Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 1990-11-05
<if • \ \) \° O 5 . • • • • • • • • • • • • ,4 } C ♦ ♦ • I, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW` CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE BOARD Monday, November 5, 1990 7:30 P.M. • • • I. CALL TO ORDER `( 17. ROLL CALL • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Agenda Book March 5, 1990 • October 1, 1990 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 7-9i1(maci 90), a request by Lake Oswego School District 7J for approval to modify conditions A.15 (drainage system and A.16(sidewalks)of the original Development Review Board Order. The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Melrose and Kingsgate (Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC). Staff coordinator is . veloument Review rlanner,,.. • Name >rishvai� SD 33-.90, a request by Harold&Linda Doland for approval of a two—parcel minor land it partition and a future street plan. The site is located at 15780 SW Twin Fir Road(Tax Lots 5300& 5100 of Tax Map 2 lE 8AC). Staff coordinator is Hamill Pi hyai D velop of • Review Planner, DR 17-90/VAR 27-90, a request by Glenn E, Chilcote A,LA. for approval of a 2,665 sq, ft. addition to an existing commercial structure. Also the applicant is requesting approval of a Class II variance to LOC 49.510(1) in order to protect a stand of mature trees. The site is located at 4255 S.W. Oakridge Road(Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CB). Staff coordinator is Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director, QLiII 2Q, a request by Michael Feves for approval to expand an existing commercial office 300 sq, ft. by enclosing a covered walkway, The site is located at 15630 SW Boones Ferry Road(Tax Lots 3000, 3001 of Tax Map 2 1E 8BD), Staff coordinator is ►dan�id Pi hyai yiew_H nner DR 1 9.L y A 29_90, a request by Birtcher Frank Properties for approval to construct two restaurants o n the 2.58 acre lot. The Chili's restaurant is included at 6,000 square feet and the entire site w;(ll be improved leaving a prepared pad for a second restaurant at 7,500 square feet, • A Class II variance is requested to modify aisle width between parking stalls and to insure that 0 major trees along the east side will remain, The site is located adjacent to Kruse Way, Kruse Oaks Boulevard and Centerpointe Drive JEEMB9I9EIIIIISJXMJ � (Tax Lot 1l00 of Tax Map 2 1E 6), Staff coordinator 90, VI. GENERAL PLANNING ..1.., • ett, 1 , • • VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order VAR 17-90(a—d)—Ed & Patrice Westphal • VAR 23-90(a ,b)—Marilyn & Michael Terry VAR 25-90(a—b)-Schollander Development DR 12-901HIR 17-90—Laura Migliori PD 7-90/DR 16-90—OTAK VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. DRB_Members: Staff: • Robert H.Foster,Chair Robert Galante,Acting Planning Director Ginger Remy,Vice-Chair Sandra Korbelik,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner Robert D.Greaves Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Skip Stanaway Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Harry N.Starr Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Norman J.Sievert Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Secretary • • • • r , �' STAFF /�( ,, tEPORT • CITY' OF L AKE `L'V�O� �G� .., ---LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 4 .Y / APPLICANT: FILE IM. Lake Oswego School District 7J DR 7-90(Mod. 9 -90) P. ROP�RTY OWI`T�u• STAFF: Lake Oswego School District 7J Hamid Pishvaie . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE: • Tax Lot 600 of October 26, 1990 Tax Map 2 1E•6AC LOCATION: DATE OF H .A R G: 11 Melrose& Kingsgate November 5, 1990 , IIICOMP PLAN DF,STCsT�r,�„`;�;ter. I--G .N SSOCIATIQN: ' , R-5 Bonita(Inactive) ZONING DEsrLL_TION; R-5 (Future) L APPLICANT'S RPOI JEST The applicant is seeking approval to modify conditions A,15 and A,16 of the original approval, regarding the storm drainage and sidewalk location. EL API�LTCABLE RE .i I.ATT A. City of L eke Oct=�Pon_D Velop ent Ordinance , LOC 49,120 Authority to Approve Changes in LOC 49,315 Development Permits LOC 49.615 Application Procedures Criteria for Approval • DR 7-90(Mor', 9-90) Page 1 of 4 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 11.005-11.040 Drainage for Major Development 14.005 •14.040 Utility Standard • III. E1 INO5 • A. Band: II 1. The applicant is requesting approval to partially modify conditions A.15 and A.16 of the Melrose School development permit. The conditions read as follows: • • A.15. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: - Pollution control manholes to serve the upper parking area. - A drainage system designed to direct runoff from subdrains in the ;, playing field and the existing spring to the wetland area. — Locate and design storm drains to minimize removal and disturbance of trees and other natural features. — Revised storm water detention volume calculations (as needed to reflect actual site conditions). A.16. Submit final construction plans showing the following information: • — An 8' curb line sidewalk along Melrose Street. — A 5' property line sidewalk along Kingsgate. Relocate utility lines in the tree grove at the west end of the soccer field to the open area adjacent to Kingsgate. • Section 2 of condition A,15 requires that runoff from subdrains in the playing field be directed to the wetland area. During the preparation of final construction plans it became evident that the existing grades would not allow compliance with that requirement, Exhibit 5. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that Section 2 of condition A.15 be deleted. As Exhibit 3 illustrates, the sidewalk along Kingsgate was shown to be a 5' property line sidewalk, in accordance with Section 2 of condition A.16. Both the size and location of this sidewalk has been changed on the final construction plans. As Exhibit 4 illustrates, the applicant is proposing an 8' wide, meandering sidewalk along Kingsgate, therefore, necessitating a modification to Section 2 of condition A.16, Staff finds that an 8' sidewalk will provide better and safer pedestrian access for students along Kingsgate, 2, The Development Review Board approved the Melrose Elementary School (DR 7-90) on June 18, 1990. The Findings, Conclusions and Order for DR 7-90 is attached, Exhibit 6. The site preparation and utility construction is currently underway at the site, DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90) Page 2 of 4 B• SS'Qmnliance with [`rir �; c Staff has determined that the proposed modifications do not meet the LOC 49.120 administratively review the request. This request is beingheard criteriaDevelopment to Review Board because the proposed changes affect conditions before the specifically placed on the development by the Board,Exhibits 3 and 6. of approval specifically LOC 49.615 states that for any development application to be approved, it shall the following regulations and criteria: conform to 1. City_of .ak . � \ go Comprchensiv Plan • ,, The Comprehensive Plan concerns have already been addressed as part of development approval in DR 7-90. Nothing requested in this modication the original compliance with the Plan policies, affects 2 C CU eYhippme nt edr inn Qo d ads All the development standards have already been addressed as part of the original development approval, The development standard applicable to this proposal addressed below: P p is Drainage for Major Development(11.005-11.040) Utilities (14.005-14.040) It Based on an analysis of Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 7, staff finds that tlic applicant provided adequate justifications for the proposed changes in the sidwalk location and • the drainage plan. • Ili. .1LLAISCL ION Based upon the findings presented in this report, staff supports the applicant's g Section 2 of condition A.15 and modifying PP s request to modify A.15 and A,16, by deletin • • condition A.16, Section 2 of V, RFC011'1MENDA:EMS Staff recommends approval of DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90), subject to the following conditions: • 1, Condition A.15 shall be modified to delete the following: A,15. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: — Pollution control manholes to serve the upper parking area. A d-t# e-s-draftagys eaigried to -in-E�tC�I{}Y•n1L'fl — Locate and design storm drains to minimize removal and disturbance and other natural features. of trees — Revised storm water detention volume calculations (as needed i 1 site conditions), to reflect actual �� �j 1 • ,, ,, DR 7-90(Mod, 9-90) T Page 3 of 4 • 2. Condition A.16 shall be modified as follows: i A.16.' Submit final construction plans showing the following information: •— An 8'curb line sidewalk along Melrose Street. — An 8' meandering sidewalk along Kingsgate. — Relocate utility lines in the tree grove at the \est end of the soccer field Rio the open area adjacent to Kingsgate. 7'( EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. General Site Plan with Property Line Sidewalks along Kingsgate • 4. Final Construction Plan Showing Partial Property Line and Curb Line Sidewalks Along Kingsgate 5. Site Section Showing Play Field and Wetland ti. DR 7-90 Findings, Conclusions and Order ` 7. Applicant's Narrative Wits ( Iwe90.11)atvona0111•90(Md) el • ,, I. ii t ' 1' a • , DR 7-90(Mod. 9-90) ' Page 4 of 4 • • ..5` _,.... 71/1\4‘,..... 42 TT ijppn •• y3 ,p ' ri II • I• 1•t .:', .' Co 4 _. U. I E Co A tt • _: ,Cl/, v. . ...2 ;ski. ,. . .7x. 8.54Ac. • • 540©b •� 'k • :13701. "7 -- 54 . . . 4 ;t ~' • (� Y1t t ,.. ," , . . , , . . .. ...... 2.. 4. . ...,.. : �Ra 131c1 j • • • o • 1111141 '•• R7I eggiss00„, . . . ,.. . t J • .... 5100 Zh .... , ( 0 • r�;o'' • • � , p V °ti X ,j '/ • j vI 2011 ► ate' F rV ; •J0 , . , •: , illO% a. .1: 6 1n2 P.!! i' o, Iq:7 M ' k --"r.__r • N ' [oar+ ...II w..r.,r. , 1088• 14. • . wY. • 2 tE '' tEXiIBIT • • t • •,..• f, • ��•i •� // t ` )•'• ••♦'r•fit'')' ♦ .•3.. r �, ••,ri ,L } i d• wkY w ww' ¢ ` J ; r . i• 1 } .. Ji ' •.••.:,.%>,'—,.-.-.\,,...::.,':4.:.:'.,..%•.:P:1:t♦ ti) KtiJ i'K••4• •t' 1 ". {S ` • ram , t ♦J i••• • '4' • • I. L. • • t. y+_•�` I7 1..4. i .r }, ..} ,�• ,� fi{i?i%52:t 'b�J f i ..`f...4 -":, •t:, ‘'...e.:.',':. .e.:...y''•:',1•`.4.1......"•:::.....Trl.:V:e.:.'''.'4' '- k\ . -,.."'--' ' . • ' • . / \\\ . "+q+,p. r,'•�•w•w.----I L i� �!�) .. • F't.•�•.''{�;r:�... ♦�,'t 1. .'i v,,�GJ :: '.:\;�.♦T `M'v< A. }�. �•..i t��+ • I•1 -• t 1 •: t 7'+1/.°a}ht 1 ' J'' ,1 , ^Z `tg.. '',S, i y1''ts• .4••Ty:,�t /y .�r '' �, • y'i .} `r. `•• � ! 1t1 'r to g, ,.,n":►:1 ` �'' •z' T. •�. • iiiittik. I / Yr�f + \ II n i I • j ? 1 " •r i ►i.- , .r. r-t". .,.. 1 "* ''..74,.. ,., . . ' . 1 i'. , >,/ . • .de •••• I• II III ' • i 1.4..1z : 10.•ifill :''' . • . • -1 4.1 . . 5. N, \\ .. I' III •a •°• J `t);}111211:.0"..4 • u5 lithAtiP . •4 1 4. .--.J. I d • I"•• __J . .. .. Ii i , L, . , II ! : stark;;..' - ' ,� • .Ili I i 1 I ! r-,ui). ' i:i r:kr:::V.i.�,,:., , E ,,�,�,••.�•::4.,, \,,;• , • 1 LJ:i L , . C"'w' t ..,., / .1 g , '1111Ww, . ) i,$......,•;.:,?•1,,,.•,..t,:l•i' ,L,. I 1 yA.t` 'k+, �� 1 .., 11, im„,.............au • , .,..\� ' — i t 1...r4?..., . . ,... , it .^1, t•y.'"C-Nt) ��' , . 1 H G I ,y R�,5 I ��� ._ \ i; i �t 1 ; I r R 5 3r I �� r •o • ,• 1 1 - ci ' ‘k zr— '1 (\ `..1;,"is/ ' .., i.. .31 , , • v w44 i- r�•,�. ,t, ,,,- t1 11 rirri .,. .., Aj tit Y It r^ �"•"�„*..° ' �- --� fir. .� .:,� is • •,•�. • 1j — l , r • a ----- J Sii:' , /I" 'e` 4 X �\:Ifl `�''• ..... . :N.rt tf;''gM Z + ,A. • N' •,i •.0 , -.4. ,�• I MI' H 1 ' 1 1 h ' �y •�,J�1ppn, ,�(y�yh ;i..14•..' ;','•,♦ L�•...^''la , Y4.,%. • t Ji '7 F:T.o y.'Yi` i{ � :, t' ••yr f �i, n • /Y: C O '{.. �Ty:Y�1 ilJt� `t ���'�,..t• 1•���wi 1...,1•.. t I e ICI. 4. r t. ...--) t. , 0 1, t'ifi gifts I N NC .11 I ifii,t ' 3 • :1 Ii Tit 1 r. r .j ii • s 1 1 �� • 1� 1 ,. 1 r t .. • , , ......., . 11 ' •• ' i ' ''.7.7.1.. .....7., , 70, :' •- •1 .......74 '''.6't*--:.•-,1 ••4..' '74. —.LI—. • ...: ' ... ,•'• ) 1.....1411* ;....4 I 7 .. . ,, fil:?..,:i . i• ."-----,,is 1 1 '1 ' '. " ' . .1 't''' ,11(;II, ' :te.:,,:ri ., t. / .. ::: t s: 1 .,,,, �.. , �i t , • r d.3 1!! ' 1 is �� 'r t �. 4 '1 ` k\ 14 U ,r t ' , tW "'"---..: ' ! p !• '- ) 1.. I ' b , Ja• 1, •�'�•r ' Ijd . ri'l::, ::,, , t , i 'r-� tt�]C� ll \ d C a; a /]]t f Pi , "'w• P ' r \ :I L �B 1„• r )11 1', ir. !• t? � 1r!i. 4 ,I, w r P +' I. ' .. : ), i. t ��Y ,i t� d r .raw 4L:,y v . .1 ` ••• 111 " S Yam.-�.�+- . -�.y. .,— •f.� ' 0 At t h FXH ,8 - .... _. 1'ii17 1. • • .ytq ,I.„,,, �' •■,H tom• 4.v.$i� L RTIC�• . MtFNa ,OCT • MI Mum. 1 V lid. ••.i�- ��ra�� � . Auh. ", Q ter /' /i: 0 CI -•-•• --•.. • .AX,, .t trin,, ,,., 0. k,t. 1 OP 3 . ''. 'ALI.. Ill ' ---31-4 ----. 1.-Alre..2 4 • I 04 41 • ii , . . . prio W ..._..r...,... . I'1'�1"7, non, . NE . . . .. . -:mar ',illapprw-, . ... . . ., _Two, . - 3%x: lriak '(... %Igo. ...• t .'' ... •:NV!'"ktellnel % 44111°. . I&VC. , . 14111161/.‘i ill•-,11110, ..Shllihmmmmh.. \ 's '' . .< - 'tr.lYyt pb " ..• - -41" ' •so • • ) El , i i. , li .,. .4„, , , . it kki, AiligtiV,?.. ........ .,IA .•,....... .... I.7 112111t ,4‘,,i,ttlfial „art.., ,,,,,Lvi.,v,,,,..le...„.00;...„.0,1 .vr&HO I:rs,..I. y `-..1 �srea.� ,. • , ,.., . g si , _ ......,..::_.,_,...1 ,,,: ,. ,,iorm--. 4,... A,:. „..; ii 1..... .* 4 „„.........-. ...**. .7dp R , ,col ve / It!. r tt �i, 1 • � •a .C. �. �' p P.4Liltig. IS ". ."'+.qua t! 1. Tf VI •.i . • /' ,• _rtddl.Y/_ •_ • ^tit• .. CuRbL I NE JJ : ... �..- ••• " • • y ti • Ii.� ' . I , R �r�l WV Awn k_i•ti. ,v4� W stN Mw. •- ' y.. I •. u.i,aa.• s,,..l q A EXHIBIT a . , • • It: illirill' ,:� fay . k.°7 I,,;.., gy, .i. II zz • .j' J \1:11111,1,1111110,I� rII 11: 1 II I 'jlll Iltlt'It,t11'•t••,1 tl I I I , ) (i�l��������f��(i1tII�l���i f r� It,it ,,,jllll,,,l ,, ,. -rivt,,l!( n t I la I11II IIII,(I , 1 .�. i t!I i(I 11{►�►p hill i lili,l(I i,II ,�II;� .. .� I t I' �a , ''�1iI I IgIIl4;ld;l .r l 0 .:1,un` r P 1 0 '‘ .614\ II 1 .11 11 p irl • • IIJ I 0 z E)CHIii w 1,°ram---� , .., - 9 r wY I IN • • • 0 1' • BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAIC; OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL DR 7-90-781 6 ELEMENTARY S TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC , (Lake Oswego School District 7J) SCHOOL )'`� FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 7 8 NAT[JRE OF APPLICATION 10 The applicant is seeking approval to construct an elementary 11 '" Melrose and Kingsgate,otherwise described as Tax Lot 6 school. f Tax Map 231E ite is located at • • 12 13 d3EARINGS . 14 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its 15 meeting of May.21, 1990. 16 , • 17CRECE ; 18 A. . 19 Urban Service Policies 20 General Policy III 21 Impact Management Policies 22 General Policy I General Policy II . ,D. 23 General Policy III ' 24 Wildlife Habitat Policies 25 General Policy II 26 " Weak Foundation Soil Policies 2 7 General Policy 1 28 General Policy IV • 29 Wetland Policies 0 General Policy I 1 General Policy II 31 3 2 Stream Corridor Policies General Policy 1 • 3 3 General Policy II 3 4 " General Policy III • PACE 1 DR 7-90--781 , 'l EXHIBIT RR -ht. I n • `1 • 1 o04110 . 2 Social Resource Policies 2 General Policy I ' 3 General Policy V • Protection Open Space Policies 5 General Policy I 6 Bikeway Policies 7 General Policy I 8 , Pedestrian Pathway Policies 9 General Policy I ' 10 General Policy II , • 11 . Transportation Policies 1 General Policy I General Policy VI 13 14 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: 15 LOC 48.120-48.155 R 5 Zone Description 16 LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance 17 18 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance1111 19 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures 20 LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval 'y LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval 21 22 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 23 2.005—2.040 Building Design 24 3.005-•3.040 Stream Corridors 4.005—4.040 Wetlands 25 5.005—5.040 Street Lights • 6.005 6.040 26 Transit System 7.005—7.040 Parking&Loading Standard 27 8.005—8.040 Park and Open Space 28 9.005—9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffeting 10.005— 10.040 Fences ' 29 ' 11.005— 104 )' 13.005,005— 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 0 1 — 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 31 16.005— 1 ti.040 Utility Standard ' 1 .005— 18.