are targets to strive for,' but they are not mandatory standards . The evidence shows that despite going above some of these target levels , the district nonetheless has maintained its standards for __ providing acceptable levels of school services and facilities . The appellants ' contention that the school district was not providing an acceptable level of service is based on the alleged 13 lack of capacity in the Lake Grove and Uplands Elementary Schools . The appellants ' arguments regarding school capacity were entirely focused on the situation in the elementary schools . 16 Furthermore, the testimony of Bill i:orach , Superintendent of Lake fttt Oswego School District, was uncontested that there is adequate ' y C/' • capacity and an acceptable level of services is being provided in ''1, the district 's junior high and high schools. Therefore, the " council ' s analysis of the evidence and findings regarding the -. school issue "were focused on the elementary schools . `" B. Current Capacity and Short-Term Service Availability. `''N The school district has adequate capacity available to ' =4 provide an acceptable level of service for the 1989-90 and 1990- r .. 91 school years . The school district addresses its capacity and level of service issues on a system-wide basis and not on an Se 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 2 ,3 y • 1 individual school or attendance area basis . Plans are in place ` 2 to assure that the potential overcrowding at the Lake Grove and 3 Uplands elementary schools can be overcome and an acceptable r • 4 level of service maintained on a system-wide basis . On a system- 5 wide basis , there is adequate capacity to accommodate the short- .' 6 term enrollment problems at Lake Grove and Uplands . The school 7 district has implemented two short-term solutions : 8 - Relocate the Lake Grove kindergarten program at Bryant 9 Elementary School and provide bus transportation solely 10 for kindergarten students , as had been successfully accomplished with Westridge kindergartners during the 11 12 1988-89 school year; and 13 Make a boundary change along the southern boundary of • Lake Grove Elementary School, relocating approximately 14 • 90 students at River Grove Elementary School and thus . 15 • creating two sections of each grade level at River 16 Grove. • 17 I_ •. While these solutions are not considered desirable by some, 18 they nonetheless achieve the g of providing all elementary goal Y 19 grade students with essentially the same instructional program 20 and otherwise maintaining an adequate level of school service at 21 all the elementary schools . The evidence demonstrates that these • 2Z • solutions will be in place for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school 23years and that will be effective mechanisms for• they providing 24 adequate capacity and maintaining adequate levels of school • services at all elementary schools , including Lake Grove and 26 Uplands. The council disagrees with the appellants ' contention Page 20 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER that these solutions are nothing more than "a vague promise to MJ resolve inadequate public facilities . " First oi: all, as • discussed above , there are adequate public facilities and '''` ` adequate capacity currently in place to serve all elementary school students . Furthermore, the district's plans for providing adequate service during the next two school years represent a - firm commitment and provide substantial evidence that there will be adequate capacity and facilities available to maintain an acceptable level of service . , The following facts further demonstrate that adequate �y capacity and an acceptable level of school services will be �- available at least through the 1990-91 school year: ( 1) The Lake Grove Elementary School population will be reduced starting with the 1989-90 school year. ( 2) The school district has the capacity to serve at least • +� 3 , 726 elementary school students . It is projected to have an enrollment of 3 , 171 st•uden t,$ as of October 1 , 1989 , meaning it ± will have unused capacity system-wide of at least 555 additional elementary students . ; ` ( 3 ) Based on curre nt projection rates , the capacity of • 3 ,726 students will accommodate new students into the 1991-92 • school year. • In conclusion, the most persuasive and better documented evidence demonstrates that there will he adequate capacity and an • 'z acceptable level of school service available to all elementary school students at least for the next two school years . t 21 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER L 2 5 C. Adequate •Long-Term Plans . The school district has adequately projected its long-term needs (beginning with the 1991-92 school year) and has feasible and logical plans in place for assuring that adequate capacity g and services will be available to accommodate long-term needs .- k.'. 6 The school district projects students populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas, which are then compared with actual student counts. Based S on those comparisons , modifications to the computer program c factors are made if and when warranted. The district ' s, a6 projections in the last two years have been highly accurate . The _y `_ school district does not attempE to project demand based on -_ residential development approvals . By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning development approvals with the , actual growth in school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not a quantifiable and direct relationship between the two. Too many other factors , such as market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon economy, family size of _S buyers , and varying ages of the children, all affect the number of new elementary school students in the district 's population . It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty how ' -` many new elementary school students will result from a single __ development approval, and how soon after that /A pproval the new students will enter the school system. Thus, assessing the =, lmpacts of a single development is of little value when . , _. developing longterm plans for school service . :o rage 22 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 n i While it is projected that additional capacity will need to be added to the elementary school system some time during the 1991-92 school year, the school district cannot and does not attempt to pinpoint that far into the future the exact number of new students it will have and the exact level of capacity it will • need. Rather, it develops several long-term strategies for 6 creating the additional capacity and then continues to monitor . .enrollment increases to determine when to implement the strategies . The district ' s long-term response to increasing C enrollment assures that new facilities are built only to • .� • accommodate well-established needs and not to invest in costly new facilities based solely on volatile and often inaccurate long-term projections . The district times construction of new facilities so that they come into use to serve students in the system, not to stand empty until filled by newly arriving ` - students. It is not logical, no cost-efficient, to build • capacity before the demand warrants . ;, .•' ' There will be adequate capacity and •an adequate level of school service available to elementary school students on a long- • term basis because the school district has decided to reopen the Palisades Elementary School and because boundary changes , which will relocate students from the Lake Grove Elementary School to the River Grove Elementary School, will be instituted on a -- permanent basis. Standing alone, the district 's commitment to U,. == implementing these two plans provide substantial evidence that % there will be adequate capacity and school service available to r` • serve long-term needs , including the impacts on those needs 23 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 97 1 'i _ generated by Westlake ' 89 . In addition , the district will 0 ... .. Y , continue to adjust attendance boundaries to efficiently utilize available capacity and will continue to employ the use of portable classrooms and busing to assure adequate capacity and service. Passage of the school district ' s facilities improvement bond measure • in the November 1989 election will provide further assurance that adequate capacity and school services will be available to serve the long-term needs, including the impacts of Westlake ' 89 . When the district ' s computer model projection indicates that a well-established need a :fists to construct more p -_ capacity, the district will implement one or more of its capacity -� increasing plans, which include the following : ( 1 ) Building a new elementary school on the north side of the lake; (2 ) Building am additional pod at the River Grove Elementary School for an additional six classrooms ; y (8 ) Remodeling the Forest Hills Elementary School to create two additional classrooms ;. and ( 4 ) Building an addition three classrooms at Uplands Elementary School. C 1, Passage of the bond measure in the November 1989 , election -_ will fund the construction of additional classroom capacity . -- Based on historical voting patterns , the council agrees with the F , ' ..z DRB 's assumption that the voters will approve the school bond =- measure. Assuming continuing enrollment increases , the district :o will provide, through remodeling , at least 250 additional • . Page 24 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ' Fri elementary school classroom seats be .,, , ginning with the 1991 school year. Furthermore, with passage of the bond measure , , • • it will build a new elementary school with a capacity of about 500 `� �• students, anticipated to be ready for the 1991-92 school year. In conclusion, the school district has adequate plans in place to assure that, it will be' capable of providing adequate capacity and service in its elementary schools , beginning 'with and beyond the 1991-92 school year. Furthermore , the school district ' s methodology for anticipating its long-term needs is accurate and the plans for accommodating anticipated growth can be realistically implemented. �_ D. Impacts of Westlake ' 89. 9 . Because the 204 lots proposed for Westlake ' 89 are less than the planned-for and allowed densities, the council finds that it M r .. _`4. is not necessary to consider the development proposal ' s impacts _ on school capacity and the district 's plans for accommodating growth. The impacts of Westlake ' 89 have already been A anticipated and are incorporated in the city 's " :� y growth projections and the school district 's .short and long-term plans . However , to the extent that the comprehensive plan does require an asses sment ,�4} ' •5 of the specific impacts of Westlake ' 89 on school services , the `+ council finds the evidence which supports the conclusion'� that the project ' s impacts will be negligible to be most persuasive and the district has provided adequate assurance through its short or '' _on term m plans that adequate service and capacity will be 2' available to serve students living in Westlake . Page 25 FINDINGS • CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , :L • t. 1 In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that , taking into account the impacts of Westlake ' 89 , there already exists " ' ' • a adequate capacity to provide an adequate level of school service 4 at least into the 1991-92 school year, and there are feasible c plans in place to assure the availability of adequate services to v: 6 accommodate longer term needs . Therefore, Westlake ' 89 satisfies the school standard established by the applicable comprehensive 4.- ,, 8 •plan policies . 3 . There are no policies or regulations regarding schools applicable to the review of Westlake ' 89 because the .' development complies with its previous Master Plan and ODPS approvals . The comprehensive plan policies and standards regarding• schools were applied and relevant findings were adopted when the 410 4' I Westlake PUD Master Plan was approved in 1981 . The Master Plan t iY allowed for the development to occur in multiple phases , with a 5 potential total density of 1 , 527 residential units . In 1984 , the Master Plan was modified and incorporated into an Overall • 'Development Plan and Schedule ( "ODPS" ) pursuant to LOC 49 . 400- :s 440 . The project is developing on schedule and in accordance +j ,. :9 with the ODPS . There are no significant changed circumstances _O which affect the analysis of conformance with the city 's law that `1 occurred at the time of adoption and amendment of the overall master plan. Because all issues regarding school capacity and service ` availability and the impacts of the entire Westlake PUD, �5 including the phase covered by Westlake ' 89 , were addressed and resolved at the time the Master Plan was approved, and there are -o • Page 26 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • • 0 I no -significant changed circumstances , the school issues do not need to be, and cannot be, revisited at this time. The only essential finding regarding schools that needs to be made in reviewing Westlake ' 89 is that the proposed 204 lots are within the density limitation provided for in the Westlake PUD Master c Plan. The findings and conclusions in support of the Master Plan ' • were based on the assumption that the entire PUD could '. , accommodate up to 1 ,527 residential units , including 331 units in -` the phase covered by Westlake ' 89. It is unchallenged that Westlake ' 89, as well as the already developed portions c>F the Westlake PUD, are being or have been developed at less than the planned-for densities . • Reapplying the comprehensive plan policies and standards regarding schools to Westlake ' 89 would violate the essential ._ t purpose for having a PUD Master Plan and an ODPS . The Code • provides that the purpose of the ODPS is , in part, to: ` "Provide preliminary approval of the land uses maximum :g provision potential intensities or densities, arrangement of uses , open space and resource conservation and ' services of the proposed development, and of public "Provide the developer a reliable assurance of the City ' s expectations for the overall project as a basis for detailed planning and investment. " _, As the above language demonstrates , tht^ purpose of the - __ master plan and ODPS concepts is to review up front the maximum ^' Impacts a development will have on public services , such as ' .: I, _ schools , and provide an Assurance to a developer that, once a .evelopment ' s overall impacts are evaluated and approved , the =7 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 31 developer can move forward with the project without having to 0 '•,...,.. , , revisit each issue every time a previously approved phase needs development approval . 4 In conclusion, because Westlake ' 89 is within the density standards provided for in the Westlake PUD Master Plan and ODPS , and there are no significant changed circumstances , it is not SR C necessary to consider or apply any comprehensive plan policies or standards regz :•ding schools to the development approval of rf Westlake ' 89 . c II. TRAFFIC 1 . Westlake ' 89 provided a detailed traffic analysis demonstrating that existing streets and intersections in the area had sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the Project. The comprehensive plan policies relevant to traffic/street :i capacity and safety issues include : Impact Management General Policy II : "The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community , requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted. " , Specific Policy 2a: "The Citywill prepare and carry out regulations requiring. development ' � •, P proposals to identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts , including particularly: . . . traffic or safety improvements needed for access , circulation, parking of autos, bicycles and/or pedestrians; separation of auto p and other circulation or to reduce or eliminate traffic `3 impacts on adjacent areas, or to facilitate use of public transportation. " • 1 Impact Management General Policy III : "The City will . require new development to pay an equitable share of the costs of public facilities , particularly sewer, water, '. " draining, � =� parks, open space and streets or traffic '. improvements . " • 25 • V ,. 'wage :8 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • . ,. ) •AA • Specific Policy la : "The City will require new buildings and development to pay for an equitable share .".- ,:-.' 0 o'f identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of the development, including but not • limited to: . . . street and traffic safety improvements, including off-site improvements . " Residential Density General Policy I : "The City will assure that residential +•densi.t is appropriately conditions , surroundingyland es , andc acityeofd to publicslc facilities, (especially streets ) , and overall capacity Management policies on density . " • Specific Policy lb: "The City will assure permitted density of residential developments is suitably related to: . . . the ,capacity of adjacent streets . . .no case should a medium to high density development ;•,E:ne,rate vehicle trips which exceed the capacity of ;y adjjacent streets or intersections . '' l_ When read together, the above policies require a new • _- development proposal to demonstrate that streets and _— intersections in the area have capacity to safely accommodate the new use, and that there will be safe and adequate circulation and access within and leading out of the proposed development and :_ that the development pay an -equitable share of the cost of new facilities. The traffic study of Westlake ' 89 prepared by the :r applicant ' s expert traffic engineer, Nawzad Othman, provides a. persuasive and substantial evidence that the city 's traffic and ' � , .'in; street standard has been satisfied. Through exactions and system ` development charges , the developer will pay an equitable share of the cost of new facilities . Othman 's study . +, (hereinafter the "traffic report" ) included a review and analysis of five previous traffic studies dealingg with =4 the Westlake PUD and the nearby Kruse Way Corridor. Those U • -- studies included the 1976 study of Kruse Way; the 1978 • Transportation Plan for Lake Oswego; the original 1979 traffic e 29 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • . .. 4 ' ' ,, ` /N 1 • report for Westlake PUD, , prepared by Carl 6uttke; the 1983 Kruse 'Way Corridor Study; and the 1984 traffic study for the Westlake DDPS modification. In approving the original master plan for the :westlake PUD in 1981 , and in approving the Westlake ODPS • modification in 1984 , the city accepted those studies as evidence that the surrounding streets and intersections, as well as the - tity ' s overall transportation system, would be able to operate at safe and acceptable levels of service with the full development the Westlake PUD. • • Mr. Othman ' s traffic report and .testimony confirmed the r rngoing validity of those reports and further confirmed that the estimated 2 ,000 trips a day that Westlake ' 89 would generate at mull build out can be safely and adequately accommodated by the 0 , :. .., . t '• existing roadway system. In reaching his conclusions , Mr. Othman . " .4 so analyzed the level and rate of development that has occurred , (,- .0 the Westlake PUD-and the surrounding area over the past ten o -ears. He found that the density and development levels have . >reen lower than were anticipated and lower than were allowed by .5 f ', t-e original Westlake PUD Master Plan. He concluded that the ' planning assumptions and projections contained in the earlier ,, k .., studies have proved valid and accurate . i The appellants contend that "traffic in the Westlake area is Tr-ch heavier now than anticipated a decade ago. " They support w __ _-_at contention by citing to testimony from several residents in y''e area to the effect that " intersections and streets near the , Y , ' • . - _posed development site are already over-burdened by existing ' .. =O traffic levels . " The council does not find that testimony ., . Page 1: - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER `e. persuasive. It is contradicted by the more detailed and persuasive evidence presented by the applicant 's traff ic expert . The city staff also reviewed the same information and reached the '' x same conclusion as the applicant 's traffic expert. Th e traffic report 's analysis and conclusion that traffic levels are less „" a" than what were • ... projected in 1979 and tha• t at existing streets have , ' - the capacity to safely accommodate Westlake ' 89 are more .. persuasive than the unsu A pported anecdotal testimony cited by the appellants. �_ In conclusion, Mr. Othman 's traffic report , standing ,_ provides alone, • _y persuasive and substantial evidence to prove that the existing streets and intersections have adequate capacity to u 4 1 safely and efficiently accommodate the increase in traffic that will be generated by the full build out of Westlake ' 89. f•, • �" evidence supported That is su pp d by the city staff analysis which reached the same conclusion. ion h nc , '� = • In addition to the Othman traffic report , the five prior traffic studies provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the traffic n r geeated b Westlake ' 89 can be safe accommodated b the existin streets and intersections . id The traffic report that was prepared and submitted in 1979 as part of the original Westlake PUD Master Plan approved th e rr• _: development of a roadwaysystem that would safely accommodate up to 1 ,527 units in the completed Westlake PUD. The phase now to be built as Westlake ' 89 originally allowed 331 units . The y4 subsequent traffic reports analyzed the roadway system based on ` . higher density levels than have actually occurred in the overall Westlake development,pment, as well as what is approved for Westlake 31 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , ,, „'t ' ' o k • y r , tl b • 1 ' 89 . The planning assumptions and conclusions contained in the y prior traffic studies remain valid and, therefore , those studies 3remain persuasive and substantial evidence supporting Westlake 4 ` 89 . The original 1979 traffic study by Carl Buttke, which was 5 the basis for the approval of the Westlake PUD MastOr Plan, remains a valid planning document and continues to provide _ a persuasive and substantial evidence that Westlake ' 89 satisfies • 4�. all applicable traffic and street standards . The council S disagrees with the appellants ' claim that the study is "out-dated 9 ;and) is not an adequate basis for the DRB 's decision . " The ; ' • r 10 �1 appellants provide no evidence to substantiate the claim that the T a traffic study is outdated and that current traffic ,r • 12 patterns are • not consistent with the 1979 projections . Mr. Othman ' s traffic 13 report provides more detailed and persuasive evidence that i4 current traffic patterns are consisten�, with the projections in 13 • t::e 1979 study and in the two subsequent traffic studies . 16 `•. . . In conclusion, the five previous traffic studies of the Westlake PUD and the surrounding area, viewed In conjunction with 1S the traffic report prepared by Mr. Othman, provide substantial 19 evidence that the traffic generated by Westlake ' 89 can be safely NV .. :o and adequately accommodated by the existing streets and 1 Intersections. The city staff reviewed the same evidence and :.. reached the same conclusion. :3 2 . A detailed traffic analysis in support of W���hlake ' 89 was a •, prepared and submitted into the record The appellants contend that the following comer: , nsive plan ;' policy was violated : 28 • a :.age 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER a%. 1 - Specific Policy lf : "The City will develop a Transportation System which will serve the city 's approved land use plan. This System will: . . . include procedures for approving increases in planned land use intensity only when a detailed traffic analysis shows that existing streets and intersections will accommodate the projected traffic r ' increases or when improvements necessary to accommodate ry those increases can be constructed without exceeding the capacity of any elements ofthe city 's coordinated r transportation system. " That policy is not applicable to individual development °y applications which do not increase the � "planned land use ` intensity . " Westlake ' 89 provides for less density 1 than is _4 allowed by its zoning designation, master plan and ODPS . Therefore, the above policy Ss not relevant. Nonetheless , • -- Westlake ' 89 is consistent with the above policy in that the• -- applicant has prepared and presented a "detailed traffic _ analysis" that proves the existing streets and intersections can safely accommodate the development. .t _3 The appellants contend that "no traffic analyses . . . were ,. entered into the record before the DRB. " To the extent that the P. " : "detailed traffic analysis" provision of Specific Policy if is applicable, it was satisfied by the traffic report prepared and submitted to the DRB by Mr. Othman. That traffic report , taken alone , satisfies the "detailed traffic analysis" requirement. In ' ' " addition, the five previous traffic studies also satisfy the "detailed traffic analysis" requirement. The appellants contend that a June 1, 1989 study prepared by :DOT, entitled "i-5 Highway 217/Kruse Way, " provides evidence rn `:at the surrounding streets and intersections do not have adequate capacity to handle the impacts of Westlake '89. The 13 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • . appellants do not cite to anything in the June 1989 study which supports that assertion. The study does not address Westlake ' 89 Z or the surrounding streets and intersections, and thus provides no specific evidence relevant to this application . y 3 . Because the traffic impacts of Westlake ' 89 ware oreviousl s, analyzed and provided for in the Westlake PUD Master Plan, u reconsidering traffic issues is not necessar y or vermitted. The 204 lots proposed for Westlake ' 89 are Significantly less than the 331 units the site is allowed to accommodate • c pursuant to the 1979 Master Plan and the 1984 ODPS . The traffic • impacts of 331 units were already considered and addressed as part of the Master Plan and ODPS . Although the applicant has w i submitted a new traffic report, he was not legally required to do so. The project as a whole is developing in a manner that is 4110 . . A r • x consistent with the master plan approvals . There_ are no • + significant changed circumstances that affect the validity of the prior decisions . The previous findings remain valid and binding . ._ III. SOILS The development standards regarding soils applicable to Westlake '89 are established in Development Standard 13 , "Weak e ak Foundation Soils , " of the Lake Oswego Development Code . Sections • 13 . 035( 1 ) and ( 2) set out the following applicable procedures : , "1 . The applicant shall be responsible for confirming • whether or not the soils in the proposed development site are actually Weak Foundation Soils . 4. 2 . If a development is located in an area of Foundation soils, the applicant shall potential weak • report prepared byregisteredprovide the City Manager a " a professional soils engineer or engineering geoldgist . This report shall describe the nature , - distribution, and strength of the soils , including findings 4110 ,ta. _zs, 34 - FINDING5, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 r 1 n v _ regarding the adequacys to support the intended of the soil of structures . " types Because the Westlake ' 89 site is within a Potential Weak Foundation Soil area, as indicated by the city 's public works map, the applicant had a soils investigation report prepared by ti r. John McDonald Engineering, a registered v professional soils . engineer. In compliance with Section 13. 035( 2) , the McDo nald Report adequately described the soil characteristics q y aracteristica and provided findings to support its conclusion that the soils are not "Weak Foundation Soils, " but rather are adequately firm and su itable ry -- for the support of residential foundations using buildi �� design values . " n9 code ,:. The report satisfied the requirement set out in r ' Section 13. 035( 2) . 1' Section 13. 035( 3) provides as follows: - "3. If soil characteristics are determined '� for the proposed use to adequate IS compensating design shallfbetnecessarer �deratioo o of y Io The McDonald Report concluded that the soils are ad for residential foundations and thus, equate pursuant to Section } to be 18 13 . 035( 3 ) , no further consideration or issues + needed lg addressed. Sections 13 . 035 ( 4 ) and ( 5) provide as follows• : =c "4 . The i en ineer g ng report shall include conclusions and recommendations for design criteria for corrective measure 2z which are appropriate to the soils and typess , ,, structures. of proposed 2� ` 5 The application materials shall include a description ,3 the design or engineering features which will compensate rlption of ` the soilspensate for in accordance with the recommendations of the "4 engineering report . The by a registered proposed design shall be certified professional engineer. " The above two requirements are not applicable to Westlak e • ' 89 because the McDonald Report demonstrated that the soil e 25 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , 10 3',� • • • characteristics are adequate for residential foundations , and • that was all that was required by Sections 13 .035 ( 1 ) , ( 2) and • 3 ( 3 ) . Although Westlake ' 89 was not legally required to address • 4 Sections 13 .035( 4) and ( 5) , the McDonald Report nevertheless „ • • 5 crovided substantial evidence to .satisfy the two requirements . The report noted that the site has "clayey soils , " and that "they should not be allowed to dry out and be built .upon while dry . They should be kept wet by being sprinkled - until they are covered • c by concrete or other cover. " The report described recommended design and engineering features which will assure that the residential foundations can he safely constructed on the soils. +yhe McDonald Report 's recommendations regarding ." p g g proper drainage cf the clayey soils can be implemented when individual lot owners 110 - - , is seek building permits . 14 Section 13. 035( 6 ) provides: • -3 " 6 . The City Manager shall specifically review design or _6 engineering features in the development application which are intended to compensate for Weak Foundation Soils . " This requirement is not applicable to Westlake ' 89 because it does not have "Weak Foundation Soils , " as that term is defined In Section 13 . 015( 1 ) . The clayey soils noted in the McDonald �.r Report are not evidence of Weak Foundation Soils. The• `1 generalized description of the site ' s soils , provided in the '2 "Field Review of Wetland Delineation, " submitted by the • applicant, does not address the soils ' suitability for J4 } =4 ccnstruction of residences , nor does that report conclude or •ryY b �t Page 6 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • !. .4 y i i. ✓ �i a. S . otherwise suggest that the soils should be considered Weak 0 Foundation Soils, as that term is defined in the city code . The city disagrees with the appellants ' contention that the 4 McDonald Report "does not suffice as substantial evidence" to , demonstrate compliance with Section 13. 035. The nature of the investigation conducted as part .of the McDonald Report was •,r adequate to support the findings and conclusions contained in l. that report. No persuasive evidence to the contrary was brought z. into the record by other persons. Weak Fc. andation Soil General Policy IV, which is cited by y� y; the appellants , is not applicable to Westlake ' 89. That policy ,, provides : "The City will require applicants for building ermits in i� q area designated, as Potential for Severe Weak Foundation Soils Hazard, to demonstrate how foundations will be engineered to prevent structural damage . " ( Emphasis added. ) • That policy is not applicable to Westlake ' 89 for two is reasons . First, it only applies to applicants for building 1" permits, and Westlake ' 89 is an application for development N� 'r IS approval. Secon d, it is not applicable because Westlake ' 89 is lv not in an area designated as Potential for Severe Weak Foundation ..V Soils Hazard. „. In conclusion, the applicant has satisfied the soils J 0• JW • „Z requirement set out in Development Standard 13 becaus e a 23 registered ' professional soils engineer submitted a report which 24 provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the � " ;' 23 soils on the Westlake ' 89 site are Capable of supporting the r ,� construction of single family houses . To the extent the clayey - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ' 41i soils on the site require' corrective measures to safely support residences , the McDonald Report provided adequate conclusions , descriptions and recommendations regarding appropriate design and . engineering measures, which will be implemented at the time _ individual building permits are sought. r♦.V, IV. TREES Lake Oswego Development Code Section 49 . 315 ( 2 ) (B ) requires : S "A survey prepared by a licensed surveyor showing . . .r • location, size and species of all trees over 8• at a point 24" above mean ground level at the base ofatheer trunk . " n iG That is the only standard regarding trees a pl _i p- _icable to the development review of Westlake ' 89 . The applicant has submitted a survey that satisfies the requirement. Tree cuttingpermits p rmits 13 will be issued pursuant to LOC Ch. 55 at a later stage in the == development process. r N The appellants asserted, "because the applicant here failed :6 to include a site survey showinglocation, size and species of , mature trees , and the record does not contain such information Ig the DRB decision is not based on substantial evidence in the to record. " Contrary to the appellants ' assertion, the record does ,,, contain a tree survey which satisfies the requirements of Section p ' �1 49. 315. ( 2) (B) . There is no persuasive evidence to support a contrary finding . dp'' I• • The appellants ' appeal notice also cites to several d 14 comprehensive plan specific policies , w.."Ihi .h implement Interim Growth Rate General Policies . However; Specific Policy2 25 . implementing Interim Growth Rate General Policy I , which requires 26 Page 38 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER ;.r r :. applicants to submit information describing probable impacts on trees , is no longer an applicable requirement. The Interim Growth Rate Policies were only applicable prior to adoption of • the comprehensive plan and implementation measures . The ▪ sunsetting of the policies , including Specific Policy 2, is provided for in Interim Growth Rate General Policy I , which 9 y provides that the policies will only be applied "for a period of time following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan until implementation measures are substantially completed or two years, i� :..:':ichever is less . " It has been more than two yearn since the y, c:ompletion and acknowledgment of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive ...an. • The applicant has provided information regarding the • y1 roject 's potential impacts on trees beyond what is required by ,-a comprehensive plan and development code. Section i4 4P . 315 ( 2) (B) requires an on-site tree survey. Although not- -_^uired by that code section , the applicant has agreed to . 4 ;_pare an off-site tree survey for the intersection of Parkview , a y - Carman and Fosberg Roads , as required by the DRB. That tree � . _-formation will be used to ensure that minimum damage is done to existing trees when that intersection improvement is designed a constructed. A tree cutting permit pursuant to Section _L 5 .. 080 will be required at that time. In conclusion, the applicant submitted the necessary tree , , ..4 _. rvey and information required by the applicable standards . V. WETLANDS ' •, ` The Development Code provides development approval standards 39 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 43 V. = for those wetlands deemed to be "essential , " as defined by - Wetland Standard Section 4 .015 ( 2) . There are no approval standards applicable to nonessential wetlands . Section 4 . 035 • sets out the procedures for determining whether a wetland , qualifies for the "essential" designation, thus requiring the application of the approval standards set out in Section 4 . 020 . .a' Because the Westlake ' 89 site does pot contain any "essential 4 wetlands , " the city plan and code have no applicable wetland approval criteria. The letter of August 4 , 1989 , provided by the Oregon T.ivision of State Lands , provided persuasive and substantial evidence that there are no essential wetlands on the Westlake ' 89 site, as that term is defined by Sections 4 . 015 and 4 . 035. The • appellants contended that there were "essential wetlands" on the site, but they cite to no substantial evidence supporting that allegation. None of the written testimony cited by the appellants concludes that the property has "essential wetlands . " The DEL letter is the evidence most on point and it expressly :S concludes that the wetland features on the site are not sufficient to satisfy the city ' s standard for "essential wetlands . " Whether the vegetation and other natural features on `a the Westlake ' 89 site would qualify for regulation as wetlands by '" state or federal standards is not relevant to the application of ' Lake Oswego ' s "essential wetlands" definition and approval .t standards . "- The appellants asserted that Westlake ' 89 would damage the 0 .. ' *. -� Kruse Oak/Ash Forest , which is identified as a Distinctive :=age , 0, * FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER :4.4 4. • Natural Area (DNA) in the comprehensive plan. Neither the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest or any other DNA is located on the Wes tlake ' 89 s4 - site. The development impacts on the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest were D 4 reviewed and analyzed by the city when it processed and approved the Westlake PUD. The forest is not on the Westlake ' 89 site and o the applicant is not required to reassess impacts on the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest. Nonetheless , the applicant provided evidence demonstrating that the storm drainage system for the entire Westlake PUD, including Westlake ' 89 , has been designed to avoid and therefore help preserve the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . There is I�. no persuasive or substantial evidence in the record to support i F , the allegation that Westlake ' 89 will somehow damage the Kruse -~ Oak/Ash Forest. There was no substantial evidence introduced _3 contradictingthe applicant 's pplicant s testimony that the storm drainage system would be designed to avoid damage to the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest and that there would be no other damage to the DNA . 16 __ In conclusion, Westlake ' 89 is consistent with the • Jistin.ctive Natural Area policies because there are no DNAs on the site and the proposal will not have any significant ficant impacts p on the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . a" �.r VI. PROCEDURAL ISSUES _I 1. Objections to. the Presentation by Mr. Jerry Baker -� At the request of the city council, during the staff report • to the council on the night of the hearing Mr. Jerry Baker, the I4 City traffic engineer, made a presentation concerning his a • analysis of the traffic impacts of the project and summarized ., . all ?age 41 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER l , .,' 4 5 • the data he relied upon to reach his conclusions concerning , . of the traffic impacts of the project. Appellants objected to 3 Mr. Baker' s appearance because he did not personally speak before 4 the DRB 5 It is clear from the record that the city staff analyzed the 6 traffic impacts of this project . References were made in the DRB • proceedings to the work done by the city traffic engineer by both staff and the applicant. Mr. Baker ' s presentation was focused on that analysis. LOC 49 . 625 ( 7) and 49 . 610 ( 3 ) (D) provide for Q q. presentation of the city staff report. Mr. Baker is part of the ,c city staff and his participation in the presentation of that 11 report, and in later responding to questions of coundil, as ; 12 provided for by LOC 49 . 610( 3 ) (k ) , was not in violation of the 13 city 's adopted hearing procedures . • 14 • 2. Traffic Studies t - a. Appellants objected to discussion of the following :6 traffic studies , 1976 Kruse Way Study , the 1978 Transportation Plan for Lake Oswego, the 1979 Traffic Report for the Westlake r.S =;:D, the 1983 Kruse Way Corridor Study and the 1984 Traffic Study .Q for 4 _or 'the Westlake ODPS Modification. They assert that because the studies were not physically placed before the DRB, the analysis ..1 • "' and conclusions in them cannot be considered by the council. • Appellants argue that they were denied an opportunity to analyze 23 the data in those studies . It is clear from the record that the :4 staff and applicant reviewed and relied upon the referenced studies . The studies are a part of the official city records . The studies were specifically referenced in testimony to the DRB . • 4 '' Pag„ 4 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 3 . March 13 , 1990 Hoffman Letter '. The applicant objected to the presentation to the council by the appellants of the referenced letter on the basis that it contained matters that ware beyond the scope of the notice of � � 5 Y appeal . The objection vas not allowed and the letter was accepted by council . The letter made the following c points : a. Request for Postponement of March 13 Hearing. The request for postponement was denied . Mr. Hoffman was one of six appellants and was not designated by them as their representative . He complained that the notice of the hearing was misaddressed . Letters mailed hey the City Recorder on October 24 , 1989 , January 2S' and February 2, 1990 to the same address were all delivered. The February 14 letter __ was the first returned to the city. It was immediately sent on February 16 to another of the appellants by the City Recorder. Mr. Hoffman was urged to submit his testimony in writing. Other appellants did make a credible presentation of all the issues raised in the notice of appeal. No substantial rights of appellants were prejudiced the denial of the request to postpone . Preudiced by " b. Interference with DRB Process. Mr. Hoffman , '; objected to the city council adoption of its August .. il fir . 19 , 1989 memorandum whichn provides policy guidance to the planning commission and DRB concerning the proper methodology to be used in interpreting the Lake Oswego comprehensive plan general and specific :5 policies , and the proper interpretation of plan policies relating to school ca acit y . The"? of that memorandum to the DRB pas not improper.ivery The DRB was directed to follow the polio interpretations contained in the memorandum and apply those relevant policies to the facts of this _1 case. The appellants had a full and complete ' opportunity to present . argument and evidence to the _, DR8 on this issue and they did so. They contest the council ' s interpretations , based on that " evidence , in this proceeding. They may not agree with the interpretations , but they have been given a complete opportunity_, to present evidence and ' S express their views in this proceeding , No �5 substantial rights of appellants have been prejudiced by the council ' s actions , % 4.1 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 ,; • 7f• I Appellants had an opportunity and obligation at the time of the 2 DRB hearings to provide evidence which contradicted the validity 3 of the studies. They chose to not produce such evidence. The 4 steadies were the basis upon which the applicant 's and staffs • 4 S opinion, as set forth in the staff reports and testimony, was • c formulated. That information was relied upon by the DRB in ►' reaching its conclusions . There- is no question or dispute y s concerning what studies are referenced in the record. The studies are incorporated into the record. • b. Appellants rely on a 1989 draft traffic study done 1.0 y ODOT concerning 1-5 at 217/Kruse Way - location, design and y1 11 ;1w,' development of alternatives, as the sole factual support for 12 , ": their position on the traffic issues . That document was never • " ' ,: 13 physically placed before the DRB, contrary to appellants ' • { 14 �.' = assertion that a request was made to place it in the record. See ti.. Record, Ex. 8, pp. 45-48 . Because there is no dispute about what study was referenced by appellants to the DRB it is also I :corporated into the record . ' 2S it �' c.' Mr. Baker in response to P questions from council ., ' referred to 1989 traffic counts which he had taken in the Kruse •,;,,a" -0 may area. No specific traffic count numbers were allowed to be entered into- the record. Mr. Baker made the comment during his explanation of the review process he undertook concerning this project. The reference to the 1989 traffic counts is admit.ted O. -4 into the record for the purpose of providing detail concerning ' -5 t'e steps taken by the city staff in the analysis it undertook -b cc<.cerning the traffic in the Kruse `Way Corridor. 7 ' 0 :age 43 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 47 • '1♦, . • V 4 . Challenge to the Partici ation of Councilor Churchill Pursuant to LOC 49 . 610, the applicants , by their letter .s dated March 9 1990, filed a challen e to the 9 participation of i Councilor Churchill in this proceeding. Councilor Churchill i chose to not participate in the council 's consideration of this matter. • Order It is ordered by the city council of the city f _ ++ of Lake Oswego 3ri� • T.. ,:. _ that. p . 1 j.. __ 1 • The appeal of PD 6-$9/SD 25-89-710 is denied and the �et:i� onthe DRB is o i of -- firmed . This order was presented to and approved by the city council r 1 of the city of Lake Oswego. + l< � f Dated this .I y of �- —"ta" 1990. 1 1. i I +1-, er��t�. wL z6 Alice Schlenker, Mayor , Vote at the council meeting =n March 13, 1990 =J `44 F 15 AYES : Schlenker, Anderson, Durham 1Q , i y z NOES : Holstein �` EXCUSED; ' Holman, Fawcett t `1 DID NOT PARTICIPATE: Churchill .1 ,« . 24 , _ e 4E FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4. a f.+ • • • • • • • Y q• 7.1 0 l,. • • • I' • • • • 1 W 1 • • • • " /. ' 1 1 i. 1.. Li4NO USE BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPE OF THE STATE OF OREGON Su Zb 3 0 F '5u MICHAEL HOFFMAN, ) FttCEIVED Petitioner, ) SEP 2 7 1990 and •g m o'HHeu,wwm KAREN BLAKE, LISA JACKSON and t. GREG MEADORS, ) LUBA No. 90-067 Intervenors-Petitioner, ) vs . ) FINAL OPINION r 1 AND ORDER „--•. � ; y�� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, �,Lpulitll'oy_ _ _.. . Respondent, ) `''C �� -and ) JEFFREY FRANK and CAROLE FRANK, ) 11 ) '•.. Y Intervenors-Respondent . ) t • ,. Appeal from City of Lake Oswego . • A. Richard Vial, Portland, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner and intervenors-petitioner . on the brief was Hagen, Dye, via]. & Hirschy, P ,C. 4 With him "`' John H . Hammond, Jr. , Lake Oswego, filed a response brief - and argued on behalf of respondent . t Timothy V . Ramis, Portland, filed a response brief and argued on behalf of intervenors-respondent . With him on the brief was O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan . + ? HOLSTUN, Referee; SHERTON, Chief Referee; KELLINGTON, Referee, participated in the decision . AFFIRMED 09/26/90 - • You are entitled to judicial review of this Order , Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197 , 850 , a • r r. 1 4 F al EXHIBIT • �` 1 ,pc ,. Ia-io .. W r y Opinion by Holstun . 13aTURF 2 Tur nF,.CTSTrM • ' 3 Petitioners challenge an order adopted by the Lake Oswego , . . City Council approving "Westlake ' 89, " the sixth phase of the ' Pg. 5 Westlake Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The city council ' s 5 decision affirms a decision of ' the Lake Oswego Development Review Board which approves (1) a subdivision and minor land S partition, (2) a 204 lot planned development, and (3) several modifications to the Residential High Density (R-5) zone setback � ' requirements . m7,,TToNS To TNTr.R. .Nr. � , Karen Blake, Lisa Jackson and Greg Meadors move to , • intervene on the side of petitioner. Jeffrey Frank and Carole ; ' , ,; - ) • _ Frank move to intervene in this proceeding on the side of yc respondent . There are no objections to the motions, and they . t.. h are allowed. yUR!SDTCTTON `. i ti Although the city' s decision include's both 'a partition and • 41 a preliminary subdivision approval for a 204 lot PUD, no party g• ., ,t4•'' 2, questions our jurisdiction in this matter . 1 SPe ORS 97 , 015 (10) (b) (B) ; Meadrwhrc�ck_ )eveiopment. v. C4t P y f� fiQa�id , 1pur review jurisdiction is limited to land use decisions, ORS 19/.825. As amended by the 1989 legislature, ORS 197.015 (10) (b) (B) provides that the w" •• . r•• statutory definition of "land use decision" does not include a decision • " (w) hich approves, approves with conditions or denies a I, - subdivision cr partition, as described in ORS chapter 92 located within an urban growth boundary where the decision is • consistent with land use standards ( . ) " • b-se, 2 • . . • M ,' •w . : .... • ,:' l f' 1 s. 3 Or LUBA • (LUBA No, 90-060, 19 September 18, 90) ; Parmentor `, , ' Wa,11 C �nrv, Or LUBA (LUBA No. Junef' '+ . , a 90-034, 11, .� 1990) . However, the city 's y 's decision does more than simply grant approval of a partition and subdivision; it __grants . .._-_ grants planned unit c development .a royal . '--•-- PP In addition, the city 's decision grants modification of � y ' - _s —_setbacks that wruld otherwise be required b - the Lake Oswego Code . For these reasons, the city 's decision S does not appear to fall within the exception provided by y '" ORS 197 .015 (10) (b) (B) . FACTS • • ,d , A„i The Westlake PUD is a "major development" under the Lake Oswego Code (LOC) . LOC 49 . 140; 49 . 145 . Major developments may be developed in phases, with prior or concurrent approval of an : _ Overall Development Plan and Schedule z (ODPS) LOC 49 . 150; 0 49 . 405 (2) . LOC 49 . 405 (1) provides : . 2According to LOC 49. 410, the purpose of an ODPS is to: L " (1) Assure that the proposed development, considered as a whole, will conform to the Comprehensive Plan and De•.elopment Standards, • " (2) Assure that individual phases will be properly coordinated +'ith each other ',end can be designed to meet cs the Development Standards, p •- " (3) Provide preliminary approval of the land uses, maximum __ potential intensities, arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of public _.. services of the proposed development, and +a lx " (4) Provide the developer a reliable assurance of the City's .� expectations for the overall project as a basis for detailed planning and investment, " . . _r 3 • k • " 0 v _ r «� - ,.a .fir i,•r w r t r' . i "Development . p permits for individual phases within a major development shall be approved and conditioned in ` ;. accordance with the ODPS . Development p permits for ,, each phase shall assure that the development plans ' 3 conform to the ODPS, as well as the Comprehensive Plan ` „' <' ' and Development Standards . " Under LOC 49 . 420 (2) , an application for ODPS approval must c include : t1: 5 "* * * * * "c. Maps and narrative indicating types and location %' S of land uses to be provided including park and open space sites or other reserved land. w J "d. General layout of streets, utilities and drainage management measures including areas 12'." • reserved for water improvements . �e. "e . General layout or siting of public transit, — bicycle and pedestrian circulation . ti ', ` • "f . Maps and/or narrative showing off-site improvements necessary to serve -the proposed development to occur in each phase . • . Under LOC 49 . 430, the planning commission may approve an r. F , , ODPS only if it finds the ODPS " "* * * will satisfy the requirements of LOC 99 , 615, ('1 and, c "* * * * * " (2) Provides for land uses and intensities that are consistent with the provisions of the . Comprehensive Plant * * * and with the planned ° t' capacities of public facilities, .,� 23 YY* * * * * • YY 3Among the approval criteria included in LOC 49, 615 are conformance with (1) the city's comprehensive plan, (2) statutory and code requirements, (3) 25 applicable development standards, and (4) applicable future street plans, y , PI,ge 4 „ 0 .. . ,.. .. •. . . ... , , . . . • r . kP • a i An approved ODPS must consist of the following documents : • " (1) A site plan showing location and type of all land uses proposed, approximate acreage and approximate number of units or square footage of • uses . • . " (2) A general utility plan showing streets, yf ; .;T` utilities, drainage management measures, bike • and pedestrian ways and transit locations . ` ' " (3) A statement acknowledging need for off-site improvements as required. " (4) A schedule of the overall phasing and ..` development to occur within each phase . "* * * * * . " LOC 49 . 435 . • The ODPS for the Westlake PUD was approved in March, 1981 . 4 '�. . The ODPS was amended several times after 1981 . The record • indicates the ODPS was last amended in 1985 . Record 1019-1023 . As noted above, the decision challenged in ' this proceeding approves the sixth phase of the Westlake PUD . The development • p • review board granted approval on October 6, 1989 . The development review board' s decision was appealed to the city council, which denied the appeal and granted approval on May 1, • 1990 . ffi FIRST ?SS?GNMENT OF ERROR • "The city council misconstrued the applicable law, and its decision is not supported by substantial evidence • 4The March, 1981 approval of the PUD used the term "Final Development Plan and Program." Apparently the LOC was amended sometime after March, 1981 to substitute the term "Overall Development Plan and Schedule" for the • 01• term "Final Development Plan and Program, " and to codify the procedures for • ODPS approval at LOC 49.400 to 49. 440, S.•';asequent amendments to the 15d1 "Final Development Plan and Program" for the Westlake PUD use the terminology "Overall Development Plan aim! Schedule. " To avoid confusion, � . . • we use the term ObPS throughout this opinion, ,•yq ;.r 5 ./ t 1 , ,••' t�y' in the whole record because the applicant 's proposal ' fails to identify or provide for adequate school capacity, as required by the applicable law, " M Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (LOCP) General Policy III, • ;., Specific Policy 4 provides in part : s < "New development shall be served by an urban level of service of the following: :.: E ',* * • vs t� " (j) Schools . r " 3 "Services shall be available or committed approval of development . " prior to 9 • In their first assignment of error, petitioner and intervenors-petitioner (petitioners) contend the city failed to demonstrate that approval of Westlake ' 89 is consistent with the above LOCP standard concerning school services .5 Petitioners contend schools are inadequate to provide -an urban level of service for Westlake ' 89. . 1 :5 , The city found that existing and committed school :6 facilities would be adequate to provide an Urban level of ti service for Westlake ' 89 rel • ying on testimo.�y fr om the school s :9 5Petitioners also contend the city' s decision violates statewide :0 planning goal provisions requiring that local governments plan for school facilities. Sig Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and ,) Services) . Petitioners similarly cite statewide planning goal requirements requiring that local governments plan for transportation facilities under " their second assignment of error, discussed infr , e. Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) : However, as the city' s plan and land use _Z regulations have been acknowledged by the Band Conservation and Development ' Commission, the statewide planning goals apply only to city decisions 24 amending the acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations or adopting new comprehensive plan or land use regulation provisions, not to decisions that simply apply the comprehensive plan and land use ' =5 regulations , OAS 197, 835 (6) ; Byrd v. St•r4 n er 0 ., 295 or 311, 313, 666 P2d 1332 (1983) ; go11woorl uathor ronr!n. A.,,gnr., v City 24 artti qnd, 16 Or LUBA 26 505, 511-512 (1988) . Page 6 (110 ' ,' w` . e district that short and long term plans could be implemented to : '. avoid unacceptable crowding at the elementary school that would• serve Westlake ' 89 . However, the city also adopted the following findings : "The comprehensive plan j4, s regarding schools were applied and relevant f ndings were adopted when the Westlake PUD Master Plan was approved in 1981 . The Master Plan allowed for the ° - t developmento occur in multiple p phases, with a potential total density of 1, 527 residential units . In 1984, the Master Plan was modified and incorporated into an Overall Development Plan and Schedule " ( 'ODPS ' ) , pursuant to LOC 49 . 400-440 . The developing on schedule and in accordance projectith the ODPS . There are no significant changed circumstances .which affect the analysis of conformance with the : 'city ' s law that occurred at the time of adoption and amendment of the overall master plan . "Because all issues regarding school capacity and service availability and the impacts of the entire Westlake PUD, including the phase covered by Westlake ' 89, were addressed and resolved at the time the Master Plan was approved, and there are no significant changed circumstances, the school issues do not need to be, and cannot be, revisited at this time . The E• only essential finding regarding schools that needs to be made in reviewing Westlake ' 89 is that the proposed 204 lots are within the density limitation provided for in the Westlake PUD Master Plan , " Record 30=31 . Petitioners do not challenge the city' s findings that, in t a approving the ODPS for the proposed Westlake PUD in 1981, the city found that the proposed PUD complied with comprehensive :? plan policies and standards governing school services , Neither do petitioners challenge the city ' s finding that the residential ,z density proposed for Westlake ' 89 is less than originally y , 24 approved for this phase of the Westlake PUD and that development of the Westlake PUD is proceeding according to the schedule set • Pas, 7 • forth - not support the city finding, quoted above, that there have been • . , ,l• �` - • significantchangesPetitioners • • • ' 4 ,,, , circumstances have changed since the city' s 1981 decision and 5 schools are no longer adequate to provide the required urban . 1 ‘ . -. . . .. . LOC 49. 405 (1) requires that approval of each phase of a PUD N - . . ,... S "conform to the ODPS, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and O .7: Development Standards . " However, we do not believe that LOC* . 49 . 405 (1) necessarily requires that all comprehensive plan , , , 4 ' policies be reapplied each time a new phase of a PUD is _ . . . , approved . We agree with the city that where comprehensive plan h` ! '3 compliance issues have been fully resolved for a PUD in . '.5 comprehensive plan issues need not be reconsidered in approving I• individual phases of the PUD .7 bt S.. ftw a previouswestlake PUD and states that construction will commence "on .approximately .1 May 1, 1981" and "commencement of construction on each successive phase • will begin within 18 months of the commencement of construction on the . .. of these deadlines. Record 1390 . Any additional extensions to the . . • ,. Westlake PUD completion schedule would be treated as a major i „ LOC 49. 440. Although there appears to have been some question whether the Westlake PUD was delieloping according to the approved schedule during the . local proceedings regarding Westlake 1890 the city ultimately found that it —: " ' i". _.. was, and that finding is not challenged in this appeal, • /Section 1 of tht Westlake ODPS provides the ODPS "shall be the sole . - ' basis for evaluation of all phases of the Westlake development on any . - ' issues that it addresses. ° Record 1381 . Section 10 of the ODPS provides approval of development phases "may be granted subject to conditions that ,, ' ' . , - ate consistent with and intended to carry out the terms and intent of t:)is - . . : ' e. - the ODPS, and would require a new ODPS application and approval. id. , t i t , 1, , ✓ , iJ - r n ;'i r In Friwp*-ds Tnclust-r,Ps, Tnr . v 9.0p+-r1 of CommiSsionPr , 2 Or LUBA 91 (1980) , we reached the same conclusion interpreting a „ } similar Washington County PUD approval procedure . In FaiwatLls, 4 1 4 initial approval of an "outline master plan" was granted subject l7 ' 1 W to a condition that development be phased to allow adjoining roadways to be improved to provide adequate capacity. The decision approving the outline master plan was not appealed. 0 ' Two years later, a request for subdivision plat approval for one of the approved phases was turned down solely on the basis of concerns over impacts on the road system adjoining the PUD. We ° concluded that under the county ' s PUD approval '.i Y pp procedures, the submission of the preliminary plat in accordance with the outline master plan could not be used as a vehicle to reopen the issue of impacts on external roadways which was decided in the approval oval of the outline master plan. id. at 96 .B :..... z 1., Westlake ' 89 will have less of an impact on the city ' s .. school system than would development at the full density plan and program and the applicable city ordinances and regulations which - cove-n matters not Font- enl1 ed by th4 s p1,An and prior m," (Emphasis added. ) ,r, ;r Record 1391. 9Similarly, in City o ' 0recon C4ty v. Cla_rkanas County, Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 88-098, February 22, 1989) , slip op 11, we explained that under the county's design review procedures, it was not necessary that the county -- reconsider "issues of compliance with applicable plan., [land use regulation requirements) or prior conditions of approval" in granting design review approval for a proposed development, "provided that compliance with the applicable requirements or conditions of approval was resolved in another final, appealable decision," ,SA= a'' so j1P.rIley v. ,larkson County, — or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 89-144, April 19, 1990) (under county zoning ordinance, resolution of intent to rezone, rather than subsequent decision to amend -` the coning map in accordance with the resolution of intent to rezone, is the stage at which the countyapplies statewide planning •goals, `,, comprehensive plan and code standards) . w, , v e'd .� - • * .. , P ] approved in 1981 . In the circumstances presented in this case, ` we conclude the cityproperly need .`\ , ' pro erl concluded it need not, in 3 approving Westlake ' 89, revisit the issue of adequacy of schools to serve the Westlake PUD decided in 1981 . 5 Petitioners ' only complaint . is that circumstances have w 6 changed and that even if rehools were found to be adequate in 1981 to semie the approved PUD, such is no longer the case . $ However, even if petitioners are correct in this contention, 4 that would not of itself provide a basis for denying the' i requested approval for Westlake ' 89, and we disagree with • petitioners that this result is somehow antithetical to sound _ land use planning. ' ' a Despite the city ' s suggestion to the contrary in its findings quoted above, nothing in the LOC , provides that 411/ . . decisions made at the time of ODPS approval conc erning cerning the adequacy of schools to serve the entire PUD may be reconsidered if the factual circumstances change before the final phase of • the PUD anticipated in the ODPS is approved. As the statement of purpose in LOC 49, 410 makes clear (set n 2 supra) , the ODPS -,- is designed both to assure the entire project is considered in • 1 determining compliance with the comprehensive plan and to • -- provide the developer with certainty concerning the city ' s __ expectations regareng the overall project , Where the impact on ls. public services of the entire PUD has been addressed and + 4 relevant plan policies found to be complied with in approval of g • y 1 the ODPS, we agree_e with respondent and intervenors-respondent Pl.'t 10 • 4 / •1 , • I (respondents) that it w ould be inconsistent with the expressed in Purpose developmental phase to LOC 99 . 410 to require approval of elopmental each readdress plan public services policies, 4 where the requested s phase approval is ' consistent with the type and intensity of development envisioned b ,t Y the approved ODPS. M Under the procedures adopted by the city, as long • '' { is consistent with the ODPS and, as a PUD phase remains on the approved time 1` schedule, there is no requirement that the factual , underlying the original ODPS approval bePredicates reexamined when W anticipated phases are approved. the m.,�.' .It may be, as petitioners argue, that the interpretation of LOC 49. 400 to 49 . 440 could re above quire the city to •� approve later phases of a PUD that would otherwise be denied under the cited - school services polior { be possibility that such approvals wouldY However, the required is limited in • • � three significant ways . First, we see nothin ' ' - would �n i g in the LOC that 1.1- ..c.rdo_ the dity from requiringy in an ODDS that approval of later phases of a PUD consider school service s availability in light of any changes in circumstances • approval . The ODPS for following ODPS • r • • the Westlake PUD simply does not do so. ' Second, LOC 49 . 435 (4 ) a requires q � phasing schedule , �l establishinga By shorter phasing schedule, the city can minimize the chance that the factual assumptions and findings underlying the_ t � e ODPS approval will become outdated before the PUD is « :< fully p 1 ! !r' , developed .9 Finally, ORS 197 . 520 (2) provides the city may adopt •a moratorium where such action is "justified by demonstration of - a need to prevent a shortage of key facilities as defined in the statewide planning goals which would otherwise occur during the ; effective period of the moratorium. The first assignment of error is denied. ,RF,COND ASSTGNt7NT OF ERROR S "The city council misconstrued the applicable law and v ° its decision is not supported by substantial evidence c in the whole record because the adjacent streets and • intersections are not adequate to accommodbte the traffic impact generated from the proposed ', development , in violation of the . Lake Oswego t Comprehensive Plan . " LOCP General Transportation Policy IV requires that : "The City .will develop a residential neighborhood • streets system adequate to handle expected• volume, but at a minimum necessary scale to preserve the quiet, privacy and safety of neighborhood living . " In addition, LOCP General Transportation Policy I, Specific , r Policy 1 .F requires that the city develop a transportation system which ' 9We note that it is not at all uncommon for land use approvals such as conditional use permits, preliminary subdivision approvals, etc. to require • that the approval granted be acted upon within a specified time. As long • as the required implementing action is taken within the time specified, the original approval generally remains valid, absent some overriding change in local, state or federal law, even if the factual circumstances upon which . the original approval was based change. As noted earlier in this opinion, r were the Westlake PUD not developing according to the completion schedule specified in the ODPS, a new ODPS would be required and petitioners' allegations concerning adequacy of schools presumably would have to be y; addressed by the city in approving a new ODPS. aaa n 6, "1tR"'' . � 10We do not understand petitioners to contend the city erred by failing to adopt a moratorium under ORS 197 .520. e _o 4't 12 41) . c• , t ,, t "include (s ) procedures for approving increases in planned land use intensity only when a detailed 2 traffic analysis shows that existing streets and x intersections will accommodate the projected traffic increases or when improvements necessary to accommodate those increases can be constructed without exceeding the capacity of any element of the City' s , coordinated transportation system. " The city received testimony from the city' s and the ,, ' applicant ' s traffic engineers in which the engineers analyzed previous traffic studies concerning the impacts of the Westlake i ,:. PUD on the surrounding transportation system. Petitioners � r contend the city erred by not requiring that new traffic studies ' ' be submitted in support of the Westlake ' 89 application . �„ ; As in the case of the adequacy of schools issue, the city, ' in addition to finding the disputed plan policies are satisfied ``r;; • by Westlake ' 89, also found the traffic impact issue had been • , ' "' fully addressed in the 1981 ODPS approval. The city found: 11115 "The 204 lots proposed fog Westlake ' 89 are I' . . . significantly less than the 331 units the site is allowed to accommodate pursuant to the * * * ODPS . The traffic impacts of 331 units were already considered and addressed as part of the ODPS . 4 Although the applicant has submitted a new traffic report, he was not legally required to do so . The project as a whole is developing in a manner that is consistent with the master plan approvals . * * *" Record 34 . ). . As was the case under the first assignment of error, petitioners do not challenge the above quoted findings, other W r than to argue that conditions have changed and that development of the Westlake PUD, with other development in the area, has ~_ adversely impacted the transportation system in the area . s _ However, for. the reasons explained in our discussion of the ' -R. 13 4 a * I. p , Y y first assignment of error, we reject that argument as a basis for requiring the city to demonstrate as part of its decision 3 that Westlake ' 89 complies with the cited plan policies . The second assignment of error is denied. F` 5 THIRD ASST(;NMFNT (.F ERROR 6 "The city council misconstrued the applicable law and its decision, is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record because this development would• destroy a distinctive natural area and an essential S wetland in violation of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive . Plan . " 9 Petitioners contend the city failed to demonstrate that Westlake ' 89 will protect "essential wetlands" and "distinctive natural areas" located on the property proposed for development , ' • A. Z.. crest, .iP7 Wet1arci'. The LOCP and LOC provisions cited by petitioners `do not ; : require that "wetlands" be protected. They only require that S "essential wetlands" be protected . LOCP 50-51; LOC 4 , 005 to ;6 �' d 4 .040 , Although respondents do not dispute the evidence cited , . by petitioners that the Westlake ' 89 site includes "wetlands, " ,s respondents contend the city found that the site includes no "essential wetlands, " and the record contains substantial lr 20 evidence to support that finding . Under LOC 4 . 015 (2) , "essential wetlands" are wetlands which are either designated as such on the city' s hydrology map or _3 determined to be such after application of the c:.iteria in 24 ,'JC 4 . 035 . In finding that the site includes no "essential wetlands" the city relied on an August 4 , 1989 letter from the 36 P,Igc 14 1110 I 3 N1..y;' 7: 7 Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) in which a staff person in ', DSL ' s Environmental Permits Section discussed the city ' s .... criteria for designating "essential wetlands" and explained why, in his view, the wetlands on the property do not qualify as "essential wetlands . " While the evidence cited b y petitioners t• � : ' does establish the presence of "wetlands" on the property, that - evidence does not establish the existence of "essential i wetlands . " Petitioners do not explain why the city ' s s findings' t, = concerning the lack 'f "essential wetlands" on the property are fi inadequate or why the DSL letter is not substantial evidence in = support of the city ' s finding that there are no "essential wetlands" on the property. We conclude the findings concerning - "essential wetlands" are adequate and supported by substantial evidence . •,.� _ This subassignment of error is denied. - S. n4c4. 4nctive WaturP7 Aroaq The LOOP provides that "distinctive natural areas" are to ' )YI _ be preserved as part of development approval , LOCP 32 . j�" '.;,,10 _ Apparently relying on a suggestion in a July 10, 1989 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that wetlands alterations on ii the property may have impacted "a nearby oak/ash woodland, " 1N -_ petitioners contend that the city failed to adopt findings :x supported by substantial evidence that distinctive natural areas on the property are protected. Record 1227 . _ The city found that although the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest is • Y 4,-.4;1' 15 A S identified as a distinctive natural area in the LOCP, neither the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest nor any other distinctive natural area ,'''` . , 3 is located on the Westlake ' .!.; property. " The city' s findings :.' 4 go on to state . , !" "The forest is not on the Westlake ' 89 site and the applicant is not required to reassess impacts on the 6 Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . Nonetheless, the applicant provided evidence demonstrating that the storm 'N ; drainage system for the entire Westlake PUD, including Westlake ' 89, has been designed to avoid and therefore S help preserve the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . there is no ` ' 41/4 = persuasive or substantial evidence in the record to L a support the allegation that Westlake ' 89 will somehow r • damage the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . There was no substantial evidence introduced contradicting the applicant ' s testimony that the storm drainage system would be designed to avoid damage to the Kruse Oak/Ash , : F rest and that there would be no other damage to the ;. : 1 2 (distinctive natural area] . :*', "In conclusion, Westlake ' 89 is consistent w+ '-h the . . ' Distinctive Natural Area polices because there -e no . i 4 (distinctive natural areas] on the site ano the r ; proposal will not have any significant impacts on the .',1 , 5 Kruse Oak/Ash Forest . , Record 45 . �Frk x Petitioners do not challenge the above quoted findings or #� explain why the evidence cited in those findings is inadequate ® '. to constitute substantial evidence to support the findings . c,, This subassignment of error is denied. �op.N-71, :.- The third assignment of error is denied. ,R„5 4 A l t t ., 2._ FOURTw AS S T GNMFNT OF ERROR ';.'-;• ' __ "The city council improperly interfered with the .Z - =4 11The only distinctive natural area identified in the 1981 Westlake PUD approval was the Kruse Oak/Ash Forest area. Record 1396. The findings }:; adopted in support of the 1981 PUD apprc 11 indicate that all distinctive P'. natural areas within the Westlake PUD were protected by designating Whose ' ± I• areas "Open Space." Record 1425. °" F'..gc 16 0 • K Aa , . .1. -.e , i. •. . - •. h • + " J i t �f4n Development Review Board ' s, hearing procedure . " �ur''`er In an August 19, 1989 memorandum to the development review ��' Iti board and planning commission (before the development review board rendered its decision in this matter) , the city council {'°4;'r n ' ' $ provided those bodies with its interpretation of comprehensive `• : s plan policies regarding school capacities . Record 1829. The city council ' s interpretation was based on factual determinations set forth in an attachment to the August 19, 1989 E memorandum. The city council purported to reconcile the 4 , statutory obligations imposed under ORS 197 . 505 to 197 , 540, " `• ; ,4 concerning adoption of moratoria, with city obligations under Iry r 4 ��° 9, the school related plan policies which had resulted in recent 1 1. "� . denials of requests for development approval based on inadequate school facilities . The city council concluded the current facts a" • regarding adequacy of school facilities in the city would not support a moratorium under ORS 197 . 505 to 197 .540 and stated: >< _ "The Comprehensive Plan• policies, with regard to school capacity`, will be satisfied unless the Council '''r in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts ' '' will change over time, so may the conclusions ,. concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual preconditions for the ' c enactment of a moratorium. * * *" Record 1830 . Petitioners contend ttiat by providing the development review board with the above described memorandum while :he ; ; �� development review board was considering the request at issue in x°,"r,, k '» this a i ppeal, the city council improperly interfered with the ar ±s development review board ' s decision making responsibility. �r Respondents contend that the city council ' s action at . �sk• p � w a ` 0 P.41 17 0 1 ' 1 / • -;;4k,h' constituted procedural error, and because petitioners received a "` ' . I . ';: ':.'' ::. a: full and fair hearing before the city council in this matter, petitioners do not allege, nor could, they allege, any prejudice to their substantial rights caused by the city council ' s August 19, 1989 memorandum. 6 we agree with respondents . In our view, the city council's memoz andum was simply an attempt by the ultimate city decision S ma:•er to resolve what it viewed as conflicting provisions in its comprehensive plan and statutory requirements concerning 4 + t ..,'W' :C moratoria in order to provide guidance and achieve consistent era . `•, . :v., , decision making. Viewed in this way, it is in the nature of a ' t declaratory ruling that would not be followed if • the factual 4,,:,: 63 assumptions changed. The city council made it clear in the j ;`.. wr tv 'a memorandum that the factual assumptions upon which fly' ;'; its s conclusions were based were subject to change, and petitioners q 4 i • ;C do not contend that they were denied an opportunity to convince •' the city council that their view of the relationship between the ''I s school plan policies and statutory moratorium requirements is ,c incorrect or that a different conclusion is warranted based on : ,4,': ,n the facts in this case. �, ;�� In view of our resolution of the first assignment of error, . , ♦ a we express no opinibn concerning the correctness of the _; conclusion reached in the city council ' s August 19, 1989 Y . f'+ 2.4 memorandum, However, we do not believe the city council ' s :� provision of the memorandum to the development rev,iew board in "+ 26 :his case constitutes error . alla r,hPrry r p,.1A, Inc . , .Nn,.."h v . P.,re :8 b .'J , 1-'i , '' ,AH tip,. ♦ •>. ', t . . • ♦. •i ♦ ',, ra• .*:'I',. I . ) ' ail'. . - ♦rn.µ. _K • .. ..X % . ' µY '{'�.,.,4. . v.? 1 1 AM 99 d0b�. Tackcc+n County, 14 Or LUBA 84 , 86 (1985) ; $i1J 5 v. Josephine ctLLlnty, 9 Or LUBA 122, 130 (1983) Even if the city council 's �� n • action did constitute error, we agree with respondents that it 4 would be procedural error, and there is no prejudice shown in this case. $ee Sunhurst TT,Homeown_erti V. City of WPSs- Linn, 101 1.1 6 Or A 458, 461, P2d PP , rev den 310 Or 243 (1990) ; Masan v, Linn County, 13 Or LUBA 1, 4-5 (1984 ) , Mf'd t Prf , *-ev'd 1 ' g i n t on oth r �. A cu-rnunds. 73 Or App 334, rev dAn 299 Or 314 ♦ t . it+54 dl ye 1 r t, 9 (1985) ; Colwell v. City of r'ortlanc(, 1 Or LUBA 74 (1980) . "si. The fourth assignment of error is denied. • 'c y The city ' s decision is affirmed. • � n 1." - i I 19 .41 • ;fi • K , 1 ... 1. • h CERTIFICATE OF MAILING , � l 14 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 90-067, on September 26, 1990, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy r:071, parties or their attorney as follow : envelope with postaa thereof contained in a sealed , '" ws; prepaid addressed to said A. Richard Vial, 'sue '6 Hagen, Dye, et al e, - 1900 Benj-FFran Plaza �✓' • One SW Columbia , h` Portland, OR 97258 8 y." Timothy V. Ramis Y 9 O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 4,,.yU k••., ur»4; ,.;. " 1727 NW Hoyt St ., " 1 ', �c Portland, OR 97209 • • li John H. Hammond, Jr. City Attorney i-• P .O, Box 369 West Linn, OR 97068 13 Dated this 26th' day of September, 1990 . - 14 :041'. '•- 16 7(:))'6"3.7----,......., 6...........tx...,—/4., an Zwemce Office Manager !h w1 e 9 • r0 20 yy + " ;; '_3 C, r�W ♦t•• 24 • . �S ' lq 26 4M1 ,, • r , , Puge L 14 � witi L 'W' p, `f^•r 4,.. k r _mot I y .. • � Tf 'ti+ •m• 4 , , • t • , McGrawiaEdison -1 � .,,.,, . Concourse III . w t/ • . t .. •.a d- :lam Y a • 6 V! T•y.. '3' ty y p +1 .�.4 ,.t. ..,w,!.�.. ,.y General-Concourse III luminaire shall the optical system from external 150 watt high pressure sodium lamps- consist of a single cast aluminum atmospheric contaminants, constant wattage autotransformer type for housing and housing door assembly,The Optical Assembl y ��; ; housing shall contain the optical y-shall consist of a 250 through 400 watt high pressure reflector and socket assembly,Reflectors sodium lamps and 175 through 250 watt "•`',i components,HIO ballast assembly and a shall be hydroformed of Alzak finished metal halide lamps.Single voltage f p, mounting clamp assembly. , y reflector grade aluminum.They shall ballasts shall be available for 120,208, Housing-shall be a single piece,heavy provide optimum sharp cutoff photometric 240,277 and 480 volt input Multr•Tap t', . duty aluminum die casting forming a results in conjunction with light sources ballasts for 120,208,240 and 277 volt ` ` watertight shell.It shall contain the for which they are designed,Four Input are standard. electrical and optical component reflector systems shall be field rotatable Finish-applied on external metal t'' ompartments and shall have an to allow orientation of the main light surfaces shall be a bronze color,powder + > aesthetically pleasing soft corner design. beam either perpendicular or parallel to coat thermoset acrylic enamel,formulated Lane Frame-shall be a rigid single piece the luminaire housing. to show no appreciable fading character • • aluminum die casting.To prevent door La;a;+Socket-shall be porcelain latics within 5 years,It shall be abrasion ' racking it shall have integral cast hinges. enclosed screw shell mogul base type resistant Consult factory for other colony The frame shall hold the lens firmly In with spring loaded center contact.Metal Labeling-luminaire shall be UL listed, • ` ' ', place.Two stainless steel spring loaded halide fixtures shall have a position suitable for wet locations,CSA certified. • .1 tf quick release latches shall facilitate oriented mogul base socket OPTIONS; opening and closing or complete removal Mounting-a universal clamping system Photocontrol-shall be button type for • of the lens door without the use of tools, concealed In the luminaire housing ehall field installation in pole shaft or pole top • f. Lana-shall be thermal shock and impact accommodate 1%"or 2%"0.D.horizontal fitter.Units shall be available for 120,208, resistant,tempered clear glass.It shall be tenons without adapters or rearrangement 240 and 277 volt operation,Optional ( held firmly In the lens frame by a series of of component parts,It shall provide a W5° receptacle shall be available to accom- y` retaining clips, vertical leveling adjustment A variety of modate NEMA twist-lock pholocontrol, , � 4„ Gasketing-a closed cell,gas-filled mounting arrangements shall be available Level Indicator-shall be'mounted In lens • f'•.';'' high temperature silicone material shall for side of pole,pole-top or wall frame and shall In be designed to Interface with reflector mounting applications, luminaire tilt over and glass lens.It shall completely seal Ballast Assemblies-shall be high power degrees,It shall be I •EXHIBIT ,i factor core and coil construction-auto- distance of 50 feet transformer reactor type for 70 through r . "`, 25 DR. I*4e) . . . •. • .. '•••• ' ', . '-'''...".i ...; :.....' . ,.. . . . •''' •'---: ' ..,•'','*:..-''•'''''.',..*..,...-...''''.'''...-',.''''.'..on.•'•,•..,t,-..'' ''';,. ''. ••' .'•',,.,' '• '**, ., '., .:*.'.t.:„,. ,;*;;-. '•*'' *itritl''‘'.•'."2•'' ' • •I ;••-• ...,..:,--.,,.t:.,,,kir,-• • `.1 ', ', 'Z!'..'›i'......." ..,• , ..•..... . . ,, • - ".'',::'' *,.•••'!..,:.!.,.•!' . . , '. '.'f•..,',"' ,,,.'.,,', •': * '':'•• *'''', '"'••,• . , . -.. ,lei.''••••••';. .' '`'. •:":::.vi•It . ''•• ' , . .... .'. •fl's4:11.• *" ''''1 ,",..,...,...litt• ., ..f:,.•, .• ,, •:,i'l...4„ , i'l•,.. . ' .;. '• '' ,,'; • :. 1 ' •'.'' .- , •`i,,',Ii, . , • . .. ' ..'" ... ''.•' ' • • .... ' .' ,`...Ai . . . ,•?,'t :L... •' " " ' •.'i,' •' '7•'11 '.4 ,•. '••• n:: ' • ..... - - • . .. .. , . . . , • n• ..'',4`. "'. ,',- ' .., .,?i) *. ,. .. . ... . :. 4 , ".• ,„4.:F•' , ..„ .4. ,• - . ,. •..• ,r, , .b 4. ;b d \ ,\ 4" rf " C®0 PE12 LIGI—ITINTG PO Box 824 Vicksburg, MS 39180 08/08/90 r Photometric file: CS7152-3.IES Mounting Height= 20.0 Lumens per lamp: 20500 LLF: 0. 850�i,w r1Tilt An le= 0.0 degrees Length of Mounting Arm= ''rye �� SCALE : 1" g g 20.00 feet g0, _I- . --- ►— I c , • • I I�(i • 1 1 I iy 1 1i '- -T----• , .. • I 1 ; i - ' ' ti , It 1 1 J I ' 1 ' ' 1 . 1 + 1• I II . I O I' '1 H. * 11 I fP ., 1 . b i r 1. i I , T•--.'--- I I � ,..1 F • 1 1 1 �• ..w. Jr- 1' ( ,� II II� I �' d k. 11 rf , r r IY ' 1Itil •4 li a. • F. • • • • 4+ 26 '��' i. Legend. A= 5.00 B= 2.00 C= 1 00 D=0. 500 E-q.200 F=0.100 C=10500 M' H=.0200 J=.0100 K=.0050 1 1 *a_ V r I • h 'i A i A r1 • 1 • 1 ; C©0 PER LIGHTING ICCoNtoti . r, „ p, PO Box 824 Vicksburg, MS 39180 08/08/90 F .ntometric file: CS7152-3.1ES Lumens per lamp: 20500 LLF: 0.850 Mounting Height= 20.0 Tilt Angle= 0.0 degrees Length of Mounting Arm= 0. '`• SCALE : 1" = 20.00 feet ` `A. 1 • -- _�---,- ----._,.........1......._........ -1--.,— I - IW ! I 1 I ti 1 1 — 1 I 1 , I -•Y A + , _-•-._..�, "" '---�. ' --+'`-. _ r---•`-� -- f I ' p.. ..�.__-_ - •�_ •V it -....-'�..._ --- _--� I ,��.I•-- • Vi: , _ i - I ` I ------rf7—% „I .' . ''.1 I t -•..,_ _.1 1 1 I �w•. 1 1 I I 1'( 1 1 .g ••M I 1 / ` 1 1 J I Yilfl - - • Y�--� -W - -•-- �J,.•r�—,.y. 1 I I 1 r � , 1."..., Y 1 r-, I 11 .i. r- �' J i' r 1 • i ! 11 it , ,.' �f .I , • yyj J I r''�r.•I h i. w 1 I I 1 a,Y� .yam,` • •,/I',+ 'I II I ��'1 11, • 4 y.. Tr I \ !,` ~-dry- ! , IJ I r;11 Ir ,/;1,' I I +Y. -ti. ��` 1r i 4. \I. 1 I� •- I r, I / r I I I I 40 fi (! r" •`t i -'. rrr. I«yqr I ✓ liw 27 • Legend: A= 5.00 8= 2.00 C= 1.00 D=0.500 E=0.200 F=0.100 G=.0500 H=.0200 =.0100 K=.0050 Office of the Mayor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 y j Mayor Schlenker, We have recently moved back to Oregon after four years in New ; JerseY. In those four years on the East Coast, we had the opportunity to experience the best and the worst of city planning. After the crucial mistakes made in the larger New Jersey cities , the "rural" towns made a real (and successful ) effort to preserve ti and protect the beauty of the land and the quality of life for the citizens . Moving to Lake Oswego was an easy transition. . .your city is noted for it ' s excellent schools , small town feeling and intelligent development. Please, help this city maintain the balance between progress, growth and quality living. ' I live in the Westlake area . The major "draws" during our house hunting trips were the plans for a grade school within walking distance and the feel of the neighborhood created by the wooded areas , quiet streets and walking .� beauty and neighborhood atmosphreafor �whichtLake Oswegoe g �isd the noted ., This seemed to be a safe place in which to rear children. Now we discover that our child may not be permitted to attend the grade school which will be less than three blocks from our home. Whatever planning was done for the school district did not take into consideration the plans of the developers . The homes in this neighborhood are of the 3 to 5 bedroom size that ap eal to with growing families . To build a school that willonlyenroll i, 500 students was somewhat short-sighted. The next issue of concern deals with the commercia.l wooded area on Westlake Drive at Park. The commercialilplanof the • includes a 7-11 store, a parlor will create potential trafficahazards ifdthe "strip an mall" plans to Westlake Drive, opens on left turn so the pizza/arcade rand lconvenience and in lstor ake rtva prevents a drive up and into the residential areas . Traffic rist already raffic cauld major concern due to the residential buildin and required to Kruse Way and/or 15 . g probable access Lake Oswego could make a showcase out of the Westlake area, We take pride in our neighborhood. We know that the city needs to have commercial zones to generate revenue, • Ferr are Kruse Way and Boones Y� good examples of rapid commerical growth. We also know that there are businesses that could be wooed into our area that wouldn ' t add to the already ` destroy the woodsy, growing traffic problems and wouldn' t with far -sighted mographichstudiesLandea littlealso know that • schools can be planned for that will not be overcrowded fbefore ' ' . the ground has even been broken. at EXHIBIT . ., r 13 +Q , `- r , r rt • • •• • We loved the idea of a safe, quiet and beautiful neighborhood 4110 ', .. " where people take walks in the evenings and stop to chat with friends . . .a place where kids could ride their bikes to school and play ball in the street. ' Mayor Schlenker, please evaluate carefully any plans or y�recommendations for Westlake. Weigh the t . '1 with whatever tax base an arcade or conven y iencestore of lwouldfe sadd to ' the Lake Oswego coffers . We do not want to create another Gresham or Beaverton. We have the chance to enhance Lake Oswego, to add to it ' s richness, a chance to create a model neighborhood where N. safety and beauty are the determining factors for planning, development and decision making. Thank you for your time, please visit our area and nee the potential. . .both positive and negative. 1 . • Stephanie Campion 5435 SW Westfield Court • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 a o. ,ter o `n , ' • ;'.+ H r. . • Fro • 1`1r• 1r1`��`� • r. �j, 'illR}r4 „s f .> March 13 1991 &was) ITnCN-scatrielc= Robert Galante REEDWE J Staff Coordinator Development Review Board ' ' •, City of Lake Oswego,Or. 97034 [APR r1'5 Dear Sir. We are responding to the Notice of Public Hearing Case File No; DR " 13-90, applicant Green Street Architecture, Owner J. Michael Moody, et al. L • . We strongly oppose the three uses mentioned in the notice; •• ' 9y a. 11,000 square foot retail use. Many retail establishments already exist within easy access. This family neighborhood . • .. does not need stores that might bring drugs or gangs. That has happened in other areas. • :t.` • ' b. 17,800 square foot office use. One only has to look around the . :.:' area to see "for lease" signs on many existing office complexes. It would appear that more office space is not needed. f •, c. 6,200 square foot daycare use. It is hard to imagine parents would be willing to leave children in an area where they would be so close to such other facilities, One wonders about the outside `4 play area es well as other safety considerations. The owners of this property might put it to better use if they b considered construction of single family homes that would compliment .. " and fit into an already choice part of the city. • it We feel that any commercial use of said property would careatly detract from tho, area and cause safety and traffic problems that wound not be consistent with a choice family neighborhood. We ask for your careful consideration of this matter. T Thank you y • +. • ,. j' .. , 0 ig EXHIBIT • Gordon and Le Landgren ' 5758 S W Charles Cir • 311 , , '�. Lake Onw go, Or. 97035 D` 1.3-Gq 6 , r I •. • - * • iy t � • • • • i • 1 • • • • T tl • / • • • • • • • • Y. M • t• • 4 1 • •• • ' APRIL 15 , 1991 • FILE: DR 13-90 FROM: RAY AND LAURA SAHLBERG (TAX LOT 06400) 14489 CAMDEN LANE LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 7, i. G !c;_ 380 "A" STREET, P. O. BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 • SUBJECT : YOUR FILE NO. DR 13-90, DEVELOPMENT : 'A � ;A CORNER OF PROPERTY AT CORNER OF WESTLAKE DRIVE AND PARKVIEW AVE. DEAR BOARD: • Y. AS NEW MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND RECENT PURCHASERS OF A RESIDENCE IN THE "PARK AT WESTLAKE" , WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS ' • OPPORTUNITY TO COMMEND AND PRAISE THE BOARD IN ALL IT"S PREVIOUS DECISIONS REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR DECISION TO PURCHASE A RESIDENCE AND BECOME A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY WAS CERTAINLY BASED ON THE RESULTS OF ALL THE GOOD PLANNING AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE TURNED THIS PART OF • LAKE OSWEGO INTO SUCH AN OUTSTANDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OF LIFE LIVING IN THIS AREA IS UNSURPASSED. QUALITY : NOW THAT QUALITY OF LIFE MAY BE DIMINISHED BY A COMMERCIAL • DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS BEING PROPOSED AND WHICH WOULD HAVE IT'S " EASTERN PROPERTY LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENCE.PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF OUR RESIDENCE, IT WAS GENERALLY MADE KNOWN TO US THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING THE ADJACENT VACANT LOT ry ...' . AND ENVIRONS INTO SOME MANNER OF A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, SO, WE ARE NOT COMPLETELY TAKEN BY SURPRISE THAT SUCH AN EVENT MIGHT BE A FORTHCOMING, s'' HOWEVER, AFTER HAVING SEEN THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED DRAWINGS COMPRISING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND PHYSICAL LAYOUT ARISE FROM THIS SCHEME WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY DECISION REGARDING IT'S ACCEPTANCE IS REACHED. WE HAVE DIVIDED THESE QUESTIONS INTO TWO CATEGORIES , THEY ARE THOSE QUESTIONS THAT AFFECT US IN PARTICULAR AND THOSE THAT AFFECT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL, QUESTIONS AFFECTING US IN PARTICULAR; • • 1 . WHAT IS THE MINIMUM SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE c ' EASTERN PROPERTY LINE? 2 , WHAT ARE Ts'� CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF " n A TWO STORY STRUCTURE? A TWO STORY STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THE • WESTERN SIDE OF OUR HOME AND GARDEN AREA WILL CUT OFF • SUBSTANTIALLY ANY SUNSHINE AVAILABLE DURING THE DAY TO THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN EXPOSURES OF OUR PROPERTY MAKI NG ITV r . EXHIBIT/ 315 - ._.. m ' DP -1b a • , v k a DIFFICULT TO GROW PLANTS AND REDUCING THE FIELD OF VISION WE NOW .0 :I% .' ENJOY. 3 . WHAT CONDITIONS MAY BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING IN ORDER THAT WE DO NOT LOOK OUT OUR WINDOWS AND PERCEIVE THE } BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING COMPLETE WITH ALL IT'S AUXILIARIES AND GARBAGE CANS , AND GENERALLY UNPLEASANT ASPECTS? 4 . WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL NOISE LEVEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE STRUCTURE? • ,. r QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL: 1 . WHAT EFFECT WILL THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY? A : DO WE NEED A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF , ' WESTLAKE DRIVE AND PARK VIEW AVE , ? IT MUST BE GENERALLY CONCEDED *' THAT THIS INTERSECTION IN CERTAINLY BLIND FROM THE LEFT WHEN 4., . DEPARTING FROM PARKVIEW AVE . AND WITH ADDITIONAL FLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCIDENTS WILL INCREASE. B: WILL THE PROPOSED SECOND ACCESS FROM WESTLAKE DRIVE CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS? `° C: COMBINED WITH THE EXTENSION OF PARKVIEW AVE . TO THE o F EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT NOW UNDER WAY THERE, WHAT .• EFFECT WILL THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW HAVE? D: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BIKE PATH ALONGSIDE WESTLAKE � • :RIVE? 2 . HAS THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF A WETLAND AREA BEEN THOROUGHLY EXPLORED? 3 . WHAT EFFECT UPON THE LIFE OF THE REMAINING TREES WILL a THERE BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE USE OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT POSSIBLY DAMAGING ROOT SYSTEMS AND THE NEED FOR REMOVAL ZIT MANY TREES REQUIRED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS • :ND PARKING AREAS? WE ARE CERTAIN THAT ALL OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH AND .:'.IRROUNDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED '.:ERE , HOWEVER, WE DO HOPE THAT THE BOARD IN IT'S WISDOM WILL ' LENDER A DECISION THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE BEAUTY, UTILITY, AND QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE AS RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW ENJOY. VERY TRULY YOURS, RAY SAHLBERG v LAURA SAHLBERG , 410 ' -: , riMr„ ,\ April 24, 1991 5336 Coventry Ct Lake Oswego, OR 97035 TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Ar 2 5 ir2a1 4 City of Lake Oswego City Fall Pest Office Box 369 k Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Menders of Development Review Board: h • ,<<a The way of life in Lake Oswego with the beautiful trees and planned area appealed to our family when we were seeking a home. We are very disappointed that so many of the very old ash/oak stands of trees are being disturbed due to development. The site at Parkview and West Lake is an example. We strongly reconunend that you disapprove the proposed site development due to the fact that these trees will be endangered. There is no substitute for 200 year old trees • and certainly nothing a person can plant will take their place. Even if some are retained, as the developer sets forth, they will be endangered because their roots and support growth will be removed. The Lake Oswego comprehensive plan, we believe, states that there should be a buffer between any commercial development and single family homes. This buffer .� would be duplex units or row houses or the like. We strongly urge that the ':, i commercial development, as presented, be rejected. , e rl We also want to go on record as opposing the design of the proposed commercial ,r development on tt•,�e Parkview/West Lake site. All the homes in the area have r either tile or shake roofs and r. rb r siding. We urge that any use of this site be compatible with the surrounding homes and improve the area rather than be a detriment to the home values in the area. Our last concern and certainly not the least is of the increase in traffic on West Lake. Currently we have a serious problem with the number of cars traveling this route. Two hundred additional hoeees in one development and many more in • another will in pact the current stress on traffic. A school and fire station have already been built and contribute to the increase in traffic. If you add a commercial site where the developer forecasts another 1500 cars per day, it will greatly affect our way of life. 4 . We strenuously urge this development be rejected on the above grounds. We enjoy living in this community; however, if trees and traffic and design are not . •• • important to the people who run the government, soon this community will not be desirable to anyone. We are really disappointed that development seems to be the focus of the current administration rather than quality of life. • Sincerely, • EMer•y and Mary Ann Sundberg ,1 EXHIBIT Ita . . ., ':. . 4 . Y ' H • 1 i I • p' ,, t� �lP; f f I \ ti 1 j t o;• it c l 1 I , .Y , �1� � � ,, . i : � i 1 . • ,� . n , �Y STAFF REPORT ''t r KE OSWEGO , . . .. „ •. ..., , „ , k ;` --------PLANNING DI'VISION APE .IcANT• BOOR/A Architects , DR 7-90(Mod.3-91 PROFF.RTv n )/VAR 8-91 Lake Oswego School District Hamid PishvaieLEC ' LAL1/ESCRIPTION: DATE OF • • .., 1�FPO_RT; Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC April 1991 " pCDN_ r HFAg��; DAMQ ti Northeast corner of the intersection of Melrose May 6, 1991 P Street and Kin gsgate , , • j MR EI laiB RIB D AS�C)rre�rrr.,,l. / ti, � P. P AN DELI_ GE N �: Bonita 1 R-5 Z NING DESI NATI . R-5 • ' �, T'S The applicant is it questing approval of a modification to condition A,10. of t ' approval, and a Class I variance to increase the height of the the field from 6 feet to 12 feet, g proposed fence around the soccer IL APP I ABLE RF[rI7I ATIpNS A. ev oam „,tsosI.t LOC 48.090 LOC 4 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49,325-4q,335 Authority to Approve Changes in Development Permits LOC 49.500-49,510 Major Development Procedures �.r ' � LOC 49,615 Variances LOC 49,65 Criteria for Approval Conditional Approval DR 7-90(Mod,3-91)/VAR 8-91 Page 1 of 4 - t r + ar er. Iv , Y • • B. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards 10.005-10.040 Fences r''. FINDINGS: A. Background: • 1. The applicant is seeking approval to modify condition A.10. of the original approval and is seeking a Class I variance to incretse the fence height, around the soccer field, • V from 6 feet to 12 feet in order to provide better ball containment along Melrose • j Street. The original staff report (pages 12-13)provides some background ' information on this issue,Exhibit 8. The school is currently under construction, and as of April 23, 1991, the project was • •h approximately 70% complete. • 2. The Development Review Board approved DR 7-90 (Oak Creek Elementary School) On June 18, 1990, subject to 21 conditions. The findings, conclusions and order is attached as Exhibit 9. On November 19, 1990, the Development Review Board approved several modifications to conditions A.15. and A.16. of the original approval, regarding the storm drainage and sidewalk location. The findings,conclusions and order is attached as Exhibit 10. B, compliance with Criteria for Approvilj The proposed modification to condition A.10. does not meet the LOC 49.125 criteria to administratively review the request, because the proposed change in the fence height affects a condition that was specifically imposed on DR 7-90 by the Development Review Board, LOC 49,125(4). Therefore, the applicant's requests are being heard before the Board. LOC 49.615 states that..or any development application to be approved, it shall comply with the following regulations and criteria: • 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 requests, as evidenced by the exhibits, 44' 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that • the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan; • The Comprehensive Plan concerns have already been addressed as part of the original development review approval in DR 7-90, Exhibit 9. Nothing requested in these , modifications affect compliance with the Plan policies. • , b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations, including: • DR 7-90(Mod,3-91)/VAR 8-91 Page 2 of 4 .. Zoning Ordinance (LOC Chapter 48) The site is zoned R-5, high density residential. All applicable zone requirements been adequately addressed by the original approval in DR 7-90,Exhibit 9. Nothinghave requested in these modifications affect compliance with these standards. /�, b. The applicable Development Standards All the development standards have been addressed as part of the original development approval,Exhibit 9. The development standard applicable to this proposal is addressed below: —Fences (10.005-10.040) As Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 9 illustrate, Condition A.10. requires that a 6' fence be installed around the proposed soccer field, along the south property line on Melrose Street, except adjacent to the wetlands. Originally, the applicant had proposed a 4' fence for this area; however, due to concerns for student safety, the Board increased the fence height from 4' to 6'. The play field is a regulation size soccer field, designed to accommodate both adults and r ' children. Given the fact that the facility will be used by both adults and children, the applicant now feels that a taller fence is needed to increase protection from errant balls �' entering Melrose Street. The applicant's request is supported by Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 12. a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; • The applicant states that the hardship is created by the regulation soccer field being `' constructed too close to Melrose Street, Exhibit 12, The need this site was demonstrated to the Board duringthe original hearingi regon ulation play fieldbit on, Given the importance of preserving the significant resources present on the site, includingc 9 wetlands and tree groves, staff find that there is no alternative site to construct the play field except at the southwest area, as proposed by the applicant. Due to the proximity of this field to Melrose, staff agrees with the applicant that the fence height should be increased to prevent the errant balls from entering the road. \'. b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to { be affected by the request; Due to the location and orientation of the play field and the fence along Melrose Street, staff believes the only impact on the neighborhood will be a visual impact. As Exhibits 4, 7 and 8 illustrate, this impact can be mitigated by appropriate landscaping and screening • between the fence and the 4' boulder retaining wall along Melrose Street, Due to the grade differential in this area, as seen on Exhibit 8, staff recommends that the proposed 4. shrubs be planted closer to the fence so that the screening effect can be maximized, Staff ' also recommends that the fence be vinyl coated in either black or dark green color to further reduce the visual impact. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; The National Federation of State High School Associations Soccer Rule Book does not r w ` ; prescribe any official height for fences, However, the proposed 12' fence is consistent DR 7-90(Mod.3-91)/VAR 8-91 Page 3of4 ` r 1 x o, :� • � r u + o. '. • 7 d' t .tire. .. • with the existing fences at North Palisades Elementary School on ' " '•4 practice field), and at Lake Oswego High School on Coun Green tree Road (a fi? `. In addition, the City Police De g Country Road(a baseball filed), • � " "- reasons, partment ur es the Board to a prove the request for safety 4110 . '"), d. The request is not in conflict with the Cornpr•ehensive Plan. No conflict with the Plan exists because the applicant's request has been provisions and Development Standard whicht demonstrated to comply with all other Code fences. are applicable to d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. M. Concha:um Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings re staff concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable criteria, IV. RR O;yiMFuA T i;iv Staff recommends approval of DR 7-90(Mod, 3-91)NAR 8-91 condition; • , subject to the following 1.4 A. Continue to comply with all conditions of approval of DR 7-90 and DR 7-90(Mod.9— B. ri o I suance of a Buil n0 : .,:. . 1. Submit a revised landscape plan showing the shrubbery-planted closerr , fence in order to provide maximum screening and buffering alongMel to rose he proposed s Street. • 2. The fence shall be vinyl clad in either black or dark Ex I green colors, • • 1. Tax Ma 2'. Vicinity Map Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan ` Grading and Erosion Control Plan 6. Melrose Elevation Soccer Field/Fence Site Plan ' 8. Cross—section "A" 9. DR 7-90-781 Findings, Conclusion and Findings 1t• DR 7-90(Mod,9_90)-832—Findings, Conclusion and Findings 1 tY Pages 12-13 of Photos of the Examples of"Multiple Decks" on the 12. Applicant's Narrative 13. Memorandum by D. Gary Evans, dated April 2, 1991 Lake to get down to water 1 furtnbK7-90(Mad.3-90 0 . — • DR 7—;d(Mod.3_91)/VAR 8-91 Page4of4 ,• • 4. • • ' 34`.• a 45 4.4 a 1.I !3 ti� 0 ti3 0 I\ r ` I rj I taw, • • o/ �2►' I I• '36r� ' -, • .. , '\1 ' ¢ AD9O • 41 }o ! \ t .IO I X4.: ile'y9 d) - �+ 4 0,N I I 39k12 a 2ktpI 5 G A Cio i , . 37r �� ; ' 'tr.. %Aill i 41•tr- :i! 2+ •• Kf. 'jj°t410. .r ^. •rr • ;x r • QV.61z 791 ' •, t ` c j^' yam c` • - • �— r• - "t � 1' .4. .•� l • t J: yk r . 13 11.,.1,Z , 7 e.0000, ,ts;., . / ,.:;",.''; t , + ~h $•. ti —. :, ' e 40 4. 'It, (J8 _ a ,,. . 4 .; id EXHIBIT 2 04 70NaZlsl�, 15 ft .. /y'r+"1..1 .��tt I ICI 1 1 _ .il t J ,t 7 t ttl--i' • fl, 1 S.( 1 J 1/ P., ":. ', ...•.•..'', ,,,i .,i;,,7'...*..*4'.• C+ :'t ,,`•1'( •‘ t tilt. + t,•:.' 1ti•4 !..r.t.i ' . • L• •.•4 P.,'et,.'-' p •.L t., t • yy L ,t) _..' s . M - • i` , a.,tl f.?I,< •' S + 1 •\ tt t £ t•wl•�' �I••. `,, I tf >.v,1' , K ' -�-..ti �'. .t tKI " v f s t� r r t • •.ZIT:..:'... .-' II' .., Yen\'',,,,,,...,•'"•:... ,:'',....,). 1:...!.. e.fW..', 4...* s.t., .q. • .* . • y. T I� . .tt , L +t7ty. -11 ' '•i•.. S •• ° t t ` ?\• 1~t�e.Y , y,�f; r If i.'" .1 ..,.„, 111 • _.l it �,t C \ •••••M • 1. ' tit. .. �1•� y.,I 1,^ t44:0.,, »tt •f • ,i W,t�r•< tr.•• //'-'O� - ^ t •:-............ •�,• .y- 1>` 1 7 h fib` .e,- ��,s. ,�y�j\ I:b4 ♦ ,.. ,.CIS. -'1 ! 7nt • :`1.fir'•t ;:. •~;/..4 4 y. *�o�`,tos.;;. : ,hY:►0�t7.)•t::k�,,d• /'•;-• ` 1° 1. � \ js; ,. I • ... •Ift i.t , 2( +Y>..,i> K �wt ..t..y.f}f•'f r` ?ier 1�'l l + • �i �{ 'fin,: •r. ! S., !' • AEI ��t.�i,i4.t �•'••:Fkf' • 1, •• 51, ISZ. • �� rfr 'c'"ra�,ft=x.._�- --,;;.e. •_ 1.p .Wit_ ` ` \ 1 1.,•: • 44) :IF /ll • *A' I ,': t 1 Iy.Srs • II �v V ` //+i t Y,t y'S i,.s* c wig ��•y( If . i i t i t. ,..e hj.V I'. • 1T' 7 Y 1 • tit ��.�— �r • • • tt •..,.:;� ` --`' 1/ .%t lif/• ., , Ali. ' tt •� ,�—•: • • f V - en/ p+ tf7...'„mow,. .. .'i�i •!• •• i , .7 • y t .riVkr, it •ui+J del 1-1- .... '� ..'.-' 0 i. , • �. r ti r .. t t t. I,^Z.. '1 • '.y tls t. • I�' .7 1 I. .6ii j.. _ „=;t • • • o NiilA6 y • �f r�i • '7s1` .f ti••• y i�+.... r i{4 •t• R .t . b �,' + w �� ......� 1, t 1,.',Z 4'. �S 1• ill• 'ri ►R ,y.: 1 r'..t t Att.' .y x1ts1#f'..g .1 t , .(.•+ ` « _,. 4 .ts0" I,L'' 1 t '2' �'► M7t�rt � y utl7•�6cMu� �i�lll • _ , • tttosrwwa,,,, 7 �7 b d.. ,. � .' w...,M. ` -. �t iw /;Y1w. �:i� ��Z 'ti�w. v'Ai' �._' 1 .. 0 0 0 ' • 1• BOO.V/ k .I •IJtIS f .1(h\ l•` ..0,,�., ....... _ _.�_—'_'r,...�•-.^..<. 't""..�� "'' ``• ...• 1 .. .+ Iii w.• . ,.+ I 1 -Il ff''' .,1. 1 •• •• 'tf•�• .� •II• ,R+i, 1 V • ; 1• { 4 W ec.. 4:0 P.[.weftr,b MV. I,.1 ,1, :-��,=- . '" 41 ,,, - I 1. 1 f v.i n.,.�l.a 7vb.m!i✓nbt'd jI V+' _ t.,... :-: , ,...�y� r _� „ --''�,'" r . J Ivy,N ' 1. 'WESTLAKE r J na / 6 1 i ,k o•� r •/•/ r • • �' del )In+,.. '' .,, ''• 0 • • y y. f;� I. ' 4. It I I fill . • • 61 • • ,..may i. 'r«� 'I • :� �"'I I . 4. • • t 6.411.1.A....r...".'''''I' ." . ,,,. • c-t �>_ v. „�,.,,ti•v,r+rr '-<'•'a i'.'[+1�""" 11+)y9]t �_ (. I:..., ........• L • .+ • qua:It 1 „' .p' e' a +Y;; . K 'Ya , . N Gonofal Site • • 11dti Ii—T. 3,, 4 Z I l , 1 t I f V own. j••i ,1 , Y l 1.I. r _ 1 I _ C 1.. aL • w+ t h i. I h•�n+r1¢w�,.a,�w.s� ill,F=1+N414�.uu,l..w,y. .II lysu..tu..aa,..-...+ !`. • �.•.r a.w.+L.'....�,•a _. �. J I..w.. nw„.... I..•y....r 111...wnr.w..whyNstY II.... 1 , ."•_1•..•1•t�.t�•%....NW .,1....,,.r..v.rv'._ __ ,..,1i+ an:... __ > _. .ItJ•+w-..•ram. I.r., >•ti4A a O'Y� 1I A / ,-.11"��-+....00 Fr.... n • •• I'A. V � •. � .. r.) `O.ner Plant Lld wa._..�. I"• .;�1.�!.n... 1 r ,. •to e > • 1 nYTL7J �Y µ i �1' ,. •,.. r..^ rl. '=� ' I WESTLAKE �• , ..t- l.r•" y't�� �� art:.�.:sr,:.•^•,,. .. ' ^; ,_.......4,....,,,„,....„L c \ .. ....,==,,t—...r.t." " 4 4 _.Wtw..t lm.. .. .1 r.. 't• �� A .. •yM. 1 "�,1 ,. rn1Y..q. s_.. x� . n. ..r. .L^ ' A,,, I..�Y.. • -hi•' �y "•' . •, 1'<ALK�A .w YK • 1., .. .. __....1 +u ..,.t 1 .�1 1' n.r• r'tC..a. r �b'""� /� -�'l lt��l, .'+..�s uu •• '• .. hA 1 (• � 1 9,, is s t3n:s s �.fJ „„, i ' v �F�t I t-..ura. �' t,': �1111 ... . % j9' f�r4 �•'s y l.o•r..n.all 1 • C ,.(•, 11 W.it.nd piflI rid.nll.ni v If ..I..' ,. ,�> `� .l �. \ y1' Air. 1'i Yi..M n.ni.w..,W1 W ., ...y.... I. ( 1 e.� .,,r'lM �N.Ya " �� �` 1 r �; ' l L, •_ .,. ...,.a..ray ...,1:0 1«1 �a 1. n 'L. ».1 (r+ (CI. ti94Lf.`.. ly.11 nI .r..»1 h w1.. •. . )1 .. li ' Iti.), l•. 1 A kr ( I\' • IY 1 .p 01 el I `-•,%- ' r 4 1 P r .rl- t:. �..- sp1i JJ y I' ,. r al nu..rart.......r Ji r..,.a.u.h.....%. ` t.I41 wnit Y.„r,p.!flt..,ega..� 1 1t1 t'.a......Vh Y..F.<dti ..,x .... .. .._. 11N6AD•Ievenne,N.!. » r) +.w..M..,..I.a."h.tt 4144w,... 4.41....... wsf.avl. ..0,01100 11 wnd..iwLnL a.a,n, e�11 �.e,la...,,,,r1.r 41 tii 1 .':7 x.w r ,04.6.4. k.+r•��1... t♦ 4.41404.14.0.4.1A,v Plnntri Plan Y . t r .. tl t J d A w • w J er„;,r F�'%I:?ti1v.. w • I - J .. w 1 Y: r t 1 111, I . xf f 0 • v 1 • , , • f 1:11,III1 II • ' l!t ' IlIll I11 • .�. 1 - ?�• ar• 15p�` ,U v•' -s[1.•j _ �I i,.. ,. _ ,, .,...r.,.,- i....i. ft40,1 4.4.00 I,INi111W 1:) .z -; ==-: \ IBAVA Tr »t:, w,ur: • w f1.r ti f •,;.,, r 1L ti t9l aa4 I;. ,,,,,,,,,,n Ia 4. • 1 I ,{IIL.L,e ,:L. ._•r 11 1j -.J `,.�` - •Mb I's' ,. ) r ��'• tte • II n.+....u. «tL7'r 1 11 oil Ill t ij�� • } I , 1, i, 1• hlilii%M 1111 1f,4111 101 4 `'ttPi ' 1'' ''TT,' 3 i Il\ 1,,, (r• ,i ratlh;1,:' •\ , 0!,)11:Y POP rr we 11.1 „r IZt.�• w„',"1. ,L• Irl .•IL) 1,...,;;,1 •�y4I. ~'✓ 51 « H�1:.,..1`r], \'�.L``��\ I 1 , r• h `, C1 y! -.-- i A. ~fiK.- ,`.0 \ F[7,)¢ffan.M PNro . If., .,, �„ ` , YNM AiII -• '10i ` 4ii ` tipla . 4� rtl,l P''f" PDX kkt \' I •11`� N IIa'' µ�yy 1 ,rp • ! .�! 1 T" A. i •• 1•y,... / T1hv Nee CTC. N>. Atli(' i'a''i'I�IIIIII1f I t__. Iwr .�. ` .4 "-M 1/� hN h.11 Y!•}R 1 hw ,1,� I • ,II li ..�J ........ ....... 1011L7 MUY.t11 MN7N1 1 ,1, -. S 11, 1t... ' �L MM 4114 �:a` «,.xt 1' t. .. ? 1 ' 1; �,, f ► _h •ri, . +L,L. 1 r LAKE ( SWEGO 1J ca: 1111 "lr. �4. 1!1 ;,. ' fI I C i r r t , i ELEMENTARY L�'Ary '`V IrN NN ,rNN- LM Y ` '+ a,�R' _ 1 / 1 i SCHOOL\ tt i 11 i t t �Y C• 1 • i',- " :%a Yr x�; Luke OS L` �� rL1 w• >t 1 ,� Jan,► ,+, • .F:+. • �' n� 't . ..,„ •. ' w ,r I rrr,✓ �y xt I. �,i • . , „. + 1 4 y} 1• =L::.r 1 • School District J J. .H 1,1 I �, i,ll. N. '7 «i • ..r•....t...v.. ',Till \1 r'r.l;,ll� ( • I r.`, • +. • 4vl1, J.,.nw.l r .,I Lr` - �"' yr r �'. 4 iq'.r cun.N 41M n t41Y • • ;' y •„ . i.. 1• 1 ' ,,,III „IIVr f ' �1`N Ntl/ n 1 . of ,� .I I• i .,c' 1 1• 71. . • , .JS.Y 11 • 1 i ?i»s x ,,/ ff 11 �11,1 . ♦,w.. 'a..."1 \ a....f 1. :•,1.n./ �'i Y4..ILL'rw°,-.,-.` . �. _ I ... ,»„ ,. •. r .. .:.�..1 •N. .. iILL , i •.t. r_ __�_. / 11f!fYl .. Lmpulflf Ylullun Cunl,ul -- .-.. ►tW D$q.nnr. K.1. wt ;• •Nr ,.1.,/, 13..ap l.y...1 r GRADING r„✓i & a ; 1 I s i f .�.. /. j+ t EROSION st �I /I `` y �, CONTROL PLAN 1 1•G I L•C.1 ifl1` ,i.: 11 u! 71.11.u"..1,« w . .h .,, . r • • 9 ... 1 d'p:uw.,W.wailil pn iWl+ IS,il'��yu.w toot f',ieul Wwlp 1fM J ...,,.ty• .j w'`./. ' . T rC tt a___. ............ . '''''',.':',...',..'..':.','...:.'',.,,.'..:.'.''.''', _ . o ti,. w r:, a . . \\• 1 I _.. . ...... ... . . , . , ........ t , , . .. .t., . • • , . . .. . . • , • ......... .. . , . .. • . , . .. . . "„, /,K., ., . �- / 4/ • • • ri . 'c. \ , ' / -..„, i / . , . . ... ,_ / f---bizeloo 1=k021-4 ,\,‘.:, , ____\.)__., is.. --"`-. ' •Y ' e ., \\*. os, >. k t 4t �"' { 7 0.,• ' me-Koss' oi...0\scroi-t ,,,_ 4.0,...,„t, , . . . . . , • _ , • i . , • . , • • d EXHIBIT •0 0 ,It..,,,,=1,,,,,,,t),,,i .. . k;y 0 . 0 010011 • e�'7t tillfrl 1•( ..s ayryv .. 3s0 ...—�' ..•.��r- . • Yll.11('71N1 1 �a 11Yf1M4O II4Wf Ytl ��_,r..---- IfJf II NIO O.1/7011�10 ....�-�M iw nIp11 fa{71f11/f litN/(1 MAMMA -r•-• Llc6'WIZ at-M. S 1x - ® bit 05'7 a, 1 I \ 11 . I/11 WO 'erG ) •••♦, t ll'it ' •`. l� It - .• • •• . ... , .. 1. 41,0 t!HI I,dt ,ram .r` + . /2_6 itiat, / d�ttl'va6' �. I ia.a' •• 1 GLOEvt t ►� !�, Wita^-- r fg iid ' ��j, I 7 �I �J �d l// sl.00 '0 Titill~ .7.48 2_;.00 / _ I Ohl , 1 ,/it • 01-0) A°.' II// ! !I/7. t 17 N1gdf. • 4.41 J.,.12fro1 1 .4 . In 7 . .._... . .. _ _ C ,yGt�sr , � EXiileiT ..._. ...... . ..__________...._ . • 1, .. . . ',oil', 1 ` ; 7 ., , i M1 �� 1 ` 1 J �a VP d cv,Ir.lYp.m .':.. �4I it i-AnIf LJVtJI\// i r,. , /`-n //y./�//�r, r /b �rt -NeeO.>' •I` ) ro ii:iYiwiil'o'°° ;'•` '.1. e" M1L/ / `� —W L' 1YrMM WI II/YII/ r 1,0114114.1.111 1 / min" 12" PM. l_firg CSi 1560 Cow. pm. Lit. $G44001, rizeirtigtv l�/ ice 01057 01• ' s? ,e7.1 A Rol BOVUARt Rb17 lG*N 1(D E 137 6 �'�/ALIi �dUL 6 NBNZ It RU�Otf n iz--1A/ CbMPfka P �U.(MIN.) / .. ..„...... AND $T1K��IJ�J III roanANa On ! . FAI-TeRti ai. WAY 00114,---lp: ..._____ g 4.. OF (.) . , '')(15111-16 ,„,,,o/„." rf-toTAF-61,—\ -+ E , Anf/ft I , -' ""h'. } III '� rnN�Nc 10 / 1,1sr:: ochio ) • ..: Ali 04° I ' !h a014 .:. •�K. ..1'..,,v'd*.0. J '^.wl"� YdYMrou E ( '~' , ' : �u-6 i EXN161T en. �. �� �1 -� " 1V1 Iri 6 1`Z 1 w r.AIrit.1VA .,� 01 IY 1 • I • 1' BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ) DR 7-90-781 6 TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC ) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ) FINDINGS,CONCLU School ION District 7J) 7 S & ORDER B . _ NATURE OF APPLICATION 4 10 The applicant is seeking approval to construct an elementary school. The site is located at ' 11 Melrose and Kingsgate, otherwise described as Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC ' 12 • e ' 13 HEARINGS • 14 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its 15 meeting of May 21, 1990. 16 17 18 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 19 Urban Service Policies . 20 General Policy III 21 Impact Management Policies 22 General Policy I General Policy II 23 General Policy III 24 Wildlife Habitat Policies 25 General Policy II • i A t • 26 Weak Foundation Soil Policies 27 General Policy I 8 General Policy IV 29 Wetland Policies 0 General Policy I . General Policy II ' 31 Stream Corridor Policies 32 General Policy I 33 General Policy II -• General Policy III • • 34 PAGE 1 DR 7-90--78.1. :'1 EXHIBIT al . i pz 7.q o._"rU. 11,/ ' V 2 • ,ic ,�. y• ' • i e i� r °• ' , • • Social Resource Policies General Policy I _ General Policy V 41 Protection Open Space Policies b f= General Policy I Bikeway Policies General Policy I A .., Pedestrian Pathway Policies c General Policy I General Policy II Transportation Policies General Policy I General Policy VI r B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: y= LOC 48.120-48.155 R-5 Zone Description LOC 48.530 ,� Vision Clearance C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance s 1 LOC 49.300-49,335 Major Development Procedures 0 'LOC 49.615 .a Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval. • D, City of Lake Oswego Development Standards.: f w 2.005 —2.040 t i , Building Design 3.005—3.040 4 Stream Corridors • 4.005 —4.040 Wetlands 2 5,005 —5.040 Street Lights 2 . 6.005 —6.040 Transit System f 7.005 —7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 2` 8.005 —8.040 Park and Open Space , • 9,005 —9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering r • `4' 10,005 -- 10.040 Fences 49 11.005 — 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development .. ' C 13.005 — 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 — 14.040 Utility Standard 3 16.005 — 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005 — 18,040 Access Standard 3 19.005 — 19,040 Site Circulation —Private Streets/Driveways 33 20,005 -•20.040 Site Circulation —Bikeways and Walkways • 34 E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance:• 4 .r • LOC 55,080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits PA� 2 DR 7-90-781 a .w '• r a ,fie e • yy • • r r.r 0:•• 1 • • a N. 2 F. City Charter, Section 46A: • Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas ! 4 '. 5 CONCLUSION s, ' 6 �"• The Development Review Board concludes that DR 7-90 complies with all of the applicable criteria and standards. The Board also concludes that the conditions of approval imposed .+i herein will insure that the applicable criteria will continue to be satisfied. 8 g FINDINGS AND RE, 'Linn �" 10 The Development Review Board adopts the May 11, 1990 staff report and the May 21, 1990 11 supplemental staff report on DR 7-90 as support for its,decision, attached herein as Exhibits 12 A and "B". • 33 In addition to the staff fine" °►g adopted and incorporated herein, the Board makes the following findings to suppear;' its conclusion that all applicable criteria and procedures have 14 been satisfied: 15 1. The following exhibits were presented to the Board at the hearingof y21 entered into May 1 990 and 16 the record: 77 • Exhibit 34 Letter by D. Gary Evans (City of Lake Oswego, Department of Parks, Recreation and Open Space), dated May 18, 1990. 18 Exhibit 35 Letter by Gvido E. Zakovics, dated May11 ,.,'2, , 19 Exhibit 36 A preliminary 1990. capacity investigation of the Melrose Lift Station, dated 20 21 May 1990, Exhibit 37 Revised Mitigation Plan, dated May 18, 1990. • 22 Exhibit 38 Colored Rendering of the Revised Wetland Mitigation, , • • �,<• . 23 Exhibit 39 Outdoor Open Space in Lake Oswego Elementary Schools, dated May 'i• ••a. ;; 24 21, 1990. 25 , Exhibit 40 Colored Rendering of the Revised Pathway Plan, 25 2. Based on oral testimony by the school superintendent, the Board found the ideal school size in between 350 and 500 students, and in no case over 500 students. This number is 27 based on the programming and core facilityrequirements. 28 3, After reviewing the evidence•in the record, the Board determined this project design t �. .eg ' should comply with the Hillside Protection and,Erosion Control Standard. To achieve d ' ' this, the applicant was directed to determine the exact amount of disturbances to land; 10 with 20% to 50% slope. If the amount was determined to exceed 65% of the land area, 31 then the applicant would need to apply for a variance to DS 16.025(2)(c), This ,t •r application can be made at a later date, -1' 32 '•ar • d . 4, The Board found that the supplemental information on Melrose Lift Station (Exhibit • ' 3 3 36) demonstrates that adequate sanitary sewer services exist to serve the site, ''� 34 5. Based on oral testimony by the wetland consultant (Scientific Resources, Inc,), the ° Board found that the westerly wetland did not qualify as an essential wetland, This "'' findings was based on an analysis of DS 4.035(1) by the consultant, • PAGE 3 DR 7-90-781 r i • .Y • • p ,V 4 1� , r •-V I I/II ' M • 6. The Board directed staff to prepare a report for the Traffic Control Board explaining the 1 • Board's concerns and support for a stop sign on Melrose Street, at Kingsgate, to • provide added safety for pedestrian crossing, especially with the new elementary school • 2 at the northeast corner of that intersection. 3 4 DRUB • 5 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake • 6 Oswego that: 1. DR.7-90 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. 2. The conditions for DR 7-90 are as follows: 10 A. Prior to t_he Iama r•t* of Building Permits: 11 . 2 1. Comply with the conditions of approval for CU 1-90, . 3 2. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans i4 Technical Guidance Handbook." 3. Submit a final street lighting plan arid accompanying photometric data, as per �6 City standard. These lights shall have proper shielding to prevent glaring into • the adjacent residential development. • I4. Submit a final grading plan, as per. City standards, This plan shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. 0 ' 5. Submit a detailed geotechnical report. All recommendations of that report 20 shall be incorporated into the site and building designs. , • 21 • • 6, Obtain ail nocessary• approvals from the Division of State Lands (DSL), Final 2 4 design of the mitigation plan shall incorporate all conditions required by DSL 23 and should be submitted for the review and approval of staff. „ f 2 " `i 7. The new mitigation plan shall eliminate the creation of wetlands from within M the PGE and public sanitary sewer easements along the east property line, • `5 8. Reestablish the original stream channel connection to the easterly wetland, A '", 25' stream corridor buffer zone shall be maintained from this channel. 9. No fends shall be allowed through the wetland or stream corridor buffer 9 . zone. Future fences shall be placed adjacent to the soccer field, as needed to separate it from the resource area. This fence shall have a locked gate to control access to the wetland area. . ' 10. Install a 6' fence along the south property line on Melrose Street, except adjacent to the wetlands, pathway • 34 11. There shall be no berm or athwu between the soccer field and the wet:ands. • 0 • 4 DR 7-90--781 • • • I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPRO D b the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. y 2 3 DATED this 18th day o f rune a , 19 d. 5 6 :66t((q . , 7 Robert H. Foster,, Chairman Development Review Board ZQ &A/b/fri.k Secretary i• :a 13 ATTEST: 4 D3AL DFC'L4T(�N AYES: Stanaway, Sybrowsky and Bloomer ?7 NOES: Foster and Remy • ti LS ABSTAIN: None 19 ABSENT: Greaves and Starr 20 = ZI ma first Vote) June 1 t 99n AYES: Sybrowslcy, Foster and Remy 4...) NOES: None �'z V ABSTAIN: Greaves and Starr + ABSENT: Stanaway and Bloomer hC 0, a: 28 ERaudiEtED1/10,1.4ausuthyatzuaint...111.,122Q AYES: 29 Stanaway, Sybt•owsky, Foster, Remy and Bloomer ' NOES: None 3 L ABSTAIN: Greaves • 3 2 None ABSENT: a� 3 3 3 6 DR 7-90-781 1 q 12, The connection between Mt. Park pathway and internal pathway system, shall 1only provide connection to the school building (north side) northeast corner of the site. 13, Improve sight distance to the north at the northerly access point by trimming the existing vegetation. ' , r v 14. Obtain all necessary access and utility easements from Mt.Park (over 6 common area Tract "F") I 15. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: , J 6 9 — Pollution control manholes to serve the upper parking area. • 10 - A drainage system designed to direct runoff from subdrains in the playing field and the existing spring to the wetland area, . 1.a — Locate and design storm drains to minimize removal and disturbance of •i 1 . { 13 trees and other natural features. • Revised storm water detention volume calculations (as needed to reflect 15 actual site conditions). 16. Submit final construction plans showing the following information: 1, 7 — An 8' curbline sidewalk along Melrose Street. , ti40a 9 — A 5' property line sidewalk along Kingsgate. 20 — Relocate utility lines in the tree grove at the west end of the soccer field to 21 the open area adjacent to Kingsgate, , n' • 22 17, Submit final irrigation plans, as per City standards. ' 18. The proposed grading plan shall comply with DS 16.025(2)(c), or a variance 24 application shall be made to this standard. B. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits: :* 27 1, Submit as—builts for the irrigation system. i s 2, Provide adequate public utility easements for all public facilities and services, .49 `,s' 3. Designate the proposed accessways as fire lanes in the deed, and post the '`` roadway as such, as per DS 19,020(1)(e), Z, ' Additional Inform: z2 3 3 1, Staff Review of the preliminary utility plan only verified the location and capacity • 3 of utilities to serve the site, 2. A tree cutting permit shall-be obtained prior to removal of any trees that are 5" or : . 1. t greater in diameter, °'i ' 5 DR 7-90-781 • w • y ' ,� �. $:.' BEFORE THE DEVELOPIENT REVIEW BOARD 1 ,3 OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . 3 t 4 u;; 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ) DR 7-90(Mod, 9-90)-832 MODIFY CONDITIONS A.15 ) (Lake Oswego School District 7J) 6 AND A.16 OF THE ORIGINAL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER APPROVAL 'I';':.' 