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 3 2 Access Standard 19,005— 19,040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 3 3 20.005 —20.040 Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways r34 B. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55,080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits • PAGE 2 DR 7-90-781 k; V , 1 J • ® `1 , 2 ,l". C1h9TfPr Q?ntin.. Asp• ,. • , k 3 Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas 4 5 CON ,LLISIQ1Y 6 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 7-90 complies with all of the applicable 7 criteria and stance, The Board also concludes that the conditions of approval im 8 herein will insure that the applicable criteria will continue to be satisfied. P Posed 0 9 EZDINCISANDIEAsogs The Development Review Board adopts the May 11, 1990 staff report 11 �> supplemental staff report on DR 7-90 as supportP and the May Exhibits 12 "A"and "B for its,decision, attached herein as Exhibits 13 In addition to the staff findings adopted and incorporated herein, the Board makes 14 (foll sing fm a ngs to support its conclusion that all applicable criteri e and procedures have 15 1. The following exhibits werepresented to the Board at th 16 entered into the record; the hearing of May 21, 1990 and 17 Exhibit 34 Letter by D. a ® 18 Recreation ands Evans (Ciy of Lake Oswego,Department of Parks, Exhibit 35Open Space),dated May 18, 1990. 19 Letter byGvido E. Zakovics, dated May 11, 1990.1 Exhibit 36 A preliminary capacity investigation of the Melrose Lift Station, 21 20 May 1990. n, dated Exhibit 37 Revised Mitigation Plan, dated May 18, 1990. 22 Exhibit 38 23 ' Colored Rendering of the Revised Wetland Mitigation. Exhibit 39 Outdoor Open Space in Lake Oswego Elementary '' Schools,dated May 24 21, 1990, 25 Exhibit 40 Colored Rendering of the Revised Pathway Plan, 26 2. Based on oral testimony by the school superintendent, the Board found size in between 350 and 500 students, and in no case over 500 students. the ideal school � . 27 based on the programming This number is ,. 28 3, and core facility requirements, After reviewing the evidence'in the record, the Board determined this project 19 should comply with the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard, T. this, P J ct design , .�0 the applicant was directed to determine the exact amount of disturbances to I With 20% to 50% slope, If the amount was determined to exceed 65% To achieve ands • 31 then the applicant would need to apply for a variance to DS 16,025(2 c . This ' application can be made at a later date, of the land area 3 2 )� ) 33 4, The Board found that the supplemental information on Melrose Lift Station 36) demonstrates that adequate sanitary (Exhibit sewer services exist to serve the site, ink 34 5. Based on oral testimony by the wetland consultant (Scientific Board found that the Westerly wetland did not qualify as an essential wetland, This MP � Resources, Inc,),,te PAGE findings was based on an analysis of DS 4.035(1) by the consultant, 3 DR 7-90-781 ( , , , , .. , . e r, . 6. The Board directed staff to prepare a report for the Traffic Control Board explaining thill 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 n yw elementary school 2 at the northeast corner of that intersection. 3 • 4 ORDER 5 IT IS ORDERED rBY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake 6 Oswego that: • 7 1. DR 7 90 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. 8 2. The conditions for DR 7-90 are as follows: 9 10 A. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits: 11 J, 12 1. Comply with the conditions of approval for CU 1-90. 13 2. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans r,. 14 it Technical Guidance Handbook." 15 3. Submit a final street lighting plan arid accompanying photometric data, as per 16 City standard. These lights shall have proper shielding to prevent glaring into the adjacent residential development. 17 4 18 4• Submit a final grading plan, as per City standards. This plan shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. 19II 20 5. Submit a detailed geotechnical report. All recommendations of that report shall be incorporated into the site and building designs, 21 22 6. Obtain all necessary approvals from the Division of State Lands (DSL). Final • design of the mitigation plan shall incorporate all conditions required by DSL 23 and should be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 24 7. The new mitigation plan shall eliminate the creation of wetlands from within 25 the PGE and public sanitary sewer easements along the east property line, • 26 8. Reestablish the original stream channel connection to the easterly wetland, A 27 25' stream corridor buffer zone shall be maintained from this channel, 28 . 9. No fences shall be'allowed through the wetland or stream corridor buffer 49 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 10 control access to the wetland area. ' 31 3 2 10, Install a 6' fence along the south property line on Melrose Street, except adjacent to the wetlands, 33 3 4 11. There shall be no berm or pathway between the soccer field and the wetlands, • , PAGE 4 DR 7--90-781 r 12. The connection between Mt. Park pathway and pathwayinternal, system, � '}A 1 only provide connection to the school Y ter, shall ' 2 of the site, building (non}„ side) northeast corner - 3 13. Improve sight distance to the north at the northerl ac 4 existing vegetation, Y cess point by trimming • ,, t 5 6 14. Obtain all'necessary access and utility easements from Mt.Park(ov y common area Tract "F"). ( cr 7 8 15. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: • 9 — Pollution control manholes to serve the upper parking 10• PP P g area. — A drainage system designed to direct runoff from subdrains in the laYin g 11 field and the existing spring to the wetland area. P 12 — Locatesturban and design storm drains to minimize removal and di I 13 trees and other natural features. ce of 14 — Revised storm water detention volume calcul• atio 15 actual site conditions). , ns (as needed to reflect ' 16 ) 16. Submit final construction plans showing the following information: 17 ' • 18 — An 8'curbline sidewalk along Melrose Street. ": :, 19 — A 5'property line sidewalk along Kingsgate. 20 Relocate utility lines in the tree 21 the open area adjacent to Kings ga rove at the west end of the soccer field to 22 17. Submit final irrigation plans, as per City standards. 23 24 18. The proposed grading plan shall comply with DS 16,025 2 c or a variance application shall be made to this standard, 25 ( )( �� B. 26 $ior to T c unip of 0c u 27 1. Submit as--builts for the irrigation system, � 28 II 2. Provide adequate public utility easements for all public facilities \ 29es and services, 3. Designate the proposed accessways as fire lanes in the deed, and post the 10 31 roadway as such, as per DS 19.020(1)(e). Asldiitic2 3 z naLlnf� ` �n; 33 1. Staff Review of the preliminary utility plan only verified 3 4 of utilities to serve the site. the location and capacity s 2, A �eercutting permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees that ar PAGE gT in diameter, e 5" or 4 5 DR 7-90-781 • • • • 1. (_i • 0 1 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and 2 Development Review Board, of the City of Lake,Oswego, APPROVER by the 3 • 4 DATED this 1 day of__ une 4--- ;:64/34---4 ' Robert H. Foster, Chairman 8 Development Review Board ' 9 10 64h II,,,, __A 11 Nl.�, Secretary 12 ` 13 ATTEST: 14 15 QAL DE I4T ox r;av.21.129.12 • , " , 16 AYES: Stanaway, Sybrowsky and Bloomer , ill ' 17 NOES: Foster and Remy , 18 ABS TAIN: None 19 ABSENT: Greaves and StarrII 20 21 33.1 LI1LV ret Y).. June 13. lv9nn 22 23 AYES: Sybrowsky, Foster and Remy NOES: None 29 C 25 ABSTAIN: Greaves and Starr 26 ABSENT: Stanaway and Bloomer 27 ti 28 N atim :S 4.scrQnd Vote1 i mr l Q t oars 29 AYES: Stanaway, Sybrowsky, Foster, nen�ty and Bloomer 10 NOES: None 31 ABSTAIN: Greaves 3 2 ABSENT: None 33 34 PAGE 6 DR 7-90--781 •, 4 • l `�l l�l Z, G ORINGDULPH R DO ROLES &Fl E , • ASSOCIATES P.C. MEMORANDUM �$ PLANNING iJRE 1� INTERIOR DESIGN Sep tenber l 8, 1990 r FAX.503441.7429 0 /� 720 SW WASHINGTON .. �' l PORTLAND,OR 97205.3510 PHONE.503.2261575 if To: Hamid Pishvaie 7 Development Review Planner \ • Department Of Public Works & Development Servi CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO aes From: John Meadows Re: LAKE OSWEGO ELEMENTARY ' f ORB 7 90 781 SCHOOL Project No.: 89057.01-1 • Distribution: Jim Schell, Dick Thomas, Heinz Rudolf, Rob Cu rry (i , 40 Per our discussions with the City Planning staff, the Lake School District requests "` Oswego the Development Review Board review the following two DRB In their May 21, 1990, hearing: conditions establi:ahed by the Conde: ' 15.2 Final drainage plan to indicate a drainage system designed to direct runoff from (/ V subdrains in the playfield and existing spring to the wetland are a: The staffls Intention for this condition was to have the playfield and spring to the wetland area to increase the ground water surcharge in the wetland. A detailed review of the gravity drainage from proposeduc la , n • + playfield gradingindicate the playfield and spring conditionsr and elevations lovler than the existingwetland. I t the drainage from the playfield r the spring tosthe wetland w not feasible itout provide pumping. • Attached Is a cross section through the playfield and wetlands • the fact that the playfield is at a lower elevation thanand. ng detail grading plans submitted for buildingthe wetland is condition clearly. Permits also illustrates Our We request that this condition be removed from the DR • approval. B s conditions of ' ° N r :7 ' . , . , . . , 0 . - - AI MEMORANDUM/LAKE OSWEGO '-_- September 18, 1990 Page 2 40 , • • . , ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . • 16.2 Submit final grading plan showing a 5 foot property line sidewalk along Kingsgate: Our site plan submitted to the ORB Indicated a 5 foot sidewalk partially . . on School District property and partially in the right of way between the • property and the curb. In our final Design and Construction Documents a number of issues developed that caused us to re-evaluate our original design. The attached site plar and letter to you from Rob Curry dated - -` September II, 1990, outlines our proposed sidewalk location and design reasoning. " - Attached are copies of the site plan submitted to the ORO and our final site plan. • . . We request that this condition be adjusted to allow the 8 foot sidewalk at Kingsgate as proposed in the attached drawings. \h )1 END OF MEMO ) JAM:akp • 3009J ,1 7/ 0i l' i\ , i IP , , . , ,.\• r IIP i III ) III • O TGOLE RUDOLF ,, - BOLES & i ASSOCIATES PC ' BooR A 0 „ ARCHITECTURE ' PLANNING i INTERIOR DESIGN ' c; 720 SW WASHINCTON PORTLAND.OR 97205.3510 September I I 199U PHONE SOr2264575 FAX. SO3 241.7429 0 t' Mr. Hamid Pishvaie „ Department of Public Works ana Development Services CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO" \ 11 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 i\ RE: LAKE OSWEGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL , ' Dear Hamid: • I am writing to summarize the benefits of locating the sidewalk along Kingsgate in the position where it s presently shown on the Construction Documents as you requested at our stameetffi . ngThat on Tuesday, Septeber 4, 1990. As amatter of record, I also wish to note that ® this location resulted from deliberations which occurred on May 28,1 990, with the Included m our consultant form that port, of the work, e City • fvlr. Andrew Rice, Landscape Architect, Joe Collins, and -. ,,sell Chevrette. The following items summmarize the benefits: ° I I. Safety is enhanced at the three site entry/exit points . . moving crossing pedestrian circulation to the location where exiting venicles must stop and where pedestrians will be most visible to both entering and exiting vehicles. 2. Moving tne sidewalk away from the curb just south of the vehicle entry creates a stronger response to the pedestrian entry and to the school sign, and the , ' curing lines of the sidewalk carry the eye into the site. In addition, this provides more response time for vehicles entering from tne south in the event pedestrians are approaching the driveway apron. 3. Positioning the sidewalk beside the curb southward to the emergency access point provides for unloading of passengers which is bound to occur whether or not there is a curb walk. ,, ill PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATE PRLVC:P4 ROsiRt E ORINGDLLI°H-PAIA ROSutT H BELCHER DENNIS J 0 TOO/.AAA THOMAS 0 PEE A 1. HEINZK.RL'DOL .MA WHAM)K SPIESko STANL[Y O DOLLS,ALA I LAI.PINCE CHEW' i , RONALD I. HLLD 41 ICAO ore ALA ASSOCIATu GUlavGO J 4 iILL L4 "ILLWAR1 H Mutt ALA JAMP3 0 KAL.tLAGE SA111[P HL'MPHIIIY WWI KUHL,AM JJOHN A NG LANK V.S L4 NANCY D MIIIYMAN,AAA SPEW E NOSS LArrt r RASMUSSEN.AN HAAT K VAN DOMEI: NOI I AN D ILLUION.NA . .. DAVID T HYMAN,AAA KINT A TONG,AAA 4 v , • • Mr. Hernia Pishvaie , 0 . , September l 1,, 1990 Page- two • 4. The proposed sidewalk la oL t is consistent„w►th what has been done on the opposite side of the street. 5. Placing the sidewalk oes►de the curb at the service entry and at the emergency s ,,,, venicle access significantly improves the grade condition in born of tnese 0,, " ,y locations. -bra � b. Except pt for the small curbside ►awn panel in front of the school sign, the proposed layout a►tows for the,most efficient maintenance and the least • construction cost as opposed to placing it at the property line. 7. From a visual standpoint, as the entry area is approached from the south, the sidewalk sweeps into the site and the lawn/planting bed edge reinforces this sweeping line thereoy strengthening the sense of entry. It is not possible to accomplish this very.well by moving the:-sidewalk to the property line. Both the visual and the functional design will therefore suffer. In conclusion, we believe the plan which was formulated with some of the City staff in ' May represents the best solution and we hope you also concur in this evaluation, so that we can conclude this issue and proceed with obtaining a buil(ding permit as soon as possible. • Sincerely, 4, dROC.)ME, ORINGDULPH, O'TOOLE, RUDOLF, BOLES & - JSUCIATES, P.C. i. g-44S/0 ?•b/f444/ " Robert Curry Project Architect ° RMCiakp 3 i 38L ° S N 1 il • y . 11 A -,. ( STAFF REPORT • CITYOFLAKE OS ' EGO , .• 1 LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION------- .., . • . , , - Apzichda: EILEIKL: , Harold&Linda Doland SD 33-90 r ' PROPERTY OWNER: STAEE: ., Yerchi &Nanzig Arakelian Hamid Pishvaie : DATEDEREEKULT: Tax Lot 5300 of October 26, 1990 Tax Map 2 1E 8AC , LCATLQ DAILDEHEABINQ: : November 5, 1990 15780 SW Twin Fir Road , - NEIGHBOBB=2,ASIWCIAnat: 4110 .. Cal,a2,14Ati_DESIUNAnixs: \ Lake Grove il R-10 i . . Z.0.111NaDESKENATLQN. R-10 . . • ., . , (5 ST . . . . The property owner is requesting approval to partition a 35,640 square foot site into two , ' . \ parcels. A future street plan is being proposed, as well. . 11. APILICABLEmataAnalS. A. City_QaakcsauggsanprthrdulysLaan: . ...., Urban Service Boundary Policies , ' . General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 . Impact Management Policies c ) General Policy I' • - .., • General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 . , 411111 General Policy III •., SD 33-90 Page lot 10 . . .* . •. , 1.,..