7 ) • 8 ' ;v 9 I`TATURF OF APP I ATi(�N i 10 The applicant is seeking approval to modify conditions A.15 and A.16 of the original approval, { 11 regarding the storm drainage and sidewalk location. The site is located at Melrose and 12 Kingsgate (Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC). 23 14 HEARINGS 15 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its 16 meeting of November 5, 1990. 17 18 CRJTF RED S TA�� 19 A. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance p LOC 49,120 Authority to Approve Changes in Development Permits 'i. 212 LOC 49,615 LOC 45.315 Application Procedures Criteria for Approval 23 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 4 . 11,005-11.040 Drainage for Major Development v 25' 14.005 — 14,040 Utility Standard CONCLUSION 1.8 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90) can be made to comply a with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions, "v • 31 FINDINGS AND REASONS The Development Review Board incorporates the October 26, 1990 staff report on DR 7— • 7 3 ' 90(Mod. 9-90) as support for its decision, it 2 4. s ,; �yHI a,,.% • . . 1 DR 7-90(Mod, 94 40)-832 �'1 B i 1' • • V•C .`)I l . . I `r 1 ,.i5� ORDER 3 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake Oswego <., that: ' ,, • 5 61. DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90) is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. . 7 2. The conditions for DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90) are as follows: 6 1. Condition A.15 shall be modified to delete the following: � 0 A.15. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: 11 — Pollution control manholes to serve the upper parking area. • A dritinag ..sieTrrdeib ioff-(mtn-stibdr-aiftsr-in-t-he-pltty-ing 13 field and the existing s b nd-ar tt- 14 — Locate and design storm drains to minimize removal and disturbance of 15 trees and other natural features, — Revised storm water detention volume calculations (as needed to reflect actual site conditions), 13 2, Condition A.16 shall be modified as follows: _9 . 20 A.16. Submit final construction plans showing the following information: 21 — An 8' curb line sidewalk along Melrose Street, 2` — An 8' meandering sidewalk along Kingsgate. • 23 2� — Relocate utility lines in the tree grove at the west end of the soccer field to the open area adjacent to Kingsgate. ' 25 26 27 • 2 c, '�' 29 1 • 3t • 32 .. .• .• y ` 3'V 2 DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90)-832 • 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. R. 4 DATED this 19th day of November S , 1990. fi Robert H. Foster, Chairman 3 Development Review Board • .11 aA'&A, 2.2 _3 . Secretary — "` 1` 4 A'1-1EST: ORAL DECISION—November S. 1990 y 25 2'7 AYES: Sievert, Greaves,Foster, Remy and Starr -S NOES: None ry.; —a ABSTAIN: None • • —� ABSENT: Stanaway and Bloomer • �� r r y --, WRITTEN FINDINGS — November 19, 1990 • 20 AYES: Sievert, Greaves, Foster, Remy and Starr NOES: None ` ABSTAIN: Stanaway and Bloomer _ ABSENT: None ,.• ` d r w • • 4, , : 40 3 DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90)-832 • A 1 y , .' , 0 J/// , 1 • ,� g. Park and Open Space (8. 005-8. 040) This standard does not prescribe a specific . percentage of site area to be set aside as N. • ' park or open space for institutional uses, but I does require that Protection Open Space as 1 defined in the Comprehensive Plan and tree � groves be considered as high priority for r :'. reservation as open space. Staff recommends that a minimum of 20% be ' dedicated of park or open space lard, since the project is located in a residential area . As discussed previously under the applicable .6 Comprehensive Plan Policies, the site contains wetlands and a stream corridor which are required to be preserved as open space. There are also some significant tree groves which can be preserved and included in the open space calculation for the site. As Exhibits 8 and 19 (pg. 5) indicate, approximately 60% of the site will be retained in a combination of park and open space land. While there are • some questions about the feasibility of filling the westerly wetland, the overall amount of open space/park P P /park land would not be affected. h. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering (9.005 - 9. 040) This standard provides flexibility in the , amount of landscaping required for "public" uses [DS 9. 020 (3) ] . Due to the site ' s proximity to residential uses, staff a ; recommends that a minimum of 20% of the site • area be provided as landscaping. Pursuant to . . ' r DS 9. 020 (2) , the 20% is required in addition to park and open space requirements . The landscape plan (Exhibit 11) demonstrates that this standard is met. { i. Fences (10. 005 - 10. 040) This standard requires that all fences not exceed 6 feet in height in residential zones . unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Board. The applicant is proposing a 4 ' fence around the wetland area to provide security for school students and a 4 ' fence at r4 the south of the playing field to stop errant ' balls, Exhibits 19 and 21 . 4 ` o of the fence is provided on Exhibit e lsams�e ; ' , • I'; ! DR 7--90 Page 12 of iI 5• i 7M r I' / recommends that at a minimum a 6 ' fence he provided along the south property line along ;c Melrose Street to increase protection form • errant balls entering Melrose, to minimize = .` scaling of the fence and to control access R points to the school site. ): Staff also recommends a 6 ' fence along the wetlands for the same reasons listed above. Additionally, a 6 ' fence will provide better security for the students. The Police Department recommends that access to the r. +; , wetlands be controlled by a locked gate, and ' y ' that the gate be placed at a point that is highly visible to school staff. ., : • j . Drainage for Major Development (11.005-- 11.040) After reviewing the proposed storm drainage plans (Exhibits 10 and 27) , staff makes the following observations : o Access and Easements [11. 020 (1) J : ,'` •''. ` The detention facilities, as proposed are : ': accessible either from Melrose or from the fire lane north of the playing field, Exhibit 10 . Drainage easements are needed over all storm water detention facilities and all public facilities . Any storm system is collecting runoff from upstream areas is a public line. This includes the storm drain collecting water from the swale and from the apartments to the north and the stream corridor . The applicant should ' r'_•. show easements on the site plan. o Storm Water Runoff Quality (11. 020 (2) J 4,1' Two pollution control manholes are , , provided, one serving the playing field ' ;,-.'. and the other serving the buildings and �' parking areas . An additional pollution tf control manhole is needed to serve the• . park` hg area . q { »;0't'.': '' Biofiltration is also required to filter '' ? " ':` nutrients and other suspended pollutants . '. , from runoff . One grassy swale is proposed • at the south side of the site to filter DR 7-90 Page 13 of 22 • o. a I r `'+i� 'r• BROOME a ," ORIN•DULPHE vT• R •r ASS EOCIATES RC, • BOOIVA , . . , .,. . . , . . ,. NN ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN '+ " March 4, 1991 720 SW WASHINGTON PORTLAND,OR 97205.3510 PHONE;503.2264'75 FAX;503.241-7429 LAKE OSWEGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL :.� NARRATIVE Protect Description A new elementary school with a regulation size soccer field located at 55 Kingsgate(intersection of Melrose and Kingsgate). This variance request is to increase the height of the cyclone fence which borders the soccer field along Melrose ,. from 6'-0" high to 12'-0" high, 'e ' N, This project is in compliance with the development ordinance and standards, " •: ,r . t Variance Standards is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship created by the regulation size soccer field along Melrose. The maximum height of fence allowed by the development ordinance and standard is 6'0'. It is our belief that due to the proximity of the soccer field to Melrose,the fact that adults will use V. this field and kick the ball further and that small children should not under any circumstances be tempted A. to retrieve a ball which bounces onto Melrose,the height of this fence should be increased to 12'-0"high. B. This variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located. The baseball fence located just to the immediate southeast of this property have f ce backstops which are approximately 20"-0" high, 7 ' C. This request is the minimum variance necessary to make safe and reasonable use of the soccer field. The City of bake Oswego Parks and Recreation has utili7 d a similarly tall fence at the North Palisades Elementary School on Greentree Road, • D. This request is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan, R9057\narrative.mis it F Sil. , k '' EXHIB .rr • 1 '2 bl2 7"`lO 1h1,3 LI • VAR. '3, •,e • • • 1. ,CJ1 ' .. '` , �„ w -$, a - 1,4.• , y ^ T d� (pS) 1 1 �1t`ri��iS�r tli,�'. t , r r CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: �Hamid Pishvaie, Develop ment Review Planner City of Lake Oswego Jim Schell, Deputy Superintendent Lake Oswego School District FROM: D. Gary Evans, Recreation Coordi • 1 • : Department of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 2, 1991 RE: Oak Grove Elementary School/Soccer Field • As you both know, the Parks & Recreation Department has been asked to comment on the appropriate height of a fence surrounding a regulation sized soccer field at Oak Grove School. Because is no official height is listed in the National Federation of State High School Associations Soccer Rule Book; and because the hie9ht of a border fence is dependent on the type of activity (adult, children) on the playing field, its distance from the playing• field, and the nature of the surrounding area, we can offer no specifics. containment is our preference, but we understand that there is r volved in this case. We do not feel that it is our position to comment on the visual aspects of an oversized fence in a residential area, Such comment more appropriately falls within the• scope of the Development Review Board. DGE/mg r • I EXHIBIT • • 180 •1 i, 1Ni I Pr1.,1 rci , ! 11.+% ,r . •,► ,n'.\r, . .rkl• . . .14 , 1 ` r. tIP4k'.,tc•.1 +n .'‘k,,.. ,' 10 %* . • , ,,r r,:l•. ,1.%r l ' II*7-`lo(1b't�.>"`rl�/ xra . �; . �c�( ' y 5 STAFFREPORT ' CITY OF LAKE : . . . . . . , . . ., ._._._.. PL,ANNING DIVISION..__. ,.®, • eT: FILE NO : Dimension Homes', Inc. SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a—b) " PROPERLY...MUM:UM: Dimension Homes, lac. Michael R. Wheeler 1_,EG,gj1 DESCRlP1"l' 21I: IAA TOF RIEPOR '. Tax Lot 3703 of • April 26, 1991 `�Tax Map 2 lE 18AB LOCATION: DATE OF HEA 1Q: May 6,199`1 5302 Rosewood Street NEIGFORH(, _QMP_,_a& L7E ciNAI N: AS��4CIA__TroN: .0 R-5 Rosewood Action Group (CPO; Not in City) " vault DESIGNATION: . R-5 I. APPLICANTS REO TFS'r The applicant is requesting approval for the creation of two parcels from a 10,157 s q, ft. Also the applicant is seeking approval of two variances as follows: q Parcel. a) a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each // parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 ft. Parcel B is proposed to have no y 4 • 'v frontage on a public street; and b) a Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Development Standard which requiresr dwelling to provide two off—street parking spaces in addition to a carport or garage. each g g The applicant proposes to provide no spaces which comply with the standard. The applicant is also proposing a Future Streets Plan servingproperty within 250' of the applicant's site. • P P �Y r, SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a—b) Page 1 of 10 . , IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, ` A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service;Boundary Policies el - -. . General Policy III Impact Management Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 Social Resources Policies • General Policy V '' Energy Conservation Policies e♦ • General Policy II Transportation Policies General Policy IV B. City of take Oswego Zoning Ordinance: I LOC 48.195 -48.225 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks ♦� j C. City_of gak_ eilavggo Develo m nt odk: LOC 49.090 Applicability of,Development Standards LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49,220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.300- tit9,315 i ,• ` Major Development Procedures ':,-i -� LOC 49.5C10 Variances; Classifications • ` LOC 49.510 Variance Standard , - .iii LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures • LOC 49,615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Drrvelop�a nt Standards: - A 2.005 -2.040 Building Design 5.005-5.040 ,Street Lights `, 6.005-6.040 Transit System 7.005 7.040 Parking &Loading Standard . , . ... . 10.005- 10.040 Fences 2. , , 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development ' 12.005 12.040 Drainage Standard forMinor Development ' 14.005 14.040 Utility Standard 18.005- 18.040 Access Standard 19.005- 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways , • E. City of Lake Oswe o a.olar,AAeleess Qcjjnnnce: • LOC 57.005 -57.135 z: l SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a-b) , Page 2 of 10 • • r . � , • F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance LOC 55.010—55.130 • • III. FINDINGS •, . :- ., , 41/0 A. Existing mdi ions: 1. The site is composed of approximately 10,156 sq. ft. V:. • 2. The site is located at 5302 Rosewood Street, between Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street. 3. An existing single family dwelling is located on the site as shown on the site plan (Exhibit 4). 4. An 8" sanitary sewer line is available in Rosewood Street, 5. A 6" water main is located in Rosewood Street. 6. Rosewood is a 14' — 16' oil mat surfar;e in poor condition; narrow gravel shoulders, no storm drains or street lights. • B. Background;. e The site was the subject of previous land use actions SD 19-88, SD 20-88, SD 21-88 and VAR 13-88. 1, SD 19-88 was a request for a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 3700 and Tax Lot 3703 and to create a separate private access cad utility easement of 4,090 sq. ft. for access to the adjusted parcels. SD 20-88 was a request for a minor Iand partition to create three parcels of 5,748 sq. ft., 5,362 sq. ft., and 5,043 sq. ft. (Tax Lot 3700). . SD 21-88 was a request for a minor land partition to create two parcels of 5,010 sq. ft. and 5,208 sq. ft. (Tax Lot 3703). VAR 13-88 was a request for a Class I variance to the Access Standard requiring that every lot abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. The Development Review Board denied VAR 13-88 but approved SD 19-88, SD 20-88 and SD 21-88 with conditions (Exhibits 9 and 10). . . C. Proposal: O The applicant is proposing to create two parcels from a 10,156 sq, ft, lot, The parcels are• to be as follows: r Parcel A 5001 sq. ft. Parcel B 5155 sq. ft. N I, • SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a—b) Page 3 of 10 o ' The applicant is also requesting approval of two variances as follows: „ . a) a 25 Class II variance to the Access Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet; and b) a Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Standard requiring two off street parking spaces for each dwelling, in addition to a carport or garage. The applicant is also proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250 ft. of the applicable site. D. Compliance with Criteria fot Ap rov l; • As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan d Applicable policy groups are: IZt , ban Service Boundary Policies 4 These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban , , • Service Bounda ry, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. • This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 5 (the City Council memorandum of September 18, • . 1990) demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfies this General Policy. The passage of a 17 million dollar school levy on November 7, 1989 further assures adequate school facilities. Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive ti ` 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, trews 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 policies, Conditions of approval will be imposed when " necessary to assure compliance. • 0 . . '' SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a—b) '' Page 4of10 • , , 1;. Social Resources Policies These policies require the City to preserve neighborhood character,identity and stability in the review of land use actions. Staff recommends that the proposed lot division, particularly with the lot line as configured, will create the appearance of density that is not consistent with nearby residential lots. The applicant has not demonstrated how neighborhood character, identity or stability will be preserved by the proposed partition and variance request. • 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. Transportation Policies These policies require that the City require dedication of right-of way necessary tof. implement the Transportation Plan. This is implemented through the Utility • Development Standard and LOC 48.535 (4)regarding Special Street Setbacks, which will be reviewed below. Compliance will be achieved through imposition of a condition of approval of this action, if approved, . tip., b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis The site is zoned R-5 which requires a minimum lot area of 5000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; there is no required minimum lot width at the building line and no required minimum lot depth [LOC 48.135(1)]. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 50% including required off-street parking [LOC 48.140(1)]. • On February 5, 1991, the City Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZC 9-9J) which will decrease the maximum lot coverage for detached dwellings allowed in an R-5 zone from 50% to 35%, including required off-street parking. The changes will be effective for building pern'its submitted after the effective .date of the revision, anticipated on May 2, 1991. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48.150(5)]: When a new development abuts an existing less intensive residential use, a setback of a depth of at ,.. least the height of the principal building on the lot proposed for development shall be required. All other setbacks are 10 feet (except where required off street parking is ' provided), Less intensive residential use means dissimilar uses (e.g. duplex or • multifamily versus single family). ` w The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Parcel A 5001 sq. ft. Parcel B 5155 sq, ft. p • Parcel A as proposed is capable of meeting the setback requirements in the R-5 zone, Parcel B as proposed is large enough to accommodate the required setbacks • s for the existing dwelling. However, the property line configuration required to provide even the minimum lot area will not allow the lots to function as regularly shaped R-5 lots would. ` SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a-b) /f Page 5 of 10 • 9d The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to allow a conclusion that the lot is buildable as divided. " LOC 48.535(4), Special Streets Setbacks,requires a 25 foot setback measured from th, "%r . ::':: . ..::'' °' centerline of the right—of—way of Rosewood Street. A 10 foot right—of—way dedication was provided in a previous land use approval (SD 16-84). ti ' The applicant has proposed a Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 6) which illustrates a 25 foot . wide private driveway serving the site. The drive is currently gravel and proposed to 1, remain unpaved until a future street is designed and <<,•,. sr I,,Gr 4 Fff has reviewed the easement description and found that it does not corresp r ;'., , .nfrgu ation of the • la , Future Streets Plan (Exhibits 10 and 11). The applicant must provide a corrected easement as a condition of this action,if approved. _ �' ' Development Code Requirements and A The application is appropriately being processed as a minor development. However, the ' +` w ' applicant's two Class II variance requests are classified as major development. As such, i a. ` ` this proposal is required to be reviewed as a major development. Development standards applicable to major development will be reviewed later in this report as required by LOC , • 49.090. , The applicant has requested approval of a 25 foot Class II variance to the Access Development Standard [VAR 9-91.(a]. Proposed Parcel B does not abut a public street for a distance of 25 feet. ` As per LOC 49.510, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria 4 ; when evaluating a request for a Class II variance: 0 a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;; v The applicant indicates that the variance is necessary to allow a house that is already on the site to continue to be occupied after the property is partitioned. The site is currently :1• accessed by a private driveway. b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the • neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to J be affected by the request; •• The dwelling that is currently on the property is using the access easement without .' • having an adverse affect on the existing neighborhood. The use of an access easement is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of - the property; ' The site is large enough to be partitioned under the R-5 zoning requirements, Due to the '•: site's configuration, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The existing dwelling is sited in such a way that the minor partition would create a parcel without 25 feet of public street frontage, fi d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a-b) Page 6 of 10 }.' a • There are no Plan Policies with which the applicant's proposed Access Standard variance ` A conflicts. t. } 0 VAR 9-91(a) satisfies all applicable criteria. The applicant has also requested approval of a Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Standard [VAR 9-91(b)] which requires off—street parking for all developments which generate a parking need. The applicant proposes to provide no spaces on Parcel B • i. ;'`• which comply with this 'zndard. The area that now exists does not meet the dimensional requirements of the Parking Standard, so no legal spaces exist. • ,� As per LOC 49.510, the Development review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class II variance: a a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant indicates an unnecessary hardship would occur if this request is not approved. A 20 foot minimum setback is required to allow for two off—street parking spaces. The dwelling that is currently on Parcel B has a front yard ser,back of only18 feet. The minimum setback requirement was not met when the existing structure as moved onto Tax Lot 3703. The location of required parking cannot impede the adjacent easement rights. • 4 b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to ° '"-' be affected by the request; With the creation of a small additional lot with easement access, any space that could �' ,r I. have been available for overflow parking will be lost. Staff recommends that approval of • • the variance could be injurious to nearby properties due to the limited availability of r parking. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; . . 1 The applicant contends that since the dwelling has been on the site and in use for approximately three years, this variance request is the minimum necessary to make r< reasonable use of the property. In order to continue to use this prope manner this variance request is necessary. Staff recommends that e varianceawouldlnot . . be necessary if the remaining available land is not partitioned and that the variance is not ' f 1 the min,:num necessary to make reasonable use of the property, ' • '') d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive P Plan. The proposal does not conflict with the policies reviewed earlier in this report. r staff recommends denial of VAR 9-91(b), The applicant has not demonstrated that this is the minimum variance necessary to comply with the Parking and Loading Standard, r , .4, 5,1210r'Access Ordinatnce ' atiirements and Analysis This ordinance requires that 80% of the proposed lots meet one of three design standards i• r • p [LOC 57,020], The construction of a dwelling or accessory structures on each parcel, or • SD 6_91\VAR 9-91(a-.b) h.'°t, • ` Page 7 of 10 . 4 , 1Yf ti.fi the planting of non-iolar friendly vegetation, must also comply with LOC 57.050-•57.090, the Solar Balance Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance. • • Parcel A meets the design requirements regatxling orientation [LOC 57,020(1)] having° north-sou h dimension of 90 feet or more; and having a front lot line that is oriented . 1 within 30 of a true exit-west axis. Parcel B can comply by using the protected Solar Building Line option [LOC 57.020(2)' • whereby an area north of the solar building line is protected from shade. Alternately, the parcel could comply with the ordinance through imposition of a performance option [LOC 57,020(3)]. Compliance with the design standard will be assured through a condition of this action,if approved. Tree. Cutting Ordinance R�arements and Analic A tree survey is not required in an application for a minor partition, but is necessary to meet the requirements of the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The applicant has provided a site inventory map showing the location of trees (Exhibit 7). The applicant shall position proposed dwellings so as to minimize the number of trees removed in compliance with •LOC 55.080. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. "� c. The applicu'Jle Development Standards wilding Design (2.005 -2.040) While this standard is applicable to all major development imp olving a application is major development only because of the inclusion of the Class II variances. • • The single family dwelling proposed on the site is minor development, as is the propose. ., minor partition, and this standard is not applicable. ,Street Lights (5.005-5.040) "" There are no street lights on Rosewood Street. The applicant is proposing a street light east on Rosewood approximately 300' from Tax Lot 3703, It will be located at the northeast corner of Tax Lot 3800. This location is too distant from the site to serve the proposed development. A utility pole is located at the northwest corner of the site. A street light must be located on this utility pole in order to comply with the standard, This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Transit System (6.005-6.040) The nearest transit facilities are located on Bryant and Jean Roads to the south, There are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site from transit stops along those roads. No additional transit developments are required to serve this site. , r Parking and Loading (7,005 -7,0401 This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport. The proposed structure on Parcel A will ri. ry, .?. accommodate this requirement, However, the existing dwelling on Parcel B does not ,. • have an area 20 feet in length in which to meet the parkingrequirement, The„ '° garage is 18 feet from the west property line; therefore, th applicant is requesting f p q b a Class , o " II variance to this standard, which was reviewed earlier' in this report, 1 ; 4,0 . ,, ... ii, .. SD 6-91\VAR 9--9l(a-b) '' ', Page 8 of 10 • ` b . 4 . w.. • .. . , I.` ' � 1 ♦ r,� l,v Y 1 i. ' • 0.. `�.1\ ..fX ` � ,, `Yal. •H ,1 ` i1.'�A is J .•� r • t •V t i ° d •( C,� ,i i' • • • c•' Fences (10.005— 10.0401 Each of the two parcels will have fenced yards. Fences will be reviewed during the building permit process. Fences in the front yard may not exceed 4 ft., all others may not • exceed 6 ft. in height. Drainage Standard for Major DevelorZment(11 005 1_ 1 a Drainage Standard for Minor Development(12.005— 12.0401 • These standards require that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. All rain and foundation runoff will drain into 4 ' separate drywells on each site. Compliance with the standard will be required upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. • Utility Standard (14,005— 14,)40) • This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. Electrical service is available from overhead lines on the south side of rosewood Street. A utility pole exists at the northwest corner of Tax Lot 3703 on • • Rosewood Street. The applicant is proposing to drop a line down the pole and underground to the dwelling. Sewer and water are located in Rosewood. A lateral was installed to serve both the existing structure and any additional structure on Parcel A. Water service is proposed to be from a 6" main in Rosewood, Accesa Standard (18.005— 18.040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel A is +': proposed to comply with the standard; a Class II variance has been requested for Parcel B, which was reviewed earlier in this report. The applicant has submitted a Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 6). Temporary access to Parcel B will be from a private driveway constructed over an easement granted by the • • owner of Tax Lot 3700 (Exhibit 8). This access will remain in use until such time that a • future street is dedicated and constructed. Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways C19,005— 19,040) • This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 2070 grade nor 5% cross slope. Because the site is generally flat the access easement is capabl f meeting the standard, d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • There are no Future Street Plan or ODPS currently applicable to the rite. A Future Streets Plan has been submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 6) and has been reviewed earlier in this report, • D, Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal does not comply with all applicable criteria. • SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a—b) Page 9 of 10 }j •• p; \, ,� 3• • III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed minor partition (SD 6-91) and Class II variance to "' t ' Parking and Loading Standard (VAR 9-91). EX ID3ITS 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Applicant's Narrative 4. Site Plan 5. Council's Memorandum Regarding Schools,dated September 18, 1990 6. Future Streets Plan • • 7. Site Inventory Map 8. Letter of Easement Agreement,dated January 31, 1991 9. Staff Report SD 19--88, SD 20-88, SD 21-88,VAR 13-88,dated April 8, 1988 x 10. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 19-88/SD 20-88/SD 21-88, dated May 16, 1988 • 11. Memorandum from Russ Chevrette, City of Lake Oswego Engineering Technician,dated April 22, 1991 '� 12. Proposed Future Streets Plan and Actual Easement Configuration SCR W:104br/ka+IR3191 CSD91.1J • • • , 4111,• SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a-b) Page 10 of 10 • t a r SI i s \ � � „ Q• M, N , ` s2�( \ . 0 1- `^ t�l b 4. t 1 `n. N �' rs ° �� C •" A� �/ .b+ 0 4 H F PF� 0" � r ,.i N ,40 , t` • /e. 0 7'.;PP�C�L2 u� ip.1 f Pi h,`�� �000 I. '�a y a Q m. 1017P°� �y i 1 3`0� a Au.) l+�L o /9i��A��v s 13 : m UI � q NI 1 I \ ,. ti - '1 `2°1 s I 1r a1 ; by00 4A9 + 6 � 3 6 d 00 a `"• N rt °14 .B0 tea • %0\; 4 y 121)14.N • u • . . . 1' ..,-"---.--\--\.• t t .• Vim " • • yJ�y a/ �`v°.r 5, Ib fy•� \ 0 14. ..44.1‘,...46'N/....V.0• . . . I- r �' �`Ay iSt to 1b { 1. =' '• MAP . 1E IdAr, -4 i , ' „ ., y • .y 1 p • v\ o • c - 016 �-'�. \ YIP ..• ; , \ \ \ •' :�•-- '\ \/ • �.� Q�4.4, Y.., ,\ �' •�` • \ •\ \ \ \. \ \ ✓o. .?yam„ io 31 \ \ \ .y 0,f. 1 \ 0 11+\ .- / -, ` •'' \ / • s ,, 1 \ r ,. \> p v yj V • "l .,.' cr• �-.t ,.• • p\• j, \• p•,\ • 4 Yi9 � \'6 •" X•'\. .r '3 0 \ (1 »� a• `' • it \ Nr • \ �� d`'\ C - ' { \ rj •r:f " / ^, . "..,, 017262 • r o \ -�� o Ir., • 1•1 k11 , ^' - .fi \ A �' •'\c1°p\. `yi4 j� ,/ •' • r 4''.a� '\ • �,O df ••v, , • . r�. °_ G9. ,,1. 1 .. , d..1 s •` 1✓• ••\• C'\ a .. 1). \ ,I * AN b!nu' ►,1f r �°1 a o 1:-: '-a�c,�• .,442, , ` 0, \ gic '�• \ d°•1 1742. 1'710 ble.1^ •Yfl • + a d•Chb•A, b• \ \• .\K �\ �j.' i10.•~ 1 1743e r4a0' i Z. i .I I -c I a I •o, \ \ -." Q 1' • I - 4 J I I�� ,w. ar '\ . ' ' ^<. a��,•- • '\•\°a.\' •r0 I. 17443 11440 i 4801• ILDWOOD ••".rfcb ,- -...,. .4 r t.i V' o�P' s, •\ ,\ °0 17463 . , :.• . • a 1740J , ,•:'\ \<f816 .\ \ _ _t%V,r. °1. V I a 1 w . ra! a j / ,� >r i o J ( 0 1 ''I\� . '�•�\\ c. oj�as\ 17473 i�`.'�v••- • o ` \ l\ _ \_ I \ .. •\ `'! 0 •4,,.'\ \ 15. I 17403 - ,, .. ••_•_I 17To; •♦\ •\ yo • •No, \'\\.\•y.X �r •\ 17493?- N 1 I °i.: 7 C 13I- ro a • :t�i 1,/' .� 6�� '\ V'�t> >\cs . \\. o�'I \\ e0°• A-0 \• \\• / a •\ 4, 17613 17614 1 J 17600 p- 7.i• 00 .NI yr>•� /T/�%!.+•tik4i.'.�4 MiztC tiWr'5i'\+� ri;,,c*ii�7663 17G64 1 i762' .rtl1O'i L.O. [ 1, I. .� 7673 �,..,:T._. _..,.� /108EMF3LY L S 1 •�•1 °.� •101 w •I 'I 176a4 1787�! 17570 I •.'. • i • " t 7eo3 17004 `� ,➢. oo '1v,4�claorl�; 11769•• 1767• , .•-•."-1:•-•_•_ 17000 1 •.•1•• • ;raM .y ,t' ` ao •1 ;• ; ._. _. . �7ai3 . tro14'• ,1.�i78a 17a10 1 1j '0 ' ` 6 'A 117061 ..- a I. 17636 �w.. 17032 \ T823 b- 17024 ! 17036 - a' 176.20 '1 .-q 1;'�` E >< i, - 1. 1.706. 3 • . 17653 17050 !'a63 4 1706t$`I 1704 17060 i •- 17t `. I ire6d - v :O., ( � . �' • r � �teas 0 '17004 r 1799 :•1 • .". *' '17oaa r•. . {c •@•• `" 1 cRL 1708+ •17884.17081 1768 Ch ._,....2-•...•_ _-I 17000 -.J17t r .._i \. R rr,r., >r L._. •• ,_,-._. . •_r ,7T13 . 17712 i 17T0••E •_. r - , 17T E,Nv/ri?iM�� 4\YnNv, i�. , r-••` 17710' •. 1..r ',1T7At, a, . : • ,t 11773• d 17732117736 Ili 1773• 477Qr "' "•-., _ ` I • 4 N I N a I _. _ _..1.._•_2u jg. 177a2 I 1TT6• i• i '1r: V. 177a0 a I • I ( a, a • �" $ A Q (` _ �.., ; 17760 • . '17T8f� I I4 i 1 1770 w 17700 i 17783 oc 1770 71781 . i -r. i4.i ..•.. r• l 1777 a! a ! rt a O1 I .S. A ...5.I,a '„> •a` �: 77 0 .I +�a 1 w I U.; w N .4 .. . o,..• 2 •o. 1 17700 m�, • 0 4, '+ i O N L .� N a O Cu N' N a • .17781 w 1 a i a I a I ' o,. 1• w 2'1 cc rn .. • -he '. •JEAN ,� ROAD - a . a rn •, ,w a. y" 1T860 I ••� I. >' m I oa •i• N I p `'Q i g I c �' \` `• 1. ,1 r. ..• a •L ,.,i -. 17oso 1 i i_._.._.1._ �\ ` _ J 1__.. �. • _ _, �� 17840 ' 17821 17822 ! 17826 L 'I '''.9 _ - `1 C: a .�f:r* .i4g, 17a0o _•». 17848 • ! _ - _ _ ...•...I 17oaA Cr 17040 I 17067 7_.. ..i._ Imo- ' �' r., a • ( J • L• 42 _•r.'._. i7668. I o I WALUGA • '' 't;21a ',; 17aTx a it®74I '.�.:...� a ` , I I • •" •� 1707 1- ..........1......,.... 17880 • 0 • !1703 �\�, 0-11GH SCHOI ` , 11202, ! 17001 W _.. ._..j C '"I•STG I M' t7924 _•..•— . . •ia0s6 . r 186.00 ••. 17924 17o;s, a 179 4 I • j ' , - - •- - 1 _•_•»....1.••�... I_,.a,. ? ._.� ..T.•_._ t...- ,i.,—,_. %BRYANT GRADE R— ' 170-15 • 1' 1a0o0 1 • ...00231 10026 _•j ••,. •-I 1 10045 sCHOOL D021 _L 17>is8 I �• • + `, ...... _. .. "j" 1b0/7 r 10050 , 110000 i _• `• 10065 _ 0 10100 1601911 • 10011 I '.4 2 a _ � .1y... 1...... ._. .T.i•r.- ''r -•ro r r ; Y EXHIBI ! ' ...3O _ .. r.•_.h. 1 I I a a ' a a M I N I .: 1 0 '6043 ,•1 STREET -•-' 1 5T5 TREE 4 a 1 a Ia 1 a 1a Ia a ten . lei , a'1 6040 .ri • S000 ll ►' 1 1.. ._ _ •. .• :.. A A ' A • w I Y ' W N P f• ...... 7 .uu.•_ � .:_ ...1. , ii '•1117 t' I—w--! v• I N •L ,LP1-. b 1_ N • . !o �. ,rr j'� a 6 • i.66 B . . .. i REVISED NARRATIVE _ , ! LI This is a revised narrative explaining the proposed Varian 1-=• • �.. requested by Dimension Homes, Inc. for tax lot 3703 Bryant Acres. First I will address the Development Standards: Street Lights: The nearest street light will be located east on ;' .. Rosewood Street approximately 300 feet from tax lot 3703. It will be located at the N.E. corner of tax lot 3800. t''�''' .Lt � Parking: Proposed structure will have room for two off-street parking spaces. Existing dwelling does not meet setback criteria and a CLass I and II variance is sought to slove any legal problem 4 which existed after existing dwelling was improperly moved onto • the parcel. , Fences: Each of two parcels will have fenced yards. Fencing will comply with the City of Lake Oswego's Development Ordinance. Drainage for Minor. Development: All yards will have positive age away from structure to meet City of Lake Oswego'stiLelardsa�n • - All gutters will drain into separate Drywells for each structure in question. Utilities: Electrical service is available from overhead lines + : on the south side of Rosewood Street. A utility pole ext;tt.3 nt the Northwest corner of tax lot 3703 on Rosewood Street. Service ;7 will be obtained by dropping a line down the pole and serving house through underground service which conforms to the City of Lake Oswego s Development Ordinance. Public Sewer and Water are located within Rosewood Street. A lateral was installed at time existing house was moved into place to serve an additional structure on front part of Parcel A. Two City water meters exist--one for ` the existing dwelling and one for an additional structure to be a •` built. Access: There is a recorded easement on tax lot 3700 allowing1.•, for ingress and egress along a specified easement (see attached easement agreement) to serve the existing dwelling and an additional structure. The owner of tax lot 3700 has agreed to allow a drive way to be built over this specified easement (see attached letter of consent by Marlene Ieaton). Site Circulation: Each structure, both existing and proposed, will take access from the driveway constructed on easement that is recorded on deed of tax lot 3700. Eventually; there will, be a public street constructed to take place of the driveway built • to serve existing dwelling and proposed structure on tax lot 3703. " .. Y Now I will explain the Variances I am requesting: ; Class I Variance for Front Yard Setback: The existing dwelling on tax lot 3703 Was moved-in some 2-3 years ago. When it was put in place, the minimum 20' front yard setback was not met. As it sits, the existing dwelling is set back only 18' from the front y propert line. I am requesting a Class I Variance to wliminate any legal problem which exists because the dwelling is ,u:t set back far enough. The Variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship because the existing dwelling would ` ' have to be ro Geri and moved basic onlyfeet. wouldwouldbe required two A new foundation � and the cost would be unnecessary, , Issuance of the Variance will not be injurious to the neighbor { hood because there is still enough room to safely park two vehicle Jaws .. ui:l.-rjt:r't�nl:, even after the eventual. public street is co►tsLructud t + EXHIBIT ' (o) 3(�Pgc,) . ' M II ..d serve the block. This is the minimum Variance that is necessary to make 0 . ,h.,.. reasonable use of the property. A Class II Variance is also I ' ,1 , necessary, but not for this issue. f ' Since there will still be enoough room to park two vehicles �• off-street, this request should not be in conflict with the comp- " :I1, rehensive plan. Class II Variance to the Access Standard: When partitioned, one of the two parcels created will not a` enjoy at least 25' of frontage onto a public street. However, at such time that a public street is built to serve tax lot 3700, ` this Variance will no longer be necessary. The Variance 1 am requesting , therefore, is only a temporary one. The Variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship because it is uncertain when the public street will be built to serve the block. In such a case, the existing structure that was f moved onto tax lot 3703 would remain vacant until such time that ,. a public street was constructed. This construction could take J years to approve and complete, so it is ridiculous to keep a perfectly good house vacant until a public street is built to _^ serve it. The request will not be injurious to the neighborhood because the house is already there, occupied, and there is no problem which •\: exists. In order to make the most reasonable use of the property, it is necessary to partition it into two separate parcels, each legal in size. For this reason, this request will not conflict with r': the Comprehensive Plan, Class II Vaiance to the Parking and Loading Standard: •d. When the existing house was moved onto tax lot 3703, it was done so in such a way that did not conform to the City of Lake Oswego's Development Ordinance and Standards. As it sits, the 40 existing dwelling has a front yard setback of only 18' , A 20' minimum setback is required to allow for two off-street parking spaces, This minimum setback requirement was not met when the ., existing structure was moved onto tax lot 3703. Therefore, this request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship because fixingA . the require problem would re uire that the house be raised and moved back on the property two feet. There is plenty of room to park two vehicles off-street with only an 18' setback. As stated before, the existing dwelling has been in place • for almost three years and has not been injurious to the neighbor- •.;1. ' hood, This is the minimum variance needed to solve the problem because the house is already in place. Therefore, the request '. 4 is certain and unchangeable. Since the house was moved onto tax lot 3703 and approved for occupancy by the City of Lake Oswego, this request should not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. r a • 1 V • • ,. I 0 .. , I •rn r � b g C. X, a o • J • • V ' O ' `'fr_' a -- -- - -- -- — _ _ _ _ w P Ved Acc.�e55 Ease,MeIN-A- i \ , _ a • s. .,., ` VI L �t rJc'�urn ! ;o1__ Ek 15 ��� 6 Y 1 ao • �oute P�r et.I 8 ro SSSp! C G s' »� ifs-,Yp, '� , • ; X w 9 rei • .. • e a • • • • • • 3r` bl 1 I • . +I. • ` 1 tl' M I• '1. • • , • y,. • . •�. • • • • .0, II • • ' • , ., • V 1.......G.....1 9/18/90 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members From: Mayor and City Council Date: September 18 , 1990 Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relatingto School Capacity . This memorandum is an update to the City Council ' s prior memoranda of August 19 , g 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5, 1989 . The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City ': e Council's initial determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and 'Y' . data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on October, 2 , 1989 . The , ,, December 5, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data relating to voter approval of a $17,800 ,000 Cake Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989 . This memorandum contains school district projections for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and information concerning residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It • contains information received by the City .Cocincil at a. joint meeting with th0 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 developmer.t chat there was a lack of elementary school capacity, the City Council conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential ievelopment , in ; accordance with the provisions of ORS 197 .505-197 . 54OY of denials of residential development applications is defined by state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of ' . the exclusion from that definition of actions " in accordance A' - with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of • the City Attorney , concluded that the exclusion, is not applicable • to the current situation. State law dogs not permit the adoption of a moratorium without the City first making the findings , , required by the statute . r; The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the ' • basis for the Council to make the findings required by state 1a,, Y °' to justify the need for a moratorium , • • ". 1 The resulting dilemma is obvious : en the one hand the Y ' r • Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of ° ` school capacity based on City .2omprehens:.ye Plan poli,�tes f pattern which state law classLui_.; a` .14 a Moratorium ) , ant% Council has concluded that facts do lot exist to make t , 4 EXHIBIT keo!(416.i.ei. ' .- .. A}}y rs' • Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18 , 1990 Page 2 required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. }•.', It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity . It is 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 between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the +•I superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precedent . These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set ' ', forth in Attachment No.. 1 . The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan �, '1 policies, with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a mo rtorium, Because ' ll .i' j facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will i update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular • basis , in coordination with the school district, and keep the Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when r. , addressing the school capacity issue . The Council expects that ' , , • if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school apacity ;, issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development ' application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set . forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be with us for the foreseeable future . The improve the current data exchange effottsC between ouncil ithe oD�istri r_ to and the City . T The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving develtac •1ent approvals are aware of the current school capacity situatin all ; understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue , . • , d and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if justified by the Facts . The Council directs staff to develop appropriate language to be includes; in the approval orders , to oe '. • reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish this purpose . Attachment Vn. , 1 provides the Factual findi tc,�s of the Council with regard to the school capacity ' interpretations are based . issue upon whic;�t these Attachment No. 2 is a listing of• factual information relied upon to support � . " 7a" �, -, those findings . •- . •A,, Attachment Vo. 3 contains the Interpretations r the relevant Plan policies . ` t • 1 . 1 ‘/ Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 Page 3 • The City Council sincerely expresses its of the Development Review Board who have bi een faced tude twith ethe mbers yt difficult ;tob of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious concern for the community as a whole. great { . . i; Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 a 14 c' j i1 'i a i 1 • q 1 e Lv •1 o yi'10j r t. • i '•i: -",. • • ••,•' • . , .„ • • • • ; • . ' • . • . • // • • e • . • . ,• , . •. . , '• • ' • • '.• ,. . ' • . • 64' • ' • t, • I ,•4 •• • • - , . • • ';' • . , • , .. . •. J,o ' ATTACHMENT NO. 1 , FACTUAL FINDINGS , ( 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 . The City has received no communication from other jurisdictions served by the District that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due " ' school capacity problems . The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove , Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to provide an urban level of �� service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary School population; was significantly reduced for the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 was 530 students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 was 453 students . The adjusted forces, for the 1990-91 school � .' ,, year is 500 students , ° ' 2 . The District has short term plans in place that address `' the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . By implementing these plans , the District stated it will continue to provide an educational experience to its °j students that meets District standards . 3 . Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 , 772 elementary students . 4 . The District as of June 1 , 1990 , had an elementary school enrollment of 3 ,241 students , Based on maximum capacity and current projections , on October 1 , 1990 the District by implementing the short term plan will have ., T unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 379 ' ' ° additional elementary students , ).''!' f.'''':'''' 5 . The District has a longterm plan rm p n to provide capacity3.. addition to the 379 seats to be made available tnroo jh the short term plan. These long terra plans include a n ' '-- :::: additional elementary school and remodeling exi ttinj facilities . 6 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 7/2 students , assumi�1 a } " . continuation of the current rate of growth, .gill accommodate new students into the 1191_ 2 school ier. i .i � rJ ' • M Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 2 k ' 7 • The earliest completion date for the new school authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students. 8 . The District as a practice does not construct facilities ,. in anticipation of .growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet a current demand at completion and not' stu d empty or be underutilized. 9 . The District projects student populations usinga computer model. � 4 attendance areas and the�Districtections adoere baset� on attempt does not attempt t+� project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student counts . Based on these comparisons,the computer modifications to � .». program factors are. made if warranter , The0 District 's projections in the last 2 years quiteaccurate. The physical counting of childr,enve ein the district on a regular basis, as the data base p .,' projections, does notenough for k� provide a significant improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. .::::* By comparing data compiled over the' last six years concerning development approvals and vacant lots with the actual school population, the conc, usion can be drawn that there i in ,�, '^• a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school ` " not N population and those two Factors that will assist the making short term student projections Other factors cDistrict in market reception, interest rate. , 5uc:h as economy and family s the health "pE the Dre. 1 also affect the numbereoff new ychildren ers and sinithe Districtin.jhhc�me; ::::1'. population, Based upon the District ' s the City and District planning level of sophistication of predict with any g processes , it is not possible t,� '� children from new residential how soon after epi�r7v.al ` system, developments will enter :;�a ;cil � �: ,, - t 4 " Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 3 The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base , ' .1 by an approximate 2:1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542 ,310 . . %' The new tax base is $29,975 ,000 . The new tax base contains levy authorization above that levied by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to fund growth, 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 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by growth. During the middle 1980 ' s , the District proposed using a r' middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students . i . : The debate caused turmoil in the District and tho concept was dropped. e•" h r rr Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon , thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding measures to accommodate elementaryschool , , delayed. The population growth was Y growth was anticipated but the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the y. provision of the District 's solutions . r 4 The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts , enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 . 520 , The District has the responsibility under state law to educate *- the children of the District. The Council views the District as ' 'N' ,l an expert in educational matters . The Council accepts the �r statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards . k • f Y°• Atty/Correspond-7 , •.,� , ., ' '' t` f i s ,r t t b t. 3,, a r • • • r ;r .4. f R' • • • • tt '1 a t—, a j 1 1 M { A' y 4 n µ•. A • `a f r_• '`tJ � j• +'. • v T ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED Br CITY COUNCIL, ( 9-18-90) 1 . Bill KoLach, Lake Oswego School District Eleme Enrollment - August 8, 1989 ntary 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: - • (' Building permits by Yyear, single-family, • - Building permits by year, multi-family, graph - Total single family lots recorded by � graph - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1, 1989year - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6 9 - Number of building permits issued for single-famil 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 Y from - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 i 3 • Class size and J, , .. public policy: Politics and P�anace of Educational Research and Improvement, s , Office EducationU.S .US Department of 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney June 11 , 1979 General, July 31 , 1989 Attorney S . Memorandum from City ' to Mayor and City Council, ^�1 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, , S ,u with attachments July , 1989 , ° 7 . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board Nir July 31 , 1989 meeting , 8 August 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, y1989 } 9 . Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Depart ment of Conservation and Development:, dated august 8 , 1989and 10 . Handouts from Rill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent rLntenoant a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, servi;:e level, and shrt• term solutionsart and r,�n9 :1 . Lake Oswego School Distri t: The Facts , submitt. by.1,1 y ; Bunick t .�,., 'z Transcript excerpt from August "` y , Board tape j. l a�� n ,, l 39 Devel t men e 't � v 3 ,.I Y 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 ,rt . ,, 14. Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors • 15. Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24, 1989 • 16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine andrBobdChizum�m Chamber members, dated July 28 , 1989 F 19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Co e c r President, dated July 20, 1989 mmr.e 20 . Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8 , 1989.�v .' s • 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989 • �' 22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5, 1989 1. ll 23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clark, dated August ti , 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25. Letter from Lynora Saunders , Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 26 . Letter from D.R. Norris , dated July 29 , 1989 • 27 . Letter from Judith D. Umaki , dated August 1 , 1989 i • 28 . Charles Hales , Staff Vice President for Governmental A{F Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14 , ? 989 29 . Gregory 0. Meadors letter, dated August 13 , 1989 20 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14 , 1989 :Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 14 , 198'5 *y12 . Carol Webb letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • et, Ar • • .i •. q • • Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 'age 3 ;• 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 34. Debbie Seitz ;Letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 37 . Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989 38 . Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989 • 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 42. Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1989, including attached • newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach 's memorandum dated July 5, 1989 43 . Deborah B. F'eldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • 44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989 • 45 . Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14, 1989 45 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14 , 1989 47 . Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 11 48 . Marilyn Roberts letter, dated .August 10 , 1989 49 . Mary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989 { 50 . sill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 ,,• 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1939 • 52 . Richard M . Bullock Letter, dated August 11 , 1989 53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter , dated August 9 , 1999 54 . William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 q.. . 55 . Mardi 'lemhauser letter, dated August 10 , 1989 •, r' 55 . Charles A. '11an5fftetrr lette t » , r, .� ed tiu _ �ust 10 , :da •, • • �'o . 1 - OF . Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 4 , 57 . Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 • 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14 , 1989 59 . Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989 r 60 . b Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, ` dated June 20, 1989 61. Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, '1989 63 . Letter. from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 , 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick F . Stone, dated August 11 , 1989 4 65. Map of City and District boundaries 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989 , submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 67 . Bill Korach , "Questions• « and Answers : How is the School District Coping with Growth . " [Presented to City Council at Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 . j 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 , f "0. Report from Superintendent , Lake Oswego School District , 'lay 7, 1990 . M -1 . Enrollment Report, Lake Oswego Sscnool District , Tune 1 , 1990 . Rom' "2 . Memorandum from Sandra Korbelit re jarring school cs7aci t ✓ "1.4. residential development activity, Aurju t 10 , 1940 . "3 . Lake21 , l p • Oswego Elementary Schoonr 11meit statistic:s , A'., .Just p 1990 . `1erlaran� um f= n Peter : , a. rvev re et ,.. %' , alculati ar:. g rep : �ar1r i i 1 r ns, au;�ust 21 , 1990 . L t .` 2orres sond�- , L F ° Il. r �:• d • , ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS ( 9-18-90) t In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land : use applications , one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban 4 Service Boundary General Policy also been raised. Before stating ltFte Counci.l�neiniteer policies have those policies, it is necessary to restate the rationaletfor othef City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are the regulatory language of the Plan . The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969 and 1973 which required local comprehensive plan which was consistent lwith ons testablished statewide land use planning goals . A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law an : " [A) generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a interrelates all functional andnatural sysal tems that � + and r .• 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 . 'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional ,and natural j activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General natvre ' means a summary of policies and 'proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area , activity or use ,plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of governments , semi-public and private agenriei , and tie citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodatedmuch as possible. ' Land ' includes water, both 5�.,rt�•�� ls '1' subsurface, and the air. " At the state level each statewide planning mandatorystatewidefoal, �hicn are is omaniecj byplanning standards and are general in gat ,,•, , "guidelines ,5e guidelines ,aCe : , " (s l ugge5ted approaches es L ed toaidcities in preparation, adoption and implementaion of ^ympned `ns : v� y""�` plans in compliance with goals and re aid state. e ye , special districts to the preparati n , adoption and i'~oleo ,n. a� . . of plans, programs and regulati )ns in pl :an•y ` Guidelines shall :�e a,;, i '�a�r. .e ,, y:n J1111 . ory and shall trycities, counties and special 'iiatr,izts t°)r4 sinr,spyµ �y ��" �acn . ee , , �. N• • • • d. �, f„. ., :. !.:.;%. i ..,. q::,i: ]-!- 0',,::H..t.,....,..,,.....,...,;.• , ,,,,,.,, :. ...-,,, •.; .. .,, ' :„ '.,:.' i':: .:-.'1'..-2., .','::—.:! •,::1'.;1',1:.: ' . . .. — — — ...‘ ' — ' . '• ' ,_,..,, . Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 2 The City's Plan, at � ' Objectives, General PolicieseandaSpecificns the dCe between following way, Policies in the "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are short statements of the purpose of the policies, General Policies, which are major methods of achieving objectives Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry outcific General Policies, . . . . " {t There are also strategies for carrying out the Plan found in . Volume Ii, which is the background information and supporting documentation for the Plan. The language has historillye applied as follows : historically been The general policies of the Plan are the "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized portions which are statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined y state law. A hearing body, in order to approved by must conclude that the applicable lc an application, Comprehensive Plan have been followed. Each policies lands use the must identify and explain why the requirements ofthe ,applican �_ ♦ general policies have been satisfied oy the application. Not allgeneral policies are applicable to every decision. . In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general • policy, the hearing body will be guided in its decision the specific policies for the armaking ;�,; narrative language and strateciestforlthegeneral el policy and the U many eases the specific policy element . In ` • extremely detailed, to the pointdescribingofrl policy are to the one/hundredth of an acre and buildingarea limitations ns footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory ve ,,. are the general policies then each provision of a specific ight will need to be complied with to the letter in orde for an policy ' � application or project to be approved , si the granting of variances From the regulatoryThere is no provision f �r Plan. when an application or f provisions �E tit, `'.' '- • policy, but perhaps not to the pletter of a conforms to .r he general „x the specific policies for the general policy , the app �F ,n, a. " ' project as a wnole must be dened if the specific apl is . r ^onstrued to be regulatory p - _ L . L . policies �r1� must be complied with in ordernEor an anal tregulattr+ w ,� s� an.It. r ,� application Iz ..ari-art :-,!: a, • • . `Y a Attachment No. 3 �! u September 18, 1990 Page 3 0 The specific p 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,y, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the . ° specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable Pp general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making ,i1 consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered b`y LUBA without a reversal on this point. This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that dent :::::, .. . into the original Plan development . Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discussed below. No general policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a 1 4 .- residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specifics`, policies and it is from these references that the policies become applicable in the review of a development application , ry I N 1. Overall Density General Policy I �' ti. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the ove..all, average 7 residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3 : The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered. " I This policy requires that the Comprehensive plan density '�e sucn +•a ' that the planned densities do not result in land uses that dill exceed the capacity offacilities y public syste. .s avlilabte cr plannp°1 . This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan nap densities ;.' and is nut applicable in the development review stage , The �`; , appropriateness of the Plan map desi;nat on or zone der, + J.-tat: ., on a given site is not an issue in a nearing on a develp^e'it application. ,a, VMM�J • L Attachment No. 3 September 18, 19904111 Page 4 • 2. Impact Management General Policy II The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring ' - +" the developer to provide appropriate solutions before . approval is granted. Specific Policy 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review. " This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capacity in the development review process . This policy requires that a detailed review of projects take place and it directs that the City seek capacity information from the District. The ` ,� , " development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity Information . x. . , The July 5, 1989 report from the District, and the July, 31 , 1989 , October 3 , 1989, and August 21 , 1990 joint meetings are examples of this coordination and 'encouragement" . Because of the variety of factors that impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict, with a great degree of accuracy , school 4', populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and +; � unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population . However, once a, building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it becomes L•easonably certain that the structure will be occupied in the near time frame (3-6 months ) . By monitoring actual school ' .'• populations and outstanding building permit , forecasting ova: a 3-6 month, time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of reliability . • . • If this coordination results in the development of data whicl , supports the findings required by the state moratorium statit t* establish a capacity shortage , a moratorium on building permits • • . can he enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow of new 0 students to the district. • 3 . Impact Management General Policy V. . ` The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate . public services and facilities . ' ° iI f m r • • • Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 5 aecalfic Po1ia 3 Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the normal capacity of the developerpublic services except in instances where capacity, P pays all costs of providing additional required P y, subject to City Council approval. " The general policy requires the City to plan and provision of adequate facilities . program for the � program for the School District, The City cannot plan or the District. This policy does not hreque iredthe ordinate with facilities for the school . Through the enactment City t}1eplan moratorium statute, the State Legislature has • from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case basisbyecaseed the City to a lack of school capacity." The moratorium statute is due available to temporarily prohibit, on a system i uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools . bash ' land 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III The City will manage and phase urban growh r Services Boundary, with a logical plannedtextensionithint of basbase ic services: k To establish prioritiesp : ,. the City will identify areas`1within sthe ed eUrban xServicon of es rvices , Boundary as follows: (1 ) Lands suitable for near future development GROWTH) ( IMMEDIATE (2) Lands in long range growth areas . The City will schedule (FUTUREies through URBAIVIZABLE) . capital improvements programcand cfinancin plan. a 9 Plan. `a S�ecitic Policy 4 : , New development shall be served by n urban level of of the following: a services a. relater b. Sanitary sewer • C. Adequate streets, including collectors d. Transportation facilities e. Open space and trails, as per Open Space Element E. City policy protection • • g. City Eire protection • h. Parks and recreation facilities , as per Recreation Element Parks and . • .11° ` � ` 4 • r . 4 Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 ° ` Page 6 4 i. Adequate drainage j . Schools ..vIki Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are • necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of • approval of the development, or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds. " • The Urban Services Boundary Policies 'direct that the City define +:4, • the future growth area for which it intends to be the major provider of public services . Within the ultimate growth area , General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions he first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizable areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan . Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of P , 4110 . .. . . .. the general policy. The specific policy almost seems .misplaced , and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above , which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that general policy do not require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in Specific Policy 4 . The most relevant language of this general policy to the issue at hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a ' " logical planned" extension of "basic" services . The School District is logically planning to provide new facilities to sere . demands generated by growth . The district, like school di5tri ;t in general, provides facilities in response to demand--n t in anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of ran;. •• Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and ..• , identifies schools , along with police and Eire services , • s "responsive" facilities . The Director draws a distinction, for • planning purposes , between these responsive facilities and transportation, eater, sew ge and drainage facilities ,�itict it 1 ter words "must attend, rather than follow or respond t ), construction. " " a y 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 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 �r wr function in this state, to require schools tohow schools r$�.., funded prior to the approval of be constructed or PP 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. of school planning and coordination between Districtthe TCityhuandnt Schoollel satisfy this general policy. In summary, the three general policies listed above , which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate r growth , coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and • evaluate applications and determine impacts . a system wide issue and forecasting when newSchoolcapacity is growth will impact the school system' is not precise . A quasi-judicial hearing on single land use application is not the appropriate • which to make determinations concerningystwid forum within � capacity . system wide school P y . There is not reliable data concerning future impacts that will result from a single application or the timingof tho • impacts . The current level of coordination and plannin , wit- s _ continual monitoring of actual school population changes , sal:is - r these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will be exceeded, with certainty , moratorium law to prevent aneovertaxingr may employ the stateof the school facilities m while the district implements programs to correct the problal, Atty. Correspond-7 ,. Ao y.. • • • • • • • •fi , • U • • • • • • ,. .. . • * LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 �'. w TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent r • . SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation One of the primary goals of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative 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 school communities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which we have defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego, w , ' District Standards Equal opportunity--The district has a responsibility (Board Policy 6110) to provide "essentially the same instructional program to n11 children of the district," Student-teacher ratio--The district believes that smaller classes facilitate increased teacher-studer,t interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, allow F ,; for more thorough student diagnosis and evaluation„ and provide the potential for greater flexibility in teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individual differences in students. 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 envirore•tent within which each child can develop and be recognized as a unique individual. As the school population rises significantly over 500 students additional strains are placed on students, teachers, and parents as they attempt to communicate and to work closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment. Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong commitment to maintaining 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 mug give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program, . ,for all children of t comparable grade levels." The Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the community, has no .zompleted its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long-term approaches to the dramatic increaser -, elementary enrollment. Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Committe,;, the :boot district has developed participatory decision-making processes, such as holding�.,aff both meetings and conducting community and staff surveys, to gather information and opinionsn and h to �!p .. ' • iL ape solutions to our enrollment problems. Additionally, this spnng, members of the Lake Croce S,:hool cw-rmmunity opened their homes fora series of five coffees attended by district administrators. scntaui hoardl 7.ambers, and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options bein 'oid-ti e � ° the district, _g . n r�,. participation by i , ion of this ve dy • , - , -c:^rsidembletopport opportunities Forst antcu communityattonobvitheel Elementary Enrollment Study rommtuc:., ind:;udin�� and by staff, is represented by the mdtridual recommendations of the members of the enrollment committee and by the following b recommendation (�� the , • ,P I + , 11' • • Y y a. SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . 'NFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS 0 ., •: ", ' school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as being approximately 500 students, • :.fie Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, which, as you know, has been -.located at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students. z ain excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction, the =ember of elementary students per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market. a~is my opinion that the actual enrollment on October I will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove School xroulation within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-91 school year, r° 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 an other elementary ary school in the district; ;y • 2. Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase in enrollment of any elementary school in the district: C 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 and the construction of a covered play area. • • C3NCLUSIONS „ a • 7.4:conditions affecting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require the school district to s: strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake Grove School :ighout the 1990-91 school year W L , 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 199041 school year; 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." - "-... GROVE RECOMMENDATION Z_-*=, the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additional { .x• ooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for Lake Gro%e ' • Se.... .lol to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions. I therefore recommend to the Board of ' D._r.--c:ors the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year: 1. Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant Elementary School for the . 1990-91 school year. This option alone provides for a projected October I, 1990. enrollment of approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School, n, 2. Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant option will further reduce the projected OctobeE11,n1990,ienrollment of Lake�Grove`School hool ter "lit, approximately 3t� students, to , 3, Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance area to attend• River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied. I am recommending an area generally €' • referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated by the Board of D+re,aors to attend the new school in 1991-93. This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom spat.c within the district as well as help to prevent Lake Grove from significantly exceeding the optimal title for district elementary schools. • 4. Designate other neighborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to take ptaL,: for Jisir,,.i- . r wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boundaries arc estahlitilied h'r the ' • 1991-92 school year. This option will allow us to utilise existing classroom space 111111111 Ilk: Ji••trict as well as to help prevent Lake Grove from exceeding the optimal size for district elemcniary •cliouls ' "- {cmmendatton will continue to require that the district provide adequate support services to Lake tarme E. - -Mary School, including administrauve assistance:, . y r • SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL { INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS ' •Uplands Elementary School currentl has a : Y a population of 559 students and is projected for 595 students on ,, October 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeling plus the continued use of portable classrooms, Uplands Elementary School should have the classroom space to �.. accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year without significantly compromising district standards. CONCLUSIONS •\r, The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance 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 .the resources to allow Uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the district's other elementary schools. RECOMMENDATION l recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within 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 administrative assistance. "k ' �•`'' ' SUPERII\1'ENDENT°S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • • . ,i i .INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS '4?""' I' Forest Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for .• ` October 1, 1990, With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through students on A`' 1',',4 :remodeling, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to 1 accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year. " CONCLUSIONS Al The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance boundaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal .` educational opportunity is beingsignificantlyy jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and the resources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program t comparable to that of the district's other elementary schools. ,; ) ECOM,MENDATION ° ti , recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within the • car rent Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. • i, ':• -xis option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support pport services, • i • ' 4:k �.•., . Newr . ... .. . •. . • • • J.� 1 • •.1 • `p , . . . • . , \f1I-F , ... . St 9/4/90 (Ir. .. . , . • ,. . , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO — CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager SUBJE T: Follow—Up on Residential Lot Calculation '"; DATE: August 28, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a question came up regarding how the vacant single—family zoned lots were calculated. Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner, has advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by countingthe number of subdivisions and minor partition lots adding the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for Iota last fiscal year (19$9 0), 1988-89, and then subtracting single—f, .Wily buildingermits a approved lots ending 0 The calculation of 857 vacant lots included both lare tracts of vacant land .a fiscal year. ` scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods, The bulk of the 857 are found in scatted in lots. There was also a request to determine the geographic areas of the City where these lots are located. This would require considerable manual work on thepart of the Planning staff to accumulate. ` it is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material for inclusion in , the update of the moratorium report, Respectfully submitted, ."1110, ,, ,•'#/' . eter C. Harvey City Manager ; IJ • • St 0 380 A 'AN.,ENLE POST OFFICE BON369 LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON97014 ISO 635.0.i5 , ilkit u " r Lake Oswego Elementary Enrollment 410. ., ... ;r August 21, 1990 . f' Adjusted Current # of '., Projection Forecast Capacity Enrollment Portables Bryant 413 513* 529 502 2 l - Forest Hills 403 403 391 370 • Hallinan 3315 330 437 311 { YY 140 . — • ' Lake Grove 60u 500* 552 453 2 r.. 1 • Palisades 344 344 345 328 • River Grove 299 299 414 305 3 Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 Westridge 409 409 460 398 TOTAL 3,393 3.393 3,772 3,241 10 Ir ,':., • • • y. 5 \ • • MEMORANDUM ' • Alt IOW TO: • Peter C.Harvey, City Manager . FROM: Sandra Kprbelik, Senior Planner. oi .a a avonus Lake Os 319 wego SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School O�egonq�Q7� Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity • kJ sos.iis iso DATE: Auj,st 10. 1990 IMMO soo•��s•a:;a Engingnaq City Council has requested a periodic briefing regarding the status of the Lake Buuemq Oswego School District elementary school capacity. As you know, the City has v soo•eos•oosq established a regular `4'. Fix system of communicating residential development activity to ., '..:' • soo•e�s•o AX the school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This report contains the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary summary of residential development activity for fiscal yar 1989/1990.school and a A 1. School District Forecasts ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROTECTIONS 1990/1991 SCHOOL YER ,School Capacity for Adjusted Fgrecast ' 1990/1991 1990/1991 0 ' , Bryant 529 513 • .01 Forest Hills 391 .403 Hallman • • Lake Grove 437 3303 Palisades 552 500 345 344 • Rivergrove 414 299`t 0 Uplands 644 595 r ; Westridge 460 409 Total Students 3,772 3,393 • •.. •r Y 111 .....- 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new j '"' portable classrooms, kinder arten pro additions, g p grams and space commitments for other c) agencies or district wide programs. • "' 2 The adju sted lusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from October 1,1989 are the same. The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of ' individual school figures due to subsequent elementary enrollment decisions, s• r 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may kJ range up to a total of 600 students, • . • • 1`.) --.) 4 The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative. Student on demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek t .. subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the Rivergrove School, The size of that demand is difficult to forecast. 0. , n I.:µ • . I A • ,r . . • The school district has created the flexibility to accommodate an additional 379 students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Starring with the subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new element } an increased district capacity of 500 students. ' school will provide for 2. Residential Development Activity . The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this • last fiscal year. These fiegures , Council August 1989, whichic�had toppedta June 30, 1989.A. distributed to City BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR r, Single Family 400 Houses Multi Family allnits Total 439 Dwellings • B. SLNGLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Z.O.LIC r rj f roc , R-15 63 R-10 • 117 • R-7.5 R-5 31 Total Lots Approved 372 . The City continues to experience an active development market, bo subdivision of land and issuance of buildingreth through the ' dwelling units in 1988/1989 the preceding scal 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 multifamily land. to a decline in available .Y•' e- r , r 3. Conclusions • r Information presented to Council in August, 1989 during the building moratorium deliberations indicated there were a total of 885 vacant single family zon within the city limits. A very gross update of this vacant lot figure with the at last fiscal years development activity indicates there are roughly 857 vacant lots as of a July I, 1990. This new vacant lot figure was achieved by adding 885 (existing vacant lots) to 372 recently approved lots) and subtracting 400 (single family building permits), ' . w . . :n. n are several variables which a Them re not taken into consideration through ough this ' 1. Recently ap roved,lots are subdivisions of previousI counted lots. Therefore, the parent lot(s) should be subtracted eotal liof recently approved lots. Otherwise, these pant is are double counted. 2. Some vacant lots can not be built upon since they are set aside as o '' space,pce, are part of a double lot ownership with an exis • pen straddling both lots. •existing house / • • • • • • • I , •+• , • • • • i ! • ire • '• ` � ' }'' / . y ' . . . ' .. • • LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT `t Office el Superintendent ENROLLMENT REPORT pate 6.'1r90 ,. ELEMENTARY K 1 2 3 SchoolPup 4 6 Much Side Sec Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup6 Spec Total , 1' rrrsl Hills 2.0 Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup $eC Pup GroveLatta 3.0� 2.0 NEE 2,0 51 2.0 40 I y_I__- • Ltztands 0.0 0 5.0 4.0 • 4.0 ® ® 56 4.0 476 1 0 10 14 5 5581 �T"e.. Total �___..:_._.a•_3.0 - 4-0 arB 3.0 M+ 3.0 69 4,0 92 4.0 4 0 66 0 0 0 24 01 5561 5-- .0a_ 12.0 ._ 276^ 9,0 204 9.0 --- - 4.0 92 1,0 10 665 562194 �� 9,5 214 10.0� 10,0 225 2.0 20 66 5 14g4j Sc urth.aide _ er•uant 6.01111g1 2.0 NEE 2.0 48 2.0 -atfcttan 2.0 39 2.0 40 2.0 40 2.0®®mcf 2.0 J 2.0 39 0.0 0 18 5 392 2711.r'xlirades 2.0�i 2.0 ��.� 2.0 .ivet Grove 2,0 an 2.0a 2.0© 2.0 42 ZONE 3,0 00 0 0.0 0 13.0 2870.0 0 15 5 1 ' d ' tridae IKE 2.0�® 1 2.0� 3 0 65 2.0® i 1.5 34 1 0�5 0.0 0 18 436 e • Total 14.0 ire 3.011r/ 3.0 85 0 0 0 18 0� 436 1 = 1'r"OTAL 19.0® 2�'0 2351 100,0® 10,51 242 11.0 270 11.5 A 429 19 90 220 001 ;;01 S 7221• 5 458 20.5 an 21.5 461 19 0 445 2.0 20 143 51 3 2151 • Junior High SECONDARY 7 8 Total Oct,i Hlgh School • �ru ' LC 1-5' ____,1®®-or 4 9 10 i t 12 Total Cti; 1h'atuca I _ 250® 501 4 .DHS . 259 250 230 2041 Total 511 488 92;1 9 �akendoe 230 250 489* j 459 4541 1 6701 • © 1927 Growth Analysts Grade-awe' October 1489 Elem Kai Octooer. 1989 t--m i.3081 1461 �� �� Current _q r+icn d04 N I S 1St �tcn �� 1 640 9 I i 1 0061 1 057 440 ® , 4 4 ". `_ALS 95; oc2 4cal 5. S.o'e 11 5 928 8 r1 d..l • . • oil .. ._ . ., , .. . - , . • . a ,.. . . ,a . . .. • F4311:EM STREETS PLAN SCALE: in al 30' rat•„,• 5-3 Hisewood Street M .f7 Tax Lott 3703 1 u Block t84 ' r:ant Acres Lake l�t_�wego V . :� estsa•. ••p• .-„....•.. an Homes, Inc. .��� �v� iN ......,..,. ,•..... • .•:. . .. • ,• ... ..... . . . -..... . . ...,r.......:,. .. . . . . .......,,....,. .,... a:. . 3 . ..., .. G sGoo F,1 0 s-z.0 pi / 3 • ..• .• , .. , . .• .Y •• ....„ ..- . •• . . .... . , .... ... , ..• . . • .. 3 , . //////��j�)) ..�. r.� T. I �ayt/o1`0703 J r -- MINIM — le, I ill cal . ., .,,, r ) ;AO '1, " .'.... ,::',.. '.. �wr dui' 3701 ........ �. 4 1 cotoseA MthoV po(+1+nov% , 41 2Le--0 ( y `r `---> wI R,o.w. I •_ . . � I 5,4 C a • lo` R.o,W, D •btcA,1o10 } Rosewood 5+feei �.. . ` ii EXHIBIT . 504 91Iucwq-g1 ' ) r A .__ . • f; �1 'I 1 Y J •Y r,t .. . - 1 a ... 1 �•. •f .'t .. of • .. ` a ♦. .'� a+f .. Efe.. r eny IVia1 , Y ( ' r20 a c D 37t)3 N • . . eleda},a� /DO • • • 1 ( I ,gbpr. ie 411111 y-oF h ,: • • • froiCasc cl /U,N o✓ 11M A 7 &7.1 • • • 4/44 XHtBir 91 I � ,��• r , 99 s 47 ccwo-y1 Michael A. Nelson 2560 N.W. Robinia Lane Portland, OR 97229 nllC;lry 31, 1'391 (�j ` 111 .r. j � t M . Marlene Deat'_'n r "•' >': •y PROFESSIONALS 10�Z1 MAR 2 9 i9�1 5285 S. W. Meadow Road S uite 161 ▪ Oswego, OR '97'L' 5 $. ..'L Wll'' 1'iu IWO L' ,l'•I:This letter Will confirm our intent to install an ,i'.I_IIIo.IL dr^i^ve-- oiay on property which you own on S. W. Rosewood SI:1"C'1'L in I i:1I'.t' • The driveway will be installed along the east property line of ,'our property beginning at Rosewood Street extending Lea' a point .• south of the driveway of the h4.me located at 5302 S. W. Rosewood. The length and width will be determined by the City of Lake • Zswego. -he entire cost of the driveway will be borne by us. No w111 keep you informed of the progress o' partition � the nl1Yn.,�l� 1 ; • 4 =ar which wo pare applying, and will provide all 1n orIi.I, li:ir, I , , . 1, s,ll that relates to your properly. ;lease sign the bottom of this letter, and return to us in the enclosed envelope. . ? Sincerely, • • 44+1chael A. Nelson (Ms. Marlene Deat'-'n) Z•t`.clo'. ur"F . 4 EXHIBIT ' • S' S P cr.91 /ucly 9.9 . r is • • •'t yl � ° V • y • •1 • ly• • • • • • • • • ',r 1. . a � • r t_ • • STAFF REPORT CITY OF LLAKE , . . -. • , ..... „ . ...,, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISI®N APPLICANT: FILE NO. : Marlene Deaton SD 19-88\5D 20-88\ PROPERTY OWNER: SD 21-88\VAR 13-88 STAFF: Luard E. Briggs (TL 3703 ) ; Dovre Development Renee L. Dowlin (TL 3700) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: • Tax Lot 3700 and 3703 of April 8 , 1988 Tax Map 2 1E 18AB LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: South side of Rosewood St. April 18, 1988 (between 5324 and 5262 Rosewood Street) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNA,TION: R-5 „R R-5 •, :: . , I . APPLICANT' S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval "' b � q 9 of the following: a , A minor land partition creating three lots of ` 5, 748 square feet, 5, 362 square feet, and 5, 043 square feet (Tax Lot 3700) . (SD 20-88) b. A minor land partition creating two lots of 5 , 010 square feet and 5 , 208 square feet (Tax Lot 3703 ) . , .. (SD 21-88) I c. A lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 3700 and Tax ' Lot 3703 to create a separate private access and utility easement of 4 , 090 square feet to pry •..j,de access to the proposed lots , (SD 19-�88) • • SI) 19µ8 t SI a , „., , e SD 21-88/VAR41r EXHIBIT L. Page 1 of 12 \ . ;. • ' tN ► 4.91Ike" • ,•r. . i` a i • v' d. A Class I variance to the Access Standard requiring every lot abut a street by a minimum width of 25 feet. (VAR 13-88) II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: /, LOC 48 . 120-48 . 155 t2-5 Zone Description B. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: ' LOC 49 . 140 Minor Development LOC 49 . 200 Minor Development Procedures,- LOC 49 . 215 Authority of City Manager '. LOC 49 . 300 Major Development Procedures r .` LOC 49 . 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval ' C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: , 5 . 005 Street Lights 12 . 005 Drainage for Minor Development 14 . 005 Utilities 18 . 005 Access 19 . 005 Site Circulation - Private aiLL ' Streets and Driveways D. City of LakejOswego Comprehensive Plan: - Residential Land Use Policy Element Housing Choice Policies, General Policies I, II - Transportation Land Use Policy Element General Policy IV . III . FINDINGS A. Background: 1 . The applicant submitted an application for an administrative action for two minor partitions . • • in February 1988 . After reviewing the application, staff met with the applicant to ' discuss staff ' s concerns and inform her that staff would be forwarding the request to the Development Review Board . 0 . , SD 19-88/St 20-88,. SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 Page 2 of 12 . u. , 2. The site consists of two parcels : • • Tax Lot 3700 - 20 , 243 square feet Tax Lot 3703 - 10, 316 square feet ,r ry 3 . The applicant is proposing to access the parcels by a 20 ' private drive (Exhibit 5A) . 4 . Tax Lot 3700 has a single family that was relocated to that site rAsfoundation permit for the house was issued on November 6 , Q ,`�, 1987 . The residence is not currently • occupied . l 5 . SD 16-84 approved a 3-lot minor partition (Exhibit 5 lists conditions off: approval) . The applicant ' s proposal involve two of these three lots (Exhibit 6) . B. Compliance with Applicable Regulations : As per LOC 49 . 615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a minor development application: 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon on the oapplicant seekingapproval. The applicant has provided Exhibits 1 through \ 12 in support of the request. 2. For any development application to be ` approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan = c =ces iden Lnd Use Policy Element (housing •iei ) states the City should have: a variety of housing types to serve the different needs of its residents. r The applicant has stated the proposed project, to partition two separate lots into 5 parcels, provides an opportunity for affordable e hou sing. Transportation Land Use Policy Element General Policy IV, q the " . requires City to . develop r a residential neighborhood streets cy;trim \ , 1 adequate to handle expecte.1 vo1umer the minimum necessary scale to preserve the 51.E l 9-4.:. ; S 2U-+t8, R\., SD 21-86/VAI- 13-88 Page 3 of 12 • quiet, privacy and safety of neighborhood living . " Staff believes the applicant 's OF proposal to provide a private street is not t' consistent with the intent of the 0 , , , *. Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the • applicant provide a public street that will handle the projected traffic volume and be constructed to City standards to allow adequate maintenance. (See further discussion of streets within the Utilities Standard section on pages 6 through 9) . ' b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. k Zoning Code Requirements and Analvis LOC 48 . 135 - R-5 Zone Lot Sizes The proposed parcels in both Tax Lots 3700 and 3703 exceed 5, 000 square feet. LOC 48 . 150 - Setbacks Setbacks for this zone are 10 ' on all sides . The Development Review Board may increase required setbacks as necessary to achieve compliance with the Development Standards. Compliance with these ser.backs will be ; reviewed during the building permit process . The existing residence on Tax Lot 3703 complies with the required setbacks . a Development Ordinance Requirements and Analysis ';` The applicant is proposing a minor \\. development. The been provided and an evaluation ofpropriat nocth have the k applicable criteria ha,1 occurred as part of this report. , ;ni' o LOC 49 . 215 - Authority of City Manager x Staff has forwarded this application to the hearing body in an effort to resolve the ; u� . issue of a private versus public street ' µ being provided by the applicant , See pages 6 through 9 of this report for Further .4, ., discussion , �, SD 19-88/SD 20-88/ SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 Page 4 of 12 . • • • `Y'` , e ° ii % y'�o c. The applicable Development Standards Street Lights (5 . 005-5 . 040) °„ ti This standard is applicable to all development which includes public and private streets, public pathways and accessway , or parking lots. Staff recommends one street light be installed near the terminus of the new street. The location and photometrics of the street light must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer . Parking and Loading (7. 005 - 7. 040) This standard is applicable to all development which generates a parking need. While the proposal will not specifically generate a parking need, the additional lots have sufficient size to provide two off-otreet parking spaces in addition to the garage. Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12. 005 - 12. 040) This standard requires that drainage not • adversely affect adjacent properties . • No drainage system exists in the area . The , '' applicant has proposed a drywell at the end of the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends a condition of approval that prior to submittal of building plans and construction drawings, the applicant shall submit a soils report • confirming that the proposed drywell shown in Exhibit 9 will adequately dispose of street runoff and runoff from impervious surfaces (including roof and foundation drains) created on the lots . Utilities (14 . 005 - 14 . 040) a . Sanitary Sewer Sy-tem An 8" sanitary sewer line exists in Rosewood Drive, The applicant must a . provide a manhole in Rosewood, extend the 6" line in the new roadway and provide a cleanout at the end of that line. ► . SD 19-88/S0 20-88/ SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 Page 5 of 12 b. Water System ;• A 6" water line exists in Rosewood Drive and can adequately service the site. c. Streets The applicant is proposing a 20 ' wide private roadway with 2 . 5 foot gravel shoulders (See Exhibit 1 for more detail) . Staff recommends the roadway be public. 1. The applicant lists six reasons for ,- requesting the private drive: 1. "When the original partition was approved, the conditions were either to widen the access to 35 feet or to allow such widening with two 5 ' d , utility easements - the petitioner chose the two 5 ' utility easements and .,' now the area cannot be widened without •• ? creating undue hardship to adjoining property owners, Tax Lot # 3701 and Tax Lot # 3703 . Therefore, we do not ,' have the required City street width in rI v this access area . " /,',, •, • The existing easement is 25 ' wide with two 5 ' utility easements for future accessway improvements (Exhibit 5) . Staff is not requesting additional right-of-way width that would create a hardship for the adjoining tax lots. The required 27 ' right-of-way can be accomplished with the . '1\ existing 25 ' easement dedicated as public right-of-way with 2 ' of the existing 5 ' utility easement remaining in private ' . . ownership. Within the 27 ' width ( 25 ' 6• .. public, 2 ' private) , the physical improvements recommended by staff are the . following: 24 ' asphalt pavement with 6" \ • curbs on each side. • 2. "This access area and proposed private '; • drive does not and would not service properties other than those stipulated in this request . Therefore, the basis • of future need is not seen . " • • Staff is not recommending the public street tie into any future streets plan . SD 19-88/Si) 20-•88/ SD 21-88/VAI2 13-88 • Page 6 of 12 . . . 4 r . • , ; t j v o 1 + However, the street will provide access to a minimum of five parcels and staff ., S believes a public street is appropriate to ensure adequate maintenance is provided. • 3 . "The maintenance of the private drive would fall to the property owners taking access by means of deed stipulations and thereby relieving the City of maintenance costs . " Staff recommends that the Board consider the fact that the City is routinely contacted by property owners who have responsibility for maintenance of private roadways. These property owners ask what process is available to allow the City to ' take over the private roadway and provide �'` maintenance. If the Development Review Board does not approve staff ' s request: for a public street, staff recommends the physical improvements required for the private roadway be identical to those for the public street. Staff believes if the v' ' roadway is built to City standards, the City will be able to take over jurisdiction in the future and provide satisfactory maintenance.1 4 . "The proposed g p p private drive is straight and less than 200 feet in length,9 , plus has an approximate 45 ' bullnose turn-- around which would • accommodate the Fire Department' s requirements/standards as set out on :z their memorandum dated April 25, 1983 (copy attached, Exhibit E) . " The 1983 Fire Marshal memo states that cul-de-sacs shall be a minimum of 45 ' paved outside radius. it further states that if the private drive is less than 250 ' in depth, the fire equipment would not normally turn around, However, the applicant has provided 45 ' of width for the bullnose turnaround , not a 45 ' outside turning radius . 6. ✓ ' '` bevelopment Standard 19 , 020 (h) requires, ,,A, ' dead-end streets, other than where fire 'a trucks are expected to turn, must provide for either passenger vehicle turnaround or. x SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 Page 7 of 12 a delivery vehicle turnaround. The type of the turnaround to be used must be approved by the City Manager. around must The layout of the turn comply P Y with the current Standard details • available from the City. • ' Exhibit 13 illustrates the City' s typical residential turnarounds. In order to comply with the Ci.ty ' s detail , the applicant must reconfigure the turnaround. Staff met with the applicant to design a turnaround that would minimize the amount of land necessary and continue `, , • to provide sufficient land area for each lot. Exhibit 15 depicts that conceptual design. 5 . "As we are trying to provide for affordable (lower cost) building sites , the additional costs of City street standards , compared to private drive, could accelerate the property costs thereby defeating our purpose of lower cost housing. We feel we are proposing to provide better than adequate access through affordable means . " Staff believes the cost of providing a . . " public versus private roadway will not negatively impact the affordability of the building sites. The 20 ' of pavement with 2. 5 ' gravel shoulders on each side will not provide proper drainage. Staff recommends the curbs to provide a means of • channeling the runoff to the catchbasin. Further , the 20 ' of the pavement does not provide-adequate width for fire equipment. Staff believes the physical improvements necesary to adequately service the site r should be 24 ' of asphalt pavement and 6" curbs on each side. 6 , "The added advantage of a private drive, , rather than public street, are for the private, quiet enjoyment, and safety of • the residents of these proposed building sites and the adjoining property owners . " 4110 ' . SD 19-88/5b 20-88/ SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 . Page 8 of 12 ' a . r, 19 . 020 (4) states: . . . all streets shall be declared fire • accesses, either in deed or on a recorded , map and shall be so signed. Vehicles parked within fire accesses shall be ' •",. .�u . subject to towing away at the owner 's expense. Staff believes requiring the public street will not create more noise, disturb the privacy of the property owners , or lessen the safety of the residents. Police will be able to patrol the public street. . Additionally, the name of the public street must be approved by the City, and posted, allowing for better emergency service to the residents. Access Standard (18 . 005 - 18 . 040) The applicant has applied for var].anc:os to . this standard for four of the proposed lots . The variance is required because the applicant ` ` proposes a private roadway and cannot provide for every lot to have a minimum of 25 ' of street frontage (public street frontage) . . • Exhibit 4 is the applicant' s narrative for this variance request. Staff recommends denial of the variances , The hardship is self-imposed, as each lot could have 25 ' of public street frontage if the roadway was public. Adequate area exists on this site to enable right-of-way dedication : ' and construction of a public street, Development consistent with the request might be injurious to the neighborhood if the property owners are not able to adequately maintain the private roadway. The request is not the minimum necessary to make reasonable ' use of the property. Staff recommends the .' physical improvements of the roadway, whether '. public or private, be identical . Again, these improvements would include 24 ' of asphalt • pavement, and 6" curbs on each side. The •., • applicant ' s request for 20 ' of pavement and j ' 2. 5 ' gravel shoulders will not provide adequate drainage or the minimum pavemer:►t width necessary for fire equipment. SD 19-88/SL, 20-88 .. SD 21-88/VAP 13-88 Page 9 of 12 ° 1'v. 1 1 ( r Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways v, : (19 . 005 - 19 . 040) See the discussion under 14 . 005 - c. Streets, 4111 ,.. -. on pages 6 through 9 of this report. e � „ d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • The site is not within the boundaries of any future streets plan or approved ODPS. Staff has been working with the property owner of Tax Lot 1700 (Exhibit 14) to provide a future streets plan. A review of the preliminary plans for the future streets plan illustrates that inclusion of the subject property will • result in the property not developing to the allowed density. Further , it is staff ' s intent to have the future streets plan provide a connection between Rosewood and Lakeview Blvd. , further to the east. r • '' III . CONCLUSION Based on the findings presented in this report, the : applicant can meet the applicable criteria for ` development, with the application of certain conditions. IV. RECOMMENDATION ;j. nt • 1,, . Staff recommends denial of VAR 13-88 . Si-aff recommends approval of SD 19-88 , SD 20-88 and SD 21-88 subject to the following conditions of • • approva? : . Y ' " ' ' e.. 1 . A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written • application, prior to expiration of the onee year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with the current law, development standards and compatibility with development which ' may have occurred in the surrounding area , The extension may be granted or denied and, if " granted, may be conditioned to require rJ SD 19-88/Sri 20-88 SD 21-88/VAR 13-$8 Page 10 of 12 ' I. 1 I Q / _ S. modifications to bring the project into compliance ' '. with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 2 . The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor 's Office and recorded with the respective deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office, as noted in Condition 43 . 3 . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be '' specified on legal instruments for title transfer for recording with the Clackamas County Clerk ' s , " Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. Actual recording shall not be a condition • of approval of this decision. However , when recorded, the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application - City of Lake Oswego, Land Service Division, F le Nora , SD 19-88, SD 20-88, SD 21-88 , VAR 13-88 . 4 . The applicant shall dedicate 25 ' of public right- ' of-way for construction of a public . street. The existing 5 ' utility easements for future accessway ' •t. improvements required in SD 16-84 shall remain. . •,' 5 . The applicant shall construct 24 ' of pavement with 6" curbs on either side. The design shall be submitted for review and approval by the Land Development Services Division, prior to actual construction. 6 . Prior to submittal of construction drawings and x building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report confirming that the proposed drywell shown in Exhibit 9 will adequately dispose of street runoff and runoff from impervious surfaces (including roof and foundation drains) created on the lots. 7 . The applicant install one street light near the terminus of the new street. The location and . photometrics of the street light must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer . 8 . The applicant shall provide adequate turnaround as b " r illustrated in Exhibit 15 . a + 9 . The proposed parcel 1 of Tax Lot 3703 shall. access • ,i ' only off of the new public street. Compliance ` :-, '' with this will be reviewed during building pian review. : .F t "` SD 19-88,✓SD ..,J-88 , M.., SI) 21-88/VAp 13-88 Page 11 of 12 '4 1 *1 + 6- • ' . - Y . , •r , + - r . .fir t , ,+ ` 1 v. • 10 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the street improvements on Rosewood Street shall be completed as required by SD 16-84 . 11 . Unless otherwise specified, evidence of the above conditions must be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits. L Y • • • EXHIBITS 4, 1 . Applicant ' s Narrative and Map for Tax Lot 3700 . 2 . Applicant ' s Narrative and Map for Tax Lot 3703 . 3 . Applicant ' s Narrative and Proposed Adjustment for Lot Line Adjustment. 4 . Applicant ' s Narrative and Map for Variance Requests .` 5 . SD 16-84 , Conditions of Approval 5a . Site Plan • w. .:, 6 , Tax Map g: 7. Vicinity Map 8 . Existing Conditions ' ` 9 . Proposed Utility Map �,-: � .. 10. Proposed Electrical Map 11. Letters from Adjacent Neighbors 12. 1993 Memo to Lori Meuser from Fire Marshal 13 . Residential Typical Turnarounds 14 . Tax Map of Future Streets Plan 15 . Conceptual Turnaround for Subject Property • • n SD 19-88/SD 20-88/ SO 21-88/VAR 13-88 Page 12 of 12 a %y t BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD d', •' 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO .i • A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF) SD 19-88\SD 20-88\SD 21-88\ 5 MINOR LAND PARTITIONS; A ) VAR 13-88 551 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A) (Marlene Deaton) 6 CLASS I VARIANCE TO THE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER ACCESS STANDARD B S ,` ra NATURE OF APPLICATION j The applicant is requesting approval of the following: _ _ a . A minor land partition creating three lots of 5 , 748 j,� square feet, 5 , 362 square feet, and 5, 043 square feet 1" (Tax Lot 3700) . (SD 20-88) be A minor land partition creating two lots of 5 , 010 square feet and 5, 208 square feet (Tax Lot 3703) . (SD 21-88) c. A lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 3700 and Tax Lot - 3703 to create a separated private access and utility 7, 7 easement of 4, 090 square feet to provide access to the „ proposed lots . (SD 19-88) d . A Class I variance to the Access Standard requiring every , ,.6 `? lot abut a street by a minimum width of 25 feet. 2 q (VAR 13-88) The property is located on the south side of Rosewood Street, _� - between 5324 and 5262 Rosewood Street (Tax Lots 3700 and 3703 of • - - Tax Map 2 lE 18A13) . BEARINGS y' The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered - this application at its meeting of April 18 , 1988 . ` SD 19-88i°SD 20--88,SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 4. ,"I EXHIBIT S,1Gall _ q» 9l M11 lF CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 1 1 . .. A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: .. . . .•, f _ LOC 48 . 120-48. 155 R-5 Zone Description B. City of Lake Oswego Develo ment Ordinance: 5 LOC 49. 140 LOC 49 . 200 Minor Development LOC 49 . 215 Minor Development Procedures LOC Authority of City Manager 49 . 300LOC , 49. 610Development Procedures Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary LOC 49 . 615 Hearing Procedures Criteria for Approval C. y C t of Lake Oswego Development Standards ; 5 . 005 Street Lights __ 12. 005 14 . 005 Drainage for Minor Development 18 . 005 Utilities 19 . 005 Access -- Site Circulation Streets ` Private ; . � and Driveways " D• Ci_y of Lake Oswego corn rehensive Plan: n, " 4 - Residential Land Use Folic • Housing Choice Policies lemer�t "` 0 .. • General Policies I, II • - Transportation Land Use Policy Element General Policy IV i' CONCLUSION The Development Review Board concludes 'that 21-88 can be made to comply with all applicable 20-88\SD ' ' Icomply.application of certain conditions; VA ble criteria by the n • R 13-88 cannot be made to ., . comply. , . it - t =----------------- NDINGS AND REASONS ,3 13 , 1988 supplemental -fier Development Review Board incorporates the A report and April April 8, 1988 staff ` ymemorandum on SD 19_ I -88\SD 21-88\VAR 13-88 as support88' SD anlemenLed by for its decision, ' they following : �• c G SD 19-88/SD 20-88 SD 21-88/VACS 13-88 During deliberation, the Board agreed with staff about the need for construction of a public street. The Board had concerns about the application of the major development standards, specifically the Park and Open r �, ,,; Space Standard, Staff discussed the intent of the Park and Open Space Standard and outlined the options ' S available for meeting the standard, as well as the c variance procedure necessary to provide something less than the 20% required. In response to staff ' s 1 comments, the Board added an additional condition of • r ' approval . • ORDER IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of =;'1 1- Lake Oswego that: 1_ 1. VAR 13-88 is denied. .2 . SD 19-88\SD 20-88\SD 21-88 is approved subject to 13 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth 14 in Subsection 3 of this Order . 3 . The conditions for SD 1.9-88\SD 20-88\SD 21-88 are as , ' follows : 16 1 . A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for It review and signature of approval within one year � ' • of the date of this decision. Upon written ' 18 application, prior to expiration of the one• year • period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant ao a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in Writing and must be submitted to 1' 20 the City Manager for review of the project for ` conformance with the current law, development 21 standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The 2G extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to require n 23 modifications to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with ,� surrounding development. :.S 2 , The Final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor ' s Office and recorded . � with the respective deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office, as noted in Condition r3 . ,• SD 19-88/SD 20-88/SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 • 1 .. /, ' - . . . 1 1 ~.N I 1 ' 3 . Legal descriptions (metesand bounds) to be specified 2 V 11.Y on Legal .instruments for title transfer for recording with the Clackamas County Clerk ' s Office, shall be ..'._ ,, 4111 . . • 3 provided to City staff for review. Actual recording 'r 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 Service Division, File Nos. SD 19-88, SD 20-88, SD 21-88 , VAR 13-88 . ' a 4 . The applicant shall dedicate 25 ' of public right-of-way for construction of a public street. The existing 5 ' utility easements for future accessway improvements 8 ` required in SD 16-84 shall remain. • 9 5 . The applicant shall construct 24 ' of pavement with 6" curbs on either side. The design shall be submitted :' 1C for review and approval by the Land Development Services Division, prior to actual construction. 11 6 . Prior to submittal of construction drawings and 12 building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report confirming that the proposed drywell shown in 13 Exhibit 9 will adequately dispose of street runoff and runoff from impervious surfaces ( including roof and a, 1�� foundation drains) created on the lots. 15 7. The applicant install one street light near the terminus of the new street . The location and Y 16 photometrics of the street light must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer . r 1 8 . The a 1.icant shall pP provide adequate turnaround as 18 illustrated in Exhibit 15 . 1, - :),I. 9 . The proposed parcel 1 of Tax Lot 3703 shall access only off of the new public street. Compliance with this x 20 will be reviewed during building plan review. , 10 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the street 21 improvements on Rosewood Street shall be completed as 22 required by SD 16-84 . 23 11 . Unless otherwise specified, evidence of the above conditions must be satisfied prior to issuance of any ' 24 building permits . t ;' a 5 12 . The applicant shall pay a fee equal to at least 20° of . the gross land area in lieu of providing open space ,:,r p. . • 26 park land . 4110 . . . . , . , . PAGE . . 4 SD 19-88/sb 20-88/SD 21-88/VAk 13-88 • • . r• ,1 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. • + DATED this 16 day of May 1988 . . a . got ,, . . J-mes A. Miller , Chairman ..r. -- D: velopment Review Board , . ii 4 c_i.„., _ _ . . Sec t y ______ - - ATTEST:10 , - _ ORAL DECISION - April 18 , 1988 I AYES : Miller , Swillinger, Ingrim, Foster NOES: None ABZlAIN: None < -c ABSENT: Zinsli , Martindale, Greaves WRITTEN FINDINGS -r May 6 , 1988 _S 1' AYES: Miller, Foster, Swillinger NOES : None - ABSTAIN: Greaves ABSENT: Martindale, Ingrim, Zinsli I WRI a FINDINGS - May 16, 1988 AYES: Foster, Swillinger, Miller, Ingrim • `• NOES: None L. 4 ABSTAIN: Zinsli, Martindale, Greaves ABSENT: None 2t S SD 19-88/SD 20-88/SD 21-88/VAR 13-88 �. . • r. • • • • • • • • b • 1 r. • • r k • • • • • • • • MEMORANDUM , 0 TO: Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner ' Barbara Smolak, Associate Planner FROM: Russ Chevrette,Engineering Technician QL ' SUBJECT: SD 6-91/VAR 9-91; Dimension Homes, Inc. (Formerly DeatonBriggs Partition) DATE: April 22, 1991 — Is a "previous action" section necessary? Won't some Board members remember the previous case and the public/private street debate? — The easement provided as ingress/egress plots out as shown on the attachment. Something is wrong. Correction of this easement should be done before the Board hears it because it intrudes into the proposed lot. It also intrudes into another party's lot which ,',.; is outside this application. "� . — If the future street will be developed as a public street as in the previous case, it should be noted that the existing home would undergo an address change. We also want the • .` proposed lot to take access off the easement--not onto Rosewood, in order to be consistent with previous approval. — The utility easement shown on the future street plan is shown to be partly on TL 3701 which is not part of this application, — Condition #6 (non—remonstrance) has been satisfied by previous owner, Luard Briggs. — General comment regarding wording of#3: partition plats create lots which will be sold _ • by reference to parcel# ... of minor partition plat no. ... Metes and bounds are obsolete. — We should specifically permit the continued use of the gravel drive as an access to the ' new lot and allow it to remain in gravel. Unless specific language is included to permit • gravel,driveways are defined as paved. It does not make sense to pave it until the future ,• street is designed. Perhaps the deeds should ccatain a covenant that paved driveways will be installed at the time street is built or perhaps the developer could put funds in • escrow to cover the costs. More discussion is needed on this point, — The street light requirement needs to be near the proposed future street—not at TL 3800. One at TL 3800 is required of the same applicant's proposal at the partition of TL ;. 3800. Lights are typically about 150' apart, —• The parcel which benefits from the easement is not the same shape as the parcel applying • for the partition —see same attachment, „• . — The easement document (90-40087) references parcels in SD files which have expired. , 4 EXHIBIT Jppk SO4•91 tua v 9,91 ' .�.. . * \ r. L ' o r ti ,e 1 J • • • . H1v • • • • ;t Y +, • F , CO •, • , s , �1,7MA a. ST�REEI PLAN "nt'ht ,, , i;r` SCALE:(ii' �+ 30'3kewood StreeC n e.xc lot 3703 ' � 4 • ��-�.t L'9cres ` a. ::c c' wego - . e3:. n Homes, Inc', rAPR• �� e II .991.' _._------'"'"" . • .i ,, ...... , M 4 i .SrcO� ® Sz00 , f . . 7 u .. . . . .... c,..,00 , . \ 1.-- - ./. IN` Tclot 37'403 \\ ..i...., SA Lam.. f A' �` �% q 1a1' N3�01I i'x", ti, 1 I �ICG� r�� 44 • . . . , , . , . , egeiviel, v1/4).--k...), , �' ,tit + „� ` roposea Mt,no v Po.t•4 Oct or% -r µ' i. I; \r: ,,, 1, . ••,, tc.,,, "DeS C R,I estl) tA) . ,:' i s r till 1TH cam. ASSJMED �f 4" 1 ,� lay 'f'`/P0 a uj (ti CO2RCc'7ON. e � w .4, Y- �"1 I d e • 1 ISM ` ,s' ,j 5 �- DE =t1 it I ..w.. . , EXHIBIT ROS oo- rce-f- if 1 l e . N, e t • i J ' q • • i r • • 0 ':. ,,,,, : 4 li 4 : • • STAFF REPORT • sum CI .. , .. , . . ----------PLANNINGDIVISION------- ;v Kenneth Guenther SD 9-91\,SD 10-91`r,SD 11-91\ PROP>?RTY nwnt� VAR 11-91(a-c)\HR 4._.91(a-c) ; : A. &R. Mills (TL 1800, 2600); G.Puterbaugh (TL 1902); K. Wright (TL 1905); and K. Michael R. Wheeler rt Guenther(TL 1900) LEGAL DFSC''r2rraN: DATE OF FPnuT. ti April 26, 1991 e Tax Lot 1800, 1900, 1902, 1905 and 2600 of ' Tax Map 2 lE 9CC DATE OF HF e n n.rn_. LOC_t1' ialS: May 6, 1991 North side of Phantom Bluff Court, north of South Shore Blvd • Palisades � EI�AN DE�TGNATrON: R-10 ZQ�ING DESICiNA 1�?; R-10 `a I. APzICAiVT' RFLO TFST The applicant is seeking approval of a lot line adjustment, a three parcel subdivision, approval of the lot line adjustment,partition and subdivision a historic minor stori on, a 4-lot landmark site, and three variances as follows: c a) a 32 ft. Class 2 variance to the 65 ft, lot width required in the R-10 zone, b) a 25 ft. .Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. None of the proposed parcels or lots abut a public street; and c) a Class II variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development +. in order to build on slopes Standard ft. of the site which exceeds greater 50%, The applicant proposes to develop 1,681 sq. • ' ,..' , 0 .4.7, . . SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(u-c)/HR 4_91(a-c) ` Page 1 of 22 µ • ' i ,. f Y. t , 1 i. •1 /N . i r !: r IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. A. City...oflakellswego Comprehensive Plan: . Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 Impact Management Policies General Policy I,Specific Policy 1,4, 5, 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,3 General Policy III,Specific Policy 1 Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 Distinctive Natural Areas a Special Distinctive Areas No. 54 Oswego Lake Potential Landslide Area Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3, 4 General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 ```• ' r General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 2 J • ".• Potential.Erosion Area Policies . . General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 a, General Policy IV,Specific Policy 1, 3,4 Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 Floodplain Policies , General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 . Oswego Lake Polices General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 • • General Policy III, Specific Policy 2, 4, 6 ' General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2, 4 Social Resource Policies - General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 'r . ,• . :. General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 • • • Residential Density Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 Residential Site Design Policies oft. General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 2,4, 5, 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2, 3 • General Policy V, Specific Policy 1 • SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-910-c)/I R 4-91(a--1) Page 2 of 22 ,• .e .0. • • . u., 1 f p . • Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II • B. f Lake Oswegagr, ' ce: LOC 48.195--48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks,lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.505(5) Accessory Structures LOC 48.535(3) Owego Lake Setback • C. tv of Lek Qc= o l 1 pixrent Code: LOC 49,090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.105 Development Restricted on Improperly Created ari1�,i.' Lot .' . ,•vt. LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures • LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.300-315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.500 Variance Classifications LOC 49.510 Variance Standards LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval " LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Srandarc: 2.005 •-2.040 Building Design �'• 5.005 -5.040 Street`Lights 6.005 -6.040 Transit System 7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 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 Standard for Major Development 12.005- 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 16,005 - 16,040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 17.005 - 17.040 Flood Plain 18.005 -- 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways , ,: E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinances J. LOC 57,005-57.135 -N.! F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.010-55,130 SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) • Page 3 of 22 o vo. ! ,A G. City of Lake Oswego Thstoric Preservation Ordinance: LOC 58.085 Application Requirements LOC 58.090 Review Procedures and Notice LOC 58.140 Major Development, Other than Alterations '4° LOC 58.145 Minor Development III. EESDINGS • A. Existing Conditions: 1 1. The site is composed of Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902, 1905 and 2600 totalling 2,67 acres. 2. Tax Lot 1900 is the site of an historic resource, the Sundeleaf House, at 16715 Phantom Bluff Court. 3. The site is heavily wooded(See Exhibit 4). 4. The site abuts Oswego Lake to the north. , • 5. The site has no frontage on a public street; access is provided to the site over a ` Phantom Bluff Cou rt, a 30 ft,-wide access easement. 6. Tax Lot 2600 is the site of a single-family dwelling, at 16586 Phantom Bluff Court. B. Background . ,ro • ,. „. , ,.., Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902 and 1905 were improperly created between 1965 and 1988 Each was divided without either compliance with zoning requirements in effect at the time of division, or without City approval of a minor partition, when such was required. C. Proposal: ; , ° The applicants propose to remedy the improper creation of Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902 and 1905 and to create four new lots from Tax Lot 1900 through the following requests: SD 9-91: A lot line adjustment between the collective owners of Tax Lots 1800, 1900, 1902 and 1905 and Tax Lots 2600; this adjustment will add Tax Lot 1800 and 183 sq. ft. to Tax Lot 2600. The resulting adjustment is composed of all of Tax Lot 1800 and .• tr a small portion of Tax Lot 1900. This lot line adjustment will remedy the improper • creation of Tax Lot 1800. • SD 10-91: A minor partition of the collective ownership of Tax Lots 1900 (following adjustment of SD 9-91 above), 1902 and 1905 to create three properly created . parcels resembling the current tax lots. The parcels are proposed to be 62,840 sq. ft.; +• 13,400 sq. ft.; and 16,446 sq. ft. in area, respectively. This partition will remedy the improper creation of Tax Lots 1900, 1902 and 1905. . SD 11-91: A subdivision of Parcel 2 of SD 10-91 above (Tax Lot 1900) into four lots. VAR 11-91(a): A 32 ft. Class 2 (Zoning Code) variance to the 65 ft, lot width required • . fi in the R-10 zone to enable the creation of Parcel A (Tax Lot 1902) in SD 10-91 above SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 4 of 22 , • • p . . " _ . IA + J 1, VAR 11-91(b): A 25 ft. Class II(Development Code) variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel or lot abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. None of the adjusted or proposed parcels or lots in SD 9-91, SD `' ' ' 10-91 and SD 11-91 above are proposed to abut a public street. /' ` VAR 11-91(c): A Class II(Development Code)variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard in order to build on slopes greater than 50% grade. The applicant indicates that density transfer is not feasible. The applicant • ' proposes to develop 1,681 sq,ft, of the site which exceeds 50% grade. k' HR 4-91(a): A request for approval of a lot line adjustment to a historic landmark in conjunction with SD 9-91 above. HR 4-91(b): A request for approval of minor partition of a historic landmark in conjunction with SD 10-91 above. ,i HR 4-91(e): A request for approval of a subdivision of a historic landmark in t '.,' conjunction with SD 11-91 above. SD 9-91, VAR 11-91(b) and HR 4-91(a) are necessary for the lot line adjustment. SD 10-91, VAR 11-91(a), (b) and(c) and HR 4-91 (b) are necessary for the minor :C partition. SD 11-91,VAR 11-91(b) and (c), and HR 4-91(c) are necessary for the subdivision. ' D. iance with_ Grit a for Approval: , As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor and major development. . 