-•r 4• . . o r. Wildlife Habitat Policies • General Policy U 41) Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II Transportation Policies General Policy I General Policy IV . . B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Oydinance: LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.09) Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.120 Minor Development • LOC 49.140 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.220-49.210 Future Street Plan LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval • D, City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5.005 —5.040 Street Lights 4111 , 7.005—7.040 Parking &Loading Standard , 12.005— 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 14.005 — 14.040 Utility Standard 16.005 — 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005— 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 — 19.040 Site Circulation —Private Streets/Driveways . , E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005—57.135 . 1 , . I . = F. City of Lake Oswegp Tree Cutting Ordinance: • ‘ , LOC 55.010—55.130 ., ., III. FINDINGS . . it A. Background: .- 1, As Exhibit 4 illustrates, the applicant is requesting approval to divide a 35,640 square foot site into two parcels. Parcel I and II are proposed to be approximately I( 19,795 square foot and 15,845 square foot, respectively, 2. Based on a recommendation by staff, the applicant has also submitted a future street Pian showing two access options for the land area bounded by Brookside • • • Road to the north, Upper Drive to the south, Springbrook Creek to the east and SD 33-90 , . Page 2 of 10 • ,/ \ ''-, --, •"- =• _ • . . , . no / . - ., • , • , . . il) Twin Fir Road to the west,Exhibit 5. Staff's recommendation was based for a comprehensive study of access needs in this area. This issue on a need in detail later in this report. will be analyzed • 3. The property owners have ownership over three ad'oinin Lots 900,5100 and�,5300,as shown on Exhibit 6. ! parcels including Tax 4. Them is an existing house on the site. This residence (Parcel I) is currently on the ''' \ market for sale. As Exhibit 4 illustrates,there are a number of large fir and cedar trees scattered on the site. A list identifying the type and size of existing trees is presented in Exhibit 7. 5. A 6"sanitary sewer line is located in Twin Fir Road; however, it is not de enough to provide gravity service to the proposed Parcel II. The applicant will be r ., required to extend an 8"line from the Springbrook interceptor to serve the site. This issue will be discussed in more detail later in this report. 6. 1 An 8"water main is located in Twin Fir Road. • • 7. There'is an existing easement for an equestrian trail along the north propert line, extending from Twin Fir Road to the Hunt Club. y ii 8. Them is a fire hydrant near the northwest corner of the site, on Twin Fir Road. 9. Twin Fir Road is an approximately 18'—wide paved street in a 40'—widet way. right—of— way.The site is gently sloping from west to east at approximately 3 to 10% grade. 11. Them is an existing street light near the southwest corner of the site. • ' B. • C4IDRlian, with Criteria fm a....--... ak As per LOC 49.615, the Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating eating development applications:1 1 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant Pplicz�ittt seekinga �� The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents nts approval. exhibits, accompanying this report, uments marked as 2. For any development p nt application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan The applicable Plan policy groups have been addressed as follows: 1 thalL Bc��Setyice indnri; ► poll z T• Service boundary, g . These policies require the git p with a logical planned extension phase urban rl • ,c growth within the Urban . 410 which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning ofbthe Genera l P Specific s 5, � Policy, states that �� new development shall be serviced by an "urban level"of services; including schools,I, Y SD 33-90 Page 3of10 ti N M This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed pri to approval of development. Exhibit 16(The City Council memorandum of Septembe 18, 1990)demonstrates that the current level of school planning,coordination between • the City and School District,and passage of the 17 million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities. Impact M gemen�e " These policies require protection of natural resources from review of development proposals, and paymentdevelopment, comprehensive P P Po of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development , Standards,addressed further below. The policiesdistinctive p will be preserved,soil will be protected frm erosion,requiretree assurance protected ti frome areas removal, streams will beP d Preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will 4 assure conformance to these Plan policies, Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. ,• 'ki �,, wildlife Blum Policies These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, ° . natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in this repert following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Energy ConServation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planniO which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Capter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. ; Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires, The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right of way as necessary to provide for widening. A 10' additional right—of--way will be required to be dedicated on Twin Fir Road. The future street plan is addressed later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. 1. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis 0. a, LOC 48,195-48,22.R-10 Zone Description 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. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30%, The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: Front yard: 20' Rear yard: 25' ID Street side yard: 10' on local streets Side yard: 5' minimum width; total combined minimum 15' SD 33-90 Page 4 of 10 Y \. v \., . ' 4. The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Azra Width 1.20th 1 , Parcel I 19,795 Parcel II 15,845 107 ft. 185 ft. 85 ft. 132 ft. The proposed parcels conform to all applicable zoning requirements. b. LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setback • This star d requires 10 feet of additional right-of—way along Twin Fir Road. The applicant will be required to dedicate this right--of—way through the final platting process. 2. I2GYeltZnmertt['od >3 • \ a. LOC 49.140 Minor Development i • ); !'As per HOC 49.140,a minor land partition request development, subject to an administrative review. is ,after several with the applicant, staff determined that the proper procedure to evaluate this meetings application and the future street plan would be through a public hearing process in order to assure full participation by all interested parties. This application is a authorized to be forwarded to,a hearing body by LOC 49.215. • b. LOC 49-120 Future Street Plan (` )� A future street plan is typically required when there is redevelopment potential in the neighborhood. As Exhibit 3 illustrates, the original access point for Parcel II was a direct access out Twin Fir Road. During staff review of this land partition request, it because evident that the property owners had owned two other adjoining parcels, including Tax Lots 900 and 5100, each with potential for redevelopment in 3'1 the future. In addition, as Exhibit 5 illustrates, there are at least two other large 1 parcels immediately north of Mr. Arakelian's properties that also have potential for redevelopment, including Tax Lots 4901 and 5000. This fact, coupled with the • City's desire to limit direct access points onto collector streets (Twin Fir Road) from new development, led staff to require a future street plan for the area. This decision was based on a need for good planningfor the area, that would minimize the traffic �! •' impact on Twin Fir Road, yet provide sufficient and safe access for the area to be developed. In response to staff concerns, the applicant provided a future s • ++� u showing two access options, Option "A" is a loop street that connects o Twin Fir • illustrates, I Road and is aligned with Douglas Circle, and Op tion itBl' is a cul—de—sac extended from Brookside Road, As Exhibit 5 llustrates, a temporary access is also proposed , to Serve Parcel II, It is understood that some of the solutions presented in this report may be difficult to r implement; however, they should result in more efficient access and development, Staff finds that Option "A" is preferable, because the road will be aligned with ID Douglas Circle, which has a controlled intersection with Twin Fir Road, and impacted properties are under one ownership, As Exhibits 3 and 4 illustrate, aat the 1{ A SD 33-90 Page 5 of 10 a � ' J • • o • . I. portion of the existing residence (garage)is located within the Option "A"right-o way. During early conversations with City staff, the property willingness to have the garage removed in order to accommodate this option resse w' • Recently; however, staff has discovered that the house is on the market for sale. Staff is concerned that if the necessary right-of-way is not dedicated at this time, there may be no opportunity to acquire the right-of-way in the future. For this reason, staff recommends that the applicant be required to work with staff to identify • the best route for a future street between Tax Lots 5100 and 5300, that if necessary `° M the garage be removed, that a 30'right-of-way be dedicated(based on the final future street plan), and that a minimum 20' street improvement be constructed along "' with 3' gravel shoulder on each side. The street section must be designed for a 20 l year life. Staff recommends that the right-of-way dedication be extended to the north property line of Tax Lot 5100, since it is under the same ownership; however, the future street improvement(including streetlights)can be delayed until future development of Tax Lots 900 and 5100. Based upon the analysis and recommendation above, staff also recommends tha temporary access along the south property line (Exhibit 6) be denied. t the 3. SalarAc&csiQrdinarea R �' CaLrrCman►L a..,tA_ L ysis This ordinance requires that at least 80% of newly crated lots be designed as solar lots. Due to the size and orientation of the proposed parcels, the applicant can comply either with requirements of Protected Solar Building Line Option [LOC 020(2)],or Performance Option [LOC 57.020(3)]. During the building permit review process, the design of the proposed structure on Parcel II and/or remodelin of the structure on Parcel I will be reviewed to assure compliance with these standards. The final plat must note that both • requirements of LOC 57.035 (Protection fro parcels aSrehadej lots, subject to the i . 4. • Satdne Ordinan n Rai m c ndAiwyka The future driveway and house on Parcel II would require removal of some trees. Any tree cutting would be regulated through the building permit process in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55,030-55.130. 1 5. i.4�Urdinance Requiremen«'ands Analt,' •• ��.+.4C_44.374--44 SRrn This ordinance (LOC 44.374)requires that streets for new developments conform to (' City specifications. Twin fir i^ , City standard for a residential street ros a 20'-wide asphalt road substandard,h 3' oThe each side. A nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements will be on required. c. The applicable Development Standards aticaLightc ( pp� 5 ndm The street light located near the southwest corner of the site is adequate to standard. q meet this ID . , • SD 33-90 Page 6 of i0' HI . a • % • Parking and Loading(7.005—?ri441 This standard that each requires �'single family or c dwelling provide two off—street parking spaces in addition to a 6!' parking requirement. garage °�• Each parcel is of sufficient size to meet the • aildard for Mino Develo merit( 'r`�00 1 This standard requires that new drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. This site contains a natural drain'�agt,t swale that flows through the_p&posed Parcel II C" fat the east end of Tax Lot 5400 and continues down to Springbtmok Creek. There is a > public storm drain in Twin Fir Road that collects street runoff from the site to the .. ;t intersection of Upper Drive,Exhibit 17. The outlet for this storm drain discharges into y. , ); {- an existing exfiltration system at the head of the swale lot, south of the existing dwelling b at the site. The swale serves about a 10 to 15 acre upstream drainage area plus the ,, property adjacent to the swale. 4e �1�, At present, this neighborhood consists primarily of single family homes on large wooded lots. Runoff from this area is relatively light because of the wooded character and low density. There are also few storm drain lines in this drainage:;area. The swale is significant for the following reasons: • It drains the property adjacent to it. ' III • It drains the existing storm drain system in Twin Fir Road. • It provides an emergency overflow route for Twin Fir Road and the upstream drainage area • It is a suitable location for a future water quality and drainage swale system to serve this area. • • There is a future need to provide a drainage system in this area, There is also a need and a requirement to provide a drainage system that will meet water quality standards, This swale has the potential to provide both of these needs, r' Based upon this analysis, staff finds that a future drainage plan is needed for this area. This plan needs to determine the existing location of the swale, any alternative locations for the swale, an a conceptual design for a water quality drainage system, The design also needs to provide a system that is compatible with the trees in the area. Prior to the Development Review Board meeting, staff will determine whether or not it is possible for the City to participate in the preparation for;his plan. ? Staff recommends that the proposed lot configuration be adjusted to assure that this ' future drainage plan can be developed. This adjustment will probably require moving the proposed building site to the west. Utility Standard (14.005 — 14,040) 0 This standard requires that utilities be constructed according to City specifications, All utilities should be installed underground, o SD 33-90 Page 7 of 10 • , 4k r , 1 0 , • Sanitary Sewer There is a 6" sanitary sewer line in Twin Fir Road, The, applicant i ' proposing a pump system to serve Parcel II, if feed is not 8. Based on an analysis of service needs in the area gravity conversations possible, w th several 7 a neighbors, staff recommends that a gravity service (8" line) be extended from veral Springbrook interceptor to serve Parcel II and future development,Exhibit 6. This improvement can be facilitated either through formation of a Local Improvement District (L.LD.),or through establishment of a payback mechanism which would require reimbursements to the applicant by only new development using the line. If the payback approach is selected, the applicant will be required to work with the City Engineer to develop the specific requirements. The L.I.D. will require an action by the City Council. For street improvements please see discussion under Future Street Plan,above. Accusitandarclau 18(l4 ) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. With extension of a public street along the north property line of Tax Lot 5300,Parcel II will have at last 25' frontage on a public road. Site Ciric ,l ltifln : 'vewayc (1 00 19_04Q) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. Compliance with this standard will be required upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS 410There are no existing future streetplans ori OIk,!'S which affect this site. 1 . IV. CONC a rSIoj . '' Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, Staff conclude with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria. s that the proposal complies V. RECOMMENDATIONS ;, The staff recommends approval of SD 33-90 and the future street plan, subject to the conditions: following 1. A final plat (as depicted in Exhibit 4) shall be submitted to Citystaff for signature of approval within one year of the date of this decisio , review and tten application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension, Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must •' be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension maybe may be conditioned to require modification to bring e projectdinto compliance and wgranted,n current law and compatibility with surrounding development, with then The final plat shall reverence this land use application --City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No, SD 33-90 410 w� • 2. The final plat shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks's office, SD 33-90 t' Page 8 of 10 • o • , . • r. -6, ••t ' e v 3. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer for recording with Clackamas County Clerk's Office, shall be vi staff for review. Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decis on However, when recorded the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 33-90. ; , 4. The applicant shall work with staff to determine which of the two solar access options [LOC 57.020(2),or LOC 57.020(3)], shall apply to this development permit. 5. Upon the compliance with condition 4 above, the applicant shall provide the appropriate notes on the plat,or documents recorded with the plat,in accordance with requirements of either LOC 57.020(2) and/or LOC 57.020(3). 6. The following note shall appear on the final plat: Development of structures and planting of non--exempt vegetation on Parcels I and II shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels ii I and II. 7. Tree removal shall be evaluated during building permit review, The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory structure on Parcels I and IL This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050-55,080(Tree Cutting Ordinance). . 411 8. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement and petition for future street improvements anticipated in Twin Fir Road', This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved. • 9, The applicant shall work with staff to determine the best location for the..future 30' street, minimizing potential impacts on existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. 10. The garage of the existing dwelling must be removed, if necessary, to accommodate condition 9 above. 11. The 30' public right—of—way dedication for the future street must be extended to the east and north property lines of Tax Lot 5100, 12, The new street must be paved for a minimum of 20' wi� minimum th, with 3' gravel shoulders on each side. This road shall terminate along the easterly property line of Tax Lot 5300, 13, The final future street boundary map shall be recorded by the City and the Clackamas County Recorder's Office and the City Manager's Office, prior to approval of the final plat. I 14, Any future development of Tax Lots 900, 5100 and 5300 shall require full street improvement on this street to a 24' width, along with street lights, V. 15, The property owner shall dedicate 10' of public right—of—way along Twin Fir Road, 0 SD 33-90 - Page 9 of 10 r , r a G 0 0 16. The new lot(Parcel II) must be served by an 8"publicsanit 'sewm . the Spnngbrook iz terpeptor. This line shall be designed toprovide public servicesextended from , neighboring properties. The applicant can pursue either to form a Local Improvement District(L.I.D.),or establish a payback system in order to accommodate this i mprovement, to thri satisfaction of the City Engir .Ozer.1 17. A future- drainage plan shall be developed to address the following issues:If ' • to determine the exact location of existing swale on the site, •) U ;, , • any alternative locations for this swale • a conceptual design for a water quality drainage system, which is compatible with existing natural nesoui:e in the area. 18. All new utilities (including power and other cable utilities)must be provided by underground. Compliance will be assured at building permit review. 19. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department\,prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. 1 IV. EXHIBITS fr 1. Tax Map ' 2. Vicinity Map c?. 3. Site Plan 4. Site.Inventory4110 ' 5. Future Street Plan 6. Topography and Sanitary S';we! Map' 7. Applicant's Narrative 11 8. Supplemental Applicant's,l+fah;tti0 9. Letter by Charles D, Colett,d.fit. ably 30, 1990 ' 10. Letter by Charles D. Colett4,d',tttd ifieptember 19, 1990 11. Letter by Susan a. Triplett, dated Ally 31, 1990 12. Letter by Jerry and Debbi Jone , tlated September 17, 1990 13. Letter by Danna Cornegie,dated;" eptember 18, 1990 14. Letter by Sylvia Keller and Co—sil,ners,dated September 26, 1990 15, Letter by Lake Grove Nei hborhood Association, �� 16, g dated October 23, 1990 City Council Memorandum of September 18, 1990 regarding the Interpr tion of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity U 17. Drainage Basin Boundary Map A. [SD 4-901 poruDSDS7-90 , it k 4 1 A SD 33--90 Page 10 of 10 , - , . ' . 14 t �, 1 15200� *� IIB�o�K�i "`� 2 • 22 -' +•s 40AD a W � ; � o sssoo '4 70 0 VACATE air I� :�'.- ��020 2/4. 206 —� _ICJ 30727p _. . ' • T I1 s late �o tsdc , .. )1 { ") 4900 207-- -� • e, z 0.0 sitar • M sP.0' .� r t� r� 220,-- 1 �0 „ (' ) 221 2 14 '47' . .s• 2141 I . +/•• ' ti oo, -� I 4901 n 15510 I Jao N h 1 e ts � ddu 22 " 2a00 222 215 aoa ill • II '" ;., I5511 • 5000 f2 , N of 2 02. 1. ... , , 9a.. LL ,,022160 1- 51 00 , . 15155 � I5100 • • • 3 _,''„c;,p• '-2-2 3'i 21 T a-. t mod ---11 -�R- ire l R C LE4 J is''.:, , � i' 5 300 332 1 5600 230 F1I . 15110 p 15111 1 IIII +III t 9 u e, Vb ''�� T a 19 um, a ite • )\ „ vr 231 L. , 4' 5500 I I 5402 540:0 'E. ' 15111 it' 1 Zy , uv' n1 L;I Ns' -. „ d, , I— ,! ; 15500 (0,4 i f.Ilf ,.,_ ...,,, ,,; 'A . ..,„1/,„,''.0 9 I �4 5,, �� 4 4,• -+r`.r 43 Jz� %4 2 \ ' \ 2 'I G 8AC i LAKE OSWEGQ 11110 , . 11 EXHIBIbUUKT w r ../ I) , 0 • • • • • • 9. YAGI ..11 - ta. 6], 441 • ,'(p/,..1:., � � '//.! ,/ i I„``►• "• 1 i I l i'I l i l i'I I l l y 4u-- ` i I1,-// 0 1 11:1:l I '•1 1 • '•'J:0$:( I.4••° ..."1 .":": 11 . .,,...4•ir: -i i,,.... • 'TI , %• C . `• f _ -�_1=.,iZ: 1 '`I*yam..�7-1♦, "` d�"."-/ .r i.«' I / • et,, '`' I1j1 ' Ii ' .{� : _�..- =1r- �:L1 I I ,;4 • "'i/ r jf •�, , , r + -I I:II 1 Ii ,' 1 ', 'lits,i 1'.t ✓y v1,1,!» �t q)C - , •17'o 4. 1 �ti.♦ 1 •��I;+'1�' i 1 i I1• " ' .41• ... ..r-114-'1 e.1' iy+•' 71 1 1 1 II 3 1 J —h u f a• ail I ,IIi161 t ': - -•-- _u 1_'..1-_I1— 1 LI • �, ,"_. .,,7 "h_l.sA1 1.1,E►� ,i �/I;I II ,a' III+r1'II 1 1 1 h Ft-10 • ;/ - _ ' 1 iw"' ''ii'1f�'l 4�'!I'114.�1(,1. L4� ,r�1• ,'_ II i t •�-..L -- ---- . . I t . M w�1 1 1 ,., 1 I—t1' 1 I I r-'"�' A` I .1 riil'i I(1I'! /',_,`—•a•; , i ,, r,'ti I( \ '"' •w..P. i in, '1,1,,,.' i I I`a -+�` f _j .r ti+- •' '1 as•, 1 I \\ .w,r ,u. ' �y "�_I i T! I1-•" 1 III 1 }.�. ."" ' l ^�':« ♦ i ' r_ •L ••,...1 ,, .. 'U ;r-}• uv{�._ I ' I Y ?_I 111� Ir „ I 1 �_- v.l../ GQs ~ ;" _I °'I �" I 1'(1f IQI l j �rj 1 �-« s•;� 11 �,✓ .\'�. E [may' -. •4 . '. n- i-- �..� ,.0 0.I,. II-_��`-•:'• •« « ..ul j Ijfi1 r ' •• \,1� ./ '�l•t l 9' Ire' .. 1 area sera w I "'•r i i f -�-J i•• �/. I .. I I 11 � � �\"y• .+ .,� 1y\` •, J, ,I,• 'Y' cc .� w��, 'T(� ' - d" \4 r / I I 1 I •.. ,.r , 'Ik• ,/tVa...�1 /4- 1 ',-�' ra, 'v - . . �... ` ' Y`? ]iQ I I ,L4.• s ...'t1I i i1i IZ 1 II 1 I I l_ `�1" . .. Sti♦ �L'�, wn '"""~• `'.,\''r' •S' " f • , ♦s 1 1. '!11 "«• Ii 11 r ' 1 1 �'� ``\ 1`\r♦ ''7', 1:-." ' '`• ,*.,'1rs, U ,.\ +,,r',r✓.1 r 1 ` \ N �,- 1 ,11'I I C 1 I S ",,-;;;'•, . ,r; 1. ,, y\ , �• `1, , ' , fir( r \ • •1�\•, , • , 1 1a 1 i� '•a6 '( 4 \ L .. \ r 1 " . Dt :y�4 f1 1 \\, ,h. ..r•l‘1,A1' >, 1. i\.'`\i\1 \1\ ;J. -�J� 1 t t` • • .. , 1t /.. 4,.sy N ,," J,:i 1.4j `,:i,,. ,t , \ 1 1✓, . I ,Itt I , ...r.t..... ,.• , ,....,.. , , ..%4 .. ,,,..„ , 0, ‘ . , . ., , . ' , ' ` 1y,,af,�\, t y` 1 1s 11 1r✓.iy '� . .• J • r . • . .,. ,. ,• . v.. .c-4..:m,,,.....,_::,/,.... .,,,,, • ‘ ,..., ,.. .izo..,,.., ( .. , 1,.„ . , _.. ••• .. ,, ,..1,,11',.614,.• • • •ge M.I" . III trio • ti,. • • • • ; • • • '' EXHIBIT > . �h 1 .�i ' 1 a Js;7 i'ne Iratt) :JW Tw R. , •., rt. -. _) 132o A ! 4. 15' \1o% F Rio r It.» _ ' ,-....-...7 I; i V I I nyC.iO� WCW 'r10L�C,�., ,.,'. 14 1 1 r,b*!a I r• . I + .— ° PAt2 -XL .__.�..-, 15' 15,1345 4to , , a I i T t • II; _ /, �,,,l�t 64 I I 1'�• 571 - 1y�,J .P.:..�;., I 01 r4, I• ,� T ;r. 4J • !cr., t i ( III I : j i — in 00 LJ i, Li ' Extr iin !•leu c. ., Hu 1 • A.' i . . I 'JUL' i 1 3.30 • Z6J .- �, 107 J r-hJ_, IA--Zs'----4% r • Fc.bll� It;3� rj,� -1 E X H 1 B f T :C r U4iit pole.' '3 I . r. f • Ai1 Y •, • 11 " 'H '.i ,: ,k sNY' �.wh Il:1*! J� • i .41 'AJ•I.�yAJ' J1*.1 a� � ' . _. i ^( i r .' .•1Jrli ilNl[�i� 1'�4 `.'1i�"Fr4% .17..a 1a .1�i A-4..4.;1j t"?. ' s 0 Y • • ° v 'Free 11.f, . Fn- tFil t 0 =W TwM F4 r Rd I 0 1 5,:t,•. • tnv<1e,rc: •,c otb 0t-1 (6tt. 011 _.. TO Zt OIL. I I 1344 GL x, . f �� . _ I !I:i i Iy V 35 5eai:. • 1 i 1 '. 0 3� 'V ti \ n , o I `I-15 ' l _ I.— I I E Neuse d i • Ima.).. ' .OIz I , • 1 J Q 0 0 a1 iSI • ati .. _ — .. '_. r - - -. Li _ q Pb� 1te Rt 4,i ai '' U ut.111y`oft_ �.. • '' EXHIBIT A l ,, i �'•1k1 qr��1 Y . • `+w dg . v h d r ,� J n z � • I— o d W aW0 W ri o• ill,. IX F-• z oe cm Li 1 >- CC o al • i� < i co fi q i Jo o 44* ��'� c W o al o. O. N !.. H F` �1 ("Lio D o • j 0 r a 1-CO o ONa. A It i f -J o tQ pop / LIJ QN /r N le ~r ~ t \I /a e H NOIldO SS3��b - 1 ! ' �. 1 k • t 11 N ' n y f al 04 .r o ¢ j ai i ce a o, b H i .� oo la CO(Li I t) Q' Q N a, i CT H . do L. I CO - • I- p •a I— 3 �z ,..re o 0 I- CDt'- fJ34k ¢ f" al >t c i p W co i Li cz t> I-- �� I N .J o d W }- I 1 �' Jo I U I i I I Y ¢N —� Q 1 • I-- 1 1 • � 1 I • g i ,Qd ?JId NZM1 L�--�- I — 1 4 I ' 1 I I W ' r J . . • 0 U Q, rM i �, EXHIBIT e • �'^ .� , • •e r • • ' 1 • - f°l.�9p P/aoPos 15, ' F /�`vRE . IBI:'1 c' t txtJ ' /•, ,. S� J , J op * O+Op p ' 1 0 'O C . q t I / c I / �OUvi.A S c rV 1: Q T M u�� (ci s tom' i iQ ; . � I • a Z QO.r 1 b I -4 Qrl I, • r r Tr I 3 f oo © �..� T�� o �' 3 .. e .:: . , . . . • 4•tov _ o . I o , Q' / n 0 0 . I' :., s � pp ` �' I { 0 �oca / •>. 6 / . • p • >f 0 r, I 0• 0 4 PI' , '1 ~ 0 N Y �� 4'bl 1 • C 1 C'� h� 1 l•Y } V .Y H , P t { r V'' nil d 1' ,.Mfg . - - • . `i .w lj. IdX y,. ' 1 ' Y • •.±vim., � �' _ .4. . -~ � , \ \\\ �i3gsa r rt /4-.. I . -14(.—. \. ..--( i lir i, , • . ri ....) St . ,* 1 I I . *N .\'••...• '11.( " : .1 4 . , •. I,. I (C1 ""•-, ...0.-- * (li,pi o ... ' tip `32s-7 f111 • 41 II444e."---- --7:14\- - . `� �� cs )110011111111.1 , 1 Liii,1400t0111rji tititik.- --. ..116.1V .,„_ -.... ..„ : .•.. ,-----.;.--------.. •, , i siofr hil",. el 1;40'' ''''*-- ,IIN,,,.....„,00 1 1 ........,......., 4„,,,tike „! . -ivitikaat --t-,. 14((,,, • _ ‘,„.„21 ',.•9 ......9-•••;.... ----4, 5..-----Z.,\.3 r-;---�.ii/fir►► 40• t _, .,..:4.10111 _11 t - - - .+exr - . /122.8 ...."-----'..)ril y I" . I __• 119.8 �/ cr I\ cp f 1 \ 137.5 LA •SWEGO4 io co ?g�ra�.u•^ur \. HUNT CLUgz7.� �122.1 If ,' / � . � In I �ti.. a \�l3b,a .132,0 t, �y I I `� BR .Izo.a r pTflR w�1 y I I ` �I INTO �lal,o uze,z ---`1 • ...:/1...'1/4. 0 4?"4111.:, ' ..--...r. lat,4"ri• -•.,, ., t' t.:'' ''i 11) '..\1.c...., , , 44:Zilt,„„,..„,..„,,,,,...—_,...0„, ,iiiik, „.. e ,,„ J aim+ ,. lip ila,t, C'' lr , „,,y,ci. /V, 14„,4‘1 ':s ''..': • •... •• ••.•... .,.,., . . le,...4WW )re...': 1( i di )/1 i \.1 \, i .,,,, (.....1j:2. SiiirZe ' / ii, *' Ap/410-4111/.. :47---... ( 4 • . i . - -- ..--. --,I(Zt,__,1 _ i''' / 'ir dilifiMIO e , I ?[....: gym•- /413 yiir (...,:>1 s:-,N,Rz t-31\"NH 1.-•-, , , „)3o , 4-. • . ti \, ,fir' �� 1:1(11 � t _ o' I.1liniti I -" / a ��,/a\--- / • Al fi property Under Soma Ownership ,~":"./4 • f)F iit ! I� i`M-,;(../ \ / i k ,0,,,, ...... ...., ,,,,,i, .. . :: .A.," . 1 I. I . 40 Site Subject To Development / '� I � \- A 1' .. • (;)• 1,',. ,:ii p k. • -te \ " %/��< • G .:* 1 y; • _ 1 � �i3'g p�`L'�—=r 'k' -- + �r / �g0/ " nip `�''��" • ✓,' >�.�, j Z� LAKE ' :VI • r • y , I Minor Land Partition Project Description for 15780 SW Twin Fir Rd, • t Partition Description y,9 • One flag lot is partitioned from the existing lot at 15780 SW Twin Fir Rd. The new lot is formed by two rectangular areas:(1)main portion with dimensions of 85 ft.by 132 ft.and(2)flag pole with dimensions of 25 ft by 215 R.(from center of Twin Fir Rd.).See new plat map for details. , Survey A survey of the property is underway by 011bertson Engineering.The survey results will be delivered to the Planning Department on or before July 23, 1990. The survey will show the elevation at the site of the proposed new house relative to the elevation of the sewer main in Twin Fir Rd. ,,rd.!' . ' Planned Use • The existing lot has one single family house. The newly created lot will be used for one single family #. house, ./ Right of Way Agreement ' An additional 10 R.of public right-of-way will be dedicated along Twin Fix Rd As a condition of approval, a non-remonstrance agreement for future road improvements will be signed with the City of Lake Oswego. Utilities • t All utilities will be placed underground from Twin Fir Rd. to the new house. The utility lines will follow the flag pole to the main portion of the lot, In the event that gravity feed for the sewer is not possible,a pump system will be installed to deliver waste water to the sewer main.The pump system will pump the waste water through a pressure line to a sewage collection box in the flag pole.The waste water will " in Twin Fir Rd' Bravery feed from the collection box to the sewer main Drivewa y +' .• ' The driveway from Twin Fir Rd.will 12 ft.wide,centered in the flag pole, • Storm Water Drainage • A dry well will be developeddrainage for the roof and foundation of the new house. A • to provide ' subsequent soils report will be used to determine the specifications required to meet City of Lake Oswego standards, a In addition, the new lot will be graded to maintain the downward slope towards the northeast Corner. The Va grading will provide a path for natural runoff to follow towards the nearby creek. +' • 4 jit' r` 4Jf • `a EXHIBIT '}' • 'treat 4. 1 .. i C a�L I .M 1 IP • ' y �� I. • "2- a. Trees The location of trees on the property is shown on the attached tree map.The she and species of these trees .. in documented on the attached tree inventory. As shown on the attached tree map,it will be necessary to remove trees to construct the driveway and new house.The healthy trees at the south boundary of the flag pole and on the north side of the main portion of the lot will be retained Also, the large trees at the east�� boundary of the main lot will be retained, w , 4 , ., . . , .. , . . , .. , . . . . , . . . . 0 . ,,, .., , , 1 ' . , . .. It w V id 411 „. ,, , , ,.. , ., t :. .. 4 J 7 4� • • • Tree Inventory for 15780 SW Twin Fir Rd. 1-40"Douglas fir • 2-9"maple uq, 3-6"maple 4-9"ash 5-20"maple 6- 14"maple 7-5"maple • 8-6"maple ` '' 9-8"maple 10-8"maple 11- 19"ash 12- 12"ash 13-7"maple 14-7"maple 15-6"maple 16-6"ash • 17- 12"oak • • 18-6"maple 19-9"maple 2 - 0maple 21 - 10"oak . 22-8"maple 23-9"maple 24- 10"ash • • 25-6"ash 26-9"maple 27- 10"ash • 28. 10"laurel 29. 17"&21"oak • • 30.32"fir 31-6"laurel 32-8"plum 33.9"cedar • 34- 12"ash 35-9"cedar 36-9"cedar 37-9"cedar 38-9"cedar 39- 12"cedar 40. 12"cedar 41 - 18"cedar 42.22"cedar 43-22"cedar 44-24"Douglas fir a.••, 45 20"walnut 46- 19"ash 47. 10"plum 48- 11"chokecherry 49- 10"plum • • 50. 12"fir / e 1 • • _Z_ 6 • � 0 51. 18"fix • • e • 'I . A • • • • Minor Land Partition Project Description ' • fur 15'780 SW Twin Fir Re. ,v E.`' k 1200 . Revision 1 - ' n^,- a • - Partition Description , N. One flag lot is partitioned from the existing lot at 15780 SW Twin Fir Rd. The new lot is formed by two rectangular areas:(1)main portion with dimensions of 85 ft,by 132 ft.and(2)flag pole with dimensions of • 25 ft. by 215 ft.(from center of Twin Fir Rd.).See new plat map for details. Survey , A survey has been completed by Gilbertson Engineering.The initial survey map has been delivered to the . Planning Department. Future Street Plan . A proposed Future Street Plan has been completed by Gilbertson Engineering and has been delivered to the Planning Department. -" Planned Use .. • • The existing lot has one single family house. The newly created lot will be used for one single family house. '•• Right of Way Agreement --_ " \ An additional 10 ft.of public right-of-way will be dedicated along Twin Fir Rd. ' ° ', ^'`' As a condition of approval, a non-remonstrance agreement for future road improvements will be signed with the City of Lake Oswego. t, Utilities 11 All utilities will be placed underground from Twin Fir Rd, to the new house, The utility lines will follow the flag pole to the main portion of the lot. . The proposed house site is approximately 5 feet too low for the sewer to gravity feed to Twin Fir Rd. A pump system will be installed to deliver waste water to the sewer main.The pump system will pump the waste water through a pressure line to a sewage collection box in the flag pole, The waste water will , , gravity feed from the collection box to the sewer main in Twin Fir Rd, Access to New Parcel • • 1 "' Initially, access to the new lot will be via a temporary driveway as shown on the proposed Future Streets Plan,This driveway will be gravel surfaced and easily removed. When the new street is developed, access to the proposed house will be changed to that street, The ' temporary driveway will be closed at that time, Mr, Arakelian estimates that future development of the , n area,including the new street,will occur in five to ten years, 0 EXHIBIT - • • ' g Zr.)33 f M . - . . 1 , . • • { • _2- • • • Storm Water Drainage A dry well will be developed to provide drainage for the roof and foundation of the new house. A subsequent soils report will be used to determine the specifications required to meet City of Lake Oswego • standards. • In addition, the new lot will be graded to maintain the downward slope towards the northeast corner. The grading will provide a path for natural runoff to follow towards the nearby creek. • Trees . The location of trees on the property is shown on the attached tree map.The size and species of these trees in documented on the attached tree inventory. As shown on the attached tree map, it will be necessary to remove trees to construct the driveway and new house.The healthy trees at the south boundary of the flag ;pole and on the north side of the main portion of the lot will be retained Also, the large trees at the east boundary of the main lot will be retained • • • , 1111 { • • 4) • GALTON,SCOTT&COLETT --- EXHIBIT - ATTORNEYS AT LAW GAR CI RN A BENJ. FRANKLIN PLAZA CHARL �7 3 __9 0 , ,, NE S.W. COLUMBIA ST., SUITE 1100 GARY L. ^fit PORTLAND,OREGON 97258.2013 GAL ASSISTANT; (503)222.3411 ANN PETERSON•MEIER FAX(503)222.1928 HER ERT B.CaALTON(1914•1966) - v MaA. ISM July 30, 1990 , Ms. Lynn Bailey Associate Planner (' Planning Department City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. SD33-90 Doland/Arakelian Minor Partition • Dear Ms. Bailey: d This letter \is written in response to the above application., for Minor Partition of the property located at 15780 S.W. Twin Fir Road, Tax Lot 5300 of Tax Map 2 IEBAC. My wife and I are owners of the, adjacent property at 15810 S.W.Twin Fir Road, Tax Lot 5402, just south of the subject site. The other signatories to this letter are neighbors, all residing within 300 feet of the subject property. We oppose the MinorPartition as proposed. This opposition i ., --:-.5 pP snot registered because of opposition for general developmen''il of the lot, but rather because of the way it is being partitioned. Specifically, we object to the Minor Partition for the following x reasons: 1. My own home on Lot 5402 is bordered by our neighbor's flag driveway on the south side. If the proposed Minor Partition is allowed, our home will be surrounded by two fla ' lots. This \ g- will mean we are surrounded by two poles - two drirvewa s. This ay result in lower property values as well as a significant reduction • in privacy. 2. The proposed Minor Partition is a prime example of fill- in development which is not consistent with the established neighborhood patterns of housing. The Arakelians own other surroundingproperty pro ert which will be developed in the future. Allowing this sort of piecemeal development and sale of lots is a • detriment to the neighborhood and to surrounding property owners. • , i d Ms. Lynn Bailey July 30, 1990 Page 2 it is also an easy way of avoiding the general developmental plans and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development>Standards. 3. Concerns (1) and (2) above are of particular interest because the Arakelians own Lot 5100 which has an existing home on it. The City should require the eastern halves of Lots 5100 and 5000 to be developed togethe ;), in order to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. There is existing access on the northern edge of Lot 5100 that could also provide access for the proposed applicant in this case. 4. If the City allows the Minor P \rtition in this instance, there will be other development of ths, back lots which will additionally require access. This may= result in either double access to the applicant here or a confused plan of access which may be avoided at this time. In short, why not require a Future Streets Plan at this time rather than being "hemmed in" and having to react to an undesirable situation? We see no reason why a Future Streets Plan should not be required now before options are limited. 5. Traffic on Twin Fir Road. The part of Twin Fir Road between Douglas Circle and Upper Drive is very heavily travelled. Allowing the pole access as proposed would put one more driveway on this road. Additionally, the driveway would be somewhat confusing given there is a stop sign within a few feet of the driveway. Why not place access to the proposed lot on the north part of Twin Fir Road which is less heavily travelled? 6. There is a stop sign at the corner of Twin Fir Road and Douglas Circle. It will be both confusing and dangerous to have a driveway within a few feet of the stop sign. Additionally, there Is a telephone pole within a few feet of the proposed driveway and stop sign. 7. If the proposed Minor Partition is allowed, and future development occurs on the back property owned by the Arakelians, this flag access driveway may be abandoned. In short, the applicant may have two accesses. What about future maintenance and upkeep? Also, once a paved driveway goes in, it is difficult to replace any vegetation or trees. 8. There are various large trees on the site and on the pole. This is in character with the neighborhood. Allowing this Minor Partition will require various trees to be removed. 4 . . Ns. Lynn Bailey July 30, 1990 Page 3 9. While the five-foot set-back requirements may meet the Development. Standards, they are not consistent with the existing neighborhood. It is difficult to explain the situation on paper, 11 but we would highly recommend that you view the pole yourselves: It would be jammed in between two existing homes and is not in character with the remainder of the neighborhood. gyp. In conclusion, we are writing this letter out of concern for the neighborhood. I am especially concerned about the traffic situation given this access is very busy road. Secondly, the proposal ils not ose oincharacter with vt e remainder of the neighborhood. Lastly, development of the additional lots and property is inevitable. propertyand check of the neighborhoodWe have performed a g .� realize the Arakelians own additional property which will most likely be developed. Allowing a piecemeal approach to this development will only mean that you will have to react to future development and limit the options for orderly access and planning. Rather than allow the proposed configuration of lots, we request that access be directed to the north edge of Lot 5100 and that a 411 Future Streets Plan be required. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Very truly yours, ev-&r:t Charles D. Colett CDC/pa Enclosure - Property Ownership Report hJ - Charles D. Colett 15810 S.W. Twin Fir Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 11111 T{u e tose� title. reports skew the t e. p� ' ioi.erL, bwt th.o Lot to tie � oWnerg ownJ not o►vL t� how uiou.s to { ►vortiu t Lot 5700) an f d, Lot. Col (Lot goo , Tk,e. cwruee usc h.� or" U S/o sec(, h.e►-� � ppo►' el,Lie, for fu,tu, c,,e o a; ' qoo news 6Jv deveLopn, t of i,tcs poke trc ory hx 6a is pozsibi,e. 9iveew tkat owner ro ow c �Ces$UL Pfi4.hAloor ''6k1tz 4p O b Lo& �� r e t p�aYv c.s a n.e Lots tceblver 9� s nuore. 5p uws {tir d,ci„�lu ►,� veLopnt,e►t o ,.J sac 66I,ttc. ►uc6filuborkoodd. (° �hr Ivarrn�,� cuot4u the 4110. Ms. Lynn Bailey July 30, 1990 Page 4 Rose S. Colett -, 15810 S.W.`''Twin Fir Road Lake Oswego, Oregon kA44142 d 93 o oZ Rc( �---- La"KL 0.-�-wo,1/i c9�- / d / 5Cv TUl 7P/ R. R Vrke 101,C 6—e0 q.70 ,35 .�q4�£ GQ E , 97 s J .Z78/ c5,al. /40/26,_ ,..4e,Le, 0/2 97"35 1 � , . . .. o 4 II 0 -R-ta-E,s-uppu-e-aakte- . C 3 cR21EoQQCo5100 3 TAX ACCOUNTING C 3 1 242c:�6—C <<^3t31 r53 RECEIPT NO. PAYMENT TAX YEAR/B. G. AMOUNT DATE TYPE C 2 C 3 FULL C89O13 C C 3 C 3 ONE THIRD C89013 C 1 ,503.533 C0731903 CF3 3 Ccat;►r;tr:�r;�c:�003 C 3 C 3 TWO THIRDS C890131 ,020. 923 519. 753 C7319t] C 17 3 Cra�;)t.)l:)f.)f:0 i: C 3 C 3 C 1 ,0 0. 923 C0'r 31903 C23 3 CGsac;�c;►c;�i;ac;0: CERTIFIED OWNER--C TAX DUE 3 C 3 C ] C 3 3 C ARAKELIAN YERCHANICK P 3 . TAX CODE 0070213'3ci'.c' IT 3 ODSTRCING 1 ,392. 16 " JANUARY 1 O:NER CITY L07 DISTRICTS o ARAKELIAN YERCHANICK P ACTION 3 MORTGAGE CODE C4c;�c;�c;�'�` 3 — CERTIFIED VALUES----CURRENT OWNER ASSESSED • ARAKELIAN YERCHANICK P 3 ASSESSED 557,690 0. 000 0 3 !oNAZI G N 3 TAXABLE 57,690. 00 69 c 7 15700 SW TWIN FIR RD ] F I REPATROL 3 LAKE OSWEGO OR 970353 FIREF'ATROL . 00 3 3 � c;�r�rac� _LEGAL DESCRIPTION TAXABL ACRES . 00E .t�c;� 3 LN92104 500052001249 3 FP FP ACRES 0 3 434 LAKE VIEW VILLAS 3 TAXABLEc;�t.� 3 FLAT 4 LT 217 3 3 3 #CL 1 0 1-141-26-t]4-88-92 3 3 LEGAL DESC CONT'D C ] CRL1Et�8ACt751t7t;► C:. i 3 XMT C 3 LATEST SALE C 3 t f d SOLD TO: ARAKELIAN YERCHANICK F' OIAZ I G N 3 LAND VALUE 5rt IG N 3 BUILDING VALUE 33ti •.�c,�r,f � SW TWIN FIR RD ] ^4,6�?t;� LAKE OSWEGO 7 FEATURE VALUE j OR 9 r't.�35 3 3 BY: NOT AVAILABLE I THE SALE IS AN UNQUALIFIED SALE WITH A CODE OF: DATE OF SALE: 00/003 TYPE OF PROPERTY: IMPROVED NSTRUMENT: 3 OFFICIAL RECORDS INDEX: 72-27165 LES PRICE: 0 e qk 0 ti , .V•H 1 • • • • 1 0 . ji 1 () I r C 3 CR21Ec�pADcat;?9t1ri . ] TAX ACCOUNTING C ] 24226—C RECEIPT NO. PAYMENT TAX YEAH/B. G. AMOUNT � , r C ] C ] DATE TYPE E ',. C ] C 7 C ] C ] 3 C a C ] C 3 C ] C C ] C 3 C ] ] C ] C 3 ] C C ] C ] C ] C ] C ] C ] C ] 3 C ] CERTIFIED gWNER � L 3 C 7 ] C TAX DUE 1 ,867. 80 ] OUTSTANDING ] ARAKELIAN YERCHANIK ] TAX CODE 0070213 CITY LO] DISTRICTS c.!0 • JANUARY 1 OWNER------ ACTION ARAKELIAN YERCHANIK 3 CERTIFIED VALUES---- 3 MORTGAGE CODE C 0 53 CURRENT OWNER ASSESSED 3 ASSESSED 7 ARAKELIAN YERCHANIK 77,400. 00 0-400,7, .0000 1 &NAZIK 3 TAXABLE 7 i• ,400. 00 3 15780 TWIN FIR RD ] FIREPATROL LAKE OSWEGO OR 9rt:)357 FIREPATROL a 00003 ..00 3 TAXABLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION3 -- "LNL89553 60478 001FP ACRES . 0 ] ESN t713344 3 FP ACRES . 0 t:� 434 LAKE VIEW VILLAS ] TAXABLE . t:�c:s 3 PLAT 4 TL LT t:s4 3 3 "� 3 #CL 1 0 1-141-48--04-88-94 ] ] LEGAL DESC CONT'D C 2C R?1 EO9ADt:st:s900 3 LATEST SALE C 3 C''.1 ] X MT ; C 2733622 ' SOLD TO: ARAKELIAN YERCHANIK 3 BUILDING VALUE LAND VALUE 36, 'NNAZIF�, c;tc;,ts 15780 TWIN FIR RD 3 FEATURE VALUE 4:t 4t.at'� LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 ] 3 "?Y NOT AVAILABLE T;—ig- SALE IS AN UNQUALIFIED SALE WITH A CODE OF: DATE OF SALE: 00/00] TYPE OF PROPERTY: IMPROVED INSTRUMENT: 3 OFF=ICIAL RECORDS INDEX: 7 11 31 IISALES PRICE: C) j A C J C R2 1 EC:SACt:►53c:►t_i ] TAX ACCOUNTING C ] 24207 ‘ —C 2381843 RECEIPT NO. PAYMENT TAX YEAR/B. G. AMOUNT' C 3 C �= ] FULL C89D1 ] DATE TYPE C 3 C 2,373. 4c03 C0731903 CF] ] C C 3 C ] r�. C ] C 7 C C�r:�r:cr:�t;itgtr;�r;� C J C 3 C ] C ] C ] C ] ] C J C 3 C' CERTIFIED OWNER TAX DUE ] C 3 C ] ] C C ARAKELIANER YERCHANIKF 2,`45' 45 ] OUTSTANDING JANUAY I OWNER ] TAX CODE 00t'021 ] CITY LO] DISTRICTS + 199, ]0 • ARAKELIAN YERCHANIF� P ---ION ] MORTGAGE CODE Cr:�r,�tari] 3~ ----CERTIFIED VALUES- --- CURRENT OWNER ASSESSED ARARAf�:ELIAN YERCHAN,T,F: P 93+ 5c;l. t:�c:�, ] I G ] ASSESSED 93 e050. 00 ] 157, i,,a, SW TWIN FIR RD ] TAXABLE 93gn50 no ] 'n' LAKE OSWEGO ] FIREPATROL ] OR 970353 FIREPATROL 00003----LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTAXABLE . 00 3 • N tJ1�3�85 FP ACRES . 00 3 434 LAKE VIEW VILLAS 3 FP ACRES . 00 3 ] TAXABLE PLAT 4 PT LT 203 TAXABLE . 00 3 LT 18 PT LT 204't205 ] ] ] J #CL 101-151-54—t:)4-88-92 ] LEGAL DESC CONT'D C 2 C R 1 E08ACc]53r:cc_i 3 LATEST SALE CC r i J XMT „''-'J 3 C . n 84 . SOLD TO: ARAk;ELIAfJ YERCHANIk P 1 '�NAZ I G ] LAND VALUE 33,000 3 BUILDING VALUE 5-8'+ SW TWTN FIR RD 3 bt,r,c;� r FEATURE VALUE LAkE OSWEGO OR 97 035 3 BY: NOT AVAILABLE d THE SALE IS AN UNQUALIFIED SALE WITH A CODE OF: DATE OF SALE: 00/003 TYPE OF PROPERTY: IMPROVED INSTRUMENT: ] OFFICIAL RECORDS INDEX: 648—? 1 *ES PRICE: 0 o • 4 .. • • , 4 ' GALTON,SCOTT&COLETT • ATTORNEYS AT LAW " ramslowssiammaista -GARY M. GALION, P.C. ALAN M. SCOTT, P.C. f BENJ. FRANKLIN PLAZA CHARLES D. COLETT •ONE S.W.COLUMBIA ST.,SUITE 1100 GARY L. TYLER PORTLAND, OREGON 97258-2013 ALEGAL N PEASSISTANT:T EIER °., (503)222.3411 3 FAX(503)222-1928 HUMERI'a G .iON(1914.19e6) bEP_ 2 .4 1:720 September 19, 1990 n, T ` �� • Mr. Hamid Pishvaie Development Review Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. SD33-90 Doland (Applicant) and Arakelian (Owner) - Minor Partition - Future Street Plan Dear Mr. Pishvaie: IIThis letter is written in response to the REVISED NOTICE dated September 14, 1990, on the above matter for Minor Partition and Future Street Plan. The City should deny approval of the MINOR PARTITION and FUTURE STREET PLAN submitted by Doland/Arakelian on the following grounds: 1. The request and submissions do not comply with the requirements of L.O.C.C. (Development Code) 49. 120(1) in the following particulars: (a) No boundaries are indicated for proposed streets. The length and width requirements are not indicated. (b) No boundaries are indicated for proposed lots. The number and size of each lot is not indicated. (c) There is no mention or consideration of, any ° topography and natural features. 2. The proposed plan does not Specifically, no one can tell how many lots are proposed andlhow the lots will be accessed. objectionable for the reasons yex expressed Parcel IT is still 3 As for the minor art P ion access the to II we submitted dated July 30, 1990. This letter letter that ter is being enclosed 1 .1 EXHIBIT ti. • A Mr. Hamid Pishvaie September 19, 1990 ' Page 2 for your convenience and was signed by a significant number of residents in the neighborhood. In summary, the objections stand because: (a) There is existing access to Parcel II on the north side of Lot 5100. (b) Your predecessor, Lynn Bailey, has visited the site and agreed that access to Parcel II should be placed on the north side of Lot 5100 because of existing access and traffic concerns which include consideration of the stop sign and telephone pole within a few feet of the site. (c) Proposed access on the south side of Lot 5300 is on a sharply sloping terrain which would require removal of trees. Additionally, this would not meet set back and Z5-feet width requirements. Additionally, it would surround Lot 5402 completely with poles. (d) The nature of the ownership interest in the proposed pole (access to Lot II) is not indicated. There is confusion whether this would be an easement or fee simple ownership. (e) All of the other concerns expressed in the enclosed letter of July 30, 1990. We ask that the proposed Minor Partition and Future Street Plan be denied until: 1. Access to all developable lots owned by the Arakelians is indicated; and 2. Access to Parcel II be via the north side of Lot 5100. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, e0-6,0" Charles D. Colett CDC/pa Enclosure - Letter of July 30, 1990 • , . /I, (1 .. . . . . I 1) I . . •i . . . d 4110 Mr., Hamid Pishvaie • September 19, 1990 ---,- Page 3 • i_b_extr- , Charles D. c,---757,7------- 15810 S.W. Twin Fir Road Lake Oswego, Oregon ..-. • . . •• , , .........&21.4-.. .....-----__ I Rose S. Colett 15810 S.W. Twin Fir Road 1 , Lake Oswego, Oregon • , o /7/../ / €6 7 41741 • 1 .06, td 710 N Fl IZO ZWea0 bR. C• 35 . .,, ,I2 . ---t---A- t_e_e_44,,,r1Th 0 / . "---7--7/ ,./. ..,1.:._, s,e—ek. . t.,..... .-. , e., . • • . . • u Mr. Hamid Pishvaie • September 19, 1990 Page 4 rvta� 1.1Zr,(1-01/1 1 S-9� p w�v I S r�c r=l r 2qe, CO 24-40 La.*. `'J 0-L 19-a " •• Litre Orreeleets, . 970- s'' .2 8<w *ft.1,(9,-/eaeei,a, rA4s- 5 • 4 e o . 1 . • • Mr. Hamill. Pishvaie September 19, 1990 • Page 5 �., , �,,r ,�/ ,• / • A • • e • C: o • • B 11 • • 2981 S .W . tipper Drive Lake Oswego , OR 97035 July 31 , 1990 Ms . Lynn Bailey Associate Planner Planning Department City of Lake Oswego P .O. Box 369 '4U•` r Lake Oswego , OR 97034 RE: File No . SD33-90 Dolan/Arakelian Minor Partition Dear Ms . Bailey: I am writing about the application for Minor Partition of the property at 15780 S .W . Twin Fir Road . My property is adjacent to this property . I have three concerns with this partition . 1 . This is the second lot for which a "Minor " Partition has been requested which is adjacent to my property . The character of the neighborhood is being systematically changed by this movement . I feel that this Minor Partition and any other Mine,- Partitions should be considered at one time , and evaluated as one plan for changing the nature of the neighborhood. • 2 . These partitions are causing the devaluation of ;ny property . My property Was appraised prior to my purchase as being in a park-like setting . With the partitioning of .his and the building of access ( driveway ) to the lot , the " ' 'pG k-�_r,: setting' on which the value of my house was assessed will gone . Further , my living room was designed with high " } and floor-to-ceiling windows . The trees and veyetat1on ilLwed from these windows will be largely removed to make way { property access driveway . Several of the trees that ,,,il inevitably be removed are large , old-growth Douglas 'ire; , wni,:h • $ provide not only beauty to the neighborhood , but noise , ne-at , are` windqbuffers for the houses surrounding them . Removal off' natural treasures cannot be tolerated in a community professes to love and protect trees . 3 . I have walked the lines anar:ced oy the z a tos ;- e y , I have serious misgivings about the accuracy of the 'su • y feel a second survey by a different surveyor 18 ;ec ess,::r ensure that my property lines are accurately representeki any construction or removal of vegetation is zi.owed . • ft A EXHIBIT • it • • 11)Ms . Lynn Bailey - Page 2 Specifically , -I am requesting that the Minor Partition not be granted until the following items are accomplished: 1 . A comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is developed to identify what other development is planned , and what the access to other Minor Partitioned properties will be . h ° 2 . A survey is completed on my property to ensure that my property and vegetation are adequately protected . 3 . If the Minor Partition is permitted , the access to the e> property be moved to the north edge of the Arakelian 's property . F," � 4 . If the Minor Partition is permitted , the tree-cuttin., plan should not allow the large ,old Douglas fir trees to be removed from the property . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this si tucit:.on . Sincerely , 1110 Susan A . Triplett v ,f, ,Yl 1 jM1eL`�[ o sk 0 ,,9 • '(�N • 1�1l I'�iC�. 0 , P fir, Horrid P icim,'al g, 0 - l .1 J'�l,lQ.�c) YYtfGt, la 1'IE EXHIBIT PC Q_cl c r1"?Q, .t 11\ n , j rVei _ ,,n tr. : ":)4 ; ��10 , \__y 1, . --•‘- -h'ul `I-,U21):6-)11Q..,,y1a.e') 1 _Some t►fie- jc' ► t11)C, 1�14,Y ', iil `f' +(' L�,.r' ?, (�� 4V4 ,�Va �'1 � c`'� c� S 3 b)-t{ f hPJ d�,uel�uFrv�v,i ok a x (cam 1t7()C� qoa ► ` u "P ' ), Our ��jQ, do ',Nave., luv�� ;n l0� IS loop; andP They r • 1�;c1 �k' �,itr '' f�� I�P�VLO(��Qi b +oId fhcz, deu-e(k )m ClLc�Q.. oie r,,,ff,(fie5, (11(1.01ticrvZd i'r) rAV (V2,01`ceci tilDfice 0 ...--7r—) j3ix'v:,,,...srd ,,, Pi2v\dair . 110t:C 1-04cl0}5 cj2:)00 I- rjIC4)) vU d • i 1i.r�a( -��i1� �l�ll.�l� a�� , Q ,�. rS foe ,ham . loki2e. xi 4- cuny .Pc.i-; , a«.. :Re:, fx- the d C�� , Q 2�. • '-) b b oc liw s'etv�?v on vl eb, r old (of le We) ace, CLsO Con cQ✓necl (1,60.4 the) pic e `-�J n nc, ��e , ' i C 1 cAri. b c c►.. ,0,1 o yet a cR chit, o *ce .'‘'fr z1- lI r , , I 4 i 1. 1. • ,., ... - M H n • 15600 S.W. Twin Fir Rd. Lake••, Oswego, OR 97035 °' Sept. 18, 1990 ,5 Mr. Hamid Pishvaie Development Review Planner ' City of Lake Oswego P. 0. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Pishvaie: Thank � a; you for y our time today and for assuring me that there will sit a be a neighborhood hearing before any decisions will be made concerning the Minor Partition and Future Street Plan beingproposed p posed on Twin F1x Road As you know, I am opposed to the current plan for a street between 15600 Twin Fir (my property) and 15700 Twin Fir for several reasons: increased traffic,, concern for the old growth trees that will be affected, and naturally, the nearness to which it will be located to my home. 111/1 I think your decision to have an engineer study the neighborhood and then present his findings to all of us that live in this area and will be directly affected is an excellent idea. This will give us a chance to make some input into decisions that ultimately involve us. Please keep me informed an any new developments on this issue. Thank you 'once again. Sincerer ilV�. Donna Carnegie L . ,,, . , S 1. yT� y a ,l EXHIBIT l'vj V---;67.,,E d K,, 1 • • d d EXHIBIT • )et 5D33 -`')D September 26, 1990 Hamid Pishvaie ' Development Review Planner City of Lake Oswego ( 0 I. i;,,;j I P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Mr. . Pishvaie, Last week i contacted you by phone concerning a revised notice of pending action my husband and I received in the mail. The original notice we received on the Arakelian/Doland partition was for a flag lot with.'a driveway. We had no objection to this plan. The revised notice, `• file No.SD33-90, involves a future major street plan two lots away from the flag lot (// You informed me in our conversation that this ^revised notice was not a final plan, and that an engineer would be studying this proposal. „ You also mentioned involving the Lake Grove Neighborhood As- sociation. • We, the undersigned, oppose the ;Eut following reasons: There is not en ug street plantion o n eon these direction of the proposed street. h informat the No current development is planned in the immediate area of the proposed street. The partition involved has access on the site. Finally, our main concern is the impact on traffic at an already busy intersec- tion. ' // Please keep us informed of any pending action involving this possible street development. Thank for your time and help. Sincerely, •e ' ��- k. —,J y4r L Sylvia Keller and Co 'Signers 15655 S.W. Twin Fir Rd. • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 / -, - / ✓ - ) I ) L.,. . L. i . •, ‘, I ....... , •, / , . , , . ...„.„ ,L . ,.._ . . 0 :.:„, ..,:..; _ • .., . . L.k. .. 4. ....-+ k: -... . �V j 1,1.(_ ) Li C: ,fit L„07,4 `vt..---. . 1 S C,c, I • L1: i" i!v ,= //`y Z Lit k4 C''5 o:.'-e 5 c C d 1" e?' )t. 5 3— , \ ' LI r'\ r‘r\ I -) CC 1 \ -(, *•)L_1/4 .l.L- -1,,5 , ke,k2_, . ryry `f L 1 c� ,y . 1 - ) '' ''' . ....• / 0 (f i _.- c 1 It A • ) , October 23, 1990 OCT 2 4 vz.:,,r City of Lake Oswego Development Review Board ii Speaking for the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, we were dismayed to learn that there was a plan submitted for a two-parcel land petition((and future street plan on Twin Fir without advising neighbors or the Neighborhood Association interested in this neighborhood. Mr. Hamid Pishvaie, the staff coordinator for the project, failed to notify either the Association or immediate neighbors who would be concerned with this development. This action is in direct violation of the stated processes used in the City of Lake Oswego for such matters. In the 4111 future we would be appreciative of your following those procedures and notifying interested neighbors as well as the Neighborhood Association for such matters. Respectfu, y s bmitted, eae-Cer ''' 7 /1".(/ S. avid odway, Chairperson Lake Grove Neighborhood Associ tion 1 f(I :1 EXHIBIT II II1 --.' %"-1-575:7673 '• • . r' • . , . 4' ^ ' 'I \. • IP Vii-k " . /1-) . ' 0 9/18/94 ,�.� . MEMORANDUM rr ,A` To: Development Review BoaL-d Members Planning Commission Members g From: Mayor and City Council Date: September 18, 1090 I o Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity it , This memorandum is an updates to the City Council's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5, . • 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the !City • Council's initial determination of the school 'capacity; issue. • The October 17, 1989 memorandum contained updated ,information ,_and data received by the City Council at 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 $17,100,000 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 i++�formatio:'► concerning residential development activity for fiscal, year' 1989/90. It IP contains information received by the City .Council at a. joint • meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August 21, 19.90. 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 exclusion is not applicable to the current situation. State law does not permit the adoption d " of a moratorium without the City first making the tindings required by the statute . The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end ,of that � inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law to justify the need for a moratorium. The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of 0- , 0 school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium ) , and yet the m Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the _ +jay iu '^ h'e'wN+itn,lnl t P M • e Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 Page 2 1( 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 r, 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 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 ° policies, with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts will change over time, .so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current, lack of the factual preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular basis, in coordination with- the school 'district, and keep the ��, Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . • ') Future Planninggstaff reports �'p will rely on this memorandum when addressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be `' with us for the foreseeable. future. The 'Council is committed to improve the current data exchange efforts between the District and the City. • The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving development • approvals are aware of the current school capacity situation and understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a Later date if justified by the facts . The Council directs staff to develop appropriate language to be included in the approval orders, to be reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish this purpose. Attachment No. 11111 1 provides the factual findings of the Council ' with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these interpretations are based. attachment No. 2 is a listing of the factual information relied upon to support those findings . Attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies. • • nl G' • ADMemo: Development Review- Board \ - and Planning CommissionMembers • September 18, 1990 Page 3 Il The City Council sincerely expresses itsvgratitude to the members of the Development Review,, Board who have been faced with the - difficult job).of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with 'professionalism and obvious great concern for the community his a whole. ° Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 , fi �� J • • N'I • • • 1 4 • : / )' ' : . ( i.: , ..,,, ,, \\ ‘. , ,, „,, ,i . . , ,_ ::...) . . , , . 40 ,_ , . . . , :., . , ... , . . . , . r . . .. . . , , . . ., • ATTACHMENT NO. 1 , FACTUAL FINDINGS i' 8=-90 • The City and the School District have coordinated concerning impact of development on the ability of the District tomeet its the legal obligations to educate the children of the District. A significant portion of the School District ties outside limits and the City has no_ control °over the impacts of roe pity P occurring outside its boundaries. y growth communication from other jurisdictions served hab received no that they perceive a problem or intend to limit Ydevelopment the c,due , " to school capacity problems. The District has provided the City the following facts: 1 . 'Attendance in the. 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grov Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District e determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementar4'y • School population was significantly reduced for the ' �) 1989-90 schoolyear. � Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651 students. Enrollment as of October 2, ttudents. Enrollment as of June 1 , 1989 was 530 was students. The adjusted forcast for the 01990-913school . yea\is 500 students . 2 • The Di�strict has short term plans in place that address/J� the current capacity + P y problems on a District wide basis_. By implementing these plans, the District stated it will continue to provide an educational experience to its students that meets District standards 3. Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3,772 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 havo unused capacity system wide that will accorilmodate 379 additional elementary students . n 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide ca addition to the 379 seats to be made available throl.jhin the short term plan. These long term plans include an additional elementary school and remodeling existing facilities . 6 . The etlaximum capacity of 3, 772 students , assumingga • continuation of the current rate o c 0 accomlt modate new students into the 1991-92h school/ ysar. ' , 1 f n ' . o sty , // ,, Attachment No. 1 S September 18, 1990 ' Page 2 r 7. The earliest completion ,date for th.e 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 C..., the construction of facilities so they will meet a current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. t 9. The District projects student computer model. The projectionsparetbasedions uonss a cho attendance areas and the District does not attemptol to project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student " counts. Based on these comparisons, the computers. Bas p risons, modifications to program factors are. made if warranted. The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been quite accurate. The physical counting of children in „ the district onlayregular basis, as the data base n projections, does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracytoe • ° expense it would take to out such program. dditional � b program. By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning development approvals and vacant lots with the actual in school population, the conclusion can be drawn that therewth is not a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school population and those two factors that will assist the District in making short term student projections . Other factors , such as market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon • economy and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes, also affect the number of new children ih the District 's population. Based upon the present Level of sophistication of the City and District � �� p planning proces$es, it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty how soon after an _: children from new residential developments will enterthevschool • system. • ' . , ( ` • • I� Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 3 " ' f The District voters in May, 1989 a pproved a new d �si,;rict tax base T, s �';� ' \\by an approximate 2:1 margin. The old tax base was '$19,542 ,310 . The new tax base is $29 .? =3,000. 