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established ' that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Applicable policy groups are: . Urban Service Boundary Policies • These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, .- which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level` of services, including schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 39 (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 • SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a—c)/HR 4-91(a—c) I •• Page 5 of 22 y ••, ••t Y u a • million dollar school levy on November 7, 1989 further assures adequate school facilities. Impact Management Poli i c ry M .i ' • These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive bm ' review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. 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 t policies. Conditions 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, Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive. These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance and LOC 48.535(3) Oswego Lake Setbacks. The related requirements arc reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Landslide Area Policies e • These policies require identification of areas with potential for landslide hazard and require the City to regulate land use, density and intensity of activity in landslide areas City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation Service District mapping indicate that the site has a potential for landslide hazard. The applicant has addressed these policies by submitting Exhibit 41, which is a geotechnical report. Potential Erosion Area Policies • These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report which demonstrates erosion control measures to satisfy this Plan Polic• y (Exhibit 41), Energy Conservanon Pnli i 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. iii . . . SD 9-91/SD 10--91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 6 of 22 Protec• tion Chanace Foli • ,s These policies require hillsides, slopes with potential for landslide hazard and Oswego ,. Lake to be designated as Protection Open Space. These policies specify Resource Policies should govern the protection of these ensitive lands. that the Natural • Compliance to the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure • conformance to this Plan Policy. Flgodplain Policies ' These plan policies identify flood plains and encourage land uses suitable where floodplains exist. No structure is proposed to be located within the floodplain area, therefore this request • conforms to this Plan Policy. •, Oswego Lake Policies These policies are intended to protect the natural and recreation resources provided by Oswego Lake. These policies are implemented through several of the Development Standards and LOC 48,535(3), the Oswego Lake Setback. Through the Hillside {Protection and Erosion Control Standard and the required 25 foot setback from the property line at the lake,protection of the lake can be achieved. Thes,.• requirements will be reviewed later in this report. Social Resnurcr Policies i ,. These policies require protection of features valuable to community identity and preservation of the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of residents. These policies are implemented through the Natural Resource Policies discussed previously and • through application of specific development standards such as the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard. Compliance to the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to this Plan policy. Reside ttial Density Policies These policies require that density be appropriately related to site conditions and are • generally implemented through specific development standards such as the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard and Zoning Code. 4 Compliance to the applicable standards reviewed below will assure conformance to the p Plan policies: Residential Site Design Policies These policies provide for preservation of open space and natural features, buffering from adjacent uses and building placement. These policies are implemented through a variety of Development Standards, which will be reviewed below. Protection Onen Snh�p Poli 'es L These policies protect natural resources identified as Protection Open Space and listed in10 • the Plan. These include hillsides, Oswego Lake, and slopes with erosion or landslide , k . SD • 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAlt 11-91(a--c)/HR 4-.91(a-c) Page 7 of 22 • r f, G� a C . ' 1 • hazard. These are implemented by a variety of Development Standards, which will be ` reviewed below. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zug Code Requirements and Analysis • M,M The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit;required minimum lot width at the building lines is 65 ft.; 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:naximum height in the zone is 35 ft. [LOC 48.220]. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: Front yard: 20 ft. ' Rear yard: 25 ft. • Side yard: 5 ft. minimum; 15 ft. total • A: " • A lesser setback applies to detached accessory structures. The setback is three feet from rear or side yards [LOC 48.505(5)]. The maximum height allowed in the zone is 35 feet [LOC 48,200], The primary setback requirements can be met for both parcels. Review of height for any new structure will occur during the building permit review process. ` The stone fireplace and walls maintain a setback of zero feet at their nearest point from • Parcel A as proposed. This proposed property line must be modified to provide a " minimum of three feet from the fireplace at its nearest point, to the east property line of -: Parcel B of SD 10-91 (partition). This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. On February 5, 1991, the City Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZC 9-90) which will increase the front yard setback in the R-10 zone from 20 feet to 25 feet and the side yard setback from a 5 foot minimum width and total combined minimum of 15 feet to 10 feet each side. This change will be effective for building F permits submitted after the effective date of the revision, anticipated on approximately May 2, 1991. . Also, effective on that date, the area of access easements will no longer be able to be • counted toward allowable lot area. ` The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: SD 9-91 (Lot Line Adjustment): Area(�sa. ft,) Width(ft.) Depth(ft.) Adjusted Tract 1 (Tax Lot 2600) > 10,000 122 90 Adjusted Tract 2 (Tax Lots 1900, ' 1902 and 1905) > 10,000 315 310 . SD 10-91 (Minor Partition): , Parcel A (Tax Lot 1902) 13,400 33 260 4 Parcel B (Tax Lot 1900) 62,840 235 310 Parcel C (Tax Lot 1905) 16,446 80 240 '. • ' SD 9.91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAIZ 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a--c) Page 8 of 22 •' ' 1 b1•� •• / �. / f. 1 o-I i ;i f SD 11-91 (Subdivision): ,(sq. fsal Width(ft.) Depth(ft.1 Lot 1 10.700 110 125 ' • Lot 2 26,540 195 245 Lot 3 15,500 150 112 Lot 4 10,100 90 107 These three proposals (SD 9-91, SD 10-91, and SD 11-91) comply with all applicable zoning requirements,except for the lot width of Parcel A. The applicant has requested VAR 11-91(a) to address this deficiency. As per LOC 48.650, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class 2 (Zoning Code) variance: r„"; a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; Parcel A in its proposed configuration has been in existence since 1972, though it was improperly created with regard to zoning requirements in effect at that time. • ; Specifically, the parcel did not abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet as was required. The applicant's propose to retain that original configuration. The parcel can be compared to a flag lot to illustrate the hardship that leads to this variance. A flag lot requires a 25 ft. minimum frontage on a public street, but measures its dimensional (width, depth)requirements within the body of the parcel. Parcel A has no frontage, and absent a more conventional flag lot configuration, the body of the parcel is is the entire parcel. .''•'.' The measurement of lot width at the building line is made at the front setback, which is • currently 20 feet. The parcel is only 33 feet wide at this setback. The difficulty is that • ° the parcel narrows toward the south, but not in such a way as to be considered a flag lot. A hardship exists in this regard, for which a variance is necessary, b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; The parcel's al a of greater than 14,300 sq. ft. assures an adequate building envelope in ' which to build, despite the fact that the measured lot width at the building line is only 33 feet. As a result, no injury is anticipated to occur as a result of the variance or the development of a dwelling on the site. f c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the • property; While several components of this application create an opportunity for full compliance . with the requirement for lot width at the building line for Parcel A, the fact that it has existed in its present form since 1972 lends some support to the argument that it is the • minimum width necessary to make reasonable use of the property, The owner has always expected the construction of a dwelling on this 14,300-+• sq, ft, parcel to be • . reasonable. Staff concludes that because of the configuration of Parcel A, the 32 ft, variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonr.ble use of the property, 4 • • .41 SD 9-91/SD 10 .91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page9of22 Additionally, the presence of a stone fireplace west of Parcel A, which is a component of the historic resource know as the Sundeleaf House,precludes widening Parcel A through the addition of land from Parcel B. To do so would create a more irregular parcel configuration than already exists, and perhaps affect the integrity which will be discussed in more detail later in this report. of the historic reso • d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no Plan policies which specifically relate to the requirement of lot width. As such, no conflict with the Plan has been found. .' Staff concludes that VAR 11-91(a) satisfies all applicable criteria. Development Code Requirements ' P and Analysis (LOC Chapter 49) ' The application is composed of an assortment of major and minor developments. The lot line adjustment and minor partition are minor development. The subdivision, and two of the three variances are major development listed in LOC 49.140 and 49.145. The Development Code allows for the concurrent review of permits [LOC 49.110]. As such, this proposal will be reviewed as major development. 4 The review of the historic site is neither major nor minor development, but is reviewed according to the provisions of LOC Chapter 58. t Development Standards applicable to major development will be reviewed later in this report as required by LOC 49.090. The applicant has requested VAR 11-91(b), a 25 ft. Class II (Development Code) variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel or lot a' a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. None of the adjusted or proposed parcels or 16 in SD 9-91, SD 10-91 and SD 11-91 are proposed to abut a public street. . , As per LOC 49.510, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria / when evaluating a request for a Class II (Development Code) variance; • a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; Phantom Bluff Court is a private road which is composed of a 30 ft.—wide access ' X,., easement. Phantom Bluff Court intersects a public street, South Shore Blvd., approximately 120 feet south of the site, The site has no frontage on a public street, The site is composed of 2,67 acres, and is the location of two homes (16586 and 16715 Phantom Bluff Court). On the basis of size alone, the site is capable of further division into 11 parcels of a minimum of 10,000 sq, ft. each. Physical constraints such as slope, ' access, historic significance will be found to play a part in reducing the actual developable density, Nonetheless, a hardship exists with respect to the fact that this site, capable of further division (at least in principle) is precluded from doing so because it ;„ lacks frontage on a public street. Approval of this variance would relieve this unnecessary hardship. It should be noted that Phantom Bluff Court was once a dedicated right—of—way (public • Street), but was vacated by the Clackamas County Commission, This vacation has in part affected the site's ability to comply with the Access Standard, 0 ... --..„,...J •. . , . - SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a—c)/HR 4-91(a—c) ' ` Page 10 of 22 ` y CI Lots 1 and 2 of SD 11--.91 as proposed will have no frontage on Phantom Bluff Court, but will achieve access over an access easement originating at Phantom Bluff Court. For allo the same reasons outlined in the paragraphs proceeding, a hardship exists in the creation of Tracts 1 and 2 of SD 9-91, Parcels A, B and C of SD 10-91 and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of 0 SD 11-91 which can only be remedied through the approval of this variance to the Access Development Standard. b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located Or to property established to be affected by the request; Because the entire neighborhood is subject to the hardship identified in criterion a. above, ., development of the site as the result of this variance will not be injurious to the ' neighborhood or the site; each such development (reviewed against these and other applicable criteria) requires approval of a Class II variance to the Access Development Standard because of the absence of an abutting public street. No change to the existing J circumstances will result from the granting of this variance request. • c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; Since no portion of the site has frontage on a public street, a 25 ft, variance to the 25 ft. requirement is the minimum necessaryto make reasonable use � ' of the property. No,lesser variance can be achieved, except to dedicate right-of-way was a part of the project. This ;' prospect is unreasonable, because it would result in an isolated right-of-ww 15 ft.-wide '• only abutting the site. Since the remainder of those properties served by qr•<<tntom Bluff , �y' Court are not participants in this application, the City cannot compel the dedication of .. Phantom Bluff Court to its intersection with South Shore Blvd. The variance requested is `vI therefore the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. • `. 0 d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan requires the City to develop local residential streets which provide access to abutting land. Phantom Bluff Court is not a street, but is an access easement. Originally a dedicated right-of-way, Phantom Bluff Court was vacated by the Clackamas County Commission. y. ,.. , While the City's Plan calls for dedication of right-of-way to serve abutting development, this is not practical for this application, as discussed in criterion c. above, Granting of " : w' this variance for the reasons identified above would not conflict with the Plan. Staff concludes that VAR 11-91(b) satisfies all applicable criteria. The applicant has requested VAR 11-91(c), a Class II (Development Code) variance to ''r • the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard in order to build on • slopes grater than 50% grade. The applicant indicates that density transfer is not feasible, The applicant proposes to develop 1,681 sq. ft. of the site which exceed 50% grade. As per LOC 419,510(1), the Development Review Board must consider the following s,• criteria when evaluating a request for a Class II variance: N a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; . SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 1'i•-91 VAR 11-91(a-41)/1-IR 4-91(a-c) Page 11 of 22 JJ N , • • ■/$M ' • r / i � 1) � r of E • a td� ` r a. Ides .\' r .., °, . " . A , ', i: r j'. i r The applicant identifies that a hardship exists due to the physical circumstances of the site. Specifically, areas scattered throughout the site are in excess of 50% slope (Exhibit 1. 5). The applicant indicates that the small area subject to the request is needed for construction of a turnaround at the end of the driveway serving Lot 1 of SD 11-91 , (Subdivision) and Parcel A of SD 10-91 (Minor Partition). Small areas of greater than 50% slope exist within the proposed building envelopes of Parcels A and C of SD 10-91 and Lot 4 of SD 11-91. Development of these areas requires approval of this variance. 1 Based upon the location of the site available for construction of dwellings on Parcel A r and Lot 1, staff concurs that a hardship exists with regard to the presence of slopes in excess of 50% grade, and that density transfer(particularly under the partition and ;. E subdivision procedures) is not possible. �' b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; 4, If properly engineered, and protected from soil erosion during and after construction f.' occurred, the disturbance of minimal areas greater than 50% slope will not be injurious to the site or the neighborhood. These measures will be properly reviewed by the Public Works staff prior to issuance of any development permits requested subsequent to this action, if approved. '' c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the i property; The applicant proposes to limit the area of affected slopes greater than 50% to 1,681 sq ft. or 8.8% of the portions of the site which are that steep (1.7% of development site). , Based upon that small area and the need to use that area to enable access to Parcel A and Lot 1, and to develop Parcel C and Lot 4, the variance appears to be the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the site for development of additional hosne sites. d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicable Plan policies suggest that actual density of development shall be determined according to site conditions, and that steep slopes should be preserved as Protection Open Space. A large open space area is proposed, to be protected through the " dedication of a conservation easement. Because the area affected by this variance request is relatively small as compared to the area of proposed open space, the request does not appear to be in conflict with the Plan. k Staff concludes that VAR, 11-91(c) satisfies all applicable criteria. • Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 571 ' As per 57.025 (1) a development is exempt from compliance with the Solar Access , '' Ordinance if"the site or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20% or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, based on a . '" topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor." • C The applicant has provided a topographic survey of the site which indicates that only -. existing parking areas (east) and two small areas on the south are subject to the ordinan SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 12 of 22 a s.� s • on the basis of slope. The areas are so small as to be impractical for such use. A full ', exemption of the site on the basis of average s)opes is in order. Tr 'ng Ordinance Rea l;rements and Analysis,..(j,O apter 55) In order to implement the Wildlife Habitat Policies and the Impact Management Policies, c'•_ the provisions of the Tree Cutting Ordinance must be carried out in the development of the site. As such,removal of only those trees necessary for construction may be allowed. The applicant has submitted a tree survey identifying all trees of 5" in diameter or greater u ' . (Exhibit 4). s. The applicant is proposing a conservation easement on the north side of the site to { address concerns regarding trees, slopes and open space. More discussion regarding trees will be offered below, with regard to Historic Preservation. Historic Preservation Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58) 1 . This ordinance provides for the designation of historic resources, procedures for their alteration or partitioning of the sites !upon which they are located. The dwelling at 16715 Phantom Bluff Court(which is•actually a part of a parcel composed historic ofresource (E Tax Lotsxhibit 40 1800,).1900, 1902 and 1905, due to their improper creation ) is a The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment, minor partition and subdivision of the landmark [HR 4-91(a-c)]. These will be evaluated separately, as follows: HI 4-•91(a); Lot Line Adjustment:The applicant is seeking approval of a lot line adjustment to a historic landmark in conjunction with SD 9-91 above. In consideration of the concurrent review of this request for a lot line adjustment to a landmark as provided by LOC 49.110 and LOC 58.145(2), the Development Review Board must find that: a. The minor partition or lot line adjustment does not allow a significant feature of the landmark to be located on a separate site from the landmark; and The applicant has delineated some of the significant features identified in the Cultural Resources Inventory (Exhibit 40) on a map entitled "Historic Preservation Analysis" (Exhibit 40). Missing from that analysis are the low box(wood) hedges along the entry walk and near the brick walls, and a number of mature cedars and fir. A number of large cedars and fir are located more distant from the historic residence, both to the north and south. All are, however, located on proposed Parcel 2 of SD 9-91 (lot line adjustment), This criterion is satisfied by the proposal. r b. The minor partition or lot line adjustment allows adequate setbacks from landmark improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development of the,new parcels; and The stone fireplace and walls are 43 ft, from the adjusted property line, which provides an adequate buffer to the area proposed to be added to Parcel 1 of SD 9-91 (lot line adjustment). This criterion is satisfied by the proposal, . 4110 .• • SD -9 91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 13 of 22 A Y '` 'i . 1 . Y i 1 1 • 1 I 1/ , ` c. Yard and landscaped areas including large trees and shrubs associated with the landmark shall be retained with the structure whenever possible. 41 .`,....• '. Six trees are located on the adjusted portion of the site. These trees do not significantl contribute to the structure because they are along the far eastern property line of the site. } All significant features listed in Exhibit 40 will be retained with the historic structure, • '�• This criterion is satisfied by the proposal. Staff concludes that HR 4-91(a) satisfies all applicable criteria. , HR 4-91(b); Minor A' rtition: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor partition to a historic landmark in t.:,.,W ^( on with SD 10-91 above. In consideration of the concurrent review of this request for a minor partition to a landmark as provided by LOC 49.110 and LOC 58.145(2), the Development Review Board mast find that: , a. The minor partition or lot line adjustment does not allow a significant feature of the landmark to be located o11 a separate site from the landmark; and Noting the applic nt's omissions to Exhibit 6 as found in review of HR 4-91(a) above, , . '+ all features are located on proposed Parcel B of SD 10-91 (minor partition). This , criterion is satisfied by the proposal., b. The minor partition or lot line adjustment allows adequate setbacks from landmark improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts ' ' ' associated with development of the new pari:els; and 0 The brick walls on the south side of the dwelling are proposed to be 24 ft. from the ores line of Parcel B of SD 10-91. The stone fireplace and walls are proposed to be zero ft. .‘, . n from the east line of Parcel B. This is a distance which has been maintained since 1972, when Tax Lot 1902 was improperly created (as discussed earlier in this report). While ,:_ the feature is quite near this proposed property line, the back of the feature faces east, >`' I., ' a preserving the use of the feature on the historic site. This criterion is satisfied by the �1 . `.. proposal. (See discussion regarding zoning and accessory structures, earlier in this report), c. Yard and landscaped areas including large trees and shrubs associated with the landmark shall be retained with the structure whenever possible. Tax Lot 1900 has existed in its present form since 1988, though it was improperly . created. Those who prepared the Cultural Resources Inventory did not know of the 'y • parcel's improper creation. It is fairly certain that the significant features noted in the la inventory did not include trees located on either Tax Lots 1902 or 1905, As such, this minor partition (which is intended in part to remedy the impropriety) will retain those significant features found in the inventory on Parcel B, the site of the landmark. This •�,' criterion is satisfied by the proposal. ~ Staff concludes that HR 4-91(b) satisfies all applicable criteria, HR 4--91(c); Subdivision: The applicant is seeking approval of a subdivision on a • landmark site in conjunction with SD 11-91 above, I. q,. y1 ' yI a , y♦ .1 i41) h r SD 9-91/SD 10-91/, D 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4--91(a-c) Page 14 of 22 •. 1 k ' 1 Y t In consideration of the concurrent review of this request for a subdivision on a landmark ,,✓ site as provided by LOC 49.110 and LOC 58.140(3), the Development Review Board , must find that: a. The subdivision or planned development does not result in a landmark to be split into separate lots. The applicant's proposal clearly results in the creation of four lots from Parcel B of SD 10-91 (minor partition). This criterion is not satisfied by the proposal. b. The subdivision plat or planned development map requires adequate setbacks :. from landmark improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development on newly created parcels. •` L The applicant has not adequately identified all of the significant features of the landmark as described in the Cultural Resources Inventory (Exhibit 40). As noted earlier, box(wood)plantings along the entry, and some mature cedars and fir were included •., among the features shown on Exhibit 6, but were not noted as being mature or significant features of the resource. ''I: w The omission of the boxwood is minor in scope and easily remedied. The omission of other cedars and firs than those noted by the applicant is more a matter of opinion than ; oversight. During a site visit in 1990, staff raised concerns about the extent of the trees ;' ,r ,_ which were to remain with the historic dwelling. Staff identified to the applicant's • • ,,•• consultant the concept of which trees, both north and south,of the dwelling, constituted a framing or delineation of the Sundeleaf House. These trees include 28 inch, 26 inch, 36 inch and 16 inch firs located on proposed Lot 4 of SD 11-19; and three 18 inch cedars and an 18 inch fir north of the dwelling on Lot 1 of SD 11-91. = ' Preservation of the trees mentioned would severely limit Lot 4 and preclude development of Lot 1. Though the applicant has provided open space in the form of a proposed ° conservation easement, this would be required anyway because of steep slopes, hillside vegetation and the need to protect the shore of Oswego Lake. The preservation of the proposed open space does not reduce the need to protect the mature cedars and fir located on the grounds of this historic resource, even at the expense of one lot, or limitations imposed on another. The proposed subdivision would have visual impacts upon the landmark; views of the resou;.;ce would be impaired and views from the resource and associated outdoor areas ' would be impaired. There are but two brief glimpses of the historic Sundeleaf House as one travels along Phantom Bluff Court. These occur between two groups of trees on proposed Lots 3 and _' 4, and at the driveway entrance near the east corner of the site. By limiting the building envelopes of Lot 4 to the westerly 70 ft. and Lot 3 to the easterly 110 ft. of those envelopes proposed, the initial view of the dwelling could be preserved from Phantom Bluff Court, if subdivision approval were able to be achieved. The tree framed view of Oswego Lake from windows and the stone overlook to the north • of the dwelling will be diminished severely by the building envelope suggested for • proposed Lot 1. This lot may need to be eliminated to assure the integrity of the views obtained from the historic resource. 5D 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11- -91(a c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 15 of 22 " :{ . i 4 Y, v S ti` . - } •!� ' • U . A trail currently descends from the stone overlook to the dock on Oswego Lake. This trail traverses the building envelope of proposed Lot 1, necessitating a new route linking the dwelling to the dock, which is also a significant feature. • rt'/ This criterion is not satisfied by the proposal, c. Yard and landscaped areas including large trees and shrubs associated with the landmark shall be retained with the structure whenever possible. This was discussed in detail in criterion b, above The applicant has not retained a number of cedar and fir trees which are noted as significant features; instead they are V: proposed to b! within the building envelope of several 1 `;•; ; not satisfied by the proposal. proposed lots. This criterion is ,�.k • ` Staff concludes that HR 4-91(c) does not satisfy all applicable criteria. 4 w e. The applicable Development Standards 1 ` , BI1 idin�D .�ig�(� 005 n401 While this standard is applicable to all major development involving a structure, this application is major development also because it includes a subdivision and the Class II f variances. Staff concludes because SD 9-91, and SD 10-91 are minor development and i because SD 11-91, does not involve any structures at this time that this standard is not } applicable. ,Street Lights (5.005-5,040) No street lights exist along Phantom Bluff Court. The nearest street light is located on South Shore Blvd. A street light must be installed at the southwest corner of Parcel C "• ~ SD 10-91, between Lots 3 and 4 of SD 11-91, and at the east corner of Lot 3 of SD 11- 91. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. ' Trani vstem (6 0Q5 CM. This standard is applicable to all major developments. This application is major because of the request for the subdivision and the Class.Id variances, There are no hard surfaced +,. ' paths leading to the site. Therefore, this standard is not applicable, Parking and Loading(7.005-7.040) . • • The standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport. . g g Each parcel in SD 9-91, SD 10-91 and SD 11- u 91 are large enough to comply with this standard, which will be required as a condition ' of anybuilding g permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Park and Open Space (8,005 -8,040) This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space or park land equal to 20percent of the gross land area of the development. The applicant proposes an open space area of 18,977 sq. ft. or 20,17% of the gross site area. This area is proposed to be protected by a conservation easement, , 40i , , .. SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91 VAR 11-91(a-c)/1-IR 4-91(a-c) Page 16 of 22 { A of ., a •. ,+ r•,. _ „ . , +". •w r The open space area does not currently extend to Tax Lot 1800, which is part of SD 9-91 • ' or. (lot line adjustment). The steep,lower slopes of this tax lot are as fragile and worthy of protection as those of Parcels A and C of SD 10-91 (minor partition) and Lots 1 and 2 of SD 11-91 (subdivision). Inclusion of an area east of the open space on Parcel A is appropriate and will be required to be protected as a conservation easement as a condition of this action,if approved. Landscaping. Screening and Buffering(9.005—9.04Q) V. •I The existing and proposed single family dwellings are not included in the range of uses v• '' requiring plantings. This is a major development due to the Class II variance. Staff concludes that this standard is not applicable. ' r Fences (10.005— 10.040) '• , Fences are not a part of this proposal. Any fences that may be constructed at a later date must comply with this standard. Fences in the front setback may be no taller than 4 ft.; all others may be no taller than 6 ft. Drainage Standard for Major Development (11.005— '11,040.1 Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12.005 — 12.04() x This application is major development because of the inclusion of the subdivision and • • Class II variances. These standards require that drainage alterations, including new •-, development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. ' The applicant proposes to route storm drainage to subsurface seepage trenches on Parcels ' ` B and C of SD 10-91 (minor partition) and Lot 2 of SD 11-91 (subdivision). Storm • a'' drainage from Lots 1, 3, and 4 and Parcel A of SD 10-91 is proposed to be directed to Oswego Lake. Both methods of disposal are as shown on Exhibit 7 and recommended in the eotechnical investigation g (Exhibit 42). ,. Utility Standard (14.005 — 14.Q4. This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. All underground utilities will be provided for, as required, upon application for a building permit for the proposed parcels and lots. Utility rights do not exist for the area of the roadway of Phantom Bluff Court. The roadway easement for Phantom Bluff Court did not include an easement for utilities Y� (Exhibit 35). As a result, the applicant has secured a commitment from two neighboring property owners to provide a utility easement of adequate width to provide all required utilities. Evidence of the actual easements will be required prior to final plan approval, and will be a condition of this action, if approved. An easement for access to Oswego Lake is held by the owners of Tax Lot 1904, which is proposed Parcel C of SD 10-91 (minor partition), The location of this easement must be illustrated on the final plan of any affected land division action. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. A pressurized sewer system will be required, due to the lack of a gravity system nearby. U This specialized system requires approval of the City Engineer, which will be required prior to final plan approval as a condition of this action, if approved. • SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91 VAR 11-91(a—c)/HR 4-91(ar-c) Page 17 of 22 •:� f,. s e • The applicant must improve Phantom Bluff Court to minimum City standards from its intersection with South Shore Blvd, to the easterly property line of the site on Phantom Bluff Court. The applicant has proposed an emergency vehicle turnout on the easement proposed to serve Parcel A of SD 10-91 (minor partition) and Lot 2 of SD 11-91 (subdivision). These improvements to Phantom Bluff Court and the private road easement mentioned will need to be dedicated to the City al a fire lane and illustrated on the final plan. This ,, de s ap plicatin on will requirethe signature of owners of property not currently participating in PP (Tax Lots 1901, 1903,2000 and 2001)° . A trail descends from the historic landmark (Sundeleaf House) to the dock on Oswego Lake below. The dock is a significant feature identified in the Cultural Resources , Inventory (Exhibit 40) and discussed with earlier with regard to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Because of the significance of the dock, the trail needs to be preserved to connect it to the dwelling. As such, an access easement over proposed Lot 1 of SD 11- 91 (subdivision) will need to be dedicated for the use of Lot 2. This must be illustrated on the final plan and will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Hillside Protecrion and anions,iliuroi (16,005- 16,040), o This standard requires protection of steep slopes through submittal of a soils report with appropriate recommendations to mitigate erosion, drainage, etc, An erosion control plan is also required. • The applicant has submitted a geotechnical investigation (soils report; Exhibit 41) which ' 3 appears to be adequate;to meet this requirement. The recommendations regarding drainage must be carried out and will be required as a condition of this action, if 1• approved.e The applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan as a condi ' anydevelopment permit requested subsequent to the date of this action, if approved. FloodPlain (17.005- 17,040) • d The shore of Oswego Lake is within the 1CI0-year flood plain as shown on Exhibit 38.The affected areas are well below proposed home sites and do not require compliance with the standard. Access Standard (1$.005- 18.040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. The applicant has requested VAR 11-91(b) from this standard to enable the creation of the proposed parcels and lots. Compliance with the standard is dependent upon approval of the requested variance, which was reviewed earlier in this report. ., '' The City Manager has interpreted the Development Code to require a Class II variance to this standard when the variance requested exceeds 11.5 feet of reduction (Exhibit 38), ,The applicable criteria have been reviewed earlier in this report. Site irc �Inrion Privhrp �"trPptC/Tlri�lA°,Y.+ys (19.005- 19,0401 This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade w nor 5% cross slope. Private streets must not exceed 15% grade. The applicant has not ' provided a profile of the improvements to Phantom Bluff Court or the private access SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) Page 18 of 22 ., w y .Mit. " ";•` - ••• ••• '..' *:• . • , , , *.,•',, . , ,... , , .. , , ., fI easements serving Parcels A and SD 10-91 and Lot 1 of SD 11-91. This must be done to assure compliance with the standard before approval maybe required to comply with the standard as a condition of any building permit will be "`` subsequent to this action, if approved, g permit requested d• Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. • C. Conclusion: Y '' Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and the analysis in this report, staff ` • concludes that SD 9-91 (lot line adjustment) and SD 10-91 (minor partition)can be made to comply with all applicable standards. Staff further concludes that SD 11-91 i (subdivision) can not be made to comply with all applicable criteria. Also, VAR 11- 91(a-c)complies with all applicable criteria. Finally,HR 4-91(a) and (b) comply with '> all applicable criteria; HR 4-91(c) can not be made to comply, � III. ATION a ,' Staff recommends denial of SD 11-91 and HR 4-91(c) based upon the conclusions noted above. P analysis and Staff recommends approval of SD 9-91, SD 10-91, VAR 11-91 (a-c), HR 4-91(a) and t'b J subject to the following conditions: )� For the lot line adjustment (SD 9-91): ,-d 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3a and modified by conditions 4, 5 and 6) shall be r r. submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one yearof the date of . this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, on. Additional • requested in writing and must e grant submitted yearo the exCity 1mana e vi extensions may be for conformance with current law, development standardsg review of the project . development which may have occurred in the surroi area, Thecomp extension nsity with granted or denied and if g The extension may be project into compliance with then currentr law and compationed to bility with uire tion to bring the .M . development. surrounding The final plan shall reference this land use application Division, File No. SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11 91VAR 11 City Oswego Lalce -9 Planning 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and s ,, recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office, 3, Legal descriptions (meets and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for rec f r with the Clackamas County Clerks 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; in8uuments for the parcels shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Planning Division, Pile No, SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11- 91(a-cc)/1°lR 4-91(a-c), 4, The final plan shall illustrate the location of all utility easements located on Tracts 1 and • SD 9-91/SD 10-91/S.D 11-91 VA12 1 1-9 1(a-c)/HR 4-91(a.-c) Page 19 of 22 r , • l s h f ,S 5. The applicant shall dedicate the access easement of Phantom Bluff Court to the City for use as a fire lane. This fire lane shall be illustrated on the final plan. ., , ` 6. The applicant shall dedicate the northerly portion of Tract 2, north of an easterly J extension of the conservation easement boundary proposed for Parcel A of SD 10-91, to the City as a conservation easement. This easement shall be illustrated on the final plan .)• and included in legal descriptions required by condition number 3 above. J .. r` For the minor partition: r 7. A final plan for the minor partition (as depicted in Exhibit 3b and modified by conditions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. The final plan shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego, Planning Division,File No. SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c). 8. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks's office. 9. The final plan shall illustrate the location of all utility easements located on Parcels A, v - and C; particularly for water, storm and sanitary sewer. r 10. The applicant shall dedicate the improved access easement of Phantom Bluff Court and driveway easement to the City for use as a fire lane. This fire lane shall be illustrated on the final plan or, for portions off-site, provided on separate documents. , 11. The applicant shall modify the final plan toprovide a minimum 3 ft. setback stone fireplace to the east line of Parcel B in ompliance with LOC 48 505(3). • the 12. The applicant shall dedicate the northerly portion of Parcels A, B and C to the City as a conservation easement, This easement shall be illustrated on the final plan, 13. The final plan shall illustrate a 10 ft, minimum setback from the south boundary of the conservation easement. No development shall occur within this setback. 14. The applicant shall illustrate the recreation easement (Exhibit 36) on the final plan. rr For both the lot line adjustment and the minor partition (SD 9-91 and SD 10-91): 15. The applicant shall design a system for positive storm drainage to seepage trenches or to Oswego Lake. This design shall provide an erosion control plan. 16. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date o this approval. SD 9-91/SD 1()-91/SD 11-91 VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a--c) Page 20 of 22 v . . 17. The applicant has provided a tree survey of those trees on Tracts 1 and 2 of SD 9--91 and Parcels A,B and C of SD 10-91 in excess of five inches in diameter. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site .a dwelling or accessory structure on these tracts or parcels. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050-35.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). This tree survey shall be required as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. • 18. The applicant shall install a water line in a utility easement to be secured over Tax Lots 2200 and 2600. This installation shall be a condition of any development permit „. requested subsequent to this action. 19. The applicant shall install public sanitary sewer lines to serve Tracts 1 and 2 of SD 9-91 and Parcels A,B and C of SD 10-91. This installation shall be a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. 20. The applicant shall install a storm drainage system to serve Parcels A, B and C of SD 10- u' 91. This installation shall be a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. 21. The applicant shall provide an erosion control plan to the City and comply with the recommendations found in the applicant's geotechnical investigation (Exhibit 42) as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to the date of this action. 3 22. The applicant shall construct proposed street improvements in Phantom Bluff Court as a • condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action, or provided a • method of security acceptable to the Public Works Director. These street improvements a shall include street lights a the southwest corner of Parcel C of SD 10-91, midway along the frontage of Parcel B of SD 10-91 and at the east corner of Parcel B. P 1' EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative `' 3a. Site Plan-Lot Line Adjustment 3b. Site Plan-Minor Partition , 3c. Site Plan-Subdivision 4. Site Analysis 4 '�; 5. Slope Analysis 6. Historic Preservation Analysis ' 7. Preliminary Grading, Paving and Drainage • 8. Proposed Utilities ' 9. Density Calculation 10. Photo Inventory 11-33, Photographs 34. Map of Easements 35. Mutual Easement Easement, dated July 2, 1959 36. Easement; Sundeleaf to Wright, dated May 23, 1988 37. Flood Insurance Rate Map; Panel 410018 0003C; date August 4, 1987 38. Memo from Peter C. Harvey, City Manager regarding Variances to Access Standard, dated March 28, 1990 ;,•. . 39. Council's Memorandum regarding Schools, dated September 18, 1990 40, Cultural Resources Inventory, dated February 1989 • • r SD 9-91/SD 10--91 SD 11-91VAR 11-/ 91(a--c)/1-IR 4-9 1(a-c) • Page 21 of 22 $4 41. Geotechnical Investigation by McDonald,dated July 5, 1990 Rr' 42. Letter from R. Chevrette to K. Guenther,dated April 23, 1991 with Agreement to Commit to Providing Easements, Signed by Mills,Dieringer 43. Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting,dated March 11, 1991 44. Survey of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment by Sutton,dated March 8, 1991 45. Letter from T.Lowery, Chair,Palisades Neighborhood Association, dated April 26, • * 1991 46 Letter from R. &D. Richardson,with attachment from J. &M. Runkel,dated April 1, " 1991 47. Easement Agreement; Mills to Guenther,dated October 28, 1990 r . "., • 48. Reciprocal Easement Agreement; Dieringer to Guenther,dated October 28, 1990 • 49. Letter from P.G.E.,dated March 20, 1991 50. Letter from U.S.West Communications, dated March 19, 1991 51. Letter from N.W. Natural Gas Co., dated March 20, 1991 ' • 52. Letter from Hoberg,dated April26, 1991 53. Letter from DeRosia, dated April 26, 1991 Mrtw/ba • • tr•D9 t.2IcR.paras$D$4 t • • 410 • , • . • 4 • • • i SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11•-91VAR 11-91(a-c)/HR 4-91(a-c) P ige 22 of 22 N. p‘ro"01Di- roti 4 1300 `r i fj-G �* �11 y A ' N P` r ` 7V 1 i C\) / c L 5ixbleIp Q ?C S ,�ZA th 1 ® b P? ?' r ,: / / 1500 "b 1 ,b� • �4 IIBS'3 0 �b'`�` ,N.46Ac. OI c/ , '� 0°1°^ 1600 $ 0 °I ' i�A ' h°y 0.50Ac. 't , t w� 6 3y �� s asf 3 ,w ,ode N ) ` I f�Z�n�A� VP-L. � 364 . + 30'1P N 52,3/ �f ;.5 Gf ��ql 4 r,: •1pt,et" .62Ac. 96�� 619/ 61r�l/" - 9/ d:3d/ ,�`' woo • 16861 III ' 'S 39 s N o — � 6y� 0.15Ac. 1.�� 'r �9e.re 341 Q•to r ' 9 • 0.33Ac.' \ •� ,.� - 40033 1.820604 26 Ac �' s °' 0.k'r.5 0yoE '�'� \2, p 183S1 • , ‘11 4 lv/ . ,,‘, . `" 32 'ctt.. t• 7....., • x a, �,�`.II6115Ac. OV. LO °��? '`\`� �t.q a� �� 4,4 bq,P 270 8� w\ II1; 51 Cc ;,, Kt@CIO• 1 �0 /�.0 g 2129 7.d® 30yi '- N ` h,c ,,e✓+do'C /d3.G2 4/96 Z7SZ so '1 N - _= • a' 3 ,47Ac\ E ° `�a 0. Ac. '; 2500 2900 .� , 0.48 Ac. 0.56 Ac• 1./ 'M�/� 0 16645 �� I6640 1 I905 b�� . �, a : A �\• N\ •` 0.34A . es, \ C.S.T=-ion Y Ter°a u, s' gib \ 2400 s 28,9 zs �_ 1 * i 0.35Ac. 4 27 ti =,. �' E . i 1903 _'_ae ; ; 3100 sae • T. O'14A Y � 0.48AC. 1 . , . \ 2 38 4 a 'Q ,Q 16850 N `R. h/ 1 I6100 0,38Ac. ' seoo 124'79 Mazy 1 �. tiy/ ,�10-° ;� I 3 2300 29 w 26 s e' zc ps-4- ,.o.zz�,,,( / 1, �' s 1901 N suf. 10� �3 se Ac. dO �� 3200 2 ', \ 2001 4. 0.19 Ac. rv.ur `� Ia °j 0.35Ac. $1 I„ 16750 o °' 0 Cr 0,40gc of e�� �1 N � /OC.o �) 17S :o� a *am. �. / 0 ` ••0N h �J o %I ,4i T co.ac �,. 30 L4- 21. 0 t' 1 42 1.5 0 U L E V ,� r 5 �9�6 RNow d m 42 1 y-,p 0 F�4 rwco,�� 4 N 2 q fol ss ir M O�� 1 V�e��,ru ,.' u,J 3*,r'"'' \ I •. . Io �'"'"> \ SEE MAP 2 1E '� EXHIBIT ', I688 , F' JE:'1G,a,;6tt Qv ate 430..5 l= 1-411 '.r ...4 , .. •. 44 •••• ••••,• . • •... , , , . • . . • • • ,• • . • , •• .; • , • . •,. . .'•• • •• ' • • •. . ,• . '.• . ' ^ , • , • ' • . ' ." • • 4 . • 4. • r . • • ; • • , . • 4 . \•4' : •,, . • • 4 . ` - .•. ' . • • V .^ • • ^ . • . . I * COTTAGE PLACE A 6-LOT ION r Ut. Preliminary Plat Request 4 EXHIBIT • .. . Prepared for: U; Ken GuentherTil . 3707 S.W. 52nd Place ~`'u.. Portland, OR 97219 • y 2 LI'.4 March 21, 1991 r F ti • i • • • 4,1 • • • • , • • '11 • • • • •ti • ry, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,, • COTTAGE PLACE A 5 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION I. REQUEST The following is a request for an approval for the preliminary plat of Cottage Place, a 6-lot planned development in Lake Oswego. The following approvals are requested: 1. A lot line adjustment to connect Tax Lots 2600 and 1800 and legally establish the east } boundary of the Cottage Place plat. 2. A subdivision plat to create 6 lots from the existing three lots. • 3. An historic preservation development permit. The existing home on the site is a designated historic landmark under Chapter 58 of the Lake Oswego Code. 4. A variance to allow access to the site from Phantom Bluff Court, a private road. n 5. A variance to allow the proposed Lot 6 to be less than 65 feet in width at the front setback line. . .:'• : 0 6. Approval to build on approximately 1,681 square feet of land that is over 50% in slope, • ' .t, II. SITE INFORMATION Location: 16115 Phantom Bluff Court. The property is on the south side of Lake ;;. Oswego, approximately 200' north of South Shore Boulevard, See . Vicinity Map. Legal: Lot Line Adjustment: Tax Lots 1902 and 1800 on Map 2 1E 9CC, Plat: Tax Lots 1900, 1902 and 1905 on Map 2 1E 9CC Site Area: Tax Lot 1902 0.33 Acres Tax Lot 1900 1L49 Acres ,• .' A ` Tax Lot 1905 0,34 Acres Total Site 2.16 Acres Zoning: R-10. • ). Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page 2 Site Conditions: The site is a north facing slope overlooking Oswego Lake. There is one home on the property, an English Cottage style of home designed and built by Richard Sundeleaf in 1939-40. The property is listed on the Lake Oswego Cultural Resources Inventory (See Appendix A). Preservation of the historic features of the site are addressed in this application. The '+ ' remainder of the property is vacant and wooded. -f The trees on the site are a mix of western red cedar, Douglas fir, and various deciduous trees. 'Trees 8" and larger have been surveyed. The tree survey is shown on the attached Site Analysis, Exhibit 2. The northern end of the site, between Phantom Bluff Court and the home, ranges from 10% • to 30% slope. Slopes increase markedly to 60+% on the lake side of the home, except for a '• • 30% slope area jusi; northeast of the home. • Access is from Phantom Bluff Court, a private access easement 30' in width, Phantom Bluff ' is a relatively narrow road with approximately 14-18 feet of improved surface, This setting gives the site a very secluded character and views of the lake. The surrounding land uses are single family residential on lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to one acre. Tax Lot 1800 to the east of the site is vacant. 0 ,. '1. r III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT Lot Configuration: The proposed plat will create six lots from the existing three tax lots, See Exhibit 1. Tax Lot 1905 is not owned by the applicant, therefore the proposed lot boundaries for Lot 5 follow the ,' • coact configuration of the existing tax lot. As illustrated by the plat, each lot exceeds the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Building envelopes are illustrated for each proposed • jot. The lots have been designated to preserve and emphasize the historic character of the _ "}y' Sundeleaf home. At 26,540 the Sundeleaf home lot is the largest lot on the plat and contains all of the historic features associated with the house, rt Lot 1 is proposed as a lake front lot, Due to the steep slopes close to the lake, the homesite . for Lot 1 is planned for the area adjacent to the east lot line. A conservation easement is • proposed for the steepest portion of the site to assure development in conformance with the ., City's open space and hillside protection standards, Lot 2 is the site of the existing home, The lot lines have been drawn to encompass the home, stone walls, fireplace,stone dock, low box wood hedges, and cedars and fir which are referenced ' in the city's cultural resources inventory. The objective is to maintain these features in their • historical context. The historic features and compliance with City standards' are discussed in '` . • Section V i of this application. • • • • !, j Cottage Place . Preliminary Application . , ary Plat Page 3 1 Lots 3 and 4 front on Phantom Bluff Court. Lot 3 also has access capabilities from the driveway on the north side. This will minimize the impact on the character of Phantom Bluff and provide for better access and off-street parking. Lot 5 is the existing tax lot 1905. Lot 6 d will be a lake front lot located on the existing Tax Lot 1902. • 0 Access: As described above, Phantom Bluff Court is a private road. There is a 30 foot wide access easement that provide access rights to all of the properties which front on Phantom Bluff , Court. The improved surface of Phantom Bluff Court is 11-18 feet. Phantom Bluff Court will ' be widened to 20 feet from South Shore Boulevard to the east end of the site, Lots 2 and 3 will be accessed by the driveway which serves the existing home. Lots 1 and 6 will be accessed by a common driveway 12 feet in width. This access configuration will help preserve the integrity of the historic Sundeleaf home because Lot l's access will not come rough Lot 2. Off-Street Parking: 't All 6 residential lots will accommodate a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, as required by the Code. Lot 4's off-street parking will be within its front yard setback area. Building Setbacks/Lot Coverage: • Specific building envelopes and setbacks are illustrated on the preliminary plat. Front yards ' • are 20'. Side yards are a minimum of 7.0'. Rear yards are designed at 25'. Lot coverage will r*ot exceed 30%. Utilities: aAll utilities are available to the site. Planned utility lines are illustrated on the Utility Plan. ' Easements will be provided for all utilities. Final easements will be drawn on the final plat, The existing 2" water line in Phantom Bluff Court will be upgraded to an 8" line. A fire hydrant will be installed, The existing septic tank on the property will be disconnected sconnected and private sanitary sewer lines installed to connect the property to the City's sewer system. Storm drainage in approximately 1/2 of the site will be captured in a series of narrow trenches 0 ' designated to store water from peak storm events. The balance of the site will be drained to '.. , catch basins where water will be piped to the lake. Phasing: ,r . The project will be constructed in one phase. r A r . • • • • j +: • - ♦* • Cottage Place 'I Preliminary Plat Application • ]Page 4 410 •. . N• COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANo Applicable plan policies are listed below in bold type, followed by findings of compliance. t r1 The City will protect natural resources and processes from adverse impacts of development, within reasonable cost limitations. (Impact Management PolicyI). o The preliminary pla+, includes conservation easements to provide open space and prohibit development on the steepest slopes of the site, in compliance with the above policy, The City will require new development to pay public facilities, particularly sewer, water, quitable share of the costs of �, or traffic i_mprovemen.% (Impact Management Polic 110.parks, open space and streets • The proposed preliminary plat and utility plan includes a widening of Phantom Bluff Court, a new 8"water line, a fire hydrant, and open space. The applicant will pay an equitable are of these public facilities, q bare The comprehensive plan will maintain the overall,average residential dens i r Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facility 'of the ' including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safe systems, • ty• (Density Policy I), 0 t The subdivision of the subject property will assist the City in achieving planned densities, thus maximizing the public investment in basic facility systems. It will also assist the City in achieving required housing densities as required by the Metropolitan Housing Rule, The City will assure that residential density is appropriately conditions, surrounding land uses, Y related to site streets) and overall Growth Management policies on densityof hc features, (especially (Residential Policy 1), The proposed building pads are located on the flattest portions of the site and open designated on the steepest portions of thtc site. Therefore, the proposed plat space is a to the site's topography. As described above, the lot sizes and layout e responsive a to the • • presence of the historic home. The neighborhood is exclusively single-family hoes, therefore, the proposed lots are compatible with surrounding uses. In pre-application confere • staff, no public facility capacity limitations have been identified. ` aces with Phantom Bluff Court will be improved by the proposed widening to 20 feet, capacity of The City will encourage open space uses of identified high risk areas. (Potential Landslide Area Policy U), The City will regulate land use; density and intensity of activity in landslide hazard areas, in accordance with the degree of hazard and the • stations imposed by such hazards, (Landslide Area Policy IV), • x ,�• t we , i • e 4 , - . . 1 4 • IX• • • Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page 5 A geotechnical report has been prepared to determine landslide conditions. See Appendix B. The report concludes that the site can be developed if specific engineering practices are observed to minimize impact to the stability of the slope. The Utility Plan includes storm drainage collection from the site and roof drains to buried pe,;forated pipe. • The City will protect the scenic and recreational value of the lake to community residents. (Oswego Lake Policy II). • The plat includes conservation easements to ensure open space along the lake. The open space will protect the scenic and recreational value of the lake. • • The City will support the preservation of historic sites and structures in order to '• preserve a sense of continuity with the past. (Social Resources Policy II). • The historic elements listed in the Cultural Resource Inventory include the home, the stone walls, the small box hedges, the cedars, the fireplace and the dock. All of the elements are • proposed to remain. All historic features, including the relocated stone wall, will remain on •r • Lot 2. b V. COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Historic Preservation ry As discussed above, the site is included on the city's cultural resources inventory. See Appendix A. All features listed in the inventory have been identified on the attached Site . Analysis, Exhibit 2. The applicant has no plans to alter or remove any of the historic features of the property. As required by LOC 58.145 (2), all of the historic features will remain on the property. Compliance with the Lake Oswego Historic Preservation Ordinance is discussed in Section VII of this application. Parking As required by the code, each lot includes area for at least two off-street parking spaces. Park. and Open Space The plat provides 18,977 square feet or 20,17% of the gross area of the site as open space. • This area meets the requirement for 20% of the gross area of a major development to be ' designated as open space. The open space will be protected through a conservation easement, ` The easement will prohibit removal of vegetation without specific permission from the City. They will prohibit construction of any structures or impervious services. ♦ . . W.• _ • • - Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page 6 • • Landscaping, Screening and Buffering : ! The City's requirement for street trees will be met through the retention of trees within the setback areas of Lots 3 and 4. Drainage Standard For Storm Water Management • A geotechnical report has been prepared. See Appendix B. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Erosion control will be achieved on the property • through storm drainage recommendations made by John McDonald in the attached :, geotechnical report. The report recommends disposal of runoff by moans of horizontally • constructed system of seepage trenches. The trenches must be capable of holding runoff from • a "10-year" storm which drops 1" of rain. During construction, standard temporary erosion ` .• control measures will be used (e.g., hay bales, sediment fences). Final construction plans will include erosion control specifications. Easements will be provided on the final plat for all drainage facilities. These easements are a; noted on the utility plan. The easements assure compliance with LOC 11,020 (1). The plan for subsurface seepage trenches described above will minimize transmission of pollutants, including phosphate, in storm water runoff. The disposal of storm water through buried perforated pipe slowly releases water into the soil. The soil acts as a filter for • pollutants. The property slopes toward Oswego Lake with no intervening properties which ?. would be adversely affected. This storm drainage design complies with LOC 11,020 (2) and (3), The geotechnical report recommends seepage trenches sized to accommodate a"10-year"storm )`' which drops 1" of rain, The recommended design takes into account the erodability and permeability of the soil and site topography. Therefore, the storm drainage design complies with LOC 11.020 (4) and (5). The trenches will work well for drainage from Lots 2 and 5. If drainage from Lots 3 and 4 • were routed to trenches in their rear yards, the result would be soggy ground on Lot 1, Therefore, drainage from these lots is proposed to be collected in catch basins and piped to the Yake. Oil trapping catch basins will be used to capture pollutants. The combination of subsurface trenches and catch basins/pipes is proposed as a reasonable adaption of drainage techniques to the site. utilities ' :ill utilities are illustrated on the proposed Utility Plan (submitted at 1"=30' scale). , M '' Sanitary sewer service will be provided by pumps in each home with private sewer lines • extending to South Shore Boulevard. The lines will connect to City mains in South Shore . , Boulevard via an easement through tax lot 2600, • • • • • • v Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page'7 Water service is available from the 2 inch line in Phantom Bluff Court. This line will be replaced with an 8" line. A fire hydrant will be installed. There are currently no fire hydrants tr on Phantom Bluff Court. • Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Due to the steep slopes on the site, City staff have determined that the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control standards are applicable. A geotechnical report has been prepared and is attached as part of this application. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development. • The standards require that land with slopes in excess of 12 percent will be regulated in i • , accordance with LOC Chapter 45 and LOC 16.020(5), Construction plane will be developed in compliance with these standards. The standards require that land over 50%slope be developed only where density transfer is not feasible. The plat has been designed to locate building envelopes almost entirely outside of the 50% slope area, except for approximately 1,681 square feet of area. The justification for use of this area is described in Section IV B of this application.A conservation easement has been placed to ensure protection of the steepest areas, . ' 41. A slope analysis has been prepared. See Exhibit 3, The analysis shows the following impact i on the slopes which are regulated by LOC 16.020-025. r Total Impermeable Total Impermeable 50%+ Surface Lot 20-50% Surface 50%+ 20-50% Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. % Sq. Ft. - Sq, Ft. % 1 6,666 1,103 16% 3,443 2,378 69% 2 6,130 ---- 4,725 }` > 2,100 44% 3 264 138 3,684 2,080 57% . 4 211 ---- 7,517 4,196 56% 5 1,800 ---- 6,947 6 3,988 440 11% 6,277 3,731 ,.. Total 18,999 1,681 1% 32,593 ; • • This analysis shows that the site has less than 65% of its 20-50% slope area which would be potentially covered with impermeable surface, The analysis also shows that each lot has less than 70% of its 50+% slope within the building envelopes, The standards of 16,020-025 are ' met, " 1 t • • Cottage Place . Preliminary Plat Application Page 8 Erosion control will be achieved on the property through storm drainage recommendations made by John McDonald, geotechnical engineer, in the attached report. The report recommends seepage trenches as outlined above, which are to store the runoff and to dispose it gradually in the soil mantle. To avoid soggy ground downhill of Lots 3 and 4, catch basins and pipe are proposed in addition to the trenches. During construction, standard temporary erosion control measures will be used, including hay bales,sediment fences and hydroseeding, as necessary. Prior to approval of construction plans, the applicant will submit a detailed erosion control plan which illustrates the proposed measures. , . Access Access will be from Phantom Bluff Court, a private easement accessway,y All of the lots on Phantom Bluff Court have access only from the easement. Within the subject property, Lots " 2 and 3 will have common access rights by easement to the use of the common driveway, Lots 1 and 6 will be served by a common driveway. A variance request is included in this "'+ I application to justify access from a private easement accessway. • Site Circulation The proposed driveways have grade of maximum 20% in compliance with the City's standard for private two-lot driveway. The proposed widening of Phantom Bluff Court will improve access and circulation capabilities to the site. According to staff, a full size fire truck turnaround is not required within the site. The proposed turnarounds are adequate for a standard American passenger automobile. Solar Access LOC 57.025(1) provides an exemption from solar access design standards for areas which are sloped 20% or more in a direction greater than 45° east or west of true south. The entire site is a north facing slope. Almost all of the area lying to the north, west and due south of the misting house is sloped greater than 20TO, See Exhibit 3. These areas qualify for a partial exemption under LOC 57.025(1), The affected area includes Lots 1, 5, and 4, i. ' Lot 2 is the location of the existing home. The area of the home, stone walls, brick walls and fireplace must all be retained on the same lot in order to meet the City's historic preservation , standards, Therefore, the area occupied by Lot 2 is unavailable for solar-oriented design, Approximately one-half of the area of Lot 3 is constrained by slopes exceeding 20%. Increasing this lot to the north is not a feasible option for providing solar access because of the location of the driveway and fireplace wall. Therefore, it is concluded that a partial exemption for the area of Lot 3 complies with LOC 57.025(1) due to slope. Overall, it is concluded that partial exemptions based upon slope and requirements for historic resource prevention preclude a lot design in compliance with the solar design standard of L000 : 57.020, R • , t Cottage Place :Preliminary Plat Application Page 9 • ' r • VI. JUS'1`ir'1CA7CION OF REQUESTED VAPJANCES • • A. Access Variance Access to the subject property is proposed from Phantom Bluff Court, a private easement accessway. To utilize these private accesses, a variance to the Development Code's • • • access/frontage requirements is requested. The criteria for approval of the variance are listed ` ' below in bold type, followed by findings of fact and conclusions. The request is necessaryto prevent unnecessary hardship. Findings of Fact: Exhibit 4 illustrates the location of Phantom Bluff Court and lots which have access from Phantom Bluff Court. As shown on Exhibit 4, Phantom Bluff Court is the only physical access c ' to serve the subject property and all of the properties on Phantom Bluff Court. No alternative access is available. All of the properties on Phantom Bluff Court rely on this private street for access, The r request is for an access right similar to that enjoyed by all of the residents of Phantom Bluff T Court. ' • :.,.... 0 The applicant purchased the property in 1989. Phantom Bluff Court was vacated and converted to a private access easement in 1959, therefore the applicant had no involvement in creating the existing access situation. •11. Denial of the requested variance would result one of two consequences: 1, The preliminary plat would be denied and the applicant could not developthe property; , PP or 2. The applicant would have to convince all of the property owners along Phantom Bluff Court to convert the accessway back to a public road, Both of these consequences would result in substantial cost • and time delay to the applicant. It is very unlikely that the owners on Phantom Bluff Court , . would agree to converting the accessway back to a public right-of-way because the existing .. accessway is adequate. It has served the area for 31 years. • • Conclusion: • The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship because the applicant has no other r physical options for access, reasonable land divisions of the subject property cannot be approved without the variance, the applicant did not create the ,, ardship, and denial of ' variance would result in substantial economic hardship for the applicant, Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood • in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request. • • r , , • b, F Cottage Place 0 • 4'v Preliminary Plat Application Page10 Findings of Fact: , V,sual impacts of the proposed plat will include the addition of new homes in areas which are c'srrently vacant and wooded. The seclusion of the proper , and the presence of the historic Sundeleaf home will likey result in homes withswe distinctive Lake, • architectural detailing and design. 'These elements are consistent with the existing character `' of the neighborhood. Trees which are removed for the homesites will open up the views of the ' lake for the three homes located on the north side of Phantom Bluff Court, Noise impacts • • associated with the plat are expected to be similar to normal neighborhood noise sources and levels. Construction noise will be temporary and limited to specific hours,will result in 5 homes in addition to the 14 currently on Phantom Bluff. Traffic associated a . with development of the plat is expected to add 50 trips (each trip is a ono direction movement) , per day to the existing 140 trips per day,based on standard trip generation rates for residential use. Phantom Bluff Court will be widened to 20 feet to facilitate better traffic flow, Drainage and erosion measures have been evaluated by John McDonald in the attached geotechnical report. The report concludes that the roe , property rty is suitable for the proposed development, The perceptions of residents will be expressed through the public hearing 410 ,.., ` applicant is aware that the owners of tax lot 2600 are supportive of the requesprocess. The Conclusion: • The visual, noise and traffic impacts cited above of the proposed plat will be similar to those • of most residential developments. These "typical" impacts will not be injurious to neighbors because they violate the City's development standards or conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, In zoning the property R-10, the City anticipated and planned for development on this property. Due to the orientation of the slopes, erosion and storm drainage impacts will occur • entirely on-site. As stated above,specific erosion and storm drainage measures which minimize , ' impacts will be designed for the project. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development will not be injurious to the neighborhood because development will be consistent •with the character of the neighborhood and traffic levels will remain within the City's standards for local streets,• tY The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of property, the Findings and Conclusion: • The access variance is not a dimensional standard that can be minimized, Access to the site • either can or cannot be from a private accessway, Since it is not possible to reducer . . .ariance request and still make reasonable use of the roe the '` I the minimum variance necessary, p p3', it is concluded that the request 411) • , • a, Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application N .} Page 11 The request Is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. ' Findings and Conclusion: Applicable comprehensive plan policies are identified in this application, No conflicts have been identified. B. Hillside Protection Variance The hillside protection standards require that development on slopes in excess of 50% will not be permitted unless density transfer is not possible. The areas within Lots 1, 3 and 6 which are 50+% slope have been protected with a conservation easement as much as possible. Lot 1 includes approximately 1,103 square feet of its buildable area on slopes of 50%, The purpose of this design is to provide adequate turning radii for the driveway and turn-around area for Lot 1. It is not possible to transfer the density from Lot 1 to other portions of the site without diminishing the historic character and context of Lot 2, where the Sundeleaf home is located.The intent is to assure that the vegetation remains in this area and there is no development opportunity within the conservation easement. Lot 6 has a small area of 50% slope with its driveway and at the north edge of its building envelope. Lot 3 has 138 square feet of 50%slope at the edge of its building envelope. • The request is to prevent unnecessary hardship, Findings: The reason for the requested variance is based upon the physical circumstances of the site, r The small area subject to this request is needed for a turn-around area for access to Lots 1 and 6. As illustrated by the plat, there is no other way to access the buildable portion of the 'property north and east of the existing home. The distance from the home to the east lot line is approximateesly 1 upslope driveway, turnaround area, and historic stone fireplace.0 Relocation of the slightly homesite to this area would require relocation of the stone fireplace and removal ofothe existing trees. It would "crowd" the existing home and detract from its historical context, n Based on these findings, it is concluded that relocation of the Lot 1 homesite slightly upslope • 4 .`1 is not a desirable alternative to using the relatively small area of 50% slope. ' Lot 5 is not owned by the applicant, It is not available as an alternative location for Lot combination with portions of Lots 3 and 4. Even if it were available, the applicant believes it would not be desirable to add a fourth homesite along Phantom Bluff Court beyond the three proposed. • • Conclusion: 1: • The above findings indicate it is neither feasible nor desirable to transfer density from the proposed Lot 1 homesite to elsewhere on the subject property, Therefore, the only alternative -. 2 - 0 to use of the area is to eliminate Lot 1, Clearly, this alternative would result in economic hardship to the applicant. It would reduce the value of the property by 20% for the purpose a r ,, o-• %_ /• 4 , .L Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page 12 0 ' . on not disturbing a very small area (1,103 square feet) that is 50%v slo concluded that the request is required to prevent unnecessary hardshi pe' Overall, it is p Development ., P consistent with the request will not be in which the property its located or to property injurious to the neighborhoodrequest. P P rty injurious to be affected by the • ' Findings and Conclusion: Impacts associated with plat have been discussed above under the support access ce. Those findings a conclusion that the expected impacts are "normal"v for president al development and acceptable. The use of the subject area will not impacts for adjacent properties because the site is uphill from Oswe g o reuse erosion or other Lake. The request is the property, ' variance necessary to make reasonable use of the Findings and Conclusion: • The turnaround area for Lot 1 has been designed with an inside curb radius e ., ,. minimum turning radius that can accommodate the turnaround of an 18' v h cle, This is achieveve . , this radius and allow for 20' for parking area in front of area for Lot 1 must encroach slightly into the area vehicle. To I the open. forh Lot 1, the true or Lot 6. Based upon the use of the 15' radius and the 20'S parking loarea tt he same is for Lot requested variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use ofLot that the 1. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings and Conclusion: Applicable comprehensive plan policies are identified in this application. No conflicts have been identified. ,, C. Lot Width Variance The Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance requires that an R-10 lot be a65' at the front setback line. Technically, Lot 6's front setback line Is located minimum of north width southern boundary, At that point, the lot is approximately34' wide, v r,2 pis nt has not intention of building at this point) as illustrated on the plat. This narrow d However, the applicant the lot is physically committed to use as an access driveway servingLots ' portion of illustrated on the plat, the proposed building is further north on Lot 6. As 1 and 6, location for the homesite, the variance is required because the ordinance technically . IP" Lot 6's width to be 34', Even with this considers ' The request is necessary to prevent an unnecessary hardship. Findings of Fact: • 0, • Cottage Place Preliminary Plat Application Page 13 0 If Lot 6 were widened to 65', it would cause the historic fireplace, walls and some trees segmented from Lot 2. This runs contrary to be ,l therefore it is not a good alternative to t variance.Losth2000 to storic the preservation requirements, • building line. Its narrow front area is used for access. Lot 1800 to west least is ' at the building line. These lots indicate the applicant is requesting a right similar to otherTat the in the area. Tax Lot 1902 was created in the 1960s, properties involvement in creating its configuration. Therefore the applicant had no +, width now because of the historic landmark designation on above, the applicant cannot change its he adjacent property, • Denial of the variance would result in the loss of two lots from this pint (Lots would create an economic hardship for the applicant by eliminatin onet and 1). This development potential of the property, g bird of the • Conclusion: The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship because the applicant cannot widen the lot without conflicting with Lot 2, the applicant did not create the hard would result in substantial economic hardship, ship, and denial Development couistent with the request will not be injurious to tein which the property is located onto property established to beln affae ctadh . ; request ted the by Findings and Conclusions: The narrowest portion of the lot will be used for access, No buildings • homesite is planned for the widest portion of the lot, close to the lake,llIt iconstructed. d acennt to The • Lot 1800 on the east, a narrow lot that will serve as open space buffer betty J Tax , ' • properties to the east. The proposed variance will not be injurious toe th Lot i hbo other , because the home will be not in close proximity to other properties, There isneighborhood oa homes which will result from the request, no crowding" of The request is the .• r• q minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. • Findings and Conclusion: The homesite is planned for the widest portion of the lot. Access isplanned portion of the lot, These designfor the narrowest necessary variance is required, elements have been incorporated so that the minimum ' The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been identified in this application. No conflicts • have been identified, • ® V1I. COMPLIANCE WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION ERVATION STANDARDS r-. O. ' u.. '1, • 0 , :. Cottage Place �;: Preliminary Plat Application Page 14 The subject property is listed as a historic landmark in LOC Chapter 58, the Lake historic preservation ordinance. The site in known as the Sundeleaf House because } designed and built by Richard Sundeleaf in 1939-40. The city's cultural resource inventorywas states that the house is significant as an English Cottage style home and its association wih Sundeleaf, a local architect. The full text of the inventory is attached as Appendix A. h Inventory The features on the property which are to be considered during review of Cottage Place listed in Appendix A. They are the home and seven"noteworthy landscape feature' includingare low box hedges, stone fireplace, curved and straight stone walls, entry walk,entified on and • mature cedars fir, stone dock at the lake and brick retaining walls. These features are IdeI. ntified Exhibit The exact locations of the home, box hedges, stone fireplace, stone walls and entry illustrated on Exhibit 4. The exact location of the "mature cedars and fir" is not walk are the City's inventory. As illustrated on Exhibit 4, mature cedars and fir are found through have bhrou h in the entire 2.16 acre property. There are notable cedars close to the home whichbeen gbeen retained on Lot 2. °+ , ' Applicable Review Criteria The request is for approval of a preliminary plat which is major development under the Lake Oswego Code. The applicable criteria for historic preservation permit in association major development are found in LOC 58.140 (3), • ciation with a Findings for Review of A Major Development ti , r The criteria are listed below in bold type followed by finding, of compliance. ti The subdivision or planned development does not result in a landmark t o be split into separate lots. • • Exhibit 4 illustrates the historic features of the property " All of the historic features on the site are retained on Lot 2,r the tlot containing ion to the lot lines, i.' home. To protect the most vegetation associated with the home, the lot lines for oSundeleaf hae been designed to retain five cedars close to the home, the boxwood hed a threeroe cedarss '. •, an the north side of the home and all of the trees near the fireplace. They plat clmplli with the above criterion because it does not split the landmark into separate lots. complies with The subdivision plat or planned development map requires adequate setbacks from landmark improvements to provide for buffering and mitigation of impacts associated with development on newly created parcels. . Setback dimensions are Illustrated on Exhibit 4, The yards as large as possible to provide for a buffer from development aon the new parcels. Onround the home have the been made and south sides of the home, the closest distance from the brick wall to the setback lines on Las 4 and 5 is 50 feet, The distance from the Sundeleaf home to the setback lines of Lots 4 Cottage Place " , ; Preliminary Plat Application Page .15 * • and 5 is over 70 feet. Lots 4 and 5 will be accessed from Phantom BluffCou . rear yards will provide separation from the Sundeleaf home. rt, there acre their ^ orientations are adequate to buffer the Sundeleaf home from development on Lots and yard The large setbacks and relative small building envelopes on Lots 4 and on 4 and 5. Sundeleaf home is not "crowded"by homes on Lots 4 and 5. 5 will ensure that the The distance between the Sundeleaf home and the setback line on Lot wall on the north side of the home is located 10 feet from 1 is 42 feet. The stone closest point, The impact to the Sundeleaf home from development on Lot1 line of Lot 1 at its significant grade separation between Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 slopes away from reduced by homee on a slope of 25+%. Most of the living area for the home on Lot 1 will be downhill the Sundeleaf The stone walls are retaining walls, When a home is built on Lot 1 lloof Lot 2, • appear and function as retaining walls which separate the Sundeleaf home will continue to area of Lot 1. The setbacks and buffering between Lots 1 and 2 is adequateze from the sloped separation of 42 feet will be enhanced bythege because the / that the closest point of the Lot 1 setback to the home is also ethe most thetween narrow lots. It is of the Lot 1 envelope. This constraint reduces the likelihood that a home will actually portion the to the setback line. ally be built up '` Yard and landscaped areas including large •,tK landmarkshall retained with the struc trees and shrubs associated with the as much as possible. Large trees have been surveyed and are illustrated on Exhibit 2, To other vegetation as a context for the man-made historic features, the the cedars and followingdesigni elements: , e plat includes the 1. A conservation easement which preserves all the vegetation conservation easement will ensure that the trees north and west of the it. The retained, me ar�- r 2. A Lot 2 the .. \\.. . design which retains following landscape features on Lot 2: a. Five large cedars within the immediate yard of the home; b, Three large cedars located 38-45 feet north of the home; and c. The cedar, maple, ash, and firs in the vicinity �, f the fireplace. -, d, The boxwood hedges and planting beds4awn retained by the brick north side of the home, ick walls on the • s • . ,ao s illustrated by the plat, the building site for Lot 1 is defined by the proper lines slopes, Four cedars within the building area for Lot 1 will be removedand the . ' ' These cedars are 65-75 feet from the Sundeleaf home, 'Their basewhen a home is built, . below the grade of the home, It is not possible to develop Lot 1 and retain these drove criterion requires that landscape is approximately 14 feet • possible. associated with the landmark be retainedcas much uchedars, Thns . This criterion is met by the retention of cedars and firs on all four s The removal of four cedars to the northeast of the home is the minimum tree removall home, whiche i _ r - , i • Cottage Place s . Preia,�Yy Plat Application ;t Page 16?,im • facilitates development of Lot 1. The plat balances the retention of the historic features of the site with reasonable use of the vacant portions of the site b a landscaping and by making Lot 2 the largest lot. The criterion's Y preserving most of landscaping as much as possible is met, requirement for 'etaining ng f • Conclusion The findings above demonstrate that historic features adequate setbacks from the landmarks and that the have been retained on Lot 2, there are the landmark are retained on the same lot as the yard trruc d u�el asdgaped areas associated with much preserves the historic features of the site while still allowing residential u possible. The plat • on the property. , 'VLQ SUMMARY The Cottage Place plat presents a unique opportunity to create ' compatible with a historic landmark. The proposedplat respects in fill development, that is responds to topographic constraints and preserves a significant amount demonstrated in this application, all reviewpects the historic features, criteria have been met based upon factual en evidence, The applicant respectfully requests approval of the plat, variances development permit by the Design and historic preservation � • gn Review Board. \\ k • I M.. • • 6 1 .4 a • • . • ' , i1 \II 410 ,. j • . I f{ \ II ' 1 . APPENNTDIXI S A. Cultural Resource Inventory D. Geotechnical Report • ^t, C,, Exhibits 1. Preliminary Plat • 2. Site Analysis 3. Slope Analysis , 4, Historic Preservation Analysis 5. Grading, Paving and Drainage Plan x 6. Utility Plan*7. ;� Notification Map D. Map of Ezdsting Easements E. Density Calculation P. Photo-Inventory with Index Map a • . * Plans submitted separs�tely at I." = 30' scale • r• �' ' T ' Jy� elH - 1 y r • • . y. • V• .• . .. 0 .• , . Sr Vt ,Q ?' a I r \ ' , • a I o • a , i • • /a' - .., w. - + 0 . 0 . 1/ , 4 .�e11Y611L ''�� ,• i 4 4 M r • • .600 �V0 ( Uy 0ecu .`a IiW `\\\ • . S\ Id y ;, EXHIBIT Sad 1 6 c.�,�y 1; / A1�hU/ g Gi q'1�'tA.1 �tlp� f 1 (/'f G ir,. 4.41. y '71! 1, `% Naa411Nr.1 N Tract -IOW Yeti r 4. � ;• p. . 1 \ , Tract '� «, j...". ` "'� c + if1' „Si')ti „. 1 / '4.r `iy/r I : :::: Scton4.90 {, a51111 v MI �I �AA f Na If ^I;rv! 9 . G14/ It 4 w.olWrwl ° a°wl 1..1{Oyu Uw: I. 4^ " ....YN.uN 1 .,..�^"^'..-+ MOM KIRI 1:I% fro ,, I I . W u. 4.9.9 s` ,1l 1 7200 i ( 14.41 . I Two , ,,, • . , \ 1 I I i. L.a, 9.1 �'1 -I 11 1 Nd 14.N1iMW r _ 4 1l I111 auul I luul , M + • I 1` J 1I...' !1,,. •1 [ii ) 1 1• I. l a r 1`S':1i hw.+1 U _ ^, 1 "1' 1 "1 \ "Ir Iw1 1 \1 . \. IN 1 r_w.w.r hi ,..• I • I I �l '+ -N/1. w.:Y.11NMw.1W— 1 l .4 NW..1..IWhorl.+.H14 Far 1 ` U , w . ' 0\ I V 0 a , I I • l'` I I I =.II I N M 4 I 161 I I , r II I 1 I ^1r® M . . V 1 awl I I I o w 11 rwellitiruw.ra.law r,1 M r iMlwwl I j 1 1 art:i V u 4 ' ilm.mr---mr- • ., ifIr—Mk ..'"..p, N Mal .. 4p'1� .!W ' 4.\ ! °Ie4UParcel A . M � IOW :F r , )pcji,/^04 \ 9& EXHIBIT , • '' prJ} U /'6., ; Parcel ® ' r.I'I' '!P ?4: Zia',,, '.4 M Y! -It..IN 1Ylr41 }y' .....v.w,'0 i... ( y. 1 MJ. • ,l '// 1. . i 1\ 1 ... ' \" lyrl! �'//{/•/% I /y` \ . ,!`/ fib' I Ploposed P?wNan p►d1(load Section 1 sit Sq /I ..ate �.� S. d �.�`' i e•41�� rIUU 111 '' ,(Data- .. a'4+ . Y 11.,k1" i A r6W I law .1 `,. �F 1, Sik t .. .. . • '. 11\`.. , I NIIw.o Mawr.IOW ull.Mwi.1 x, Parcel Cr 144��� .. '� ".' �, J• E.,�ii.. U ICI� �� CO�1 1 1 r it .hllt 1..lr.. 1 C �1 1 1 11W.1.. ' t \. I..ila"11 V..• j V 1•,1'`• IMMIrM.t.M 1 I T!..' • nf�\ l s. 1 4 r' . .4,1 mu L[fAHO .' ,,b I Nt.1 • • ., \ 1 I I 7kw s • i•• l ` 1 I 4. M'W rl ° �^,(h 1'.•1 I It • 1 aWl \ luul 1 �11 11.1 1.1..1.1 l ' i ,• I 11I I N •"...N.1.1 %1 I � \ I l iw .Irl.r1 1 1 Mai .u.1 ill \ '.t W.r ! ._. t` -y1 rIN1�1MY FYI M."..Iw�IM YY) 12.Q U qr I wLr.LM1.1.wJi r) 1 Vetboo I BW !W 8 ' • r � ( <,)0 1 I CS I • .10t1 I I 1 I (I I I N le _In tt `• •_ I r�Nl W.0 1 ..Y' rw I ( I.wdIN...tks t.wi{1W EOM I . Mar 1•.1. ItCM1Ma1 1 6 1 ,y.,�. _ to/l 0 6 • _______,........_.. • ` • w mar- r a� \ • Lot 1 10,700 sq. ft. /I ir /� • Lot 2 26,540 sq. ft. ISP 00 I,ou �, 1. )., .. Lot 4 10,100 sq. ft. Cn r. • , _ 1mr 11rr•1 tti , ,r, A.,:. d ' 1 ) 1 / -N eH. i .S„C, .„„,ilmmalt..••••••• I •NV A1, (.,` ate, 1 asp �M 1� C.T Al w•••r••• rf+> i /S i ,� �j I I Proposed Phanto�teal rid Section 1, \ 2600 '1 l�'-' ) + we " - 1,. wh I ' �WWWr prtv1.. ,. , 'dM1, '' ' 2500 alou ~ ,Il r if ahn., uo`itm..9.- .., ' anal I 1 \ 1„ - f..•. 11 ,1• / •y l 1rr•Y•Ihrl I•W I4 4 I• 1 n� 1 /Iu+J•C•r/l • 11 + 111W111.11w••re MI O IMYMI• 1. �/ �, W + 1 0�ll • 'll hj ,';i'� " r \ 1I IC 95, 4" liti *I('+IIr r 9 /,(N .• tOk` Ir 1r•a1Iwr.1 I mow ^ '. 1 ` GN•1ya ?Al! , \' ��t.. Ira L.ra 1r11 ' i100 E ` (140 �r• Iww qu1.. r . aunt I MII 2nwl I 4.-. 1.1 1 1 I I '� • N. M ra Y1 • mil \ luul �I ' ••r1rMr11 1 I h•••M1i....• V ' 11i•1 r��1sN • � + \ \ 4., \ a 1 • i �• / 1 I ' .4 1w11r+.rN. a irl 1' LI t r•.11 r.•••w rr••l•r Q / ;• ?. ei 1.�:9'1, •c ,,><, 1 huu ,uu I 1•r.w_Iwr11•.r.l o —A'. bµl t��u�kJ(ttu I 8 ( l 1 \ „Ulu 1 1 ' 1 i II w r ryt� 1 , b0 tw1 1101 "�, 7w I I• .___._._ ' i I I w.11 i1Yw.w►.r1ea NM i hJ 1••M Y 1111e11 1 . - 1• r,ii 1 v • • q_ ,7 .,. ,r /•. - .:l: - •- .. .... - 1. _,• • ., • • I) C)11411`.1" • \ , 1 Mr ~Y air- • 4U�'4. \ .eeuuIII _.....//(:IMO Q4 w d l SI: . 17Utl \ \ APR 5 1;4911 y; \ \ . '. ..•.•.. i. 1 f I,J i' r �� \ ' T\/ • w•G. 1 r r'4 .-;-1:e.I,r10S0t•Ilil'\..o tp '" . ; /t .. ' - .."s- 4 S M �fJ i�-.� loAe . •♦ ! ri��t''n' q _ m= O 1 r r // 1�- r a m. �y s;`��tf dy _I ... a. • 7100 1 'rf "`i - il;.+.-•. - I. 11. Ma Hur[Itaru 1 1 \ lif.111!;.-1 $1.,-• \:.0*-4-4;Wt.',...-:"Coo--I'l I ----,:::Ns( il A , \I 11 i(/I{{• ti I m1t ua , :'..r/ 1604 1 IRO 11 7700 4 "� ..w L. ..a. __ G I 11 1 i.. _.�..rl i 1 7rtl1 ?� " y 1 I IYui �1 1 a, .._wl..tWI 1 \ •� 1 I 1 Kr7 -.al..ew - 3a. II ' 1 �1 N.IN 1v IWlr4 M1011 Iw 0. j • • I 1 e 3 I '' ��1 ,.s�i.. r.IwlnE.i le Nr1rk Ir.iw11 w 1 ` .�3 O��E VGUfi�!lhi` .- I— 1Uo Y�e y�� f d I 1 • y6G • �, �` j '�,UV��1`�, fi /tlu 1 1 j rr rt�on 8 r.A11•�riW y�' / �M I ( o ' ' 1 I 1 I :z: frJ2—_ rITT . I I ; 0 ' 0 0 . . , . • liiiiier--or. f cu. cw-- I r \ -sum/IL vv.!, (!nn \ mot : 170o \ \\ jV' .f e f G,1)(111i1N.Vi . I /4 ,. ^` �� � ." fir 6 Ie. )''. . s. ''2‘,t,....C.:i'.'",..t..°:1.:: Vuo ' ' '.\ \\\-\.„ ..•4,4010' '.°1 / •' " / 3 .... . y' 'APR 5 i991 i YnnU 'p Il 2 � ., . rII YIUU ,1 :1 : , • t f11 I4k wuMlw'',J..' t tbal t.•Ir]' 2tltl ` ♦t` ," ` ,.`,' ,.,'! ,tO 11� 1 L![LIIRLtJYa=� 1\ ` t 11"1 I \ . ' ,,,,,.. . li / .SC 1 \ I s a luny luw 1 Milf • 1 1 YYoo I ruin 1 sr u+m �' - t I�.17,�19 I II 1 1 11 ....ter_ ..�_.. „IMIwYM.°►,iMiuNlb - 1 WtiM MIwMN Emit C 1 • � ` ,_r V t `. �, ,It;�lk uo�`0 1U0 - °""1 ; I ""' i �. I .j)I �, I I I I �� w EXHIBIT 4 I Jtwi f I ..r I I \ I I I I i i. W W i11E. 1� VW1 1 • 44 . VIM—.Mr' ` JW11Wb • \n�u i I000 \ • U \ U���tli •''a t; 1700 - `\ • %�ij i� tl09 y 90 <lO• 1 ,R \ \ • OncM — /,i i; liti,,2',' .J.V.,1": . .. �••Sl° p 1`repute and Walls 1 t MO • ' i(ii y4',' ' 1.,1).•r ' i * ..- Skim /•11,,,l". i i'' ''' 1.1 1CIEP" . ' . • • Wu a Ir°II 19 (fuck `fi"' a. ' /' , t ,'K \ ' / ;' rrddatl1� 1' r, yr;/.% II 'r �` t• /`, ,if/\+\�I �r 17n,. '' i10 SC b 1' 1 u,.� . Ll 1 t ' I '•, a. Y....w • • lc, \k'1 „ K)ynllp dr; ` f'6 �', 2DUt1 • " ,, ,_-'-'-- i it., -,. • 'J VIL, / snail APR .{ .49 G • A, L :100 Matta Ij;T� .__..--- t-. ;1., {1 ,. - - Ir.r I 5 .1.,��/.L. z C0(1103 { • 1 ,. r lE�� I1,. s�; t�11,1; r \ ?Ai., ‘ii, i`, !`+d Ili t t1t1 Ifr. .• o. ,:\�TMf„ co 1 . %llrr p,, r�:\! it : ma `s• 1` ,\ 1:Y 1\• / ..I l' \1111I1ptC 11'cllNl _1r r., owl' - r ,? i of \ 1uu.1 It ssuu I �M',.te I r 2.11H1 l" tr.,,, 1 ' r Y . 1 �1 I r .W 1 .-. h' i I tL.. -wu.wW • 2001 1 f r> Iyt11 1 11 ' it., .-• �...r . 1 r 1 I w 1[✓ \ I. w I 1. 1 = 1 \ t .Yw.r.l..irl Y^.11 Mrw1 N a . \ 1 , Y Wl.h WMI IY +W+ Yw M I r4 a ' 17klk' 1� ,uu I sou MO I V• g lE 1 1 1 . , � ' , .. . . . . t,Ea. , , , \, I I I I I r.w MJi � EXHIBIT • •—91e-f4i • • 0 0 • I :.:; 1 Y I M•�.--_ 4D�� /<7 RN \ 11 ice ' tt 111) . . . .. Ili 11 t• / ..uuw�a, c°...r y 1 h••V /lin . L. ;_. ;1' .,./i ,•e'r ik,„).>,\..., 1700 ,+ /� dpiiir ,,,,,7:,I 1 11�t� ..................W\ ` \ .... .li 1�_�.M�•naM1w.w.Yry ' APR I l 5 Y� �,�. )1 sR »�' ._r'/, "1�'w V /. •I I,ti \ / ,�'ryL Y k4 CW I'ka. • I w r. r/f,� 'yjr I r� / �•f.`+. \ r w}L •a u . n 4 < M ��f.r p1 f'.-.+ I IS<1 s.1 1 ^J SFr / K e.Lc„•..0 ii y► ./f x,S� N��/j'( _ .... �y '• It+�\\\ 1700 vw.���IL n�u�y �'• ' A /Ac- " 1 — •. „la-"Al r.n ��� \% 1 RaW7�d Illy____ f/\ I11, . �,( 1 (91nm Wales IAn•oll u' � �` r � 1 ��1 i4— • 7100 1 :�n:iw!nn 1.+w. � J •.._ ,11 1 \ I �� a 1L 1 �f\SY y ,,—'+Z! J/ roan zeou on.«.In ' \\11117iRi`� ��I. a'�r \! _ ,-\ d , ;".. ..'' /1«r,l Y«rr/ p � 1 P 1 N �0/ 7.....4,...................,....:...... , .. , r k a.1 ifll i 4'; :.� i w� 'w d luny ' `fi f t Af;,Ir' \I11 _1 Inn ,1 . J _'� laa» I Into I�aS �1 77no 1 « IE1[LL{1tlR_ _ , ~' 1 ~.� wal 1 /I \ /IX 1 0. r 1.I i 1 I1 0. it.,.. . .., .., • A. Q. g '` I I i4gxu/xiIiyd � �14iu1df 1 Irl� t1C to" 5n ana lan• a U.• S 1 ,.' 1 I �0 ..1 .. a .. I r✓`_'. f 7aU !W I I I I I I I1 I a.a ... *,. 64 I � .. ` I I I I . w „ HIt�dT 1 y I I Yy4 .-+7 . .. . - t \ •' a Y J \ .. '\v • . • ..24.111141.14 \ ...••r••••wr I••.1 Orel //‹....."''Ii00 \ . ,, ,IG \ ''7'• '1.. ...f...aro.fww i U�"' 1,. 1 \ .r ,. !I, .,114, 7'N"'•,,,,s • +�4u ♦ ON \ 4LIr'Ir'N r•s 1 • 1 �` J �` ;• t aJ r� 1 11,1 \ MO i �` I r �,..N.1 t PR 5 1991. 1 f)� \, t a , " 1 .; .� y=. .,,, I I f .. ()� ° `v{� lei::_ 111 (1 .u.l lO It 'I _f_.... - 10, /�.ivv 1---11;441 Irc 41 < �•1 1 Li- 1 ,y. .��.wL 1 '♦ ♦:(� ♦ / 1 ' Irkl R:reeve. ♦ \\ 1 11 `�� � /, / 1 I 1""' r+wn'/..w4N.. .r.w o • \ 7000 1 . • ♦♦ 11111r ,•� i ' 16W r r ter.•1 1• 1.N.l•. 1"•ww..'li 1 l•,.N••••••••.N«�'.,.•...A. 1 • p�,, f ♦ a •1 d 1� I "" •w'w.:o.4.•.n' 1.. IfIW \\ ''•r" /✓ d d'• 1.1 rl:''•.: .iu. P••7w•,a':41 MMMti,.......,�"r II \ 1 / LL�� �li iv,/���• . Gl� 1....4::1 i:::i 111e1 /Oo lli -.1.1b.,F�... I \ ` ♦ ,, Ill ..L1.-� Pww ,. I 1 l 1, ` / / /4 I '11. Id:�M�:••• iii,r:.:a 1 -"'^.♦..-.,, �...... ,,.rw•/N4./•a. N.. • n , \,`�`• lulu/ lonf 1 �rW I 1100 "..... 4...•1 • . V'; r P 1 \1 ...1 I // (1 t - 11 ^ I u /I r11 fina\n:'�v-ii .0 •. \ I 1l, tool 1 /` rw.. I \ 7ou1 l 1 ' ^• Id L U 1 1 4 i I a \\ l 1 1 ,,..,,,'.'.1�. .•"`i./l a...�...11 �-U 41 L JWW�� - •-�.w»1.... 1 1 r•. o 1 1 \ 11 l \ +•w.l 1.♦ 1 i wi'1. ,»{ `II .. C1 t11W1,L.L•_....�._--s--t• U w 1 a EXHIBIT a l)U `a♦1 I . 11 y L. u• w I I I i 1''' 11�^IJ1�..�1I'' • i , \uuu I I 1 Allik .� ��Q' • .. t <r / I • n ' j; I' I • • APPENDIX E . COTTAGE PLACE SUBDIVISION Density Calculation I! .. a The following calculation follows the steps in LOC 49.315(14) j ' i A. Gross acreage = 94,090 sq. ft„ Area in Private Street = 4.860 sq. ft. • . Net Developable Area / 89,230 sq. ft. B. Assumed Lot Area for Existing Home 10,000 sq. ft. C/D. Proposed Density Transfer 0 E. Area for Lots (StepA Step- B) 79,250 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size Base Number of Units 7 units - . 41" Proposed Number of Units d units \ • p ' i . ' EXHIBITi :. • f . r • _ • if 4 r l .. . / V r ./ ! • a is 1 • • ale • ' • l+f ' R T • • 0 . • . . • r' , r I. J 1 e .. .. . , r' n 0 . . , 0 • . 4 ... . . .. . .. . . . ". . :.... •. . . .. , . ... : ., , , . 2,„,... 1902 /1//,',),,,'21'4';iiiii:-*.---:::,',."., ,„-,,,,, ,--, ,...... -- .., . bock -.® %r1 rr �. ` / \0 \ /:C '-',..'....;,11 0 t-:e`-'--5.,,,,,,'"371:-. /�;1� :" Flrcl�lace and Walls ,� . ,.. 16 s '>• ,%'•, /%• r is .. .... . 2\7. , \ ' / i z70oTrail to bock �� if /1 P c, �\• ' x °�r lalt ���'� J Iki tor O. ,....,1 /f . 1 00,07, :aro) \, L ij \-.2,.. ....- --i-i\ )‘ k...i 4u il • ''dJ • /, i i ''e c C is 'iN S ® r Q �,.,/i. i ,,h1," NVIN z000 Br pg I " ' Zinn \ Malmo• " ,r -- `7- a"—ry.►.�. ;� i5h ' "% '`r' 'w".,`�,a"' , / / 2600 I Cedars P _ "` '3r' ,,s , 1 / s f ., •`• '"c ' , b ,', l u'�u4 ; `s1`4 �` A\ it 4/ a, \ �/ 2400 --N.--r....../4r.,/, '% ..„' t : -'*/,:: _ PJp l(/ (r/ r i.33 ,,IAsf4/ 1 '� � //100A 1 191'3 1 2200 I �. \ 1 •/ ` l 2300 ` Y� ,L I / 1 1 I 2001 •I h I 1901 N 1 1 Ilrli 1 t.Y• �. — --- a EXHIBIT I 1 n, � z 0 • • 1 A I Cv J., a / ,y. . • • • ... Jr r. Yr , 1 .p• H 1y f r;% 1 .J , 41 • Y ' I 1 • i• • • ' y ' • • a.. ''' -.• T.1 '. . '�.....• • P �'�` ter' L v•'•. Y., .., �•„r`-.f. t� Jam. .7 �` •.i...• ti: r. { K••, 3 !• ,. nr rig 1 °. • ii',y•«, '� i•s+:f' yy r °`:, vl, 'r•�r; • ..fit „ , .u�. sk} - ;;•. v�� t ,. w •* - • .r: • •1 ML'��1:i1 `��~a,,k4 '{`. t?b%^A.�`:+^••,},'y ~ a %v .. w ,a ,m '� J a.� Y a� r.. C`,,. y-.+f}"" t 'tt • .ti« ,...:• ,`, w41.414�`t%y .IF�• I`2-• _ I. F. �.n'%7•• 1 '-.s•t+a/.6.F S414... a:. ...I.. • . • •�L~ - I.N. N r,._ +. - n,. „ �.r . :v .;IyF',.rat`" '� .'�'*. tea°f•' `Y,.• I I • Su 9'''`'"1 i 4.4( -LI • Mom . v k . . r `„ Ty`4 -�'• +y".nr • . y , .`a+•' 'T,,,A'1�„, . ',M.N.' .. a ' ,h � ^br•`^u., r < y • `l t •�t ,'f4 r.,, -yv.:.� •— :r'r•.•• .'J'' A .;,. �,t •t iw.,i.� 3 f .y,, . f z V �wt ' . e Mw' c.itdvrr /vy .w�r i +x r.• n . .a r•" •� ,,: 4 aai .-. •." ywCti. w/ + ,• V• r . • • • «It j . '( : C .i-'�-v r:t uwT• C •l t4.♦ � • � -•M` 1:R _•.•:vM, " I L :�4 '�' ;h, ' yG•:1 , ..«..y a A.aw. +.w' ` ' ':�• ta ai r� .1\` ,.‘ 1,10%.+y-► + fN,'; " . ro ..-. S ' • •+e.. ,fir. fe .. t4.7ys, . - 4, Aw rt.a ryw :• * .+ --• • M•X '!4 F: '. � vL K� r:.. s. 1. ` _a tr tfa � �Y ` Lh " - • .,. • '�.•tw -t1E.v' --• R ^ " 6r "4^ '0 ✓fi.. . Alt....,°�' . a, t.. a ..,v >., '+ � ~„r ... • et .• r. : o ' ,, . / t r , .�. ����•• -1't ,,may, v,j�.`+-., ' v • t • ••y A � ...--- um aatiotra as...pm MUM rarasa•rr Er re ,t . a� •�.7R!!a!O11 s+ ♦`Ma. 'il +r��nss s '�t •+•'r.awn.tts• 7w.Q�s7cra.sw lAwl�'•T1le.r+rir �'S• r'�'� '" nf.!'�'t cyt 1 I!+! ,a>� TSL- ;A•'usi - s�a+..: t[ aca�r FFtrw `'a . wee w i/r�' "Z• n� Y ••at �''� ,e ,: `� • _ .'i' ' lair ♦yr10,r!• '�` M.; • 1 e?'j' j rA1�,3t •r t"or �1 ti `°►-afix?Kt Y "J+w.«*r. v t`,f yP '�+ .L3'a •.+ • ..rf. .,u • • ,z ' / r .: ar•'..Y • 1! �q • . • • EXHIBIT . 2 • •, . I .♦ . _ 1 , • . 1 ply r' L i,!,, r;" • °4i+r �'.F 4" .i�a�l w.h'rys ••441 i , . Ir1. ° 0 I h. +"T``.,` � _ ....jP..1, -� .� M�: +� �f Y f \ •1•��{� • IK'! " 1�.3 t .�'i.. 1 s. t.• + • R i.L! •^G\ r r 1• 4•r • ' ILL , • ,,t 1 1 4-42,.. ,. 'l ' ••Gw �yta\.tl1.ti I r "f> '. ^I� f 1 '�Tir ...� �"r :L 1at'N °•4:0;rtd r^ :17 r':t 11,N.ljf t .: r �•.yr-"' t \vq/.rF. l Y ''r .. rs`R4 t . 4�1' .s 1 • t "^ ..' f. Y c * TN\+t. Y.4d to • a rp Y%-$.%?Ys .� • • cr'' • • 6.0."+> ••7^w'YS Hr �`-,_._, FF� i 1 I + ,r..•ti + T r I• . `t' .Fr,-..1, ...... 4 w ^-) �' _..?.. 410Iris c v F r ' "' e \., a s§ s. " •4.• a• ...♦ r "� ,I ,t.Tt.' ro •+s'1r ry ty,-•• H -',•�•(;+w1� Iiyyd," + '�... i a w.i^ a �. L J ,+ ••.Y- � )iti• w.r4 , P.7. �M1G7F.4-4..>„1". ' ,. ,t� '44_ .F-nS :,,wy '1.,ti• �"-I'''"N' a{h aYtiaS,ral'r `I '�' • ' iu W.1 %, ¢ +t ••,.,e.•r;, ;'X `'•.i1.. =1, •, _ y ay.�r i .-t. .. s .e..r.�y j . 3 i.rw! � iyiU:rsw'3�V,1�'.�, 5 ,1•Jv +,� �'°bSjtH �.�r a `\ \'\` �' khwy , !V v cs.•L[ a'�• 4 •w.,r.. U'. ya.S, ,j` a*.;. yw 1 x...r•�h r.I•ft( ,IYi+",�'I "� 4 Tt .a C S •+..•„k S?«t .+�� �.�.. � f '�+�4 r� �,• fA • ,�'{. s l ,ca..yF 3!!• ` �`=4,k te. "A'AP .i , -a.12 ! •n'4•2"" ,r'"%t�+•', ..w 1}y,7'x�:.4 c*,t33� .ql',f o it. ;+i!tb+y ah ". _,t7it AIM 'L 41 .' . +' ZLiU M,.• 1r Y° c N.;trtiYYl y�4s W t,hs " N, y' ^ p I`k1i bti�!"� w"+gyp Hti/ �yYCSL�� e a .fi • t4• •11••.•.s t ° Ic 1 ! y CT.• M� `7. G- e a in •4 q"•'• ��w �w�. rt.•u•\is � .! w a'^I A'�?�n.ti+ !� r';. ���� SZ tti a +1+� R"W/�1� 1 1 f , In'1''.tt.eSt ,,.T.N. .'ry.+••s.s-,:t.tY al" -X4' .„07•2""• '... x ... :: ,b0,.c •tY a !,f ,,•,Yr1"�.,,• r 'A, EXHIBIT 3 , .. . , .. • is _______ , ,r=t.D „i_gt 1 ei.e-i,i , • 1.• . 4 •.. ti . • - S-• •siMk': / `y..••J. •'' 't,.-.MlV .t :1 :.y�IA1tl g( Tt Bri _ •yyoa • . 4.' rY,a•,•,.�.,._.__ r�cwgUAYt'r • 1 �ru til\ ry'S. C +w. �1 w ..,�r 4f l r, 1 is _- 43610. J. '• afr X� r` 1� ti J +'' ,-"1,ter 1 '~� it , •,• r.p• }, .''= 1 aauAa!n Mr y`"arr.+,f••....u 1 -;.1 1�Lti"�,.. 1' r"" I.M .•0•I�S,.r • l.Mtl.• 11 aN ••4lhynw •ry1. aI"Hy, } 4y/ i . RI,?i..:"fitJ.LS« M .,F • -S -T-- �F 0 ly,• 4 3.: 04'�i~:1 1t••; • • j`.`• 0••• w" • �r......- �rr.Y �� •i•.1� f� ~i+HyR4�.�*^" ' +'fir. tF.a:?sJ#��I,��Itl 4 �, 4 .. s ,i A n •!! J ;r `1=1?T • • •.. . ' .• . u . .r. ..1 u 7/,F •1 "d, y,1. 'V ,‹ .-4,:t4t,.:••,,t;... ,41.::*•40 U. '"-* . • r.. • • fX �iIBIT , • 1 g A.— . g ,..a , I •N , w la . (., ,•�.. • .r♦ ��, .-.'�„i_ a !�?+vI 'F•'' its, w i n r• + ' r- .r-x���• 7 s��.'1 Pat �I y, t-• = 1{, `... T. • -mat '• , .��� iv' �.. r "'if: i 1.... _.aJ.tiai 4 • J,..�+!y'trl'A••y ^"' 1 • . yV.*'''.4.*7,'r 1 f f sy yry arc-'�� (' •+' Y- .'' • • • �k. • _ T , T t1r .,I.Y ..i dT`- mi.a'•r.r` " :'k } • „,iv v r{,',`,�"= " . .*r..-,•+w • .. ' �.. - v . ,i'4'• tits 'l�1e ,t •4:', N FYI,o • ^1• • r • ��x • —'t timer. i !. `ire `y r* ..,....s-.!..',,+.'1��y R 'w-M. •,. "a�y:.r IF,—.....r. +�,,.. !�' .i .� tti` j� �,. ` ^Y'' •,r am. r C . trt4 Y b•• .>_• a ,l�r n.X11 r •• -tir•I��``� . • •,. ' .a • ,.,•• . .'Fry„.„ vow •a.a. ,.•� ,,.. ,` 1 `ti a, + ray _r. ,4 .1 M —ly " * ��.t.. hr ••<0•`E•� r•x, . 7 `Yi 7V J V •• 3- •a._ ".i`/;' • b' 'w Y� r,, ' • r ✓'�:r.7 .aby -'• tiv,lt P. Any_: .a. t:- . •� ' 4;..�''' ' ;,' 7.•. .''_ t. - iyt'•'•- :. 1 lfy�.yF.•t.�tn..w f^ '�•.�``•7T'. ] 1 • J►�1I '� - A r'R'r}_,,, "�, r' •r . ,,v r"kr`l'yl e` 't'11'T,�",=•` . --+-��;.•� .aM .,. rF. -S ` u r.. i d t..s P., .' r•Yt .. "•1,' ,. 1.7,!t .., .i•;,. A i.;t. "y ai�L/',%r `. '.k " t �1 • ' •°'• tr 1't D'"..rw. r:aati,,"f 1 a'' 1 1 '• ` f .. _ ' ...Sh i'' v; `. ..i 14- • '',� ?4:r.-.' �•r+ r.rr „.»"wi40� ``b. " / ,,. r 1' _; ;s. 7 ..„ 1 t •.. y •"',.yt tit W' 8b: 4/ .1 / ! .. • rr +�• ~ ••� ., EXHIBIT 5 ' ' g U�1-91 e2H` •I Y i ;y iy�..'r •'+j n L+i. a••M,.54•sF ,i';: v .....‘• +" T t'' 1�,•' •1, . a....f 1 / .P ..1 � ' �..•�- `. ~ice(`.'� • .Lf' y ,'. Y`^ •..'.n' f � . r, e. ' �Sl,,.y� � �_ L ZK n 1.:. 4 ,.-Y 'v t' :� ""4J •ar� 1. 'wOY•atr r ,,ft 4,T t •• .+1 , '. 4.• i,;,h�l `..' , ► `o04 a x r.• + 'cir 4.�. tl�' -�; "• fit `,• 4% ": n ,444• j4:. ,.: "4,r*r f I ? • .. 1 A- 'r';: Y •• a.�. 1111�� M .+4r r� vr. i i���'µ - /. a N� "S• 7� ., t i•4 f'. ., :1 J •Ia,`a` 4" i•4+�L•&. +a`�N S! • �`a.lij"? , .r. �.�a'v k`. . /..+•,,.. ,C ,.'(� 'y,. ,�tr,.�'t..t .A't' y,�., +1 1:'., L"d+,;. j n +'' •_ _ "`�.7 „1 ,S,� * ' "1"� 1'i ++ ,. ;�. r, ''.r • ,wj.4.►-gl r.': .•{tkA f.. �, i ,^.. ra •• ,.; • . '� ;Q'•„aS,Y 3ai.'^• ir.'��MA k. • '`►t'"irr i.e.. ',vJ� 'va`�I • w yI . �1� why •. #„lL,„it,z ,_ ,..' v- ..x:f` '. �''�� 0 r •� ...Ail i f" y vt' — •--- 1,• , .j • •- � A a�.+ i 4.t,- 'iR` 4'-iw S '•i!, 'r!. '+a. y i.. .!rVx • —U •.M,.r a .• � `i—'r' •, 1- .yyx✓1+.1kr°yP:,S eZux.yt4y` � .!p� •".�,:` t wl ' J • y am! yx '.s • mr.• " E •`, �}I',V,--•tir• a}.....t) • ' y t < s..a. ...r &eL3�j� :r*;+-f.` 1," ' .fir', • �.J•'' ., rl..lr ..► .. i.—.L !- - -� "•—",.' �Y"yya� .•M1. ! . • it �1 �'rTita• v. :�., •L,}. , C"�w. ..ai, . om' ,i„..„,',M '.ti• ,+•• , mail , . —07..Mµ.. •. S '{•1/M . ham..-�.�.ri�.�• i/.4` y �• iMMaRIM 2fier i�t .L.. tom, �Y•� . . y'� ,, -• "V .t.w �"Y�IW.V .M 'Yq ..}IS ,. /•ll 'Mom..N. ..M ,r.,, a. �c'� ;p- +•7-,7„_ 1 •t ''�' "C>; � ': '''/,a^•te. '1, ,'6iL, -""— -�.,..45 ....y /+..`. •-` '. Y' �Ly Z •1•awe ~. -• r• •• . , . • :• . , � EXHIBIT6, ' . . 4' . . , '• ,. i' E:"1. , r , i • i� f: / 1� ..� t4 " , y a •tl1 (tow. "; p, ;;1 p • • • • .• F. �A .. er'♦` " ,•,_,. *t. 1 _ � ,r a t +•�f 4Y��a�' , ,� vij '�M,n =+/ts. . � a �4✓ 4%•` 7"�• tMt ,i '� 1.r 'Ti♦gip A ty 1.K • t , - 1 .��.+ +f •, r a t .'�•. tx s +t1 ' • .rIp, � '+t• . •. ' ,.,r, :,d .a .,, 'ti t` .k �.. —+yc < • t ° :v?'zf,. 1r ' •^ tiy ,••••T " I i.i►;• • I, { , . +.i �" -T M'` ��+ °y Y ` i . ,r , •tiw•, i,tL,..:1 F. eY {l Swph ,4`� ' • . 1. .+ r.'. % '. ,� Sri n.'� w„`y r!.ti'-` to i 1,.1.i , N ' p r,f :,,, '••iy,Y h e L.J'`''}.rVl,r,.. p a •.:.•1 �"Osi 1 Y�C��ttt f' a. • *►`f' _, t + t. t i' •t1.i V•� �.f+� •�.,; ,. • • s�' we 'Ate i 1. �f• fw. s•�. r i «• 'Pelt., ., p_•rt 'L'.or" 4' . - ■,� y• '' '.��. • • ttr • .,j `• a} •'1 , • 4,tµ---•4 ..t-7.—:+ !r �''.w y'Y • ` * :f. . • r , . • w • , rl •- y�ii,� �+,K•��„ "Ja^,`f".i+'i401' `"f'i � Ip p'�`.1i �.r `;�„ A �'py••• .t P „; + `••.;• 7 a`%o-^ ,'''3: `er•'*14 j 1Ai,'t1�a `5 If, ...� ` -' r,'`' ^c{.aJ;,`�� : _ , ,}`ja{-,f �1�CthiiA'^ •` .ems« -'�' i:t.' ti. �'. a q g F...-•f •ti �r•-n� 'S c +py�r h.a , ;Jt;k !+ , v.t j' ► 7� sett �•_ Z Wr f!1 1ci}+V1 pt1t>��''; pM•`t ,t • tic �1 a ",1's�,Z rS ,�j^�•qr \:` i • t 1pr� '.,ri k ii• 1 p i.r't. p .,j•' y�.� -`�1:.,1 ti''.k. _)..I..1, 4 +��^' "'•4` �r , 1 +!�' �. \ ,, ,f "c `'R:U,, �'�'42 �•1� i; l ,a/i;. =cti' — aMy, r V.• t.t,, #tit`�t+tY,4, +�r,�s- i 1-',1� •'P, fit\RI" 't ,p�yam+i'Y 'a«. T.•.�i'A44 ,�(�*s :«a� y4,; ��.{p1:+y 'Y ,'�' fir ` a 1i,. ,�' 'r;_ '! • 1•� ��• iy . 1 ?� �,` ,�y°.0• , fib. `' e ,aP ,: :` t �11 (: -1, ,i ; °`04:47:'r' ., &0 "i,„.(�,,t,,Y"S 'fir • •~ m+` eft , : q��', i' .•t, '�`, ,et '*I EXHIBIT 7 . .:• 7 1 sn ci-9•1 �• .�► p k 7 - ,�.� �,,.r 7�Jp�lY �y� 1. W. `•� ( e i a,;: 1 i `• N '�, .. + ° �.PMn, . '% '+R'�:, t p 4it ` {Jt,'•►�'t 4'°?,. 74 • .,;,r r .r r ,p?� r,,, •F.. Sri .,., ,, , �r 0,31 4 r �J.. u W , t ,:,« • t• ,ti '.. bf.l., . �.+r fl n iqt t '.1f,�' � , ♦ 1., t .b f�i. =Y• •K• t a r+ ' t a'?,-}�,..< •y.,, " >- it, t ` c ..'t r.�-.+.1�. d ' yn -.Jt' y, • �,�+•`.�M/�� �, ,• r • • t "• ft►IR '�' .* ''f' •f. �,+• ,�'f., , Ley , �. fry� >+ - ,,,,,-.'« r •'+ a.... .� :1 ar:.. t •ly `� -.,i AP.' • -•r�'. " ° K t.'+.'-5� ,•♦. N , • - "t.a`'• ,•• is 1>• 1 ',_ ,.. 0. tf'�,t ! 1 . 44:. .�.. Styr ,,. yK1y',,,, 1 .pC t • ;!C , r• J , :, a . ♦� • S•• • "a .: , +I, +..4 �• i .fit% Y Y'.,t ' r4' t .wf 1, " ' • „ i .gY}` _ . il.� '.ySi ( 7 • 0- ` N"ti i. � s"'�,,• i'�'. it" w , • •,•• •J r•."`.a",i'+f�� rti;!....;7*,1/47,- `•' •a.. , tr. .1, Y ,, :'ii1+• .,4d,. ' •` °"4rjb .•x t`•p, + T If• .��`li 41.♦ O., t •M Y a tJ • . •' V • fr ♦ . y • ty .i EXHIBIT8 . • � r •� . • w • r. \. , •1 • • r ,r-. , • y* fir' E . «1+ - t *, a • ; ` 1 i u , .', � tt � wait' '� \` "�J 7. 1 b `mot r''T S. • , • iu \ 1 w- + , 1 V rim '' 1 1 .1 4.: . y, r t.r ti4 • i c M gs A••• i ' v 4 t4 i0,l,�k�• ¢f�{1.L 17�rg } ..y r t;9 1' axnQ:rM • \ "fj ■� i4 t•4 1�t1.`;Mtn li ", rr j1f; 11744. �,� ��• II ;j 1�}444�`� 1• 4, -� ` tq • @lo I; r 1 , • ,1.0; • a .• t��t •144%. • ill r 1 '..s •Ta �?Frti!tii. • 1. A '• = EXHIBIT • i N' ' 9 . • A • r • r J n 1� yy • J1! le . . 7' •I . Y a , 7 0 •••0: • . • .'ry fi I t ki I may".+1;H{.. ••\.1.9.'•S'.'' ,...V.-.'`..4S •,::14 'el, r.,....S!i:9''Iltit.,,,:t" "1 e; . . '•M 'i r 0 I. I.V • , . } � J"�' :I':.. .1 4 . • • ia b "`T Tr " �a;.4fN,• ti!' xb Mr •0ri'• • yr ,.ti4'' { a''+ t t '}. '1 . .14 'w.'� , ) . a '.. k. v14:r: ,ti 'bi •tia�;�11 i . •y +... .y.. .r L 4 4 I Iti,r�,��v. .... ybri l l�' «I�C M- 4'" p jad.}} �j 4► 5" w I �i3• r i .Y 'i',14,"S, •I k ',t /,\Ty"�!`� tY ti�S. ,�H "II"••.. ... .4+#"°1 ' �My, 0 3'. .. 0 or, }„.\ I a.,7.,„ {'.,,, .4 • 7•a."•A . ., `m 'Map '• • } • - • ' •� . .. ...*..•.ti. _r•'4 t�'•'... `+",.fir".f`. '.4. a'.', . .��.. .,,. 4a .-err """"�'","c_, �j• /i pr•y •.N.' '4`1' •e'H•-t _I tat ti / �� JJ.. a .wf '•*' t�ti � "•,f, t. A•. . 14 7 EXHIBIT i 10 . ti ,ter . • ct • F1 ` •''1ir h.i ' At rt +r it 4 f p�Y�'�'� S n r� M. List)„'�w�• v �t1.� • ham' {u'4nt r i%, ., �,.n 'br: rr *IP L•;� .'�j -'. k,C j4 , �•^`A�ll1w.+.. + ., 1 'h. i,*r)Yi'.i+.• ,,�•. 9 y�r� t 11I., r' it may, 1:..,e.• • ,�` �"'... •:✓r'w` �+ ' VM.' rFr C'r' t.1 7`ykt 'l `.*141,3t ,J- Y . t•. �` 't�C"`_ ' • ! r+ 5 .,, Ir. 44F,clir "''',Cry :•. r ,NA • �' 54� • • y P, •,,,.�yR,r{r.,13 '• vC.. 1 a... i a• ,♦a k� , '9`'h ' . .. i.i 'Cµ• " 'i '':r"4 y ..�-' • ,.• '• ' I'll l$• i.. t(,t'.e.t;Jq� .`?-W:1+!.y*rra yh +� F ,.1. y.lR �,+t Y,S,. Yf�i V. ,.,,'' � t ,,z t .a.a.,,...r f lyc re } 4a�1T',0-' r'«'i.y�,'�,."' ,_-�'•. .+t ,,,�t.r.,•_', r ,� '. i ` .yi +.p a t`. +S1. 'aq'`. " �K am'•. 'r{.Yr _ i= ~«° � s.t. �}r • • • , 0% ,. y~k ~ ♦r. *. . MM t iyA '�' a . +� ,y St ii, r,..1t 1` o. �y r. t �y5-+ Mi+a t i � �� wrT " may{ f • f. ew. * t4 `a. h; '(•:',Y.11. '6 '' K ti S�a L.' ar*ei0 ti i.",.y.Ya ty. l + n. tiY • is""' fit 'te iw + r � +NS, � ," • � ..,i ;_ �tyh1♦ fw 4xyyd Y`y •.i�d . ' ph tf ,M1i .�Tyr*1 'f.t , .e i r.y ' p`r i t . i , 1 t „ 4 • • 04, ....:.:,.,: -*4 : . +� qSP'.,,• � t 7�y ',' AM 1 ♦ "C ltl0.4 - ... 4. trA' �,.'7, r ", {. 1✓•• . e"f. ,.7 Sr , �.zt' Jy fsi yk ♦�{ ..:,,,..-P ' yt t i'7 1 ?'�'ar �`. h ,r'• !:• , � '� !'..r �,,,}y+Y .P•r(rd +,'qp�,. 4 ry' pw,l'.i^C'',r. '- . ` •` ` y t • l • t�l e' .. 'r.tb•.,to.H,. ' i . . r 1+`�7�tq.y.r1" .^' f r EXHIBIT 1 ® � 11 i wji • • r ' II,' b . • • ; •^• 1 ,d5tµ, i`'F••T C. r �'�'1pc' +y,l 4"•'�.R.�.. r ��"a.";ti.•r L,•a a • =+-tr.:�. {J �. • r . 'er L h a°-l! ;P Ott y�•,? .♦4:4. 4. . i .1. .:7}. .., --:,-. lJ, •.�.l;C� `• ite,,.., . . r„ f. +,,,,, r,3,,,, =... 7 r �'�yY 1^.- ' .'yw— •••••r' F:•-'- »7, r• r-•- O'1`4'1 • •}' , i �•�j '1• 1a11. 1:'47-r!4;';•...:. .'' r tom( / • i ••'s . i •• •+i fV '.. .•'a Xy, 4.•a `f• y i4*th ! J' „r• .• 17 ti, ' l 'r' ,`u t 1•Rl ~ ,rhN-ti�(•S+?�L•^ tr.,e,..J i, w. r�r v M I�, .r 1 • 4 4t ;J' )4/t,. x .fr'' e. - .i*wr.'�1 4 1 .y. , + Mu �?•i 1�.,h w� ti.♦tp�.• �C " .,,,•�•;�- �f. ^� ,r, n� f � �;':1 ...J�y •°;'r .• ' = .. .F s'w� ..'J""'' Y• ''.`„t.� . sy� . 4M j k'►••/ram al J`.. .4.';, �J' ii'4 r + .. '''' '^. ! �...' L a,.: �^••{��, .*r r; .1.�r •i. ii a S;C,�,4 ..r. t,4 y A t-.e'•7nL' +q! ,yRf t }/, r .�' , - y�r'>f�>!M • f� A k --I :1•v.�',....' L ',, ^' •Y « �,'J'R'•n 4r r'`�4. ,� ti,,, y¢�:fp� F�k! k �•i..°"" '' .r^ .M'^ 'IT.. , t} L�,.�'t X `,' r,•, '...f 111I.t y•`rt'4%f j. w 1.''si a r j;,,•*4.,r•.=J,., rJ•,e :•; p • ,-r•.� ./7 a r Y^ trf1. �‘1."S fi `4 '-r at rr r 1�' �:.,,r�. �, • r t ' L JIL.._ ! n ,; `to;','ty y• t�^7.W ''fT V�y� -0 f,.'t ems„+" %• , t re"tftr r,+ti`•r.'� v,,,... • .i/t�N'`i'�,���,,`v :y`�r, -Y t v i`'r r ,. .r ,+t� lTf% i? c �, �"�;. t b ., . .. •4" • .. ..,, ^ f. .�.• 'i'fK 4 5 A+4' .�r4p� lLtli MyM4`, �'f'+14t+.7l�T {• .a. -s'><. Fr r nS♦G1y Z "it ♦ 1 rhr t r;l.,ft �'�y',. pp Y I ! ;It 4 fir. 4-...^?2' . '` - ,.e7•.. : ':l �: *," �y,�'"^7���_�1N4i.s'q`g + a. ! f N. a .•. rY "•!•1rh i�^7K�7K' + eaS(•4• rr xt tt, •g', y� _ A ` r �� •tf .`. r�, lip 4,...+'y :• i • 3+ EXHIBIT 12 . . . . - 2�,. •Al .cam y Sp ul l 14�.1-.21 or' a P. ` ,� r + • ��•1 4 ,•9skok •i � '� •'+ ,�.�. � g's tlik tr+y,i',�5I,='',�,t, .t• �a � �r. Yr,•':. x`t,41�. N ► %4if ti� ♦ tip! 4rJ3'ri•'��a4a; t�j Mr y>,.. t r 4 s w`• y A 4 4 • .•ti•` ;�.r ?t ^'•'c• +•J," .~i' ��_• ,a•�J y4 jd t� •� r K�•� f:'�.'r 1'�. .,, �!vyY' ki-r 1 � y ,!F•�-'?id. '''Al,:.' = S .F`:. 1' a6�r'+�f'. r,0"r " ♦ to:—.....,.. ors !.'t.-..+ Ji.... �4 ` '['YT l i .• 1" w: .a E r'. 1 .. -�• * ,' < alT.�1 y -,., Vw �.� 1• l+. 1. ' 'f Zk•.. ' +' w try I�-�i, r g . + + � a ',r51 '`.ta''1. �kYr` 9 r'1� n 'ir-"Y..' f r '* t • Y-'l q , 5+ i p...ti L.`�, '4C - rr- Z'•�„4,!•i },.' •• . ai,. ' M"+'d 1'.-4.r`4: •n• ' •.[� '.+iIMa' 1.., ',n • • , � `, Tw •t vl,.e'". , • K : -•a � � : , , w�< „ .w = , ,; ..."Zr....,....,- =yk t , 'e tl ��� �� .I� } yM ' 4 1C..» , ' w ar«..f' . ryyM „ •4•, .h.h1 •1 { ,...., 7 vs.t � . •�y) . ,4 . 1G 4.R�.^. ,� -r` y, • F. • ..Y •, ";" t 5,,ter s „•>, , '` • 1. ti+1„r'►j',h• • y . 0 ' , . . EXHIBIT i 3 ,... . I ., . . , ..: 4: . , ., ..._________ . . . :.. ,r •• • • • • • T� • r^ y 'N t v r • , r .s +0,.A ".t"`4 Y st Mom. �r , I^: t :A M.. a i ,1:•. �t r �t • p�� . 'y t� 1 +.silF r{{ . v x Ar ?''yG4t'f';.Z i ip r�: s-'�1t, .f i .. .J! { �t�r_ r f +' rp'fl 'vi Z.. •' .t,''" r . a �\ +Y a r "'"� •• ,�a;'S` � r M'r,•.4� r,; -", tl { fM} i`la .,:,,,ax .... :,. �,1• ",►Mrs � i GN�t�y�+.'!° i*^... • 4 si` KA < "1i " a .a *.ti;to ! rk rr a t T 1,.0{ 14,w ss + Is 54 . f i.,, c` w +,k t _„ p i • t • 4 y 7"y• �.' t ,. + b+_ .-6? j�r.'•r.r • y 'fw 'fit 4� Y e 6 . ,, „....,:„,,,,,,,,,,..„.„-„, ..,,,,.,..-,,..,„,-,. . ,. `"►;�.N . . aK,• n A �5„�,�a.. wp Iv�•• f 4'i,r L ar i',L. f r� • • 4`.'1 �♦ �' . ir:#t,14cy a "Ni. Gl •idy.'. s ar r�M�st �{.h. _� C r � awl •X,4 h;�:,Ni 1,,, .� .,r " w t o,'. `.» \ ti,rl.� <' ° "P+t'-It�� i 4.4:1.a rai. ``lt,,'{ u A. �., e'Lrv';'s ` r,a rryr",`"" A�'��{(,�b v`"`�'�a` `t'?.. .... ,• / ,. �. • .- •, - .. , ` Ya: .. G R a.I ,,itl.•rr �' s' 'r/ ♦ . '44` r'�4 , 4: w er �s•irork, ,r ,, *j f "I/ 'a O dt R. *. x . tii,y 7 , { . y yyf / 4. t. . . . f. 1 .4.. __ _ , • • • 4 , . • • • •C : ' ♦. i A • • • • •• • I i • I. , 1 0 :,,..•--::: t P .: • r ,4. . . ''' • .3; t4IrtiriejSlaiii,,,-k4 .....t-7,,,,,,,,, ..,.1,1 4 lb',b*,,,,' 1" i 4, Np' ea li�pp _ " r} ,. 77' 0,1;� /y� e� ,'� l 1 j is i3 i�A s C t ►' +ti? r v1 • 1 / tif if-'i}! n ‘. r �.. J 1 1r'� ''w 1'ii1 '+' 1 I' t v '•.,t k• ILy�Z1�j<tii{y-�1 L.'i'., V Ar r , o • �7F •'� ..L v . ,.i.' .".— ,to r. KKK?. .' of./ it*' 4tr' 1.• •e.. ... a ... ,`�y /14: ' • ' , a WN, ',0 14' _ '?�� dr v hrj4 h+ L ,y- I "J • .♦ af iI • y+ �s'la r//fffAAA i1 EXHIBIT r � 1 + i • 0 ..,• / V • • . „ . • . .: 0 .'4..• •, 1: ., . ' -• • ' .• • , . • . • •'-', - i,-::..'.•-' ' • 1 . .. . •''. 1 ' ,. -,•• . ,.- : • . '. ' ,., . ••, ,. . • ;.,-, ', ; ,,I.' .. . — ' ..' • . . . . • • . ••, - ••. . • ".'' • * " .• • ' ' • • .' ...`, '., • . '.. \ t •' :• , . ' •.• - .:,:0 ,•';' , t•...;•..`yl",...{.,,,, . •'" 1..'•el i'..e.:;4 4?),P.)" ••„ k'VI' 4 ...'.Of * '. .1'.., I,••• "" •- • . . •• •• 71.'M.V.',‘,"'''*''''fi '. ',..,.:M '' PP.' " '1‘4,•....,,,,,,'...tP.,.'•••••e'n . e. f'r'l; 411.47% '';% ‘•'Imic 4. .- 1- " .\ ,...,:. 1.„1, ,.. „,,,...1,!,„•••_ .‘,.til-1,,,,-,,I.,....,:.0.f:•,-tf", '4..'''''Af-•' ./12:0111•41" 4 - ..,,,,. •,',.. 4,...,,,a...r.i,4, , . , •‘.,,..kor,,x; ,,,-,:.,,-„'• ,t 44, ':,f..,,.'1*-54 ,4c4. 0,,4..P ,, • 1 . ,r,...3111"'•' '.'-'; '''Ir.'•••••:i4::a•-•••f' ' '.'" 7' •*7-4: 1 ....11*.'1.1'...4"4.'41,0 4• .. , • ; ,4‘;‘,?4.. • `.'' - .' .:-- •••.'''''.".'''7'.. I... . ..." '•••. •"....: ^" .4"i'.' 'Ph 7 1 .?1•4, "A.,...4.}: , , • .3.•."1•,„AW,•• „..-.4 . .94,r' .......4.,°.4.),' .4'1' r•Y sit., . , ...'. '41•:,*•4.,• 4,-..,... ,.... ••• ,.•• eli.0,.., °*fr.'', ../.7".-•...T' .11.:, .•01 . . .. ../• ..A'''':SO'A‘'' .• ••:` , „. ,A:4'4,•,,, 4." , ...„ Of.- , A ',....'''44- &tr.!' • r 54.05efo ii.• n;•;.-•••/.::..,..ilt l- A,-, ,. ',.;... .,:-..,:-'-i. 1,'... ---I. P,,V) I'`r • • 4 '.,, bA1.0 vs?• .1.;, .,...*:,.. '. ,: ,, , .4 ..4.,\,,:,;-1.. ....fi 7 .-^...' .. ,..,...47.,„;-rf ,_, ,al,rlf.r.,vil. ,.0.4 ,:. ., .. , ,, y . ••'.• •''',1 ,, '. ' I,* •• r •' r' f•• , .1 • ' • .• ..'44!1 i '!I.1.1&t,,. '..:.:4 4'.'4*.i V :''d''''%.:: t I;. ,V-. • •?..,,-..'');"'",' ..•1. ,.. ;fie • . ''' 4 - 4 is,,`• . 4••••• .. ."•....•••:.••••',.0 1 s..• A •fi".....4. ..., ..„, ; ,.r ' ' " ''''..-4, . •••• -.ft; 1"....,. -. ' - i•.. J., 7 . .1' 4,!e,'52/r4 • . , ..*,...7,-)ss . t ; % . . • 4.„4" „!, - *,... - . - zrr , . ,r ,r , , ,,...., , ir. ,,.... ,,,,,,,.,),,_,,, ,t,„,,,,,.ek;«,; ' - . -0, -..--, 2 ..,'•:',. 7.!•,` le4.4:zci.1,,, , . . . . .. .„5"... ,, , . ,. a(04,44.-•vair .. t L ,, .,.e.,:4 ill ,...,:, ••;„..'air, • , .., - "A---,,,e-..........;.•,...„ ...,„.,.... - . . •:••. Or .44, . s -- :,.4„,.. ',.. --..._ ...- :-.:. ., - •• • „„ ...-,, ,•,•-•:c.........it!,h•. , ., ., ,,:f.1 ).. , --*'''...„`)'.\-- - '. - a• - -- -.- , __.., . '-•°',. •'.'•• "^-:::..."4., ". • i •,` ..•-• :.• ---•.. ' e * - • . ... ,,1, ....,,, .... 4 I • tt ''. ••••....1 .7-.'1';.*.1.4.....4*P . . _. •...i.%'a.4,t. .'" Ittl, . -.......-4. '' ., t. , 4,.., • . ' .,.• tb . .;••-!.i, ...- • ,4--z. -ae..? --..!..•-4b- , ., r., . 0, • f• =1:',; -.,,,,,, 4 ; ..... :.: ."_v #4,',..47.,•0 . *,* , 4,- 4,-- ' .. '*:-.1•-•-• -;.;04- --I.' Y474 i „ _ . • . ,..." • -.., 7..., ,--' *.-.!:-.:,•••:4--tk.1•....'. = e 4‘ ' 4, t' ', • 1 . .:A., . , .. , ..„. ....„,..... ....„., , ,,), ,•. . - .01. t %,•.;',. -;:,.*..7 In.,t . , , ,. _-'r .,,i,,_..,, i. 4,, -1,,*riF '4, k ,J . , . ,,....... • _./. .,,s.... . • .4 ., .,.-,..:4, :4"-•; .'f,' :-, ..."4•'•••' '. • ' r . 7.. Cop ... i ii-,41, .*.,,• :•__ - • • ....: ••",''.,'4,",, ..,, 1 ' 7-g.•:. .;,', '^,"*„.,,„,,;;;:?,;.;,,,,, , 'i 14* ,ila''.. S • ') ' ' • -- 9.• 2,:. •1St 4 :,`."';',.....*" **,:',. :':',:iir:r'' '.'let,..,Z..`" ‘.•'+ .,.'... ..1,'');4,0:,::',;;-..."*:..+L'IFIT.74^,.; II,..,.... • -. j:4' ',. .. , ' • ;,.., -as** 14,10aat-',.....1.'0*,..'"..,ce.”,''''' ;..k,;1 t'v, ''''..'''',:*..7,'..!'I'„:, .-41"?''''',," •. 7 V 'A.,. e.,4:11, :4". t. %, "',- -". it:,,,,,,`,• ,:•'''.' ",' ,,.:V;,;,,,,-1 Z." ':Z;P:., 4'.1"," :,.,' :.'!,"'"; ."•;,,"\*‘,4:.%1-'-'' .' `,,e.' ....! . ' 'i,...-1.- •••••' . • ,, ' ..'''• • •• `' ''+':,•••• •`'`S.'''.•+•,: '•• ' "' •• +i, % • •s'•'• '•- 0 ". ,i'lei ': ..ttpti• 1 • ,,L ....-2,.- •,.._. _ :4.. - . :=-,,i,, ,- ,.• .., . ---.... t: , , ,,, -, • .,,,, • • •-, .• • •,: . • ,„..- 1 A''' ''''''liqe,,,..i....:-....• :4 •:‘ '4,,•' •'..; : :;,4-''''' ' •''.. .4.44* '‘: 1,`' •; ' . • ' .."', " '4*"*. '. k •• W• .... , . .4 ' . .17' '''':•44.,,,:it*:,' ' -.0. '•'''.': '`. ' ' ' ''- .. •:,....''•L...4,,-.^_',.. w.i' ••); •'-''••,,V.4 r4 ,'' ' : ..,..•!. ••••:' .t • ''. '• ' '.. *.' 0 . ..,,a....,. . ,.,, .., .,,,.,•,,. ., s t; ..t... r:,,i.-4,7'r --tt--.4'i ---..---.'`,' .''* ' ' - ' ''' - 1) • , . • .*,1... .:. ,,,'*..s..i...; '**-. , `.' . *4-, vl..,.., ,1,..,-.,,,4 *..4 ,....,7_ 0 ,,,,,,, , .1„ . ...0. 4 ;: .: , c.* • •:-.7,42, * . .•• •, -,,..;',,', 4.,,, •,,..* 4 ...,-4r,-...'y','.*.,,,,.., .. *4.., '**,-.• .',:e.",i,J' ,'••• .--.•••-'.1 ''•'., . t t, '.•' , . . • .•• , • .. , •.k . 1 dk , • 'i 21 EXHIBIT . 16 , ix , . . it. I .. •••••••••.,••• , . . ., ...4,,'.. :"I -'="11 .1" ..1 ,•. • , . • , . , r. . • . _ . . •• ...,,, • • . . . ' • • * * • • r * . , • .. . • ,. . . . • .i..4 . . • • " • o . , . . . 0 • . '. . , . „ I . • ' . . • , • * • • Irr k • N' • 44'. • r y • 'y.. . 1+tix a . :.� •f . ti� ,r.«, t ri t „ t•!Iis A 1" J�ti3 k . 1 yJ � ' "...•:,: t t,� I'.• n '� w•tit °• a I, t "� • q1P 3. . . t .') ^ r • r. ; + r, (y..t +r— ,. $s� t ' ✓ f a t « +a'1• A.S ti. F t �,� .+t`.'. ' r ~ •.: r r'y'V 'w 1:4 Rt:`4. '••• dam•' k , '�• �' i'.,y�.. a i• fix» 1..7. i.A. . •.... .',J' .'• •s. p�•, ! t '• 11 \� rl tLr-s w ��*f '�u� �,.a. �w a"+� r: :r+ V �.�ra t q i'. '�r�a'yt,, � �,�wf y...k•I tra-7?TIJ Tz 1'r •,a, Ma' I Sxt` • • ' t d `�' "yj'•r aa- •a, �.S!''' �" ^rfA��• '�'•� 1 '. t'' j -. • Lam+ 'y k .."i y I • '•.x` •'J 1 No, lr; 1..E '4 a•^ .•. ••''',y }-n..•' E. .r ;I ( I, ._ • , ,`_ • •w- y 4r t . i • •t ,, r t,• .°• `�tiyf a 1.••' i C �..� t ':,,I,„ r J .ar,t IJt'•t t♦r .+ ✓•i 7`, ? x+ + 7 .X `4. t•�T•!f kr , � . Ir { I p a "F ,1 J.1R hS'f" _•`, 1_'� • 7. ? i�• r1r { • �i � r •. ° f ,r t Y� •L`.' 4./Y..Mttl4"" �! 'X,'1, �' 1 r i r 1 1, 1 I 1 *f 1` T '•' .l`-. a j .•w 't.i t/' '.}- 4+""y± •1.•.' a_ww'.. t L:k. '. 'u r Y . ‘, Y.:'.I tr d .• •r ti.►i t L1�, •" --l•'e' '+: r a.... t "3a° tZ:7 k' tUr` t ♦ .. .;K,,,.. ✓i.,••,.tea . .;, ,;...s • y^ C tti r eta t '� it ,+tia r �. '. :0 7 ••. r •• • M, ��,.�'i,{v' r:« f.M H R• L 1 �F•Q..p t t i ,} a tl . q .�. '• t. ,� err :�.r1•0: ,r, ' 1 _A• �,.,•:,4.ar,. ,K•• , i t r• a.. r .. •., . t�(("� I w •r.R , ,l,S. ti t` tyrt�.{ • Y�'•''fi`.y«{h 1 to lr4 y f ;F: '.,.. Y.Lst1'M 4,?•, . ., ♦ r• `t A n.�. M':a�'J t y, *.sra'�,•.,Y.wy,S t M it� h L. lr� I .U*•.,' ,r'., ;r ,q I•••• , r ' •«t F �N4r w,+ ,..�'.r,•° 1 'tS`ifW��,..tYr�.�lY,q•,tt.�•,,�r "tr W 4r r. .` +t:� rr•;irt; t � r'Mr! a. . • 1'•A'''••. L . A ' .. — • �•• •y„'h ,Ts L/. •."• Aa *i eF.Al�jfi,G 't Rl s a ,4. a..X' '! � •21"' �rat�.«. •.+tA a v • .". +�a.ir ♦ Ri .IJr.,•`• 1„•i;•:..••A •.Iy..� VYtr� it / .a 'a EXHIBIT �1 �1 . .., ..„, . ; , .--- . .. ., 2_7 , .. . 1 SD �1-GI C1,,t..c , .. % . A }�.Y ;�� j`tjr • 4 r-,�" ;� ;;,5 ` - :.♦ w •l• 1 a+,�n'�ri..r'R'y r* •, r },., � I"�• I\t �' +. / i• " . 3 ArF t}�. 01t.iyt. q .L' y.• + a � ♦ • �,«r1{ ,•{'I N2 't 'Jr'4'./tl l ' 'Y.' .r/i'�,.. q' yy I F t I`. ♦ _r t,'1:r• ' CJ H T+�.� I•� ' /}t t . ;a11 s 12 '., J a 11.r•4 ?". r CI '.• •'� a '• t t s•a- • iet' '. 'tI r * tr' I`• '�. tb' .5 d 1 : ' 1' �'•!J• A - 1 J1 ' A �..,• C .Fa r;� ' •, ^ . � r w ya r� * r'• ' F .; Yw '� t` •, ' • • L"f Ic * *: 1 i rat y, , a • ' • a.,iy, .+rM'� r2a �., I'4 • .,I.i _ Ai' ti -A} v� 17' . •'2 • r+• r .y rY•' . ' r � Ii. n •• a" ^V3 •['S ZY._ •- - '' .•- �X . y, .. ,, '+f « ,.i u ` ., i..1y + s i G . , it tiY . t11^ I , •fi ,, ' . ," ✓ i p ti,714A ;hf �. "�yh% M ;� +h'� - . 4 ''A1_ � j ..,f,r n., r4., . ,.. . ,J` t ' r�str .mo ._! . • • • 44...,,,,..,,."„.a•gilt-A,,-. . .i.o.--,. i ,• 611,.:„..,., Art ",:+� t«' '"" . +., +``` 2 .P', r,.u—, ,. ;l 1 . ,; �Cm• ' 44,„ a »J��i.i..lrt�l; -c> �aa, -w..FF 1 q. ! ,. 3 r cyts �y� ' ` X �•,' tr 44 T r••"..1114 1•41s(c '''r` M'n•. •-ti.s a - 1 q r.f• .G" r f 0 • . -; • • c 34. EXHtafr ' ... . , „ 1 B . . . : ct • 1 ;,� F . a..,t , . II . ,. `«l+ `I « i i or7. N .. I Y- .f 1 -.• . , :.t ti , ..,A Wry , k " « « i "K'sltt• •ti ° 4 I4r • ii1... •1'�} .•T t'.. , - ., 4' %% �a ='t• 'r' -.F!t'�A «'r J9 'fizre17C.. '�'/� 4• . ..{`C•�7ir4, fit ,,i 14.1 • .•.1 'r . ^, `'-\ r r."Ji. ,v. d-.c : "r".` .. _� -, �-`°7° , tit,.,_ ..'` '! ♦ r f tr.J4« ,•�. �,, . K••^"'t�+•^ c.v+i" �4•V'***t•- yr•w*tVX}•�!'', �� t..;YY�. . k lr r.p.. N, •-;; G,4• :! '```�•,. . ...t 9i'•.r ty`.t"�`�.i` } ;1�•. - -4 :....%;.:.i ",t*-'...4z0,••�t ° '. z�;J:.,," 1... 4 r'. r..,... ZK �41• .. try� :45�,Gra:•!!i �' ... t`o.y':"" t'"2'• Il �r en r 4 ' .. . •, • -� '•w': .. 'r." �"r ti _'�'u*•.u ?„• ., r,(C'., r .s-.rt,[,r.�t'jt J' .,. '�, .t rr t'�. `.'•`t- -r'"` ', '4"1' f '� tr ;/Y..r 'r '1t7{- n' V • y~ iN.n� rI L, « *zr4 •.r,_Yt M ,r ,.Y F 1 . :; n fi t;',y'^rj Wa •. r, 4.. % ,'?;0' it ,-"F I y �Y•NtirM , r ',,tj;+k• r•a,+� '" .-0. .i1 �, r •.r .1 - •v. .,x:�1 h 7,4,... rr•-!1..•4` •`'•�y� �ti .,,Iik ', t,t•�„^r ,,' ' 's• ••�'• ' :.r•': ' h ys 'r ' � n, yY." p r^4:•.3y r �7r f'�.�i. :".`—""",• Sy t} . ♦V .w . 7.1 ,4•,st.r., ,• oi}•�r .,.. �'. t ' L'•. r-44. is. •-.. ° ," •' •.. t r • t, .•. • •f r .i. Mr r - '* A,./Rx#,ddr 0 «1 '•, • EXHIBIT . 19 . . . : .• . t , •• 'f.' • r , r r. aT r .,ro ,,°,• ► •+S:•'t, r. i ~ , . O ( �1I r,,,,,!� � • + 1 M+"t 4• •a:;� �,. ,--. ,�,,1.1 ?- '••r�„$, "'., •`�s. N it}� a�• F ^.I YJj/JJ •• • • � w ^ .'%•, r qYf �r. L t A .i'� .h'F •, r �' . « '. • F + • . ,3'.r. ,^1* h"` 'Y. ui R U • it •� r.LL� Il7 „ • ty: t_ y� a y f "a, -:, . -rT�. 4 'k .` + ,tf ' ., Sii ,f'� '�' - `"+' +f'' • a�;ti n `4M� 4 + •r" ,14 'f4.yr.4' •1 ► ';'$+tl� {r,r,,,olroA;may. t. "'' •••%"" .r'f"«`6":ti.�• ' .,y.f,.«- ..� ' ✓ k A .r fit : ,a.'." ,� .aY. y•« �1�r,a �f,t a r , a.+` v + .. . ..w r ,Lq .1'• •," N • ,."l�u.%..i� .' 4. .••�jiy. .a. ��7,]jt,,ilo.151•4" ... �s Mf,.'J 1'y +•u • , ' 'LI. . .,.,` ' • ` 4' + .. -1, .+ AN♦ •,,:i9."...J iy" ,'r. `N{ • ♦a ter. «_ ~ 4;. ' • •L d,. • }C' l +•+4-i •4-1 .�y„„r ,r +TR_' - • ai• "' _ . " .+ •. ' r/, rn« .'k S ,te •«,., t""w[0 may, 5T ♦. Y 4- r: r ,u ^• N.a•. • 4 • ,y, ., • ' •,,1a R' 4'•.1• fey +. l .< ... r ter,-.,,..Ct `s -rlh 1 ree f." f{ ^ • t«slA'- ,, ^ '•f A t s, -0144. t,a �pA{ • • 4. 14171.11511111111121.211111i1-4 '' IBITT 2 . r' M a • r A ' • • pP' - r .4' ,� ,t.••^ .mow y.`.. i a i+ ILk: N `4t��` '_ • ti 1 4.'• • • • '' r ^fie' . ♦ r f r \Y a / rar I :Y ;w. f-..� ,.ire+, .c -- a f�'. %",1 1►T.1 iii,'++ '' .ti V .; _ . w1 fa', 1 1 : `�' 3° � r J' •"..+•'� �' ,R`�'t ��° + r • • '.�.1==�k� 1t ' r ra r :r• . r . l,',,T ���.:r ,0.4„ `;•Y • 'A r•11,tl I' S y• `S�}`r•9•y ! - L +. 1,, •f4^ , .Yr. •••:,* �--.•J Y4....17; ( Y y. y '• #f + 1 ^ iy '`y`•; • �� .rim x� t • t•'`�-� • x• 'l,.,R . `may , �� )��'`i. ..'y� X"k'�!br . • :a ,. ,,y+•:a •,« .�+. .... tee., + r � •' r'i • a7. 4 • t q41e�F ' 2' EXHIBIT. , I0 „ , '" . T,. s, r ):..,...,, ••.. f • �\\ice A A'• i• ,r.' '; t't•M . ••►••AN.,C'ur``�� .{ , •4 4•• ..-:;,' .r• +, +•fe 4A:s'• y„y•2s. + ' 4 I-.•mot Y •+ 1�►'? • }4 "),•• ..Ova` j. ., 'Ai,t• 'Sr, t e 6', . `' kybk/ll'.R'r 4'`I • .',0. 'l'frr ¢ .t +. �" tr'i 1., 4+ Y rr•.« ,Cr y • a Sl w"+ `:t. LAM+`.�y� ... •.Yr t?i s �'•` .+. t1' �11 E.tr.sn! '�•/. it• • ?• '� ,+a, S 1'• , +•om r. •^ a .4%' • 1• � , /10 "It'". �'� fir/i i : ' • - ,may ' r t h it ..t .`•''•rt�*..tys rb4 .1.,"•Q•� „� y w • • J?SffC • .' • `.t ..+ .Y f w In • • 31 " M rig 4... ' , 04P,./. e t .a os • 1 , .. , EXHIBIT - 2 2 • i, A a •V ', • d - r a' ,•,i.+ d .."1, 0. . - ,, + '�5 h ig^ '�•f,'i JJ't ,'L'¢ y 'Qtf 1. 2.• ~: 1,t r � �►rj < • '�R';, t 4. w^'x ^? >,'',i} �`+• y bpi -L''�y .. ' 1 %i -11?1 yF Sxty vly sf; � Ail? ~ ,•- • , n • faf!•y''v`1y„.•N .i•• • `I4'v yr o`�, ill 41 la �'•A 4 a?yy,;'J"+ .1 �"' fit f^'~^ZOlt : . . *i1 1 .Y �et• `� fir,Pd•' "r . r Na �i r r r ,+. yl t.f t+ n a • �•s t, ,� w +r�+`•ATM,: : tfR. }'. fir"'7. ^r r. •'e. '}rt y •;A-t, 'sh•?:' ` '', 4. •'•.h,...r+v ` a ,,, Y( nFy r' 1 V }"hR 5 ,41 ;" �-mow .}_ .t e.. ‘. Lit Lr r. 1r"i p '� i �'h`�'"!'7` 'T>1..r 'YM's.Lyh rr `�-' ,, .s ', s 0 F :7,,,:r,t.�yh+. .BSTM.'shM. •:„ ... •.,fl•. • • • • • • ad y .1 • • • • • • • • • •2 3 .6,. '.i ,.., '.r (, 1: XHIBIT . : • • . • . 1j 9 • I A y�d S 4 J 1• 1 t 0 • } •• .. • .4 • , • ... . y e -b.. Il • • • • •,w5 • 1 • • • • • • Ar h O n , l • , • A • • • ' n • A • • 1 i • AA. 0 . 0 0 . VMS a'SW- 1 Uls.,m..an— . '1' .l1111111L 1. 1 N`y 4 • N..rilt 1200 t • y \ coo \ ny4� $400 • N. • 1000 \ /// . 1007 le :::: t nh 1 • / 0 ✓ �0 k , \ • I I 2700 • I , 1 c,' a !/, / / 1 \ 1•,,.•� ;\ b1 1 \ `4i n „ e T t" 1 .' ``ll \ \ is,i/ u,.w.40 �i l 1 / ,.dl ,. �'\ \\ "d%t 5\:,._ cam' - ,,,..- . °, it 3 \h,' I . 1 EASEMENTS\ lox /a. tA), ` I 2500 r .v \ \t '` \.' `` ``! Oa 111 d 1i Q\ �� INGRESS I EGRESS I1 N m,-- 0•ajv ;0w `�k, ,•. \1.. }1 2000 1 f.. 210e' \\ �' �l5�,P ��1'� tt.\\,•,_ ,0\1\"i @� EASEMENT TO T.LI 1002 • .:. \ . ‘,„'IN. J 1• `10,7yy 1ah�i1r.oli a t\• � vn,�dl 1 K \ ,. J _. .; . �, `\ Y�1��i•3 fat, I , 'RUAUWAY'[A9EMENT. �t'�I1, V-..- .'V,\° t \`Rgk"'1�1. I MY111i.7.1• ® 1 11:LI 14 II u•i-`/ %f!'* -I..A 1......1 I 2400 1..+1«1. 1 1 \ \ \ 0 r,1`1,C4\1 ♦ M.W111.NY111w 1 IW1.tMYtiMitt- - 1 \ 1 j \\ Y111///\11 1.1�1 I I I. II•I / l'',,1� / /11 11j1t 1 t \ A,:#. / yt.1 1Yd1 1203 I 2200 ( ""-1...1 v. r.+.��..1 art •1`\ ,/, \ I 1 2100 in u....rr�+ nr 1 II ' 2001 1 i 1001 1 I l...rw w...1aq•....d t1i \ V 1 I 1 .I 1+.I I.).N/1N111•1.1, ' 1 . \ 1 1 1\ ..�.._a..,�,s........ 41.4 i.I r1.4 w 1.11..w.u11 1 �. \ I i ',\ - .a11 M1.11M.J..1,..I 1w.., 1.3 .. \ I�\t`�1\ tµp n .y� Frill I '`r,C)k I bdd 1 e1w II MO I c1 lJ • • J00 p t t I 1 1 11111 1M�i_""7 s.., • y " 1 1 �- 1 21w \ I I I tiwul . 11' II IS . I I CIItINdI i I, ArPevb'x r r I.', �. f. •� •Nt • d S U • 4 y r� f A , • r4 1 r ' I. s.•Y • 'Y . .if �., C • , . 0 4 , • ,: ' • L! ti 1 o :i f » II Lflft31.Zad,'the'.n>Jersl.=aadare the owners of the•real pro- pert; abutting, Southwest it. ntae Sluff *owl, also known as South- west Phantom Sluff Court, located in Clackamas County, Dragon; and N13D2Xa.1, the undersigned parties..have all acquiesced and ;. consented in writing Co a vacation proceedings to alkaloses the rights of the public in end to said road; and -r t151MUS, oo the 17th diy,of June, 1959, the Board of ° County Commissioners of Clackamas County, Oregon issued its order i vacating amid roc., and terminating the rights of the public Ln : • ',' "..' and to said road; NW, TIOWYCSE, in consideration of the mutual promisee and exchange of sasemonta herein contained, the parties Loreto for road purposes do hereby sucvally ;rent unto each other an easement/over their a. respective abutting real propert'ee of the same site and disension as when the said road was a public way, and as indicated on the road maps in the.Office of the durveyor of Clackamas County, Oregon. ati This mutual easement shall benefit the respective parties, their heirs and asaigne forever, and 'shall benefit and run with the real properties concerned. The parties heieco do hereby grant unto the owners of certain -soli tracts described by instrument'recorded July 6, 1954 °'44.^' in look 483, Page 372, Dead 'accords of Clackamas County an sass- i'Y ° .rr,9 sent over the same real properties sada subject to the above des» cribed mutual easement. SITED this .2� day of Q/L141'. , 1959. c... \ 1 l ..$:. rge « YaZ►er �j •12..:... : ' tri,. E1 .,......, . ,. .. •,• >JC' 0 . `r I .. r . y • Y ...'y/ xY+' 7...1.w i.Y'p�t11..fi ..' 44)y" Il. ,,:'P.. s i 1 fl • t t� h C • 1 y JJ.a .RTC. Iff k. t M. 6 N, • t f f v •J rC y i . ,t r , `A. w t I, .. t 0 ,.. t ' EASEMENT This easement is dated May 23 , 1988. `" In consideration of love and affection, MILDRED B. SUNDELEAF, Grantor, conveys to KARIN SUNDELEP.F WRIGHT, Grantee, ' ! . • her heirs, successors and assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement to use the following described property situated in 4'.' } Clackamas County, Oregon: gyp' A _ A tract of land situated in the southwest 1/4 of Section 9 , T.2 S. , R.1 E. of the Willamette Meridian, being a part of Lot 42, Palisades Unrecorded, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: A Beginning at a 5/8" iron rod which bears North 66 ^ `—' degrees 33 ' East 101.00 feet (Deed) ; North 9 degrees 05' West 102.32 feet (Deed) ; North 35 degrees 29'40' ; East 25.00 feet (Deed North 35 degrees 36 ' East 25.00 �,`:. feet) ; North 61 degrees 03 '00" West 90 .00 feet; North 18 degrees 00 '00" West 103 .50 feet; and North 32 degrees 21 '00" West 91.53 feet from the most southerly ; ,. corner of Richard Sundeleaf as described in Book 407 , Page 20 Deed Records, Clackamas County, Oregon. * ..< From said place of beginning; thence North 14 degrees r+ " 04 ' West 57 .05 feet to the shore line of Lake Oswego; ; ' thence North 36 degrees 00 '00" East along said shore line 3 .12 feet; thence North 34 degrees 14' East along said shore line 16 .88 feet; thence leaving said shore .. ..* line South 20 degrees 49'37" East 77 .77 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence North 88 degrees 00 '57" West 25.13 feet to the place of beginning. The terms of this easement are as follows: The easement shall be used by w`rantee and her invitees as access to Lake Oswego, and for recreational purposes only. • ' Grantee agrees to indemnify and defend Grantor from any lost, claim or liability to Grantor arising in any manner out of Grantee' s use of the easement parcel. 4 EXHIBIT Page 1 . EASEMENT `� -itj •=I -71 ,•1' L1 1 p • rd This easement is a ." ppurtenant to the real property owned by M Grantee and described below; however, in the event of any sale of � . 1�V any portion of such property, this easement shall, remain C" appurtenant to the contiguous portion, and owners of the other A s parcels into which the 4 property described below may be divided 4f. shall have no right to use this easement i parcel: '�r•, A tract of land located in Clackamas County, Oregon ''7S) a situated in the southwest 1/4 of Section 9T.2 S. , and ` E. of the Willamette Meridian, beinga R.1 part of Lot 42, ;.�` , • Palisades Unrecorded, being more particularly described as follows, to--wit: Beginning at a 5/8° iron rod in the northwesterly right e"i of way line of Phantom Bluff Court, which 5/8" f�' :' bears North 66 degrees 33 ' East 101. iron rod yN� ., North 9 degrees 05 ' West 102.32 feet 0 (Deed) (Deed) ; ,l, 35 degrees 29'40" East 25.60 feet (Deed Northa35 North degrees 36 ' East 25.00 feet) from the most southerly �, corner of Richard Sundeleaf as described in Book 407, t..f Page 20 , Deed Records, Clackamas County, Oregon. From 1fr said place of beginning; thence leaving said northwesterly right of way line of Phantom Bluff Court, :e� r ," North 61 degrees 03 '00" West 90 .00 feet (Record) to a r:' 5/8" iron rod; thence North 18 degrees 00 00 e Y. 103 .50 feet (Record) to a 1/2" iron rod; thence North 1� > 32 degrees 21 '00" West 91.53 feet (Record 91.46 feet) ,'� ` to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 88 degrees 00 '57" East .1 : 25.13 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; • thence South 36 degrees 42 '26" East 26.42 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence continuing South 36 degrees 42 '26" East 72.87 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence South 51 degrees 43 '14" East 135.88 feet to a 5/8" iron rod in the northwesterly . right of way line of said Phantom Bluff Court; thence 4 southwesterly along a curve to the left having a radius � ~ of 225.40 feet thru a central angle of 2 degrees 35'03" a distance of 10.17 Leet to a point of tangent; the►,ce South 35 degrees 29'40" West (Record South 35 degrees , 36 ' West) 65.35 feet to the place of beginning. ' ,.,� Containing 14,981 Square Feet, more or less. �• �� w. Also that portion of vacated Phantom Bluff Court inuring to said property by reason of Court Order #7123 , amended by order 17157 , being the westerly 1/2 thereof borderingsaid , .`' property to the east. Page 2 . EASEMENT414 :.' 1. 4 .. 1.-"L. 1 • ti . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument ,.:s; s r. •• • • to be executed the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: 1.. . .. . --)11 .LigeLLJ 73 .44-41.eig..g."-.0- Z ; :.;:t.:-., ell ` r Mildred 8.Sundeleaf 1 t jc.s •1 ,ram, r GRANTEE: '' "` ` I '.i.7 r''!g�ppkle . It 1 teFl } '�hk Fri u Ka&SundeleafWch ii STATE OF OREGON ) i r ;491. County of Multnomah ) ss. May 23 , 1988 t 7 . ` ' Personally appeared the above-named Mildred B. Sundleaf and 14.0( ' 54 , ti acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her voluntary act and i esSCi. 1 Rill! y ,,4 ‘7/(A. U.krt )Ae* 4 ii 8efor.e me. 'n� Notary Public for Or on / 4r 'q �i9 90 , 1. My commission expir o 1� .` A, f STATE OF.OREGON ) ,II•+, Count , of Multnorah ) ss. May 23, 1988 t�l Personally appeared the above-named Karin S. Wright and ti.� acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her voluntary act and w geed. ii Before me. 62°0 e 5‘64 ,' ,*:..: , : ,. . _ „ Notary Public for Or • •n My commission expir: if/ 9/ 90 , .t. e After recording, return to i , LEO C. SHERRY, JR. r.' •° 1211 SW 5th Ave. , 4593 . . Portland, OR 97204 z lCj ili a.: o ram ; 3 . x 3 C Page 3 . EASEMENT r _ ..` 8 4 s .3tay l cr w u .t. n x € ' 04 eEs i -' . W ,.g cu 1 ui s d ; 4r 6`§ t+ I \ Y S • • • •t . • +` • V h• . • • • I S Y• F•}• • F k TA I. .f f u n b:1 X • h/ • r + • 11 i .\\/„.............,:„.....,,.:—.......,./ • j�,�`ggig LANE 'V CARTER Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE �J M —� shown on this map to determine when�actuar actuarial AP EFFECTIVE ratesapply date (/' to , r ROAD structures in the zones where elevations or depths have been estab• ----------: • lished. • To determine if flood insurance is available in this communit +•' "� contact your insurance agent,or Bail the National Flood Insurance .i p. ' Program,at (800)638.6620• ..: • APPRO,lIMATE SCALE IN FEET 400 1 ( 0 400 ; f \ :: { IIIllhIIIllhI000tARoGRA: Z.,_../ . ... .. ,...„,...„. ,, . ....,:.,...-„,., FIRM .... .. .. . ,. / • FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP .•: /;ti CITY OF __. _Q LAKE OSWEGO / ORI�GOI�1 :'r CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAI-I, • AND WASHINCTON COUNTIES '�V _ _.., ...... t PANEL • t (SEE MAP INDEX POR PANELS NOT PRINTED , , EXHIBIT • • y ; 50 q t�-c�.I .1 COMMUNITY•PANEL : . li I i,li I: k 41 NUM6ER�� 0018 0003 C ' ;; EFFECTIVE i s , , DATE: , ' " °�� 10 `7� AUGUST 4 1987 a . tiliiiiiIP I Federal emergency Management A e • '+I i it'•\. . ` • t. . • ''`; �.,,/,, ,, / KEY TO MAP ' ' o•1•'� C7 o 500•Year Flood Boundary �•' ZONE B rV E C 100•Year Flood Boundary ; �• • os'‘ Zone Designations w r; °.r��l • RT v • � iONE`�lummiT ED sti ' , yF�___ 100•Year Flood Boundary ZONE B 5,00•Year Flood Boundary— . ,.� y � Base Flood Elevation Line --,-,- �513�-^^ ti `. .'I L ,Z ..."as +Y' .. ..: lh �'+1 • +.d r With Elevation In Feet'• V' y. ,ems'+---..fil ie• .;f',rC•Y' '•t+•t `'.ia" c+ty F,',,j M:r•/i �-k.1 a• T-4 ,. '''. 'ti N= .. y1.;,1, :. Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) r,t ' : •�'F• ,jt�irva ey�"'...�+A 1' ;..., t;�`,i "tf, o 14 t.02 ' ,! a ''Sa;;.,, .„,-,m r �tihCrC t�nifOrtll Within Zone* t , -4-+ + ....: 4,•...,4: t- -. '.�,4 •-:;•; Elevation Reference \1arl� RM7 .a:.�s` ZZ: ;`;itr*."`!".r `�"''*'iS F,i,N "tie. q":-1 1, Yd.S't'tr� Zane D Boundary 'i ' 1.. ..:IL`=•• ,.• -,n.,r;,.+'i't-t rrt it +• ,tVa. f..5 11 r• 'S. f ,. r• L,,,,i,,,,- , -;dti -t ro 'y,i-I• arr1.".e,.a ;-r-.x•it.- "VIy?•e'sk_,u:, River Mile •M 1.5 "4±-- '-cTe�a .t•a..;7..."V t..' bete, •YJr tri i, ..•t t ...y - ':r•.- 7G'.Y''Nb#..a•••1;i .i1 :L . _ ..+ e'.1<e••f dO'''.Vt°7 ,. * w � t +; . Y.t � - ,,F it- 4-4:a •+Refercnccd to the National Get�tletic Vertical Datum of 1929 �' .,�,. yin .,:r f,x:.,.t v r • i....y.ZC' ,•i�.,�'•�.-.., .'�'�.Zr`,� 1 �)•�,.r ���4� ,r r rY•' �,t lY'$'�',l1 At6't`,��'�'.a„` .., _. ' 7•F~^'' ":"" '"`{�'"'` " S�+ EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS i^+^1•*t =,','-. y,. ... `� ti+1t4. ay . r.,.. IIt°"'AA.r '•"w: '- ,. -wt,.ic.4. ,.. a..ia�Wi...�:r w-`'31-`rnit. r}'` ^+c r"`> 1�i4 _, _ •. .. ,'.,'.�it , sQ',J1, ti, ..•�r b r :,�, .,,,.- . .{,i". .„4„, A..._ LONE EXPLANATION ~ �i:th4 y i M .' '� + '• ... '�,,.�.. .,, .�"irfa.., �„t. yt,7Yr„.•1:4.,, .. 4`rtk., ,V.V.. rl�'t A Areas or 100 t eat flood; base flood elevations tlIOns ;IOU ' ...4-4. a �rOMii�r *.o�r•it�, 'a.+",r "�Y°rat.,n 1,.ia-,4 �.1A. a flood•hazard factors not determined. +•. � �e. * �� t p�i� , ••ti '�'tii1�. z :4 AO Areas of 100.year shallow flooding where depths v zM• W Lam F`il�t s 't ?at ' !t arc between one (1) and three(3) feet;average depths • M.y `•. "et''� -Pg'� �:•.(k<0-*•Z•OJ. ».`-• t' II• c of inundation e are shown, but no flood hazard factors r-} t r f.3, _ ytr��.. .,ef,... y :, • j hl•e'l l,W ,t ti •4* -'-ii},.1. are determined. . � 3'4 ; � K''' ,r�� p4 yS " a•+,,. F..l tt g4fr%:5� .. �;{ Nk^. .� :^ AH Areas of t00•year shallow flooding where depths •,,Y — ,0., w n4:h r��".S .e.et„.,t:�t • are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood -0. «.... ' r4n74>lr" .�p•; •ti.. ., �•,'f� ; r �'A elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors �' •►,,-,'3: !'�;�;y /"�� 1,..„ ,,, c ',„f ,,,." are determined. ) "..1";A+`' ,- - µ !� � ,^4 t tt".. ,t1' ;4 �•'. A1•A30 Areas of 100.year flood; base flood elevations and fit- ' ,- •_" .w ,. '�r .n�. ., / 44r flood hazard factors determined. / • v' - A99 Areas of 100.year flood to be protected by flood • r • ,r-•.•F,,., �r/ , -• protection system under construction; base flood �' t'evations and flood hazard factors not determined. , 4't, . B Areas between limits of the 100.year flood and 500 : / year Flood;or certain areas subject to 100-year flood- , �,, ing with average depths less than one(1) toot or where 4T: the contributing drainage area is less than one square ZONE C mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flood. (Medium shading) ' C Areas of minimal flooding,(No shading) Pq. /•C'00 0 Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards. sNOR �`� ,' V Areas of 100•year coastal flood with velocity (wave f o ` action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors ,�soot Evago not determined. �__--- -- - V1•V30 Areas of 100•year coastal flood with velocity (wave i) action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. 1 III ` , .. NOTES TO USER t a n^np i _,-- - I+ r rt+u+ areal nut to the ipao,rl 11uuu Uet.+u r,rr,rrwu,i�y.tau V) - I 4Mw be protected by flood control structurl's. 1 T tis ••nap is for !rood ..nsurance purposes a sly; it does not neces- r r ,.,illy snow all areas subiCCt to flooding ii the t.ommunity or ' w 1 ii:r:lanimetric features+outside spe iai flood hazard areas. « I+ir a,aummng map panels, see separately posted hide\ to Map • Ia rir0AO i i' rick )h r . INITIAL IDENTIFICATION: •` JUNE 14, t97d . am t: OL • FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP REVISIONS: �, • v • . - ... '' •• • • . . , . . . .. - ., ' - •••,-te.,.7,;,-'-' '.3.;•••,-;, . Oil• "- ' .•' NS t',,' ,.. •.•,•,,,,!,,F,Far;s-',,,„;,.. .,.....0-1-"-t, ZONE AZ ,,o0 .."--.."-- ''''''N'N'N'.----"‹.).___Z‘ •,•Ncs.4. ,„ •Spring / 0 .c•=4','----dir <I 5- • ..------------ cd , Brook o • 12 , . .. . e• r: ZONE C Creek ..kt. ao or i ...........- 0 B ce CONTAINED IN suMMIT ' ' 41 123 f CULVERT .• r . , . . • a ... ' . ei ti tiefti 4., /-- • . , . . . (PC) k , ZONE 9 7rti o1I:5 I188 ...., . .... . v........,,-4, •,...r,„,,_ •••-m""z,..0...,,..,..4..fr 1111.,,•,,,„-,.fr. " I ,, ' ..---•"` C \.-, ti /j5 tc,73.,z .44,i,, ``' - 4,' (1Q:4r- ..77,,,itorlk t A'..03.4-' A., " • ' 0 4' ' ' 1..e 't I ' '' • A %fa 4.••ak .4.."--.4 a..'1•14`a AV..'" ,Cia,..i .44 e •• Ay '. 41,4 *":40ity,,, , -• • , z ct 'a 0 '•*711)-*T.;tl.,•-,,A,vv,-,r'-Al- A..* • )• ,t' s,L,F.f.- 1-.., .,,.S.,IeL4 its,A,`Z.. t.„ j-,04'..4, t'lt 41.,',41?i•AV,A..: •o. .44'14 .; .piliikil ,.:4d.it. . . / a \ o. s... 1; , 4 AT . .4.,;4A* .t, 4, ,11 krik. . ..... ze• ../ ‘I t ' ' /..„*.Th,.*I. .., •-,Li 4.4'Clut,,- '.`1-k- .,..al'AWt;*".N• .,"i" , =-4 ,i "•--"- o.-40'.., .0"*c4t, !. - , zoN E 00;1 _.....p._,,::°Ine.,,,, M., '11 t„,&-,p,,,,,„,. .„,,,,,,L.., ', ...4.,s,,,.4-,-.. 14., , • • ,--4s,;N, i . • AZ 101 ......., 41'%?,,.a=:":;',•;s.*:1-'2r.,P.,.ai,,,cit t-1,l,1.-. 4'r•4.'1';;4Z'.*•.ie,P,-1 119_ I•i,,i.,t..i.;..*T.•t.-Vo. *-,.. '.• '...' -/•,„.,,' s r'...t:'"e**-.." 1., .11:•;14-.4,',VM‘4,.`10 ,-,4i,...1.4..• ,-4,4.,,;-*;*-4. . ,e,"f V-0r*:,;07'...i0;;...`71.I.:*.•, --• .;:".1 ,‘&4,f,.*t.,--t--;t . : '. ., .•. ...--** - . 174' •-&.-tr 'llert4"-.1.*Aktul'',t.. **-4ftf:bt`' * • '!AWTh.,;.:4`41:'?,,,,,,f1:•04-te * ' tP"?,....c.CrAi.„.,4',",. . •• ,'• . " .,._. *4....Usrtl.' -N„ ...V.I.L.,.. 00f!‘atstrol... .,.. _A.44174, ', A F•A',..k..1-0'04.4•-:',',.41' f ‘ii.4-.V.. +.41 13 1.4111,21ear..."Or. ... • . . .. , •(•=--- ' -'"::-.:,t'Zi`44.;z:;:.: `41--TITt''•voit .,. S',•..-; Itt:c.",'-%;,,/:i/,- (:-.::44t tzree ., . "tt,;.1:-.;."47f,110-' .. . !.,• . (1.4."IA. '''''1st. ..Ab• hS„.4tiitit ,,,e4.711k i:"40.t.'''-e4j.k4*tititi•• ,,g4t:'1•?1•Vfl.,,o,fX eCtiii,‘`f'1'•'IR 4.,..114-:. , ,fr .- 4)410.?:pa.,- . . . . - -..„ . .,- ... v.....„01x-4,...zr-„L-r.,,,,f1.. , ,t;„ ,,,... .,,,t4orw.t,,,,t -',p :,7,,,,, 1.,t.v„,f,; , ytit,(•,.,....14.-;... '. -.. •.7' k.:. .1. .,:,.....t,.,--.*•,_ 1. . ,,,r. .--1.-z4 i..,,L. ia0,1;-,t, 4.414•1),./... • . :ii A. Vi r I op 491/ole,',."' ‘'• ' •' ,,' •. . : ----'" • '.4 1- ".gi,'tN Lq.Yri.*Fs•qa. „;r., - •• t,,A1,W.',: - ' :',`0` .1,,tSfai2.- i (- •• • , 4A.1'11,4"-,--',,' • • • ' • .4- -,' - . , ' -1.4,14,•-. , ' k 4. 4..,' '"'' , **NH's,' ' * r-m•IVI. tittartsu- . .r,--...0.1.x-... , , , Ike@ , .p, •i, ,, '..,••..veil," • ,r,f,., efy" '' .' . •-..':4.'Vr"'".."'il".?'"5".4 ,_,,,„.-..---A,s Il 1-7,....rot,s ‘ , -,,I, vc,,,,---0.F..1-.. ...4,, ,,„,- •,--.. ,• OR. ',qr.' -Zt. CI eisE..., zay.,,,. ,r../3119,,u,..^' ... . ' '',.. .. ' ''e-Z''''''--'"I'"-rit,',,-9.• 1711ZS.,::-:":::' '":.',.ger..., -..,..?.t.',-;•....e.,..._•41.:•NE-t-;...7.•it .it'.,Ct.u,.1k.,4.17+ -11'.•••; -. 60--, 1.--J-v 0 VA I',..'.r..ilt,t,c,7,,.9&„4„It,.....t,„:1•07,,-',,,r,, , , • , ,,„. - :• • : „,--- =1,1-:',--.,--.--1,-.4.-/I-,s',P-•-rs-,17,:fy,T.,:1-1-----..., ,-t•• ,',,-;•-•--.-i,-,trzt:)..tkt.4*4"81,i A.'''*41.,....-at'.•'I.{il:.%a:344 A.,•l:4:141•1..:1•11.7:•'7-7i-"if 1 p 4"v 0 Tr-i`.--•,-+;*•1.1 t t-',-A4.,-••••/-1',,,. ot^ '•'- , . , , - - -. , .._...,:.-s__„,744. I--4.,,r,,,., .,;,..,:_t 4,,,a,,,-;,-*-1 Tf.1.•., •-•,1-,..... ..f,..s..„. --.•:h..,,...,::,, ;4 t-..t.,E.•,i....it••• 1.1 7-.:•.(....tir 7../41.4...".- :..r...i.....74 ,..•.:.,,,`O-':.:..* • . . •; •.-.- %.-`,...,..xl *I.1**•,..k,. ....."?.. ... t•-:,,,,y31-4--'04.‘4trOVI.A.J.`,..1..,r .1...4...,.....rt.,i• „ •••-•••-.;;,,,1,,,4%or a., •• 4 .....e,4:-.• . -kr,,,,V,„f .,,,,I.,,',1.,.14, ,..,,i1 ,:. ,s.„, , , , ,, ., : ....F. '...-;"''''.....•-•1..r..S.,- ."4". '",.,.1. i' .;1/4?.....is,......,..'41%.,.. •,....M't....''.....„ 0• -1-01,--et.gt r,--.41..:-._.,,,,,..t ,ft:(•,-...t,,,, ''''' 7,.,.-.i-.'.'-7.:;t:-•---•tY,7'4,47.::4-..t-.--'.%'t•:',t4i"",4.%-.-,0.':,,1c.1'.''',41'.,.14.1:f It;4:...q•Ai,'t,;-sF-41.Y;t.:.t4cl7..',..'i::,.tf,.7.,:t:..-t1-0r0i,--V;f,',.-4,.!1"--*•*:,11;.,i:;i7A,. l4 '.1 -.:.,,iI',.,'i.3. ''`,'.4-',,•':-,4•,;,‘:s5.:.!'"!.-4-4:••z.!,,A,'",:%T0sC e4,1•••1'4,4%,:.1."*..h,t•1r4.,4'''',::,,,,;V e','•, % ..-",.,•0"-Jc;•"''..,..,-..•,".,.!,...-.'l,s,,."',,„,•,.-,.',,, „ , •- ,.9,-:'• ,:..• • • . .,.',..,..,,,z,lizit,e..z.Z4 ...f ' ;14„......14-4,-e-,..::,,,fc-•,t.:A;,•,-0,,,,&,•„„..5",4-,4.,-,r.: •i,t,,.„,. -,,-,-,-,;,-•...:,t -.cc.• ',. ... --' `1 t-",ti,,,:i ',- 't.^. : 1.).' 1,,,) . ,„ .,, , .4,,..,....,.._-:r.4......., ....-..ki ...k., ,f,,„,., Itil.....,,,,,T4,'”1.1474 ...- ...,,qt,,,,„ .x0;:ti.,„ 110,-4,..."zt.„;q4e.- ./.-",y_txp.,A...,:nh;,,,.. ,, ...,.., ..., .„ .. . , -67; ' ZONE, 7.4•,. •' . . , ,... '' •, . ' •' ----7,5-••,. '-;:-.11"4,...,,,gr:=.01,..,i.'A,,,.,' -,,,...,;..A--,,-. tX.,.--pi.t."#";,..+:g, .."- - ' 4. 4:3'''':•••,„,r-gil-;-:g•-• 101.7f'' 14* -1-'t**A e1.411-/ . ' ' - - '-1-- -z:r?-;c4.-1,w-4-44.4.v-. '7.-.7...":-.44---‘,..4'.vt---.„4,.rf.r.rtv'- .- ,„ ."..k. '0•,•-...r. - Iti.4.=.• l'.. „ .' ,U.'''.,,,,,..', ... 11 ,,V.,,,...V.4•.„.. „ ..61,„ef,...14,144.;:e/c.• ., , • ,,' A-t.„4.....4`...,..j,.....-,..„..,..„. 4 •••,,, ,..."4,.,...."„!_•,......T.r%.,,•:„''',„t•T",,t:'•..r.Z...e..44::'`,. ...-4.,q 4.- -Li, r''.. •••11•418,..,/iI•' shatA lisi,,E,..z.,,0, •(.-;z:i4,-,i0,,, ve.. r,a1 Arpopirs..-**-7 . , • , , -.- .-,.......z.,-,-tr- 1-7,:tzu,. :1,01,Avei,-;-.4taft.A.ii....7k1147/14z;:424-ts14*.-elor' 7.....‘14-' "It ,,,.. invArAteviN vJs.uk ,,a,“4,x);.zkr.4.,...,. ., ,-,,,,,t;;;-,7 • '. . --•51z,V7 *--%...11•1. Tiltur iik,t,e.,--;_,L,I.:.Ir,:•:,..--At.-.+.1724"•=17-..1....fT* .,. ..4--,:.-:--,?‘ . , ,,, •-i,..c.. . 7,7,:„..Aicer _,..h.zrk,.1;044.,1„Ta,.dri;,,,, •1-4..i,,hr.5,,,,,,..4. . . ,. . _ ••vt-a.-N---....., 'i•• in - leak ':1',••••*.i.tit.1,.111.1 a5,44' '4.'''..t....Vt....44'311. 541'!4. '....•••k• r1•4 '.‘ •' la.. l 1"a'"...... ' ',,..,,,,,,,r,AV'0.,Ort. if..'''•' ' t . • ,, - ''''',...., •••.'r'•••• •",rt-.•''''I ,,%'." ' .....".., *-..J„'.**o r.,Itt-,,,,,-,,t,..t."••.:-. ••4 . It'...0.1',1, '',a e` "*" "" 1 r 1` 1-' r. 't... ••,•-•r•• ••p; „07"..„,a1 ,..i, , , , ' , , , ...,:joit,„ /1.,• .,t.i -lai3O,--t-i.,1,2&,::44,4_,„!„.,„..,:i-t-itt .,,,,,kpl,..163. ,,:-W;,,.-v:V.4 tol,.- . th -k 41 E. 1,1,4 :r,,,q..1,8.1,A.0 4..„.„.14'„:44;:t•r:".f. ' ' . '• , . •., v...mv.• :'•-•." f ...., "4'0.. %1C- ''' .'4,47•104ti:,,"."0"tit•••rol'Wit p, 'NI I'Vr°," or•titt.'ds'A i••••:::,..ri I I;l'../ / f:"(itilf 7g i.:1 0.git, qv. .. ...4,-.... ....,, ..:',,,, 'A.1+ ii ,.., -...„,.4%.4...:., ,i-':4:,kr-tt..u: .....1-i-•0 , ,txt&p.sil'ilr-,1*/;,„ , 0,. •' ".. . 47-37,t-M . , -,,.,,,_ - , 4.• '1%a ..f., "1 . f.:.!.,. 9..t.:-/...•AttlYm••. 4' . t"--"" ort01.4 )07.-t.ir' ' ' !'", .. r:'-ek';' .4=4.4 '' I . , : _' .---...,w, -,„ ;41....v.:" •°' .--5„- ,, ,,• .1;13.4-4V•41* . ./ • , .... ..; 0.!,- 1.J;;,„•...7 / , - t4.i.lc,j4:',F. ;AP' i . . ,, ,..____- _,.....-,7, ,, t'-'4477.••a;- 4,„-v.r.:1 -$.,.r.' '%"'.7i. •---‘,.4.,,i,L,• •,'"',:',....b,,,,41-;-.-e-. - "i...--.44441,")%0"- , / 'IAA r 4 4'VI:7%r .'' , , . •,„:•A. ..1_,....'.! ' ' -. ' ,,,,i'•:z„f- •:...•t-1 -r.'.7 - .4---• -"'•-...,,,Id-_Liat!,,,,,,i' '"1"...,,n_41.._"TS"....t,'-\ '.A1- tt ...n...Pvi.44104.i; .--. ,../ ,.,,,,,,..„, , ....,..., . .;:-. ..---- ......r...7-A4 . 1.1,,,,,._, hi....-err-,--xe--....sr.,,,, .1,---w4,• ,-,..,-.1.-7.•. - • . .- . . ---''``.--....,1.4v... - „Apr 4-7 .fi',ii--4.j...4:,:..i!,'-'4.1.1.,,•P,- -•,.,..',..,..",•;:4:„:4-e-iug ,....--ts tP. ' •10, •. • NI-/-;"&.---... -4 ‘14e--..11,'•-•Asv.a„,..tv..,:,-3-r4t,,--,,P- .11-0.,.i.a.r.- - ,i.,..11.141,7!--A - .'t / AfRaoc. . . ...'. , -- -.•=:-. --,. ,...,_ ...Ph. _,F-.. ii:cia.'4..,,,otte.---4,10''',..0ALAr's--',Akit:1;r:=:"..,W,Wictr,-11;. q,s.,-;/. , 1.--E,C., 6::, 5 l-r , 4Xri2' ‘"t- e4'sryf'44'4'. 44' '‘',f ..Iset• .. .....Z.ii,,,' . t'. '. '-"- ''-'.- - * * •i(41' re'2"''44"fre* ' ...e,;;*74ii.) ''•'•giV * ".44•1&44,14i.44......- . '' Ae: - • t•'•& 41.....lerG , ft d.;r• , •,,s. s ZONE C . • . , ... . ... „„.,..-........- .., T. ....,, ,,,.....c---al t •••,',.}. • ,./4. ....AI/ .- ' • • ° -• •••'14**-7.4-7:4••- rir:.7. t•'tiLs,;..-- 'V•:•••'.1" '&'- .* '''-''',".-.. \•.A.2: , . ' ' -- *-.**- '..V; ..3 Vi.',.1! :.'4.14r1h,',, rtz. .• 1.,,,,.....,._44›,..i.l...,,, . - . ,•.• : ''. ,. .br7•-••:•,--e-4.-„,-.1,", ,,,_,L'..i.•,,.„,* , w.„er,i-t?,....04,47.4•1470.1...,, ,:il'etitti.:x,....t,,,.4611fZ.,„,e)i,„ .. , co .• • ._••".:.t:..'"--. :',.......!_, „ft‘.:.".1.5y:r.4.&,.,ts,*.';`.1?"t14".'.4,1t.1.4 s./,' I ( '... 4.0 0 e.0.., t" ---...:-l'',.:'.,e72.15 -.4 Irs.';pt.P,i4'.:.,7 g••..•,%.:1 •.. ,- *...4;."- SHORE' ' ';•-•;.:r..0.-..,-'4'.''= ••`'..-'''i g'...11P'L14!*i::'..'.f3:7-4;174::‘,.1 .,,\ L'-'.---------- --'-" ,--,_.../e./a o o ' ' ' ",,-,7----.',0-- -2-..-.., 0.7.14V )%e•'$,,i.:41-: '''' t_______1„.... . . . ,,, --s.-----.--• **-,..--,,, ... 01.1,,,kke.4,:-..,..tt,' _.-------- ------ --, .1 , ,,------ 777-...".."'""--••••- -......-...-....--" r LI . I • v . . " 4.,c1.- "-.74".--c..1,...-r----.$..c14-0;,,,„•70 ."* „.---------- -, ,_ ------ ,-- , . . . , • . , .44.1,.,, ,,:„..,...1--,14-..' • .,. . . 0 . - . " .._---' ROAD to -- .. . ..- 7 I , '-- ......• 41 • '''k • t.. ', • k ' r • - - -- ' - - . . :011'cL. . . ._.--._....... ,***' i' ,..•;1„,•„„.....1 4 - , , . . - • ' , • . ,.• . .9 .0** ' - a . • * . i,. 0' N { • • w, p i+' A ti • .:r •. • • . .• .,• • • • • . 1 . . . d , ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Staff and EXHIBIT City Attorneys Office FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager `� . ei-c l { SUBJECT; Interpretation of Minor Change to Variation of 25' Street Frontage Requirement (WC 49.500(1)(B)) DATE: March 28, 1990 A request has been received for an interpretation of the language "minor t change" in LOC 49.500(1) as it pertains to the 25' street frontae requirement, That section further states that the City Manager shall determine whether a ` request is a Class I or Class II variance. The City Code (WC 49.025) provides for the City Manager to interpret all terms, provisions, and requirements. These interpretations maybe accordance with LOC 49.630. appealed in I:`or purposes of LOC 49.500(1)(B), an interpretation of the language, "minor change" needs to combine the wording of the introductory portion of 49,500(1) with the wording on the 25' street frontage requirement. This combination would result in a phrase as follows: A Class I variance is a minor change to vary the street frontage requirement. The next question is, how much of a variation is "minor," thereby, meeting the requirements for a Class I variance; and how much of a variation would exceed • the "minor" change, thereby, becoming a Class II variance? • It would seem logical that a lot should have sufficient frontage on a street to provide at least one vehicle travel lane and for emergency acess. On vehicle :ravel lane is 10 feet. Some additional distance on each side is needed, The :1.1dth needed for the operation of fire department emergency equipment is 13.5', p • :t s therefore my determination that a variation from 25' to 13,5'5 of the street :Y vintage standard would be considered "minor change" and a Class l variance; 3, d a variation to less than 13.5' would be a Class II variance. <cr o>planning,st,variance 380"A"AVENUE/POST OFFICE 80X 369/LANE OSWEGO.OR,ECON 97034✓(503)635.021 S • . a . « . , ` • • •••• • e«r. r Vt • • • • • • • • • is e 1. .T. • • • • • v M • NI(101,41.MOMMMI 9/18/90 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members EXHIBIT c• 9L2` ll ali.,. From: Mayor and City Council ZD Gt -q 1 rz a,l Date: September 18 , 1990 Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating 4 to School Capacity ` .. ' This memorandum is an update to the City Council ' s pr. for ;.4,.Y'; ,, 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 a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on October 2 , 1989 . The 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 , 1989 . This memorandum contains school district projections for • the 1990/1991 elementary school year and information concerning .`' residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It contains information received by the City .Council at a . joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August p 21, 1990 . . 0 As a result of certain determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential development that there was a lack of elementary school capacity, , the City Council conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential development , in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197 .505-197 . 540 . A pattern of denials of residential development applications is defined by • state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of the exclusion from that definition of actions " in accordance with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and . on the advice of the City Attorney , concluded that the ex -lusion is not applicable to the current situation. State law does not permit the a� opti `n ; e of a moratorium without the City first making the findings required by the statute . w • ' ' ' The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that ' inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law to justify the need for a moratorium . x The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies 'a pattern which state law classifies as a moratortuml , and suet the - ,, . ;2ouncil has concluded that facts do not exist to make the . .i b' , ` • • : ./ ' Memo: Development Review Board 4110 ' ": `• and Planning Commission Members • September 18, 1990 Page 2 required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity. It is necessary to have consistency in decision making from application to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council . These interpretations reconcile the apparent between state and local law in a way tgi inconsistencies superior state law while gives deference to the " through an interpretation gprocessfthat hasto thistorjcl Plan languagee These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set • forth in Attachment No. 1 . The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a consistency between state and local law. policies, with regard to school ca acit The Comprehensive tilan unless the Council in the future declares aw�moratoll be rium. Be c facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning i Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Sta 'fhe lacteal update the factual portions of this memorandum on aregularff will basis, in coordination with the school district, and keep the Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . . r Future Planning staff reports will rely on this rnetnorandu,-, wnen addressing the school capacity issue . if Comprehensive Plan compliance based onetheuschool expects • thac issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions sat forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will 5e with us for the foreseeable future , The Council is committed rb improve the current data exchange eft)rts between the Distri :t and the City. The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving develbpm►a nr • approvals are aware of the current scho ol capacity situation anl understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later fate if ;ustiEieu by the facF.s , The � . apprnpriate language to be Council directs staff r_ � .ae�,��i,�.� reviewed b�,' the hearing bodies , utb��ecccomn plishe pthislpurpe_e . r � purpose . • Attachi nt Nto, 1 provides the factual findings of the Council . .-' with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these . . interpretations are based. =0'.r,ach;7ent No. factual information relic. i5 lisrinr_ �t t`l.? upon to .support those finding se ' ' • Attachment 4o. 3 contains the interpretations ` Plan policies . of the relevant • M j 1 Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 Page 3 The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members • of the Development Review Board who have been faced with th )difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first, instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great concern for the community as a whole. At ty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 • • • • 1p r • • • �,+ • y r I1 i• • q, , • • • e r ' I • • rf • • • • • I I { • • • • • • • •• • • • a o • ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FACTUAL FINDINGS ( 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. The City has received no communication from other jurisdictions served by the District x. that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due to school capacity problems . The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year nt the Lake Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school . The Lake Grove Elementary School population was significantly reduced for the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1999 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2, 1989 was 530 students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 was 453 :tk.' students . The adjusted forcast for the 1990-91 school %' '; year is 500 students . 2 . The District has short term plans in place that address the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . q` , By implementing these plans , the District stated it will continue to provide an educational experience to its students that meets District standards . 3 . Through use of the short term plan; the histrict can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 , 772 elementary students . • 4 . The District as of June 1 , 1990 , had an elementary school enrollment of 3 ; 241 students . Based on ma •; i,ium , capacity and current projections , on October 1 , 1990 the District by implementing the short term plan will h"' .'.7 unused capacity system wide t,1.atwill accommodate 3'•i r ,. additional elementary students . 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity in addition to the 379 seats to be made available thrnu J I ' ' the short term plan. These long ter'i plans include 11 additional elementary school and remodeling exiitin j facilities . • • 6 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 772 students , a5sumi7j • • continuation of the current rite of jrowth, will accommodate new students into the 1991-92 school year . 6 v J , 1h Attachment No. 1 • September 18, 1990 Page 2 r 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 r..:' be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats . The new school will have an ideal capacity of • 500 students . 8 . The District as a practice does not construct facilities • in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate ;<-- the construction of facilities so they will meet a current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. l 9 . The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to project at the level of individual subdivisions or ' houses . Projections are compared with actual student counts. Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer program factors are. made iE warranted . :he 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, Bycomparing data compiled ,e g A 9 over the last six years concerning development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth i; school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is nv.;t „ , a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school population and those two factors that will assist the District baking short tern student projections . Other factors , 5•.u;;b li • market reception, interest rates , the health of the Crs•; an economy and family size of buyers and sellers of e'tistin7 home, also affect the number of new children in the District ' , .. ' population. Based upon the present level of sophistication of ' :1'' * :. the City and District planning processes , it is not possible t ) predict with any degree of certainty how soon after •3pprovaL • children from new residential -ievelopments will enter the C",. ' system. _ • . . .. . • . . . , . . . . • . .. . . .. ' . .. • • . . • IT Attachment No. 1 t September 18, 1990 Page 3 N f The District voters in May, 1989 approved by an approximate 2:1 margin. The ldtax abase was new t$19 ,542 ,310 . The new tax base is S29,975 ,000 . The new tax bas : contains y authorization above that levied by the District in the currentfiscal year and is intended to fund maintenance for the new capital facilities �totbef funded ng dfrom the November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history cl. support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989, • $17,800,0100 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by growth. During the middle 1980 's , the District • posed usi middle school concept. A switch to middle schoolsowould have a freed space in the elementary schools for additional students . The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. • Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon • • thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding measures to accommodate elementary school population delayed . The growth was anticipated but the community growth was te over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed�the n• " provision of the District 's solutions . y K. • The City Council may, at anytime when enact a moratorium on buildin Justified by the facts , g permits pursuant to ORS 197 . 520 , The District has the responsibility under state law to educate the children of the District. The Council views the District as an expert in educational matters . The Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational h experience for its students that meets District standards . Atty/Correspond-7 • • • • • j • • • , • • wy V_ • S ' 1 .. R'• , .• • • '{ • ` J • 11 • • • u ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFCRMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ( 9-18-90) 1. Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8 , 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing : • - Building permits by year, single-family, graph - Buildingh permits by year, multi-family, graph ' } - Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989 - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/39/89 - number building permits issued for multi-family from • : 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 • - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 p 3 . Class size and public policy: Politics and Panaceas , Defi,,:e • of Educational Reseal ch and Improvement, U.S . Depart,nent of Education • 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11 , 1979 ^� 5 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, July 31 , 1989 Ir 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District , July 5 , 1989 , with attachments 7 . Proceedings of • Jul ed g989 joint City Council/School Beare meetinj , y 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting , august 3 , 19i1 9 . Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department: gF ".and Conservation and Development, 1.ated august 3 , 110 • r 10 . standouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School ; u:a' rl•1.,j0 ,,.1 .% a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections , service level, •nd °3P, ,et 501 1 )ni term solutions s 11 . Lake Oswego School District: The Facts , s•. 0m0. 1* ), Bunic,‹ 12 . Transcript excerpt from .sugust 7 , 1989 Devel ,Lr r nA P. ',,,,,� Board meeting ! tape including excer;?t a :y ° �-�u )111, ;. IP .e 4 • a 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 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24 , 1989 16 . Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 ;.i.''. 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8 , 1989 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, ', Chamber members, dated July 28 , 1989 19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20 , 1989 20 . Letter from William T . Ryan dated August 8 , 1989• 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7 , 1989 22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5 , 1999 .:. '° '� 23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clark , dated August 5 , 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 • 2, . Letter from Judith D. tJmaki , dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles Hales , Staff Vice President for Governmental ktfairs , Home Builders association of Metropolitan Portland , letter dated August 14 , 1989 ti 29 . Gregory D. Meadors Letter, dated August 13 , 1989 30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14 , 1089 21 . 'Debby and Doug :e:nper better , `fated August 14 , lH'? 32 . Carol Webb letter, dated august 14 , 1989 410 d A .. i4" Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 3 ,; • 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 34. Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz , M.D. letter, dated August 14 , 1989 36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989 37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989 �' 38. Ala F . Rothstein letter, dated August 13 , 1989 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 • 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 ' 1 . 1 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • . '`. 1 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1989 , including attached "' newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach ' s memorandum date. July 5, 1989 43 . Deborah B . Feldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • ` 44 . Steven M . Berne letter, dated August 14 , 1989 •x • .1 45 . Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14 , 1989 . :. , . 46 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated august 14 , 1989 ` ; •• 47 . Gay Graham letter, datea August 11 , 1989 48 . Marilyn Roberts letter, dated august 10 , 1989 49 . Mary Avery letter, dated august 10 , 1989 50 . Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated august 14 , 1939 52 . Richard M . Bullock letter, dated august 11 , 1999 53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 • 54 . William Sorenson letter, dated Awjust 11 , 1399 . ) Y 55 . '•larci '4emhauser letter, dated Auiust 11 , 1989 56 . Charles A . 'Ylans4. 1e1d letter, di end august 11 , 1 19• • • •. , • • Attachment No. 2 " September 18, 1990 Page 4 • • 57 . Larry E . Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 -. : 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989 59 . Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989 60 . Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, dated June 20, 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15 , '1989 63 . Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 , 1989 ; 64 . Letter from Patrick E . Stone, dated august 11 , 1989 63 . Map of City and District boundaries 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989, submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 4110 . • ,. a S . 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 . 1 SS . 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. Report from Superintendent , Lake Oswego School District , 'ta ' 7 , 1990 . Enrollment Report , Lake Oswego Sschool Distrit , Tune 1 , 1990 . Memorandum from Sandra Korhelik regarding school capacity 1,11 • residential development activity, August 1 ) , 99n . 3. Lake Oswego Elementary School enrollment statiittcS , A.J juSt 21 , 1990 . • 4 . Memorandum fr 3.n Peter Harvey regarding re' . 1entt it 1 ,t 4110 • calculations , August 21 , 1990 . • tt ,'r•arrespond-,7 e �I4 • ATTACHMENT NO. 3 µ y. PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS sr ( 9-18-90) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of schoo', capacity.P y. 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 4 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 1959 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 government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not 4 limiter] to, sewer and water systems tra nsortation educational facilities, recreational facilities , natur•al��� Y .' resources and air and water quality management programs . Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and riat•.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 nece.ssaril,, indicate specific locations of any area , activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels `` governments , semi-public and private agencies , and t•14 citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated is much as possible. ' Land ' includes water, both sur`. 3.e all subsurface, and the air. " • At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are i41 mandatory statewide planning standards and are g ener1l in •�at ,re, is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines ,. re : u CS ugges Led approaches designed to ail cities in preparation, adoption and implementation of n"� '�``;n:ia; • plans in compliance with yo.al and to i ���mpr?nen5 , special districts in the ore . �t9 .e ��;en�� i ,, a7 ; of plans, �r�, parer i gin , d,�pr. L on any 1 1�� 1N�'t .�t : 1 "1 programs and re';,ularisns in compliance ,diti7 l > :guidelines shall ,7e advisory and shell nit limit lolls . cities , counties .and special "districts t;a a ylnalr?r pdr ar h.r''' " : • Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 III . , .„„. \' , 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 volume II , which is the background information and supporting documentation for the Plan. The language has historically been N. applied as follows : The general policies of the Plan are the portions which are ,' i •" "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 conclmr. that the applicable general policies of the Compreh nnl . Plan have been followed. Each land use decision must identify and explain why the requirements of the .applicable general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general policy, the hearing body will be guided in its decision marling r_. • the specific policies for the particular general policy and the . narrative language and strategies for the policy element . In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are • extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square . footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory weijht 91 are the general policies then each provision of a specific poll : will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an -1. application or project to be approved . There is no provision for the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of t+te Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection pf :one of the specific policies for the general policy , the appli•pati ,^ .- • project as a irtole must he denied iE the specific policies ar. construed to he regulatory in nature . All regulatory stan9.Ir , must he complied with in Doer for an appLicati p't to he apdr.... � ; . i • • y.. ::: .:-.. , 1 u 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 the 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. No general policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies become • applicable in the review of a development. application , 11111 1 . Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average --:: :, ::::." residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. . . Specific Policy 3 : The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered . " ' r" This policy requires that the Comprehensive plan density be sucn that the planned densities do not result in land use's that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems avitlable or . planned . This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan 'nap t ensi Aes and is not applicable in the development review stage . The : ' appropriateness of the Plan -.lap designation or zone des :. .Jnati -- • on a given site is not an issue in a hearing )n a ieve1->pment • applicati gin . • • • Y a 4, . • Y, 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 ` approval is granted. solutions before Specific Policy 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to information on school capacity to be taken intooconsideration in development review. " This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capat)i: • in the development review process . This - detailed review of projects take place policy requires that a City seek capacity information from the District. The40: t'tat the , development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity information . The July 5 , 1989 report from the District, and the July 31 , 1989 , October 3 , 1989, and August 21 , 1990 • • of this coordination ar�d "encouragement' .joint meetings are exaf the mples of factors that impact school population, iteisu not se ocurrentlrier_! possible to predict, with a great degree of accuracy , school • populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain a^ .i unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a ne,vly approved development will enter the school population . ?oweve.- ' once a building permit has been issued for a dwellin it be reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in to ;f ~`' near time frame (3-6 months ) , populations and Outstanding building monitoring actual school 3-6 month time frame can be done withpanMacceptablea egcree`::, : reliability . • • If this coordination results in the development of data an i.:'1 supports the findings required by the state moratorium statIte t'; establish a capacity shortage, a moratorium on building pi r•nits zan be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow .)E ne,r students t ) the district , 3 . Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and , program for the provision of adequate public services and facilities. '. . se , I , W, i . r •. 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 • 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 provision of adequate facilities . The City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the City to plan _ • facilities for the school. Through the enactment of the moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis lue to a lack of school capacity . The moratorium statute is available to temporarily prohibit, on a system wide basis , land • 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 logical planned extension of basic . services: . To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services Boundary as follows: (1 ) Lands suitable for near future development ( IMMEDIATE -o .;: GROWTH) (2) Lands in long range growth areas . (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. • Specific Policy 4 : New development shall be served by an urban level of services of the following: a. Water b. Sanitary sewer " c. Adequate streets, including collectors d . Transportation facilities e. Open space and trails, as per Open Space Element • f . City policy protection g. City fire protection . h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks and • II Recreation Element ,, • . q r, - • • 'V . , . 1• ttachment No. 3 L,ptember 18, 1990 " age 6 u i. Adequate drainage j . Schools Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of ' development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of ''''''*: :: approval of the development, or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds. " ti ' le Urban Services Boundary Policies 'direct •that the City define , ie future growth area for which it intends to be the major -ovider of public services . Within the ultimate growth area , c !neral Policy III directs that basic services will be logically i :tended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to mediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizahle G -eas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. + E .ecific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of t e general policy. The specific policy almost seems misplaced, . 4 d would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific F licy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above , •• v ich addresses the impacts of development on services . It is r table that the specific policies for that general policy do not. t quire the type of precise fit in timing between ievelopr"eit • provals and the provision of services that is contained ih • E ecific Policy 4 . . • e most relevant language of this general policy to the i > >ue 1- nd is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with A " ogical planned" extension of "basic" services . The School oo:,l ' '� strict is logically planning to provide new facilities t s•ar e ' • ztands generated by growth . The district , like school -: latri :t; .. general, provides facilities in response to demand--n ,t u ' .•'_. a ticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of r.,and • C nservation and Development urges recognition of this Ea ,t an=1 . entifies schools , along with police and fire services , 3s • " esponsive" facilities . The birect6r draws a distin tion, Ehr ; anning purposes , between tnese responsive facilities •aha t anspnrtation, water, sewage and drainage facilities whi i ti • words "trust attend, rather than E,�11ow or respond t , ✓ ' •lstruction . " • 4111 4 _..... •e -'.. ` ` r Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 7 • Specific Policy 4, on the other hand, directs that schools be '`-I available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If ' that has not occurred, the specific policy states that schools may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of a • gapproval of the development. " The specific policy contradicts the language of its general o policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools ' function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this specific policy . A defacto moratorium resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this general policy. In summary , the three general policies listed above , which aria applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a: specific development application, when read together, require the ° ; . City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth , coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and evaluate applications and determine impacts . School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact. the school system is not precise . A quasi-judicial hearing; .)n i single land use application is not the appropriate Eorjm •wi ;nin which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity . There is not reliable data concerning future impact,; that will result from a single application or the timing of those • 1.: • impacts . The current level of coordination and planning, wit continual -monitoring of actual school population :hanger , sa ; ; af these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will )e exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may ernpl )y the ;!;arty moratorium u law to prevent an overtaxing of the school Ea.: i L i ::e; Amite the district implements programs to correct the 2rpoL•im. :� Atty''Corresp and-7 A • • • ., n 1 , ♦ A, 1 V; • 0 • • r i •:7 • • {{ ♦ ♦ . • • / e LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT '" Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Directors • FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation 4 • 4% One of the primary g,.:als of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative ' m; every poach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, an approach which i t` • has guided our efforts to cope with the problems created by burgeoning elementary enrollment. With eve .1r eementary school in the district having now been affected by the growth in Lake Oswego, all the school e mmunities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which we ;have defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego, District Standards • 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 more thorough student diagnosis and evaluation. and provide the potential for greater flexibility in teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individual differences in students. Elementary school size--The district has established a range of approximately 350-500 students • • as the Ideal size of an elementary should be a stable, secure envirvnmen�owithl. �in1ewhich ceat chlrchild eves tcan han an elementary school as a uni;lue individual. As the school develop and be recognized • additional strains are placed on students, and significantly asover 500 students, • and to work closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment,they attempt to communicate Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong commitment to maintaining 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 mug give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program, • for all children of comparable grade levels." t r The Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the commun* cemplcted its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long-term approaches to the ai increases �'' dramatic1ncr�,�,�, to elementary enrollment. Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, the Sc11001 district has developed participatory decision-making processes, such as holding both immu v .:rid • stark'meetings and conducting community and staff surveys, to gather information and nit shape solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, this spring, members of the Lake Grove�School • • • • community opened their homes for a series of five coffees attended by district administrators, school "i, • members, and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options bcui ion„c1.N .N . by the district, The zulmination of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, l orurderable o tt�c, 1n�,udln�� a opportunities for panicipation by the community and by staff, is represented by the 'nd1%Idt14 commendations of the members of the enrollment committee and by the it�lltiwing recommendation f superintendent.• Utin lye the • , • • • SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE FLEME\TAR'' SCHOOL ' 1P ORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONSMe school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as being approximately 500 students. Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students. without the kindergarten, which, as you know, has been rtx-eted at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students. an excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction. the =mltier of elementary students per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market. •l ie as my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove School '," pcvulation within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-91 school ,ear. • e 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 � • !W enrollment for a longer time than lies any other elementary school in the district; 2. Lake Grove School has experienc..:ax the most dramatic increase in enrollment of any 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 and the construction of a covered play area. ,• CONCLUSIONS ^' The conditions affecting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require the school district to strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake Grove School..s s:.ehout the 1590-91 school year I. 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 I990-0 I • school year; 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." L GROVE RECO.tii;titEyDATION G: :he conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additional .,aswooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for Lake Grm e ° • . S :oci to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions, I therefore recommend to the Board ot D.; rs the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year: 1. Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant Elementary School t',ir the 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 ,ear This option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove School to •e ,1 approximately 500 students. e, 3. Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance area to attend River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied. I am recomnmending an area general):. referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated b} the Board ,of Der,. :ors 1 to attend the new school in 1991-92. This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom spat,: • J ''• within the district as well as help to prevent Lake Grove from significantly exceeding the optimal sore '`, for district elementary schools. , -. Designate other neighborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to take tat., !or J:,ira,.:• el wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boundaries are established for the �'' 1991.92 school year, This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom space within the District as ,'• , well as to help prevent Lake Grove from exceeding the optimal size for district elementary seho ols. This• recommendation will continue to require that the districtprovide adequate support1 - • 'a Elemae ary School, including administrative assistance, 4 services to Lake t.Jro.� • SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL W INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS . • ' Uplands Elementary School currently has a population of 559 students and is projected for 595 students on 'October 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeling plus the continued use of portable classrooms. Uplands Elementary School should have the classroom space to r� accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year without significantly compromising • ° . district standards. ' • CONCLUSIONS The district has established a practice of'allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance boundaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal educational opportunityq •. is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and •the resources to allow Uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the ismct's other elementary schools. RECOMMENDATION '� I recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the •:.urrent Uplands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. This `' zption will require that the district continue toprovide adequate supportincluding • , .ssistance. q services, ,tdministrata�c SUPERI.h TENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS sorest Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for 403 student, on October 1, 1990, With the additional classroorpc and improved core facilities being added through A. w' =.,odeling, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to arzcommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year, CONCLUSIONS .'`re district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance " • ..c'undaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal • .ticational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom 'pace and resources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program :Yt parable to that of the district's other elementary schools, R.ECO;MMENDATION t zeommend to the Board of Directors that the distnct keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within the • '-.:.^rnt Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990.9I schooi scar. , • 7 s option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. , • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • i 1 • • • • • • 1 r Y - r - . . ..s.. . .: . . .. VI I—F ... . 1, - 9/4/90 , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMOR4,NDUM ,„,;,' ` TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager SUBJECT: Follow-Up on Residential Lot Calculation DATE: August 23, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a question came upregarding vacant single-Family zoned lots were calculated. how the • +' advised me that the figure of roughly 357 vacant lots Sandra s calculated b for Planner, has A number of subdivisions and minor partition lotsy Counting the addingthe sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tota lastr of existing ending n: 1988-59, and then subtracting single-family lots endm The calculation of 857 vacant lots included bothlarge tracts of vacant approved d And last fiscal year, scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods,odshe of the 857 are found in scatted in lots. bulk There was also a request to determine the ,geographic areas of the City where these lots , are located, This would require considerable manual work on the part of th Planning staff to accumulate, g It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material f the update of the moratorium report. or inclusion in Respectfully submitted, a '77 "" / . ,. • 'eter C. Harvey .c' , City Manager - • • • • • • J80 A A%E.L E POST OFFICE Box 369 LAKE OSW'EGo OREGON 9'034 503.h354):15 • i .