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, 0 $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 middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have freed space in the elementary schools for additional students, The debate caused turmoil" in the District and the concept was ‘ dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents Occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding. elmeasures to accommodate elementary school population growth was delayed. The growth waa anticipated but the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the provision of the District 's"solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts, enact a moratoriUm on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 .520 . The District has the responsibility under state law to educate the children of the District. The Cooncil views the District as 4 • an expert in educational matters. Th& Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational experienc(r'for its students that meets District standards . ,As, )1 Atty/Correspond-7 , 11101 c7- * , I I ) 1 , r . 0, ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8, 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: • - g permits by year, single-family' graph 0 - Building permits by year, multi-family, graph " - Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1, 1989 Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 A - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 • 3. Class size and public policy: Politics and Panaceas, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S . Department of Education 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11 , 1979 5. Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, 4 July 31 , 198,9 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5, 1989, I ' with attachments 7 . Proceedings oceedings8of joint City Council/School Board meeting, July 31, 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August 8 , 1989 9. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development, dated August 8 , 1989 10 . Handouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, service level, and short and long term solutions 11 . Lake Oswego School 'District: The Facts , submitted by Vick Bunick 12 . Tr anscript excerpt from August 7 , 1989 Development Review Board meeting ( tape including excerpt also submitted ) • . ....... n •o ;t • , . 4. P , 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 A • 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 and'rBobdChizum, 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 MaryLarsen, dated August 5 1989 W23. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, dated August 6, 1989 • 24. Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4, 1989 o 25. Letter from Lynora Saunders, Chair, Forest Highlands nds Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 26. Letter from D.R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989 27. Letter from Judith D. Umaki, dated August 1 , ,1989 28 . Charles Hales, Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs , Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter dated August 14, 1989 29 . Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated August 13 , 1989 30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14, 1989 31 . Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 14 , 1989 ( 32 . Carol Webb letter, dated August 14, 1989 f 1 + 4 4. • 7.,. L ® 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 J 38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989 39. Robert S. Dahlman Sr. wetter, 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 j . III 43. Deborah B. Feldsee letter, dated August 14, 1989 r 44. Steven M. Berne letter, doted, August 14, 1989 l� 1 45. Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14, 1989 46. Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989 47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 p 48. Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989 49. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10, 1989 50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14, 1989 52. Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11 , 1989 53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9, 1989 54 . William Sorenson /letter, dated August ii, 1989 • 55. Marci Memhauser letter, dated August 10, 1989 56 . Charles A. tansEield letter, dated August 10, 1989 ill a , i a• Attachment No. (2 • September 18, 1990' ,Page 4 r l ti' 57.' Larry E. Walktifr letter, dated August 10, 1989 58. Katherine and Lonald McMahon lette r, dated August 14, 1989 59. Stephen Swerling\ letter, dated August 14, 1989 60. Karel* Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, dated June 20, 1989 '0, „ 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 r 64. Letter from Patrick F. Stone, dated August 1.G 1989 65. Map of City and District boundaries lir a.. 66. Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted byID Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers: How is the School District Coping with Growth. " [Presented to City Council at 10 , Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2, 1989 . ] 68. Bond issue information, November 1989, prepared by Lake Oswego School District. 69. Election results, November 7, 1989 , Lake Oswego School District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond. ' • • 70. Report from Superintendent, Lake Oswego School District, May \. 7, 1990 . 71 . Enrollment Report, Lake Oswego Sschool District, June 1 , 1990 . 72 . Memorandum from Sandra Korbelik regarding school capacity and residential development activity, August 10, 1990 . , ' 73 . - Elementary - �c�. ' Lake Oswego School enrollment statistics , August "".N ° 21 , 1990 . wvr.j4'" 74 . Memorandum from Peter C. Harvey regarding residential lot calculations , August "28, 1990 . .At tv/Correspond-7 1 a , ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS (9-18-90) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific , land 'f use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretationo of those policies, it is mecessary to restate the rationale for the City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plant are the reguj�'atory language of the Plan. v 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 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: "(Al generalized, coordinated land use map and polic • statement of the governing body of a local y interrelates all functional and natural systemsrandnt that 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 activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is 'coordinated' when the needs of all levels of governments, semi-public and private agencies, and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. 'Land ' includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. " AtcChe state level each statewide planning mandatory statewide planning standrds and goal,generalh ine is accompanied by ''guidelines" . The nature, guidelines are: " (S] uggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation 111/1 of plans, programs and regulations in compliance with goals . Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies , cities , counties and special districts to a single approach . " , . . . i • 4111 Attachment No. 3 I September 18, 1990 Page 2 • The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between II Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the following way, "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are statements of the purpose of the policies, General shoati e9, ., 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 applied asfollows: Th4 general policies of the Plan are the portions wa "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalizedhich are lic statements" which constitute a comprehesiveplan asodefined ';by state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application, •• must conclude that the applicable general policies of the 4111 ' , , Comprehensive Plan have been followed. Each must identify and explain why the requirements aof the ,nd use appicab pp':licable • general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general policy, the hearing body will be guided in its decision making by the specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element. In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations ' to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square,?! footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory weight as are the general policies then each provision of a specific policy will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an application or project to be approved. There is no provision for the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of the a• • Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of one of the specific policies for the general policy, the application project as a whole must be denied if the specific policies areor construed to be regulatory in nature. All regulatory standards 4111 must be complied with in order for an application to be approved . s i I 0 Attachment No. 3 ') September 18, 1990 . Page 3 Ct 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, notwith6tanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This appZIoach 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 me!''hodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent fOth 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 went into the original Plan development. Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discussed below. No general policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies become l 0 applicable in the review of a dev elopment application. 1. Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific 3 Po] icv • • The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered. " • This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such that the planned densities do not result in land uses that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available or ,✓ planned. This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan map densities and is not applicable in the development review stage. The appropriateness of the Plan map designation or zone designation on a given site is not an issue in a hearing on a development application. 111 y } • . ., 5, 1111 of , ,I. Attachment No. 3 . September 18, 1990 Page 4 11 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 cific information on school capacity to be taken into conside�i'ation in development review." This policy is the one most directly focused Capon school ca acity in the development review process. This policy requires th .t a 0detailed review of projects take place and it directs that thy--City ,seek capacity information from the District. The 4 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 , 190 joint meetings are examples of this coordination and "encouragement" . B ..ause of the variety of factors that if(mpact school population, it is not currently possible to predict, with a great iegree of accuracy, populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approaveddebu elopment will enter the school population. However, . onceg permit has been issued for a dwelling, it becomes reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in the near time frame (3-6 months) . By monitoring actual school populations and outstanding building permits, forecasting over a . 3-6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of reliability. ` If this coordination, results in the development of data which supports the' findings required by the state: moratorium statute to establish a capacity shortage, a moratorium on building permits can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow of new students to the district. 3. Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and g • pro ram for the provision of adequate public services and facilities. IIII 01 ' A o • 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. Thro gh the enactment of the moratorium statute, ' the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis due to a lack of school capacity. The moratorium statute is available to temporarily prohibit, on a system wide basis, land uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools . 4. Urban Service( Undary General Policy III The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban, 0 Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services: To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services Boundary as follows: (1) Lands suitable for near future development ( IMMEDIATE GROWTH) (2) Lands in long range growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4: New development shall be served by an urban level of the following: of services a. Water b.)) Sanitary sewer co 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 Recreation Element • • V 'v rye ) ( r, 1 1110 Attachment No. 3 i September 18, 1990 Page 6 ,, 7l ie Adequate drainage j . Schools Services shall be available or committ ed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services ma 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 • <1 performance bonds. " < • The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define the future growth area for which it intends to be the major provider of public services. Within the ultimate growth area, General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizahle areas. The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4 relates dire ctly to nothin III in the, language of the general policy. The specific policy almost seems .misplaced, • and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy 1,4; discussed above, which addresses the impacts of development od 4s ervices . It is notable that the specific policies for that general policy do not a require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in Specific Policy 4. The most relevant language of this general policy to the issue at hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a "logical planned" extension of "basic" services . The School District is logically planning to provide new facilities to serve demands generated by growth. The district, like school districts in general, rovdes facilities, in response to d pi demand--not in •> p Conservation and Development urges recognition ofrthist of rand Anticipation of demand. The Director of the De a this fact and identifies schools , along with police and fire services , as ' "responsive" facilities . The Director draws a distinction, for planning purposes , between these responsive facilities and transportation, water> sewage and drainage facilities which in her words "must attend, rather than follow or respond to, 4110 construction. " a., - Ai . Y P- 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 a that has not occurred, the specific policy states that schools may be15provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an "� l adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development. " • 1'Y The policy specific y P contradicts the language of its general policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools,. 