� ti ' v.. V• 0 • • , i I, • a ••' • 1 • ., 1N- • Lake Oswego • Elementary Enrollment August 21, 1990 • Adjusted Current Projection Forecast Capacity # of p Enrollment Portables Bryant 413 513* 529 502 2 Forest Hills 403 403 391 370 Hallman 330 330 437 311 Lake Grove 600 500* 552 453 • Palisades 344 344 345 328 River Grove 299 299 II 305IIII . I 2 n.. Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 f Westridge r ' 409 409 460 398 TOTAL 3,393 3.393 3,772 • 3,_41 10 0 • • • . • • • • y • . • • ' t• 0 �r • • • • • • r Y MEMORANDUM( • • • �'" TO: Peter C.,Harvey, Cityi. + Manager • • FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior Plant r 0 r o eo,x SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary+►•c+w+a+ School c,+voe 0 ,+ Capacity and City-Wide Residential Development Activity Loll 5034 s ong DATE: August 10. 1990 ingm++nnq eo,.e,s•a,;c City Council has requested a periodic briefing regar �e u��am 'school capacity. As you know, t 9 Oswego School District elementary g status , t the Lake ,•as•a,9a established a regularhe City has so FAX system of communicating residential development activity to 503•e35•02e9 the school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary report contains 0. summary of residential development activity for fiscal year S1989 1l 990 and a , 1. School District Forecasts W ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTION'S 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR ° 1 �9�/1�1 Ca achy fort Adjusted Fp0recast ' �.i Bryant 1 " Forest Hills 529 513 Hallinan 437391 330 Lake Grove 552 5003 Palisades 345 Rivergrove 414 299'1 Uplands 644 Westridge 595 ' :. 11.15Q �t�Q moo,• Total Students , .... ' ' . . 3c..� 3,772 3,393 , ... . . - vl 2 • • . ..; c) c .., ... ______________. ,, ...,-- (w • 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new• portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments for other agencies or district wide programs. . 0 UM (1) 2 The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from October 1, ® 1989 are the same, The adjusted forecast, however, has individual school fia redistribution of ' gores due to subse9cent elementary enrollment decisions, .. , 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may } - range up to a total of 600 students, •1 The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative, Student demand created by the active new home construction in the 13ay Creek IIIIE subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the Rivergrove School, The size of that demand is difficult to forecast, 1 • • • • 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 element an increased district capacity of 500 students. ' school will provide for • 2. Residential Development Activity The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this • last fiscal year. These figures supplement the infonnanon distributed to Cit Council August 1989, which had stopped at June 30, 1989, y 0 A. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR • Single Family 400 Houses Multi Family 39 r";r� • Total 439 Dwellings B. SZIGLE FAlvf LY LOTS APPROVED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR P , • Lytlmberf ot or 0 .,. R-15 : R-10 63 R-7,5 117 31 R-5 1�t1 • Total Lots Approved 372 The City continues to experience an active development market both 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 1989/1990 figure, it is evident that the single family market continues be the strong. The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline in availabl multifamily land. , . 3. Conclusions Information presented to Council in August, 1989 during the building deliberations indicated there were a total of 885 vacant -'ngle family zoned lots within the city limits, moratorium A very gross update of this vacant lot figure with the ;ast fiscal years development activity indicates there are roughly 857 vacant l July 1, 1990, This new vacant lot figure was achieved by adding 385 (exi ti as of vacant lots) to 372 recently approved lots) and subtracting 400 (single family building permits), 410 . . . .. amity 1 ' .. .: ... . . : -..., . . I •�. -.w �Trn. t. '} 4 , ` AV There are several variablesthrough which are not taken into consideration / • ' calculation: this 1. Recently approVcd,lots are subdivisions of previously counted existing '.' lots. Therefore, the parent lot(s) should be subtracted from the total of recently approved lots. Otherwise, these parent lots are double counted. 2. Some vacant lots can not be built upon since they are set aside as open space,or are i)art of a double Iot ownership with an existing house straddling both lots. • • rr I $ ,, . • 1 , to 1 f 1 a1 Y 1 \ .. . L• • • - ,`• I :1/ • fit' • 14. ; �• e �1� • .1: • • • • • • • y • • • 1,r • • • r, : • .,, . 'T. ffir' aillifilif , . . '1 .A • ti . - '„T .t . ,, , . , , , . . . , , ,,, .. j, ,,./..... ,, // ., . \ , . . . . ..., :,., ‘... ,.,,, , ,. 4 • \'�` LAKE OSWi'EGO SCHOOL DISTRICT aloe of Superintendent • t ' ENT REPORT Date 6'1'90 • ,b � EL,EMENTAFIY I 2 :>dlool Sec Pup Sec Pu ;G� p 3 4 5 6 Spec Total Oct,1 r't I o;�e P �• up Seer Pup Sttc Pug. ;Sec Pup Sec P°tp Sec Pup Sec Pup I -or- 2.0 52 3.0 7!r 2.0 d3 V .:.�,�,�� - � 51 2.0 40 2.5 56 2,0 47 1 OI 101 16 51 3741 0.0 0 _55 0 11r1{4.0 95 4.0 96 3.55^ 82 3,5 4 0 86��z "" -- w 0 0 0� 24 01 5581 2P 3.0 63 4 0 /7 3,0 66 3.0 69 4.0 92 4,0 83 4.0 92 1.0 10 25 01 5621 Total �► -. _ ` 5.0 115 122.00 778 9.01 204 9,0 P16 5r 214 10 0 224 r• 10 0--�'225 2.01 20( 65 51 1 4941 2' ?k+rac �� 6.0 122 2A 43 _ "" -' ,. 2.0 48 2.0 -49 2.5 2.0 35 -�, '1 11 2.0 39 2.0 40 2.0 ,10 2.0 46 5 3 0 •39 0.0 01 18 51 392I i ••••-* "' �_� 2.0 41 3.0 i'1 0 0 OI 15 51 3351 2.0 37 2.0 49 2.0 43 2.0 42 L0 53 3,0 G3 0 0 irver'�rDvg 2.0 43 Z,Or 38 p'0 3 0 0 0 0 t 3 01 287 1: 2,0 47 1,5 42 1.5 34 1 �kutersziz` 2.01 52 3l1� 65 2.0 gi tl 2a OOI 01 12 01 2721 2.5 58 2.5 61 30 64 30 85 00 C) 15 01 4361 3' t otal 14 01 2931 11+01 2351 10.01 2251 10.51 2421 i 1 01 2701 11 51 237 9 0 220 0 01 I 7-01 ' "221 ��ANZ AL I 1c 01 4081 2+01 5111 19.01 ^„2r a 5 S a581C 20 51 48451 0 31 g• 1• = 1 21 51 461 i9 O S,t 2.' _. _ SECONDARY h Junior High i . . i _ 7 8Total Oct,1 High School 9 10 11 12 Total • 5_.JL= 261 2371. d981 4 I _c:. 4 250 251 501I a OHS 259 2501. 2301 2041 ;4:11 {'I ..al `f-5t 1 dhi 85=n1 8 r»akertdae 230 218 2291 2501 �2� ` +- Total �--- -r , I I d89I 468� »591 agar -1 •- J , -eV cwth Analysis C)ctober 196' 1-7: tobnr 1989 , l -tn w+ Oc.00er 1989 N i �Jfla� : ..:.... Earn,. 5_ 1308 11&1 I., N S N g N Mr.�nr - -d� 1251 == 1.473� 1 494 1 467 4 4i _ 1 690 •if `:;�""""�� I +�061 0571 ., a40 a7 2 494 4c^ ,`' b'' �-ALS lc�_ _._-_, I _ 5;1 £gc^ ^ 9491 6 - _ -- Ti-5.oc t I 3 �_^ 2. 5 329 �i C�3 IQ • I In • 4 v . ll' 1 III/ , • .. �fr`• , r , 'r , r. • ,r • U:, a d•. • • • • • • n ' e ✓ 1J 1r CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY• FIELD. FOB 1,988-1989 ' ,� HIST. NAME: Sundeleaf, Richard, House STYLE: English • DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1939-1940 Cottage 0. COMMON NAME: RESOURCE TYPE: ORIGINAL USE: Residence Building ADDRESS : 16715 Phantom Bluff Court THEME: Architecture OWNER: A4h0,0-- ADDITION: N/A PRESENT USE: Residence BLOCK: 1 ' ARCH. /BLDR. : Richard Sundeleaf LOT: T/R/S : 2S lE 9CC QUAD: Lake Oswego TAX LOT: 1900 LOT SIZE: 1 . 83 AC ZONE:R-10 • PLAN TYPE/SHAPE: Rectangular +• NO. OF STORIES : 2 FOUNDATION MATERIAL: Concrete t BASEMENT: No . ROOF FORM & MATERIALS : Gable with cross gables and dormers, cedar shingles WALL CONSTRUCTION: Wood • ' ' • STRUCTURAL FRAME : Stud yY • PRIMARY WINDOW TYPE: Multi-light casement EXTERIOR SURFACING MATERIALS : Stucco, half timbered brick, pegged ( cedar beams and posts, cedar beveled siding DECORATIVE FEATURES: Leaded glass windows, stained glass, carved wood panels by bay windows, curved cedar brackets, exposed beam 1 ends OTHER: CONDITION: Good • • EXTERIOR•ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS : None NOTEWORTHY LANDSCAPE FEATURES : Low box hedges, stone fireplace, curved and straight stone walls, entry walk, mature cedars and ., fir; stone dock at lake, brick retaining 'walls ,a ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES : None •M • SETTING: On south shore of lake on shelf of predominately Sundeleaf homes on large lots • ,) -. NOTES : � , RECORDER (S) : Mackenzie; Koler/Morrison DATE :February 1989 '• SHPO # : FIELD # : A '' EXHIBIT ; . zle 6..) Lt, ...4--11 .....1-e,..4 . 0 1 • • - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY • •ADDRESS 16715 PHAN]fl1 BLUFF COURT v TAX MAP/LOT 25 1E 9CC/1900 • SHPO# ROLL/FRAMEL cif ,7- - *• _ . .\ • ' ' 1 ,� _., , •.w \ ] 1 • j ` • 'J•• l a w, I sm ./7 7•�, I • 11G• '�.� I.. as - �� !_"_ i';'...,14..4.:4.P%t.irt'..41" ......'..4‘'^'E.,!:,.N.*..,••.17'1: ,1••••'....1-...i•••,.',....;......—" '--- -. • , 1V • • ? .' �.yy y��Urll g,�,;� , 9 r • IJ �; • r • 1 14 • f j .; a1 I 1 i • • .. • r: • • DATE: :�ti' �' �, • I • • • U• • STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE • Address : 16715 Phantom Bluff Court Historic Name: Sundeleaf, Richard, House • Richard Sundeleaf designed and built this house for his personal residence in 1939-40 . It remains in his family at this writing. Sundeleaf designed several houses and other buildings in the Portland area, many in Lake Oswego . The house is significant as an excellent and well-preserved example of the English Cottage style . It is also significant for its association with Sundeleaf, a prolific local architect who designed many of the city' s most prominent buildings , Sundeleaf, ' ' who practiced in the Portland metropolitan region; graduated from the University of Oregon School of Architecture and worked for a time as a draftsman for prominent local architect Wade Pipes . • Sundeleaf was equally at ease designing industrial as well as s �. residential buildings, including the corporate headquarters for the Oregon Cement Co. and the Jantzen Knitting Co . Although the dwelling contains many features found in other houses of the same period, it stands apart from the majority of them due to the rich detailing throughout including leaded glass windows, stained glass, bay windows, curved cedar brackets, • exposed beams ends, pegged cedar posts and beams, iron work and interior carved panels . Of particular note are carved wood panels by noted sculptor Gabriel Lavare . The grounds, which feature low box hedges, stone walls, mature cedars and fir, and stone fireplace and dock, were designed by • California landscape architect Tommy Thompson. 1. Bibliography : Mackenzie, Hilary , Unrecorded interview w/ J, •' Heisler, 2/89 , Lake Oswego Review, 20 April 1989 , • . , 6 V. • • • r , 40 • • • JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING '::1 SOILS-CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL a EXHIBIT ' Ground-Penetrating RADAR C3 it • 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE EI � PORTLAND, GREGON 97222 OTAK, inc. July 5 , 1990 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, " : Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 • GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR KEN GUENTHER PROPERTY The Ken Guenther property is at 16715 Phantom Bluff Court. The property lies along the northwest side of Phantom Bluff for about 300 feet and it extends about 300 feet to the Court northwest. The central portion where the existingt, � Very gentle slope, but to the northwestground housetp is has a rack cliffs that lead down toward the lake. p steepens to be subdivided so that more houses can be placed . property is to the investigation were to check on the stabilityofhtheuground of and to make recommendations for disposal of stom water ground individual houses . from the One of the proposed house sites is north of the existing house and the ' ground slope is around 35smic tests were made to find the depth to rock to decide onstabilityofthe l �s the area. In this test earthquake sensors are placed in ground at the ends of the test line and an instrumentedthe , sledgehammer is used to strike the along the test line. ground at measured distances for the seismic wave toh get bfrom the sledgehammer the time needed , o earthquake sensor . Byg hammer to the calculations can be made ofdepth,e inclination and distances ;, characteristics of the underlying and layers. One seismic test was made along almost a level contour and the second crossed the first at right angles .get an agreement of results at the intersection. The presults e was oare plotted on the attached graph sheet, and the interpretations are r also shown . The fact that the data points do not line upin straight lines means that the layers have irregular surfaces . Some error is introduced in forcing the best straight lines through the data points. The depth of soil of 3 to 4 feet a the fact that there is softer rock and then deeper, harder rond ck r agrees between the two tests , but the chacteristics and thickness of the softer rock does not quite agree between the two tests . ss :•iowever, even the softer rock is abundantly strong enough that it • is stable in the proposed house location as well as on down the , steeper, slopes . • The Clackamas County Soil Survey map shows "Xerochrets and • Haploxerolls'' soil on the � property, and this means rocky soilsn Numerous attempts Were made to find places where a test hole 'ftl b,'K a • • 1 t • '1 dn. + 2 \. '` '• could be augere5d but rocks were encountered almost at the ground ° ' surface in every case. Along Phantom Bluff Court in front of the , nrop-4rty is a vertical earth cut that is almost 8 feet deep in one spot and the gravelly soil is well displayed there. There 'were no colored or mottled layers visible that would hinder the downward movement of water. A previous investigation for the ' " ' •,; house directly across the street did find a pocket of silty sand , F ' soil that was, able to be successfully used for stormwater o:i disposal. • From a stability standpoint then, the steeper parts of the r i .. '4 property have a shallow depth to rock, and the less sloping parts • _., , have a dense gravelly' soil that is able to stand vertically for ..11'. ..n indefinite periods. In my opinion the entire property is stable _: and suitable for house construction. • 4 1 For stormwater disposal , the location and size of the "s.'.,. proposed houses have not been established and so the details of raz , size and placement of disposal facilities would have to be '. v . decided at a later date. However, it is clear that for houses between the existing house and the street, seepage trenches will . - work. The permeability of the soil is not g!;eat enough that any iw- appreciable amount of water: will percolate away from the seepage ; :t� trench during a given rainstorm, so the seepage trench will have to have enough storage volume to hold the entire runoff from a ° 4110 ' ' given, conservatively chosen rainstorm. My recommendation is to , ., use a rainstorm of 10-year recurrence interval and 2-hour ~ ,. duration that drops an inch of wat2r on the.`, pground . • For the house location north of t1,+e existing house the soil ; s shallow and the ground is sloping , so a deep, wide seepage. . trench cannot be made. It is recommended tha a narrow trench be made that follows the horizontal contours and then drops down to run back and forth until the regilired volume is furnished . In my opinion this will not cause the slope to become unstable . Again, the details of this seepage trench will have to await the placement and size of the house. . 't • : In summary, my opinion is that the property is stable lnd suitable for indiVidual seepage trenches for disposal of • • stormwater . Very truly yours, .° . ,' P OFF i y, 6ax , ,,I 4, l'G Ll'ia-1 q ,., • �. / OFiIIWA b ' V ° Y 1 ''. `'r . Me:0' • • 4 Nc 1 0 0 *4 a It • • I •AJ czc• /,e!._. - " •011. „ .. . . , . * • :.:Ei. ‘. '' .. _0 • . . 4 S V . li .r __' 4 . =,:,. . 2-' d-" losit...tuir• , iiii 1 .. . . . . . , . --1-----I, .. . . . . L .. . • . • . kled , 0 , . :., - ,,'.I if/maI- I 1111111111: TI ,Ai 1,,_$r --. • .mac ,.. r .. \.. • • Hof = G I NI e) , :.. .,;,,. PIRO/9 �r F / 7, / P / s , .., , . , , , 11rfs4If _.. ,� o ,.::. : '. ., \ , 1 r 1 -1 1 . 1 , . . 5� �, , 9Lov f . . ... „, ... . . • v- .. , , . . r'2 / j I ---. .. t9� -11 p I 41 (�&, 1 ' ./, ( a 1 .. 4. • ...ram 111111,11111/ illei 1 r...CO ..° 1111111.1.1 .._ II , 11 . .°- a - ' . . , . , 0 ... . . #iii eft • , . „ . . )1'4 ,,,,e • \., 0 * a, dicr ' ' . : ri/ 3/i5-11 y 0 1P.�51` c yG t� r.: 1 \--- 1\„„, . () .---..--, i�oe Fri i'ill- • .7 , I 18 .Oa , — \ _, /7) 3.: j: 1 e P" ' ,f 41 • .• ,, :.,.. r/� • -(t'. .._1`' - .... ,1 � w r „� 7' \ _ b x • I A �.1�..;•:. • • • it • • • • • • • • • • • AF• f • , h • r ! • I. X in ! • • • • • • • • • • • • 4' •i Y '1 • • • • o `, �' '11 . , D &dais S 4'4, ;4.1 , ,,, . . a Aril 3, 1991 12EEms.OWre, •I c� `� 'r i 1 Ken Guenther ,, , 3707 SW 52nd ` ............ • ; ... Portland,Oregon 97221 rAPR If 1:99 • MO'A'Avenue P♦o.ee>,ae9 RE: Easement on Mills and Dieringer Property for benefit of parcels on Lako Oenepo Oregon 97034 Phantom Bluff Court kerzeiPlanning , 503.835.0290 ` _, E"Ineerin0 Dear Mr. Guenther: r♦ S00.005.0270 *Ow I.,; 500•3s o 90 In response to your request of March 18, 1991 for a review of the easements { FAX you have obtained for the Phantom Bluff proposal and their ability to 5o�•e�5•o2e9 accommodate city owned and operated utilities in addition to privately owned utilities, we find the following: a. The easements do not specifically grant the city the right to install, maintain and operate its facilities in the easements. " b. The easements are five feet wide and are inadequate in width to accommodate a city maintained facility. Ten feet is our minimum ' width and, if a sewer and a water lines are running parallel at approximately the same depth, a ten foot separation is required between the two according to Oregon Administrative Rules and the , 0 Department of Environmental Quality. Easements conveyed to the • ' City must be wide enough to allow the service of lines installed • 4therein to be serviced by conventional means (i.e. backhoe excavation "N. kil and a place to deposit spoils). O > Considering the above, the easements you have obtained can accommodate ` service lines maintained by yourself or by other agencies but not by the • (� city. W Regarding your question of tapping the 2" water line in Phantom Bluff, I 3 have prepared a series of questions for our legal staff and expect to be able .m7 to give you some direction in a few days. However, I note in your formal (4. application for a subdivision, you are proposing a new 8" line, In any case, ` 0 the construciton of a new public line in Phantom Bluff Court raises many similar questions regarding public easement rights and I am pursuing , ' W VI, answers to those questions as well / 1 G Y2•'se�.C r-,51 43 e O r••1 v�'`. \ r -�4 ( (x..•,-,1 7 s,..," • C Sinc rly, E f r'S e M e":7 S '7/ c, e. a . t�o ,...," 7 '1 �;%S titad .€7(et- i ® Russ Chevrette 3Engineering Technician III • D'- RC/ss - ct J.R. Baker, City Engineer ' ` Wayne Halverson, Engineering Development Coordinator . Mike Wheeler, Assistant Planner + E X H I B I T • 7ID 11991/ssl<devel>rc/guenlher—sd9-91,1;)-91 4Gn Jlb 69 91 - 1 I (,;, • i ''t • i • 1 ' • • j r • • •✓ . I • • • • • • • 0 . , • • �. n • • , ( a Ci 1�CI l a rr ('`I ;PrsaDePucs•; ) I ' t L��-•,rf i •/1 •= Meeting Minutes Of The . Neighborhood Association Meeting March 11, 1991 ,A, MAR 1 9 1991 :- :U For a Development Proposed by 'Ken Guenther On Phantom Bluff Court Lake Oswego, Oregon . The following people were present: w Applicants: Mr.& Mrs. Ken Guenther Robin Mills George Puterbaugh Neighbors: Stuart Bingham Tom Brooks i 1 • Dr. and Mrs. Cohen • _ Art DeRosia ' Greg and Julie Derringer Joel Goldstein Joe Herrmann Walter Nielsen Linda Young These minutes were typed up immediately after the meeting from notes taken r: during the meeting. They are intended to represent the discussion which took place at the above mentioned meeting and make no effort to correct - ;. disinformation, if any, disseminated at the meeting by anybody. 1. Guenther stated that the first thing on the agenda at the official meeting will be to take care of the Mills property, The second item on • the agenda will be to take care of the remainder of the properties. They will be handled as two separate items because that is the way the City is demanding it be done. • 2. Guenther stated that the neighborhood will benefit from the development ' " s . ,. because the Sundeleaf Residence is currently on a septic tank and the new development would remove the septic tank and connect the house to the sewer in South Shore Boulevard. 3. Guenther stated that he bought the property with the intent to live in ' the Sundeleaf Residence and sell off Iota carved from the property, However, he determined after purchasing the property, that he was not financially able to do so. EXHIBIT 6, 1-9I 2!.'cLi 1 � , t T 3. (Cont. ) _' DeRosia asked if Guenther made this intent known to Mrs. Sundeleaf at the time the house was purchased because Mrs. Sundeleaf had indicated that she had turned down full price offers from other developers because she did not want the property developed. She went on to say that she , , accepted less than full price from Guenther because he was going to preserve the estate and not develop the property. Guenther Stated that he made his intent known to Sundeleaf prior to the ; ' purchase. 4. Guenther stated that the property is zoned R10 which means the lots must be a minimum of ten thousand square feet in area, The lots that he is proposing are approximately 10,700 s.f. , 15,400 n.f. , 10,500 s.f. , and . 28,900 s.f. ; which is larger than the minimum required. r ,Y •r.•: Goldstein questioned what the building code permitted as far as the allowable size of the proposed houses. Guenther responded that the Building Department was responsible for questions regarding construction of the houses and that the Planning Department was responsible for questions regarding subdivisions: this meeting was concerned only with the subdivision. Interested parties were encouraged to refer to a plot map that was passed around the room which indicated the allowable setback lines. 5. Guenther stated that he is a Forester by background and nobody has ` u greater concern for preservation of the natural landscape. He further stated that the drawings and surveys which he had commissioned were prepared by MAK, an internationally renowned firm, went far beyond what • is normally required for this type of development and resulted in considerable expense to Guenther. He also stated that all of the houses currently on the street were built with a "stick em in the ground attitude;" that the trees were cut down and the houses were just stuck in the ground. , 6. Guenther stated that this meeting was not required by the city. The requirement for this type of meeting was set forth in a new regulation A:' which was adopted by the city on January 17, 1991. He was exempted from the requirement because he had made his application Pp prior to that date, He elected to go ahead and have the meeting in deference to the " ' neighbors. 7, Bingham asked if Guenther would be requesting any variances, Guenther responded that the only variance would be a Class II variance, which is • required only because the lots in question do not have the required 25 • • foot frontage on a public way. He further stated that the only people who live on Phantom Bluff who have legal lots are Nielsen, Brooks, and DeRosia. 8, DeRosia noted the pmap g lot being passed around the room indicated a 1 �''' encroachment beyond the easement line on his property and asked what right Guenther had to the property beyond the easement, Guenther stated that it was not his intent to encroach beyond the easement, • b y i ' } ., !i 9. Guenther stated that South Shore Boulevard is a 20' road which falls within a 40' public way and for unexplained reasons the City was requiring a 20' road on Phantom Bluff also. He further stated that the existing paved surface doesn't follow the easement lines very closely. • He stated that, unless they stay way over on the south side of the street, people are in fact encroaching on his down the street. property when they drive Cohen stated that the respective property owners own the property to the i center line of the street, and that each owner gave unto the others, an easement for ingress and egress purposes. f 10. Guenther stated the people should remember that the ' ( 4 City's reason for being is to increase bureaucracy and make things difficult. b i 11. Guenther stated that all property owners within 300' of his property were notified of this meeting. 12. Guenther stated that if his subdivision is approved he would pave the `:"' ` road from the east edge of his property all the way to South Shore Boulevard at his expense. 13. Bingham noted that Guenther was creating two lots with Lake Rights and inquired as to the amount of lake frontage there was. Guenther replied that the lake frontage exceeded 120' . , :: ' ''''' 14. Guenther stated that anyone who develops a property within the City of ; ' Lake Oswego is required to dedicate 30% of their property to the City ,' for some kind of easement. Puterbaugh stated that he was required to donate 25% of one of his properties to the City in exchange for permission to subdivide eight lots several years ago. Now that he wants � '. to develop the property, the city will only allow 4 houses, ' 15. DeRosia asked if Guenther knew that the property was in the process of { being placed on the Historic Register at the time he purchased it. u ' Guenther stated that the status was achieved after he purchased the property and that he had no knowledge that the house was being made an historic landmark. He also declared that a house must be at least fifty years old in order to qualify for historic status and the Sundeleaf house is less than fifty years old, Puterbaugh confirmed that the wall • • and fireplace in the side yard was torn down and built in a different location about 17 years ago at his expense when he purchased his property. , 16. Guenther stated that the city was getting a new Planning Director this • month. 17. Guenther stated that his application had to be made prior to March 22, 1991, in order to be heard at the May 6, 1991, Design Review Meeting, •t; n 18. Guenther stated that this subdivision is being done with honesty and ' integrity and that the neighbors should accept it because the next guy ,,,,` would develop it with out as much cot7sideration for the neighbors, • 3 . , • . . • I • • „ • 19. Brooks inquired as to why Guenther refuses to answer a list of questi that Brooks provided when Guenther's proposed development was first'. announced. Guenther stated that he and his attorney have tried to answer the questions. Brooks stated that the answers merely sidestep the issues without addressing the questions. 20. DeRosia asked Guenther when he intended to remove the rest of the trees and brush that he cut down and threw oa the Hoberg property after he took possession of the house. Guenther, stated that he thought that all �' of the brush had been removed but that if there was still additional brush on the Hoberg property that he would remove it. DeRosia also reminded Guenther of a specific large tree on the Hoberg property which Guenther had requested permission from Hoberg to cut down. After Hoberg denied the permission, Guenther cut off all the limbs within 30' of the ground. Guenther stated that if this matter referred to the alder tree, it was located close to the property and some of the limbs reached over his property, DeRosia further line her inquired how someone a background as a forester, who is acting in all honestyand integrity, rity, could explain this willful disregard of someone else's property. Guenther responded that Hoberg has water running from his property onto Guenther's property which Guenther has subsequently attempted to divert back onto the Hoberg property. Respectfully submitted by, \,j7;::: Art DeRosia Dist Attendees Phantom Bluff Residents ` Design Review Board T , • , • • a. �1., i •P ;,'' • ,. • . • • • , , . . vir,...-,,,,,...0 ,IiI • ••...,,,-,. ,.. ._•. •.• • • PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LEGAL DESCNN'TION OF TAX LOTS 1000 AND 1d00 COARINED '''a t. INVOLVING TAX MAP 2 1E 9CC, TAX LOTS LOTS 1800, 1900, A TRACT of We IOCARO W Fie S°InIMST WMRR a nK S0UDM11 r , n 1 I I id; - 19U2, 1905 AID 2600 IN THE SW 1/4, SWi M, SECTION 9, L25., 7UM101 a ST000N I,LnS,RIr.,A ANIITt YCRNRN,t Of Lot 1 it V �`'`' ' t•;v.. .,L' RL1E.I W.M„ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON o%N1�.gAIXMAs t 0141$,onloal DEsrwrolD AS roulws 004*A0 AT DC SLUneA1 oo7RN a Fie RIam4Io OJIMITAI MACt W 101 71 Or nit UM6:CpDCD MAT Or PNIfAa1 SAD[tlRNLR WINO JIB.I11[n r" N 3 Os, '. , I•LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PARCEL. Meth O 413 2 III1a[AAl/!f Rl a tun I COINER Smi!RAC! MSAro • o^ ,�, I fR13M GuoineER m DOLLS :.... .-....,.; ...:•. Y 0C' '1 47` L' °t 1 A TRACT Or trill)1OCA1IO W nit YOUnn[ST WARM OC 111E 0OUTTIOST tOT 37,A OOr It C Or 119.00 tun 1 INLY 5611 KING AW,u nit 1 IM to IN • /� Y L." 1 J' ! Itt0•e/Nelc or Or ClSAID MOO to(A1nR1 a*r=10 AUDI RonalT 1. • \/ 4' `q' �J9•:tPCb `;7_y,_ 'p75/t�I3.,WIAUA9C0UNT'l10 t1010i1 atdOifO AS r*1040 TY n uxt ',7 WILS III OECD IKC0710rD W NNINN.III IO7SQ QACNAYAS Co11N1Y DCCa MCdIOfi ne1NY N01'35'fl'I MINIO nit MIST trot Or SM)YNLS TRACT r` �7• SC0MNO At nit MOST 0*1110 .7 COR101 a A TRACT 0r TARO CONIOYLO SIN MIT to A PONY IX RI/1°101A1MIf Y 1i011-a-WAY Cl MARIN RUC' • U / w count WO VAWim U01N VAOAMW mini NtwNrn 1uwl naNa N7111'w /`,, „� II)MAMMAS SUNIX►l,CT UX,CO OSSD MCOn077 r 0001t 001,PAT.711 I500 Rtl IO Re C/lIM Cl ONO MIANIp1 1t)11 IAR11 Melva MIXO no V �', CLAM1/JIAS COUNTY DIM R(411' INLNa 5110]CoOY,1400 1[LT TO 1N[ �� '0• , !aNRniRc Or MIANION PUNT COURT: THERM SO1Y0'QO'W Mp10 0777 NAWIS 0.10.1 TO n[IUTI hIM11p1 A C111INAl ANpL Or 61U0'InK DMNO �' aNf ItAST IO,N/1t1 TO nit R7UMiAST017 CYRNIM d'nor MOST W /,q 31 I SDUOICASiCRLY COURSE or DC 10UDx 031LY tell I A DUCT Or LAND 1CMS N37.131.2111 N/.17 AN MI:INSIM(Z Or tell DEO WINCE Ij 01 S, 07 403CO TO OWN ANO NOON L WLS IY Ono MCDIOCD W VolOWE NO1'/0'C A 0 SAD a/IIInAN1r,17.71 RCf TO nit 6%or twat //''�� h I 'tt �, I7 on.a.AottMUS COUNTY 0101 NCCOROO no#405 NSD'11'00'W MONO t 77*01 I a Fie NO71 7ONnwAIRMY 1rMnotsorLY Gong%°twat I '� V� �O �• ' ,,9 • Ip 9AN1 IINId DACit R1•eI.NOUSII'W Ma10 SAD[f1U1A011 MU SAO ' - - • 10, SOD SOU11[ASIUQY C 40 110 6 17.71 111 TO Y051 SOUn10)0 COMO v 1 • \•C()p I Or SAA Mitts DACS MO Fie enro S1CMY LM Or DIATOM BUNT COLNit Corm,01.11 ItLi 10 M Mat Mp11 NI Ma SOULI1LSITALY tNK or SATO •' - 't1 - yti'I' �17j nc7NX 111 CI'OOt AlalO EAIO Nd1RIx1IUKY IRK,1,01 RLT 10 TIN: PMaI 4; ne1N7[ID15, 11 SA/0'NAInINQITE70 lAK TILE IOLLOw1No ,•. D[AMNCS AO 3.70OTSI 4(A II)A I/,I0(12 01 R[i 10 A 5 1 5I' 'W,II 3; U 9 ti 'fO, D1K PO111 R 000WNIM, N1Y70'13'W,02.75 ITC?IO A 1/0 110p1 RCN R00;GShI'00•w.Q 31 ! — 'tit • \ 41 • 1 10 Niger' NOI Nat N00 ON nI:Longs 007050 WI AI nK IroSI SC]ITIIIf • . 1r•r'L, 'A 59 S 1• 0)1141 Ur!AO rMor11 a WO INII m0011 MENCC N7nrOtl'[MONO yl'h • \ T. d Is •I•t' lNa SIOII'Cwt ^17 MT TO i iwIIT*ItA�rtn1 Y a SAG 1110.11 Il PA 19U3 I PACT, rS7 • + I3, $'TO TRA307'L•Twtr MT ACOM,M TO CH NL'1IXN*010 NM A101.CT�7AS DEsa w M BOON S1 ITA Of 1 A • `►i�, •• I ♦-. `�7• PNK 744,1AIXAYA C°IITY O1Tn nt0R00S,,•room S00'7fr00.4 15.00 ►i11 TO SAID a9IM1l1C: 10NC1 501.40b0•w M010 DAIO a117R111e, �',Dp, '..� Ct.Q �• S is qoo 1.23 Pit TO nc MOM If0RnUMY°11Wn Or SAID PARCEL 1 Or SAG 11ALS ,r, IS,e0' •E TRACT;n[N4 L001o'O0•C M17N0 Fie NIRD UK°SAG PARTIL Q 1500 . • 1A III1 10 na IDUn*ASTI1nY 100111-0r-.8AY Or SAD VACARD ROOM 1LUr - f. MIRTH MORE Ca10R1W0 ALCM INN NDIM Ow,SeW30'OO'4 110.75 A7 - RE1 IO Mc MAT IAS?0wlen Of 1No PMCIL k 7KNCC S0311'0O'w • S O,:' MONO nc Gttt UIK or SAIO YMIYt I,UIq I[[T TO MK Sp1MICA01 ��1 yy• t�• - � `70� Canton 11*1Or) I)NNOT 11219'00•W MONO nit SOUTH WIC Mentor, m'Po�'I \ TAX LOT 1900 .e• I TO nit TR1K rtlwl u MI!YN14 1'1W1AlNW0 0.5N ADef Yt1RC g e ',li, • LEGAL DESCTPNp4 or LAX lo►s 1io0,tool AND IY0s COMaNLn `O.r�7 \ TAX LOT 2600 1 , IT e A DACI°''-V0 ll1CAR0 W Fie falnlxSl oUM1N1 Of nit SdIMIxSI V QUMICN or I,.CIION 0,1.71„R.IL,'MIlAICtTo YCROIMI,CITY O 10111 1 '► - 'A / OSx00,CIAot/AS COMM 0e0W OCS01100 AS 10LL0145, • YI t •'\ 'DO• • a IO►µ10 1RURnta111AD R0U RING INCIN WO ADO 071 Ill In'lew Hilt POWY Cl tOST WOnaiMNO µ Of NAV PCA ' J \,�• N W /6r fl' , .r.7, N50 Fie 110c POr/l a NIrM1110°A RAcI d IAR7 Cplv[RU to NN1N 1S M0o11 OY IXID N1°A0*D N µ1111W,M 1o*i7.DADIAYA(AW1Y pi0 • , �/' qC1l+y1•pp� ,-U, RLC0ROS;DRNrt 1winn"SRMY M010 NC 701OI0117MY 11T4 or/N0 41 . 6'3 9` 1' CB+N 713'OO•E /I,aa1,O ACl/1T11KIn 170040 NMiim NO rco•Wp11/0c rc.11 4 tw/1 021 SA' - NIf11 NOt11 Nf7'11'00 w,11 Of 11i.1 10 A 1//I NLN 1111N N00 At n1:Y0SI • r. • \ / ' . 'ammo°Neal a SAD Neale met 1N11 NIX KO Ms0 M K Fie WMS? A 1 '• ,,p i! `\ /t. ��•,•r z gw• Ytl,tM.Y SWNMIr WN[R a A DUEL Or lNO COMim 70 N!N WNn01 V�. AY4 °y�} '$• nRNt�NI�al'111 n01 11*Mil 111[cr tNOAi Uwn1N1 I11ACli,Seiil y t&g ,` 0•' ' U, } Tin 10 A 1/1 N01 MI NM ON 111E clot.II COON IAI7.NOWT MIXD• rJ �, SAO 91o11C nit raLORMM NAIwlo1 NO aSTAN[L51 N7170'55.4 7.0 TAX LOT i005 I'1, nu TO A 5/e W e Mal NobU N3om cr I0111 TILT 10 A 1/1 0 10 NIX Rm AT Fie wet gJRAY whom 01' TRACT T LAM CON 0 11 t A+ 30.10'00• = , VI °ORa IL AIO SMUT c IURMAUaI Or IRID maroon M WOW 1/10511, • .l a1OtANAs WNIrT DOD MCCafNgqNN1�Iuh/COr1,41.43 my t0 A 5/1 tow DI L- tt'0,7M' NON(TOO,N331000'4 11.71 111.1 to TIC M01/1[1RMY CDIN1R Or O PMa11 o/A DACT a 1.4D°WMY,B 10 ALIN A10 nett L MILS AY CII+109.d7OM 1[OOR01D W VOU14 SI wire TOO Maw tor f0001NSRRlr Ue. (LOLLS(MILLS VOUUME 0y �0298) ar SAD ws PACT Fie 1,f01104,1M3,0 tlILT t NO°Iv1^a 15r11'00'I, e/T?I D 3 / cD.s so/l'oD•W Hw5.7e 00 si i1 rii tiny'Mitt 71 ITET 10 A15/1mWa1 Mpl PO tt1+ /^ 7703 51170'13.4 oars Fitt(O A I/I NUT N0110oOO,;11310Y00% _ ?,�. �' �•rf,/ I*O rut nl0et WIMAw10 MINO1NO faln0[IttRLY 111E ANTI OK ""yy�, Sotn(IASIUI.Y Cx10N10N Menu% 5501I'00-1 I117 lit!10 nit , • ^A- comers or SAD DIMON RANI COU11t MOIL 101n011RAL1 ATOM SARI • ' , •�47 4 NEGI3TERE0 aN1111404 n[ra1Owa PARSt1 I0S'10'OIYIt 1131 ICI!TO A PORT ` • y L• PROFESSIONAL Of 1ImN.ANORO at a 040100 1001 Q11C 1240110' 'n*0t 37'.10Qoo'ri • �I`��r7L� EXHIBIT / SURVEY BYS 71.17 IIItt M ARC DIS1MCE(1 /I.M iltwl Rena M5'4000•W 31.11 ' U'+ a I� �' 1, L R �R ml TO A 10111 Or ORYAOR*A n1Ntt MOM A 11 a/001 MITE 10 NC ! A SUE. H SURVEY 0,r LEYT P �� �" q ' 15215 S. E. HAWnfatN� tJTI swt�ao•M,Illw.'AJOCInm nKrQ MOTE H.00•11,403IICU 10 R M071 U /� /� Olt POMMY WOg1 n um moot,Mewl n[Na N71'f/'Oo'w.A1pN tot ° . + IcAR 1 #f 0gg1` NO PHONE OREGON 97233 5alMlxsnnY t1Nt Dr va MOLL Ind,ISLO/111 10 nit Dui Paul ^ .,CT9 N0. JIO()d ' 1 pNW�E �00J)254-0770 OER11 Ln '§7t�RON I n e 111•011,C RIM0a 1.113 Aan INRt to Mx , c1-a1 el J 1 .` •,t• • • • • 1 F '• 1 • • • • • 1 1 • • EJ a • 6 1 1 . 1 • op • PALISADES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • • April 26, 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego RE: Case file No. SD9-Pl\SD 10-91,\SD 11-91\VAR 11-91(A-C)\HR 4-91 Dear Development Review Board Members, The Palisades Neighborhood Association is very concerned about the quality of our neighborhood, and indeed our City. While at this time we don't know all the • details, we believe that the subdivision proposed by Ken Guenther on Phantom Bluff Court may: 1. Substantially diminish the quality of the neighborhood in the Phantom Bluff area. :o .. 2. For all practical purposes it would do away with an important Historical Landmark Site (the Sundeleaf Home) . • Granting the variances would reduce the standards 4 a,.:h ensure that the quality of our neighborhood is preserved. These standards Are the minimum required in our city and reducing them further would allow a degradation our neighborhood which could never be corrected. al) With the above in mind, the Palisades Neighborhood Association is opposed to the development at this time. Res ectfully submitted, _''; ,. -Nni\f'Nttp Thomas Lowrey ` President, Palisades Neighborhood Association n. nr.. w •'t' i. �+ EXHIBIT It s r...� q• '• • • APR 2 6 1 I • 0 • �a • , Jl' I e t a'+ 11 • r 1.: r �.. 1,. . • • L • �• • • 1� a x a • • •• ., .• , .. ......,. • • s D ?iElicl;'ais61�°7�::1.,1ykn 1� . .,.„. . ., ,,...... EEECEIIWEE air e,� ��/ ©csw�6� APR i' I99I : r. :. . 4,,,...da•. C*/.e ir7/Nde 046- PD. 4-90/44 /f-po /51-02 1C- 2' c) .•, . . . k `01 EXHIBIT r ie , /v ,E'Z 5'o cl-. 1 al- a,1 { 4 w 6✓e. /j.?t,,LI? t vt r,>' 4 7 /L 4,7 c -r 4-' 77/7/ v.---d r u g' r.. • dv'A /9 y8,oes #.tio e C'„,.. P ,G.. rs I. . ; /<c.Q7 .c a <2 e/ lv,� fu I.C1 4- �rn p�'-7..E+7 �1G4 -e • I iT ' bse/m/0 4)-r 9•- 40 7-c-T/a,ts J 75 �e 21'✓e Lt0/ylt.r % :'. e-.,low,54.e v 211 ,g; by - in 4-,?gi e_ er�.c->4..dip G. ..e777 2 tv,4 ,al Gv os I�,1 r G0 e.) yo et--' /f•44 G L. /fq d , / 0 g ' r7 c D ) 1 `14rtse at> itds/pry ice}C ivic./. e L. L.,... re k- `ft> 4.e... ce u rZ e0 pr/P r•40 of ,,, 77%, "A,4-i7--'2 / 4.- %2.„ eItrr,401— • ,(-4W 4. . 'iZiZA-t...:24.40-.,-,--. • L. \ 1: v.L.,t : ''' . . ,, . - o// s ‘ 4/76 � ‘v pp /fa.,4,�.w 7 f - ••' ' ' ' :. '.•'i..'::,,'.-•.'':'•... '.; •, . '.:..;.•i.:.,::,,?:,-'.. -.-r ', ..'' .•. -.•.. .. .',..z. :*..'..'., I•, '.'>' ..:,,.',:•.'., •.', .. •'' ':1'•. •-•.. '':, ...,•.. . ';'.....:•:•• ..,.'.''' ','.'•...::*. '•...'•.,* *,......... .;.::,...,:,,...,i.....,,,,.::::,... I .......,;:.: ,....:::.,,.. . ...,...... , • . 4 :',••,,...Y.,' •‘i':"' ,..,,'.,''t, '•.•'',..' t', i.. .....,''...,•-...'"..: '•.'s „.. ..... .• , *.., ",, • ',: 'Y.,' '... ''''• .',. •' "• .. '' ,,„•.,. ", • ' '-'‘'''...; ,,:.•,' i•.' ..•.,.,. ••., '''. ',.*.,.''', `''••i t1• ... , ' • ' . o, . '•.. .:; ' ' '....,.• , ..... . . .. .. .., . , a •• ‘' '..., n' .• •• " . ,. . ' ,•,.. .. , .. . ...:. .. ,o, • ,... ,, . ., .•. '' •... ' ,,' t . t , , .. • .. , .* t . "...., . . .. .. ' ''4 •''.. ' . , i '• I* • . -.. , • . . a * , • . , . . . * .. ,. . . a jn a4 16661 Phantom Bluff • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • August 9, 1990 lr. Michael R. Wheeler Staff Coordinator t City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 a. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 , ` Vie: Case file # P.D. 6-90/VAR 19-90 r (a-b) /HR 16-90 Dear Michael Wheeler: We will be out of the city on business at the time of the public hearing for the above noted case, therefore, we are sending our written comments . : o our knowledge, Phantom Bluff Court Road is a co-operative • neighborhood. Families with children live on the road and + ,1 . neighbors are careful and caring. We do not believe that environmentally or practically the above noted preliminary plat application is appropriate for Phantom Bluff. II With regard to the preservation of the character of the neighborhoods Historic Preservation: The Richard Sundeleaf house is a designated Lake Oswego g historic landmark. It is surrounded by established native trees, shrubs and gardens. Several other houses on Phantom Bluff were designed by Richard Sundeleaf, they also are surrounded by native ' \ trees and established gardens. These 30 and 40 some year old houses and properties are of historical significance when we consider the neighborhood. Oswegoans know of Mr. Sundeleaf's work and place of respect among Oregon architects . ? r` r if•Y , '4 lr Michael Wheeler 3 .gust 9, 1990 . ' Page 2 „ Character of the neighborhood will be adversely altered:4. Planned development will adversely impact a road and • .bighborhood of private owned residences each with single access to Phantom Bluff Court Road or other streets or roads. Established property adjacent to the planned develop- ment will be adversely impacted by a planned develop- ment.. What is reasonable use of property purchased as a private • residence: Mrs. Sundeleaf told us at the time Mr. Guenther • purchased her property that he purchased the property to use as his private home. She told us she had turned down an offer from a developer who offered much more money because she wanted to preserve the character of the neighborhood. She did not believe a planned development was in character with the street or neighborhood. We agree it is not reasonable use of this property. With regard to conservation of hillside property: • If we understand geologists, preservation and protection of native landmark trees and shrubs is of ' • elemental concern to conserve soil, water and fragile • hillside land (such as property herein described) . ,. Lake Oswegoans, it seems, are committed to protect as ap t ,' natural resources and processes from adverse impacts. The stability of the steep hillside slope with regard to water run off is a concern. The geological survey ,, • (if we understand correctly) was based on average rainfall. Our experience over the years has been that • rainfall is torrential and on-going during some periods • of the year. Despite drain troughs, stone and concrete walls, drain fields and neighbors best efforts, Phantom Bluff fragile soils become saturated, water seeps from the hill, runs down the road and cliffs. 410 . r t''• . r r J, j T; 'I L' ' re 1 "'',: .. a +' ` .' • •s k'` `� M ,r . F • Mr. Michael Wheeler P ; PagAue 9, 1990 •< g 3 s,. t V Even during dry summer weather some of our containment tiles run with water. wa nment constructed to conserve soiland lwater s ibulg and weight of saturated soil. bulge from the We approached this project (even years ago) of respect, Barbara Feely, landscape architect,th ia ltt planning. did the Neighbors have experienced water run off onto lower property during the recent construction of homes , Phantom Bluff. Some old, native trees weroremoved.ong We have seen bald eagles and other eagles in the tall native trees close to the lake. once or twice a year, stay a few The b or birds eek weekto an come ''' 1 daysnd ,.: then go on. We have noticed them the past few years. �, , We believe that a planned development would adverse impact the area with regard to the conservatio1 steep, fragile hillside property.. .. • 0 of the n With regard to public saf ety: Regarding legal right of access and access and circulation on Phantom Bluff Court Road: Phantom Court is a narrow, undeveloped, dead-end road. Bsofe places vehicles cannot pass. In some roadside parking orThere is virtually no vehicles. provisions for emergency or service The road is some 31 years old and served 5 homes until recent e constructed. years. Five new homes have been Repairs have been done from time to time on the road. General entrances and egress to South Shore Road is somewhat precarious at peak traffic times. Mr. Guenther's estimation of increased traffic during construction seems to us unr recall recent building on the strtalistic. We Contractors, sub-contractors,-contractors, craftsmen, electricians, building crews, trucks and others made 2 to and more�tripss daily. There was noise. There was mental p and frustrating whenprivate anguish • property was usurped. UI; • • • ...1 .. i. r" Mr. Michael Wheeler ." August 9, 1990 • ,Page 4 �' • it is true that construction activity is 5, temporary. Damage to the road requires attention as do items left roadside which may be hazardous. Construction use at the times the last 5 houses were built presented problems, danger and " ` 7 inconvenience, because there was little and in .. some cases, no space on the construction site for construction equipment and crew's vehicles, neighbors property was used. Sometimes with permission sometimes without. Equipment such as cement trucks, tractor and caterpillars, moving vans, trucks and vans obstructed and on occasion blocked entrance and egress on Phantom Bluff Road. t : Mail carriers, services and utility trucks were held waiting as were residents attempting to meet their schedules. The road sustained extreme wear and tear. Emergency use could be difficult and perhaps slowed due to the slope and condition of the road, even to serve residents under current conditions. In case of extreme emergency or fire, egress of all residents on Phantom Bluff Court Road at the stop sign ° onto South Shore Road could be difficult and life threatening, particularly for residents at the east dead-end of the road. The logistics of evacuating residents with one vehicle per residence (6 esteblished homes to the point of the Sundeleaf (Guenther) property entry and 4 east of that) , could result in hazardous ;.. traffic congestion. Add to that, 4 proposed homes in the planned development, i possibly to be built on the i.+ Puterbaugh lot and 1 on the Wright lot. Sixteen ; .:.' ; . vehicles with residents needing immediate egress. ' Emergency equipment needing immediate entry, circulation and accessibility. How could this be " accomplished even with partial widening of the road? 1.- There is one fire plug located on South Shore Road. This and a 2" to 4" water line would seem to make fire fighting in the neighborhood chaotic and life .1 threatening. Xr. Michael Wheeler _' .August 9, 1990 Page 5 f I • The entrance and egress of all citizens and residents is of primary importance. All neighbors are •particularly concerned for the children in the neighborhood who use the road to travel to South Shore { to catch the school bus and to otherwise r� activities. go about their { With regard to economic hardship: z We do not wish economic hardship on anyone - neighbor or developer. 14 So far as we learn, Mr. Guenther, Sundeleaf property as a Purchased the 1 L knowledge of the characterioftthe residence with full Y services available and entrance and egress ofprivate dead-end road, Phantom Bluff Court Road. This is not reflected in the proposed prelimina application. z'Y plat Mr. Guenther is not hardship in the present nvolatile e if he financial experiences climate.iea ° • • • , ` Can he blame neighbors who do not wish to alter the character of the neighborhood to suit his proposed development? Can he expect neighbors or the City of L- ,ke Oswego to assume additional economic responsibility for a project which will impact in a negative way the historic character, safety and convenience of a long established neighborhood - to suit his wish? ' ., �' summary - We have lived on Phantom Bluff for 29 ate years. 4 . ..''¢'e raised our family of four children here and partici d school and community activities as we were able. P din ' J 'e =espectfull . y present our opinion and objection to this P3posed planned development. We do not believe such a development would preserve the character of the neighborhood.g od. '• fc 1 • A w j• • �M f, . • Mrt,. Michael Wheeler gust 9, 1990 u Page 6 Public safety would be in question. ecology and beauty of the area would be threatened. The question of the safety, hardship, mental anguish, and convenience of present residents would seem a factor when such a proposed development is considered. • 'Lank you. Very ruly your , Very truly yours, cohn L. aunckel, D.M.D, , Markie W. Runckel • • a r' • ® V • • • • • • y 1 ♦ u 11:'. r t i, • 'N 40' i • EASEMENT AGREEMENT APR DATE: October 28, 1990. ., • d EXHIBIT PARTIES: Allen Mills and Robin E. Mills, ��� �. Mills) as owner and in possession of(hereinafter �D q q �! ' A, described in Exhibit "A, " attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and 1' Kenneth Guenther, owner and in (hereinafter Guenther) , as possession of Parcel B as described in Exhibit "B, " attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The parties agree as follows. AGREEMENTS: SECTION 1. GRANT OF EASEMENTS: • 1. 1 Mills conveys to Guenther a perpetual nonexclusive easement to use a strip of land five (5) e �. than one (1) foot or mcre than six (6) feet wide thend nott borders of the property of Mills. feet from west •� Guenther shall use this s t for purposes of installing buried utility lines. Guenthertrip f land is not to cut any large tree roots along said strip of land t will tunnel under said roots in order to install said . but Guenther shall have the right of ingress and egress to and said strip of land to maintain repair lines. utility lines after said ' p it and/or reinstall saidfrom lines have been installed and for r� no other reason or purpose. Upon completion of an Y installation or repair of utility lines Guenther shall at his sole return property and landscaping to its original conditiopense n. 1.easements or2 This encumbrancesent of isgranted subject to all record. � prior SECTION 2 . INDEMNIFICATION. v 2 . 1 The Grantees agree to indemnify and de from any loss, claim or liability to the Grantor arisngd nranyor i manner out of the use of the easement. o g in my arising out of the use of the easement andatherGrantorassumesshallrhave • no liability to user or others for any condition existing • ,t,: thereon, sti ng ( A . •,•�. ' . 2 - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT [GAHDOC89) r • EXHIBIT C I. i • 'fe, ,i ' =' i 4111 .. .. . . SECTION 3 . BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS: 3 . 1 In the event either party shall fail to perform its obligations under this agreement, the other party shall be entitled to require such performance by suit for specific performance or, where appropriate, through injunctive relief. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies afforded " under Oregon law. SECTION 4 . ATTORNEY FEES: t 4. 1 In the event of any litigation arising under this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover from the losing • party the prevailing party's reasonable attorney fees at trial or • on appeal as adjudged by the trial or appellate court. SECTION 5. EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT: .w• 5. 1 The easement granted hereunder shall run with the s land as to all property burdened and benefited by such easements, including any division or partition of such property. The rights, covenants and obligations contained in this agreement shall bind, burden and benefit each party's successors and assigns, lessees, mortgagees (or beneficiaries under a deed of trust) . All n Mi is Robin E. Mills J f 7 enneth W. Guenther • STATE OF OREGON ) . ) ss. County of Multnomah ) he foregoi g inst ument was acknowledged before me this J$. day of ; ,, 1990 by Allen Mills. . 1:::: 1 La,e.:0,, g ;?,n4g;;;: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 7/z-��9.. . 4111 RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT CGAHbOC89] ', • I •fit 4 r i ' 1 1 Y _♦ 1 M. '--1-.4.4 -,„. rA'"✓ %•�• «'- :,:: Th • STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Multnomah ) The this foregoi instrument was acknowledged before me .~ r .: day of 1990 by Robin E. Mills. ____________,___`4-&- ez >layreA7,„, .. . Notary Public fk)r Oregon My Commission Expires: 7 27 g STATE OF OREGON ) County of Multnomah ss. G�Theaforf i.1 instrument was acknowledged before me this ! Guenther. , . 1990 b • )7ZZE/Z.Jr-,C, -k<e.,-,. --c., . . D'otary '�Pu3��,i'c��d xm r"'O '` 1`` �Y�4 �s obi. 1, A L 2MdaM1424!3 • JJ • X• • • 3 RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT [GAHDOC89) • A a• • -..VP• s. d'A • • • r t- G ul U l '! 4 • • 1` ,r ,II 'I. • � 1�a 1 6. 1 • • • 1 .a ' C u t. n J RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT DATE: October 28, 1990. BC3M.‘;: p PARTIES: Gregory Dieringer and Julianne Dieringer, So a-9 t ettl u.1 (hereinafter Dieringer) as owner and in possession of Parcel A, described in Exhibit "A, " attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and Kenneth W. Guenther, (hereinafter Guenther) , d as owner and in possession of Parcel B as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. RECITALS: y , Jy The parties to this agreement intend to create permanent, mutual, reciprocal easements. Such easements shall be appurtenant to and shall benefit all of the property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively. The parties therefore agree as follows. } . AGREEMENTS: ; "`" ' SECTION 1. GRANT OF EASEMENTS: t � 1. 1 Dieringer conveys to Guenther a perpetual nonexclusive easement to use a strip of land five (5) feet wide • and not less than one (1) foot or more than six (6) feet from the vest border of the property of Dieringer. Guenther shall use this strip of land for purposes of installing buried utility lines. Guenther is not to cut any large tree roots along said strip of land, but will tunnel under said roots in order to install said lines. Guenther shall have the right of ingress and egress to and from said strip of land to maintain, repair and/or • reinstall said utility lines after said lines have been installed• and for no other reason or purpose. Upon completion of any installation or repair of utility lines Guenther shall at his sole `' expense return property and landscaping co its original condition. In the event that the parties do not agree on the :, :I: location of this easement, then such location shall be determined • by survey at Guenther's expense. p 1. 2 Guenther conveys to Dieringer a g perpetual and nonexclusive walking easement across their property to, permit Dieringer and Dieringer's invitees walking access to Oswego lake.:uenther may from time to time designate the specific area to be used for access. The parties agree that this grant of easement 1 - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT [GABDOC88] • . .. e a. - shall become effective at such time that Guenther first of the easement makes use granted above. 1.3 These easements are a •• ° easements or encumbrances of recordgranted subject to all • prior SECTION 2. INDEMNIFICATION: • 2. 1 The parties agree to indemnify and defend each other from any loss, claim or liability to the Grantor of an easement arising in any manner out of the use of the easement. • p..' The parties assume all risk arising out of the use of the easement and the Grantor of the easement shall have no liability to user or others for any condition existing thereon. s: A SECTION 3 . BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS: 3 .1 its obligations its the n he this eventiherparty shall fail to o perform agreement, the other party shall be entitled to require such performance by suit f performance or, where appropriate, r Specific Such remedies shall be nadition toranghot��unctive relief. } under Oregon law. y her remedies afforded SECTION 4. ATTORNEY FEES: • 4. 1 In the event of any litigation arising agreement, the prevailing Under this party the prevailing g party shall recover from the losing on appeal as adjudgedpbytthe reasonable attorney fees at trial or appellate court. SECTION 5. EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT: • 5. 1 The easements granted hereunder shall run with the • land as to all property burdened and benefited by such including any division oro easements, , • rights, covenants and obligations contained such inothisy� The shall bind, burden and benefit eachartyls success agreement assigns, lessees, moc:tgagees (or beneficiaries underrs dand eed trust) , • • a deed of C1,--/ • o ie ger .P • Julianne Dieringer • enneth W. Guenthe . . 2 - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT C GAHbcCB 8 j 0 • • + 1„ ` 1 • • '~.*-fi -• +''r4• STATE OF OREGON ) • /11tir/ -g ) ss. County of fah ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this :;j gle day of Poll e 1990 by Gregory Dieringer. Pati.A.6.- t Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: _r/ q STATE OF OREGON ) eLrlQ. ll(.n,.d,% ) ss. r A, County of 44�� ) The foreg ing ins rument was acknowledged before me this I - day of , 1990 by Julianne Dieringer. . . t Qt_.....A......, -‘,...,1-2-... 66.1"..______. . Notary Pub.i for Oregon , . lly Commis;. Expires: V^-11�1 STATE or OREGON ) .. ) ss. County of Multnomah ) ` The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this r day of r••X,e y4.y{_ ,ti , 1990 by Kenneth Guenther. .l i,,,,.Ire n Notary (409' A•;. o • li . `�r.:L� j`V"!i�Mp 1L�.1a g n r, • . . : 410 3 - RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT CGANDOC88) • i • • •• Y ' • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • p i , b• �.' ;;1 P j, nM ID d '. ..�.�. Portland General Bectric Company •il ,.: GC YI I March 20, 1991 i l `,' • Ken Guenther 3707 SW 52nd A �n�� 5 11/4 Portland OR 97221 Dear Mr. Guenther: , • ' , This letter follows our phone conversation regarding easements on vacated Phantom Bluff Road in Lake Oswego. You pointed out a 5-ft utility easement along the westerly property lines of Lots 2200 (Derringer) and 2600 (Mills) . PGE could use this easement, if necessary, to serve your development on IL 1900 subject to rates and tariffs filed with the PUC. I also want to make clear that we have an existing underground line that parallels your east property line. The majority of this line is covered by an easement signed November 13, 1980. PGE's first option would be to use this existing underground line. Sincerely, /*4.._::/4F14 %---, • . ., ',J Nelson Property Department 464-8125 •• JGN/mh • S-0776b.88 A EXHIBIT � ' de4. 1 , , 1. ' . • '21'3.YY yaimcn ;Iteei.oe:tand. Oregon g7CC4 , • , • i' r,, ,* ��� � r, COMMUNICATIONS Q" • March 19, 1991 illLSLL..., . d' Mr.Ken Guenther 3703 S.W. 52nd Portland. Oregon 97221 APR 5 1.0�! *w i Ken. I have received the plat drawing of your proposed 5 ' utility easement. U S WEST Communications will be able to use the easement as indicated on your drawing to provide telephone serviced to Tax Lots 1900. 1902. and 1905. ,, 1. ' Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. , �i, r 6 „n Tom Sweeney Manager - Engineering Rm 5N15 , 421 S.W. Oak St. Portland. Oregon 97204 • . (503 ) 242-4325 ;id EXHIBIT �® • Sp q.lk aI-0.1 :; • , • A l ' . , • • / • • . 40 „. , .. . • . , f • NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY 2I0 N,W.SECOND AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97209 • (503)226-4211 • March 20, 1991 • Mr. Ken Guenther 0j(P.1 3707 SW 52 Place ,fli L L Portland, OR 97221 • Re: Public Utility Easement SW Phantom Bluff Ct, Lake Oswego APR 5 ; Dear Mr, Guenther: • Northwest Natural Gas Company has no objections to occupying a five (5) foot public utility easement crossing from Tax Lots 1900, 1902, 1905, going • along Tax Lots 2200 and 2600 to South Shore Boulevard. All lots are located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, • Clackamas County, Oregon, as shown on the attached assessor map copy. Jim Stoelting, Residential Coordinator, 226-4211, Ext. 2357, is the person to '• contact when you are ready for gas line installation, • Sincere) •4pit • • ° Jo• • :—Reece, Agent R & Land Management Department JLR:dg •• Enclosure EXHIBIT G-ql e+ al • • • • • • v , 'I 1„ .:.�. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A1:• • ,' a • 41 • el I. 6) i6fAi - _- ; • la ,,a,t,„eir-A.,1/4....,1 '13 0,0-4-0( ,. :.., , -----— ...ei— ,e---t---y-..;--/ . 40..e eve44-d. 0-#22-_-.... .. .--- . /1/•?!..f..,1,44...-7.2.. . ,. •, , �,�2.046' . _. ..--v?.... .e1-..N. _ .. e4e/ . .• 4 ?, dio.,‘L&.'—-- I e y ek,uct7. Aa•aZ.) st.d __Z.__, •• I4-4. , r 4L. •• e74I 6"1 ei-L) -4124 1 1.OleleiS. •"4 7 e."6 e4;• ,..••.•.- ...4C4—44 II.' 1 . e . 1.4.„.0° . -....,.....ii. , . . . 44//t .4e4 7.4÷.#_ ZO,e A 4Z,Z 34,•4 0(#f . 'I • • L ;._:.ti.4 San_. :1 r, d ^J ��Ea , • . ,mil : , C'e" ...)d°4/1— ---- --3°I . . EXH191T • • • —6-.,2.P.Me.)' • • . 2. \ • . . • . f r . , • e . . r... . 1 . / !O� __1g . . a 1� • _ __ • _ ee %G-Z3 I , _ . } • • •♦. ,,1 ill. .liar 0 a. --• "'.�.v"...f•L... r,sue • • • • a . i • • • ow • • 0 . • • • • • • 4 . a • • .' + - - n' r • ara 4 • Art DeRosia . _._ . ._. 16789 Phantom Bluff � ,' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 _ _ • April 26,• 1991 •" �_ . ..,. . _ . ,.... . dui `" ' �' • Michael R. Wheeler _ _ m��4 'R 2 6 1.�91 ;Associate'Plainner.. -�__ . . �. ter _. , Dept. ofD ....� �_� evel.opment :Services ..-,..~,. . of La ' City ke• Oewego Oregon .. ... m. RE: Case File"No,. SD9-91\SI? l;{�-91\SD 11;;91\VAR 11-91(a \M t '� E X W 1 B 1 T , c r. "0 1 4-91 'cDear Mr. Wheeler, - �. . This letter is to voice my objections to the development proposed by Ken Guenther on Phantom Bluff Court, Throughout this ordeal Mr. Guenthe ',haa .bean very vague and evasive regarding '"fhe details to this proposed development. His actions to date have been l.esS.. than honorable._ There-are-many reaSona .why-this development should not be permitted. I have listed some of the main reason; below in the 46 hopes:.that--thy City-will -deny Mr.--Guenther's -request. ~-- 1. Historic Landmark': This site has been"desiriated an Historic Landmark. It was designed by Architect Richard Sundeleaf, as his own home,.., .He 'hived here for the last 50 years of his life. Richard Sundeleaf is recognized as one of the most significant and influential people in• the history of Lake-Oswego. He designed many of the City's most prominent buildings, • means a great deal to the city or it would riot-haVe, beenls own home obviously Landmark status. As any architect will readily 'tell granted-its is Historic t ic as important as the building itself. The mature car and fir trees�arementioned • as noteworthy landscape features, • , approximately half of these trees (approximately p matyet this development would eliminate between the house and Phantom Bluff Court Air• 2Gue of1 42) which are located providing adequate separation to buffer the Sundeleaf home; however, how r states tc nethe house and site be-preserved when five additional large houses are squeezed on to the same lot with minimum setbacks? This is not in character with the Historic • Landmark or with the neighborhood. • 2. Variances: A variance is a request to deviate from the established minim standards that have been'established to ensure that the character and quality o the neighborhood are maintained. A request for variance is often accompanied by • an offer to provide alternate construction to ameliorate the situation which prompted the request for variance, • made, Mr. Guenther's motive for the variance requestl is simply tos case no r reduceh r hiss development costs and increase his profits; no attempt is made to give anything back to the neighborhood, If anything, the minimum standards should be increased, not decreased b 11110 Y granting a variance, I. . . • r • 41e id .1 April 26, 1991 page 2 $ ' Michael R. Wheeler 0 3. Road: Apparently the City has requested the improvement of Phantom Bluff Court as a condition of the development. On the original drawings, Mr. Guenther ,,, indicated that the road would be placed approximately ten feet over the easement line onto my property. He did this without talking with me, Although he has since moved the road, the new location is still not acceptable. Phantom Bluff Court is a private road. It consists of a fifteen foot easement from each property owner to total a thirty foot "right-of-way". The idea was to make provision for a twenty foot road with a five foot shoulder or sidewalk on each side. Through an inquiry to City Engineering, i discovered that they want a minimum of three feet for a shoulder. Mr. Guenther is currently proposing to • place the paved surface tight up against the fifteen foot easement line leaving no room for a sidewalk, curb, or shoulder. This will result in the forfeiture of property by me to accommodate a shoulder. In order to be fair to all parties, the road should be placed in the center of the easement with half of the paved .. .surface on each adjacent property. 4. Fragile Site: This site is very fragile and has been designated a slide area. A couple of years ago, a homeowner to the east of this site incurred enormous expense when his house began to slide off the bluff. The expense was - , :.,'' so great that the home owner was unable to continue living there. Several before that a property to the west wasyears the lake, where a small island still exists tt day developed.Mr. Guentherelot slid inton has made no indication of provisions in his plans to protect the adjacent properties from similar problems. This development is opposed by every resident on Phantom Bluff Court (except for the applicant) and the Neighborhood Association as well . Tt would devastate an #istoric Landmark and destroy the character of the neighborhood . Please help us prevent this tragedy, Sincerely yours, ...,.4ek.:—.1 . Art DeRosia v _ . ii , :. ,.