'M function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or , '' r 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 polic " y resulted in circumstances which did notA justify othe moratoriumenactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school I. planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this general policy. 0 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 growth, coordinate with t! e School District on capacity issues, and evaluate applications and determine impacts. School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact the school system is not Precise. A quasi-judicial hearing on a single land use application is not the appropriate forum within which to make determinations concerning system wide school ir capacity. There is not reliable data concerning future impacts ". '1 A;• that will result from a single application or the timing of those mpacts. The current level of coordination and planning, with ;continual monitoring ot' actual school population changes , satisfy 9 these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will be exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities while the district implements programs to correct the problem. n) Atty/Correspond-7 • • I LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Directors ' FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent 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 diitrict and the Lake Oswego community, an approach which has guided our efforts to cope with the problems }}'Heated by burgeoning elementary" enrollment. With every elementary schoa in the district having now been\t`ffected by the growth in Lake Oswego, all the school communities have worked in support of the school iistrict's efforts to preserve the standards by which we have defined a high-quality educational experience fork the children of Lake Oswego, District Standards It 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- student 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 school. The district believes than an elementary school'. • should be a stable, secure environment 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 must give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program, , ,for all children of comparable grade levels." The Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the community, has now completed its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long-term approaches to the dramatic increases in elementary enrollment. Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, the school district has developed participatory decision-making processes, such as holding both community and staff meetings and conducting community and staff surveys, to gather information and opinions and to help 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 board members} and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options being considered by the district. The culmi nation of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Stud"y Committee, including considerable opportunities for participation by the community and by staff, is represented by the Individual recommendations of the members of the enrollment committee and by the following recommendation lit the` superintendent, • , , . ( •" - , SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0 (-) INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS The school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as being approximatVri 500 students. Lake Grove's,enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, wlyjtiCas-you know, has lieen relocated at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600'itudents. again excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction, the number of elementary students per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market. ) it is my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove School population within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-91 school year, \ , , Tbe following reference points are relevant to my recommendation: \ 1. Lake Grove School has had to shoulder the burden of coping with the impact of significant growth in enrollment for a longer time than has any other elementary school in the district; . , 2. Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase in enrollment of 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 take strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational progrnm at Lake Grove School ak , 'throughout the 1990-91 school year 1. by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove student population to the optimal size of an elementary school as defined by district standards for the start of the 1990-91 /( 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." • . . LAKE GROVE RECOMMENDATION Grvw the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additionlil classrooms gained through remodeling are Completed, I believe the following recommendation for Lake Grove School to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions, I therefore recommend to the Board of Dtrectors 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 1, 1990, enrollment of , ---." approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School, 2. Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant Elementary School for the 1990-91 school sear, This fr, option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove School to approximately 500 students. er, 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 ' J referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated by the Board of Directors to attend the new school in 1991-92, This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom space within the district as well as help to p7event Lake Grove from significantly exceeding the optimal stie • for district elementary schools, 6 40 . 4, Designate other neighborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to take place Or district- ... wide elementary school attendance until the new elerne.ntary school boundaries are established tor 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 dIstriet elementary ehools, This recommendation will continue to require that the district provide adequate support 8erVICeS to Lake Grove Elernentary School, including administrative assistance, tki . i) . . • I 1 $% •4 . ,.. " ... ....ail .. .. _ ..... m rr SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL " 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 accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990.91 school year without significantly compromising district standards. f,, • CONCLUSIONS • The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all\Students within its attendance boundaries until the population teaches 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 theit district's other elementary schools. ` RECOMMENDATION • I recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the itl 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, SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION Felt FOREST HILLS)'ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ' ilo INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS t, Forest Hills Elementary School currentlyhas a j population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on ' • October 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through remodeling, Ftr;st Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to accommodate4110 growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year. 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 opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the,' lassroom space and the resources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the district's other elementary srrhrjbls, "-, I RECOMMENDATION i recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all forest Hills Elementary students within the ,,current Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990.91 school year, This option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, . . . 40 . , , ..0 . . (1.. . . y 0 v V I I---F , , . 9/4/90 (fi' )__) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ' MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager SUBJECT: Follow-Up on Residential Lot Calculation DATE: August 28, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a question came up re ardin vacant single-family zoned lots were calculated. Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planneryhth a e, advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by countings the number of subdivisions and minor partition lots adding the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tots num last fis yeart ending 1988-59,and then subtracting single-family building �r of existing lots ending The calculation of 857 vacant lots includedlarge permits of vacant la ld and st fiscal year. scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods. The bulk of the 857 are found in scatted in lots. There war also a request to determine the geographic areas of the Citywhere are located. This would require considerable manual work on thepart of t these lots staff to accumulate, he Planning It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material ' the update of the moratorium report, for inclusion in d Respectfully submitted, ail// ` eter C, Harvey ' • City Manager ,, 0 l , ,, `� 380"4 ' EVUE POST OFFICE 8Ok 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 9703.1 (5031,635.0215 4 ' ' , . . . , .' . . . . . ' • Lake Oswego . , . • • Elementary Enrollment August 21, 1990 \ ;,.....,.., , Adjusted Current %. # 'of :11 Projection Forecast Capacity Enrollment Portables \ 7 , , , . ' Bryant 413 513* 529 ' 502 2' \\ • , ,,,Forest Hills , 403 403 ' 391, 370. . . liallinan K'-').' 330 330 437 311 Lake Grove 600 500* ,.552 ' 453 2 . . i . Palisades 344 344 345 328 --River'Grove 29 299 41,4 305 2 ei Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 , . Westridge 409 409 460 398 ......, iO4. . TOTAL 3,393 3,393 3,772 3,241 10 r , . , . 1 ( . . . . ' \\ . , t , h '0 i • " MEMORANDUM �lb.' �,� TO: Peter C.Harvey,City Manager FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planer rr—, ' 1 P^ uo'Ao'lAot 3u..nw SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School . V 11 `"'oor.go Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity orogon 17034 303 ins oi0a DATE: August 10. 1990 ln�inlolma so3•�»•a2ro CityCouncil has requested a periodic briefing regarding the status of the Lake Lna,nq Oswego School District elementaryschool capacity.- = ,,,•�,,,a,w $ As you kn'��w, the City has ' � /� 303 045•o,u established a regular system of communicating residential development activity to FAX the.school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This report contains Iii 1 the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary school'year and a summary of residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/1990. o 1. School District Forecasts Z ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS W 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR ".. Cappacity for Adjusted F rec a. School 1990/1941.1 190/199i` ast ilio J Forrest Hills 391 529 .403 Hallinan 437 330 Lake Grove 552 5003 W Palisades345 0 Rivergrove 414 29 4 V W Uplands 644 595 Westridge 4 409 . 3 c Total Students 3,772 3,393 tail CSC 0 " 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new additions, , portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments for other agencies or district wide programs. a z The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from October 1, 3f 1989 are the same. The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of • • individual school figures due to subsequent 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, IIIPLIJ a The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative, Student demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the 0 Rivergrove School. The size of that demand is difficult to forecast, , . ' .. , ,,•• • e. 1 •S • s„ 0 The school district has created the flexibility to accommodate an additional 379 students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast,. Starting with the . subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new elementary school will provide for . an increased district capacity of 500 students. ., 2. Residential Development Activity The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this last fiscal year. These figures supplement the information distributed to City Council August 1989, which had stopped at June 30, 1989. A. v BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED, 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Single Family 400 Houses Multi Family =aka . . , . y , , Total 439 Dwellings , ,-- ,\I ; --, . B. ,,/ SINGLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED . 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR . 40 _ .. Zatic Eurnivracial " \ R-15 R-10 ' 63 117 R-7.5 31 R-5 161. „ , • Total Lots Approved 372 The City continues to experience an active develOpment market, bdth through the subdivision of land and issuance of building pel.rnits. There were 682 new . , dwelling units in 1988/1989, the preceding final year. When compared to the 1989/1990 figure, it is evident that the single family market continues to be .. strong. The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline in available . ! ., multifamily land. , 1 3. Conclusions , Information presented to Council in August, 1989 during the building moratorium deliberations indicated there were a total of 885 vacant single family zoned lots 11 within the city limits. A very gross update of this vacant lot figure with the last fiscal years development activity indicates there are roughly 857 vacant lots as of July 1, 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), ; oil , \ ( , . .„, .. Ile, . . . 0 ,, • There are several variables which are not talcen into consideration through this calculation: 1. Recently approved 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 part of a double lot ownership with an existing house straddling both lots. A/2 # Oh ' \ ) • • ii 4110 4 . \ . \ • • ) . ) / • • • 1 ,' S.1 P .. ) ( ) . (( ) ()• . I ' ,,... f;14 .. • • . I . .. o- • • LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT it Office of Supenntsndenl ,-k IROLLMENT REPORT . Date 6'1.,90 3 ELEMENTARY 1r School K 1 2 3,c`. 4 S;° 6 Spec Total Oct,1 Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec �Pio Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup -or- North Sid. Foust Hills ;L•- 2,0 52 3A 75 2.0 43 2.0 51 2,0 40 2.5 56 2,0 47' 1,0 10 16 5 Nom Lake Grove 0.0 0 5.0 114 4,0 95''' 4.0 96 3,5 82 3.5 arrj 4.0 86 0.0 0 24 0_ INK Uplands 3,0 63 4.0 87 3,r` ','J 66 3.0 69 4.0 92 4,0 W 4,0 92 1.0 10 26 0 562 Total 5.0 awns.115 12.0 276 9.0 204 9.0 216 9,5 214 10.0 224 10.0 225 2.0 20 66 5 1 494 ME � South Side �� I IIIMZIIIIIIIIIIIMNN 6,0 122 2.0 IIIIMAIEE 40 2.0 49�M• Q,p�j 2,0 . 39 0 0 0 18.5 392' ME HaI nan , 2.0 39 2.0 40 2,0 40 2,0 46 2,0 41 3.0 71 0.0 0 15,5 3351E a' 4`i i Palisades 2.0 37 2.0 49 2.0 43 2,0 42 2.0 53 3,0 63 0,0 0 0 0 0 13.0 287 w ,a I River Grove 2.0 43 2,0 2.0 43 2.0 47 " lit, , r ���r 42 1 s 34 1.0 25 a.o 0 1 z.o .272 IMF or I WVafrida 2.0 3.0 ar 2.0 51 2.5 58 J 61 3,0 64 3,0 85 0 0 0 18 0 436 "9 Total 14,0 293 11,0 235 10.0 225 10.5 242 11,0 270 - - -_ 29 ® - 237 9,0 220 0,0 77.0 i. 722 W GRAND TOTAL 19.0 40 23.0 511 19,0 129 19.5 �- . 20.5 484® 461 19.0 445 2.0 20 143.5 3,216 me Junior High SECONDARY 7 8 Total Oc1.Y High School 9 10 11 12 Total Oct. 1 i+or• HS 261 237 498 4 ■.r +or• aluaa 250 251 501 4 Pnill rra 250 230 204 943 -6 •• 230 218 229" 250 927 .6 Total 511 488 92? B -- __ Total 489 454 1 870 •12 Growth Analysis ' October 1987 October 1988 Grade Level 'N a October, 1989 Current -_-- Slam,K-6 N S N S N S 1,308 1,461_ 1,473 1 494 1,467 1.690 1.d9d 1 722 Jr.High 7.8 404 Sr High 9-12 1.006 1.057 440 472 494 497 `'A98 5C+ ' TOTALS - - •_�►,,...1. 957 992 949 933 9431 9271 5,661�_._--__ 5 828 6 030 50881 • . 1111• ( , m • • q ij • • \\\.\ \\. . - y � \ \ `o \// n I t/ ,� It er/40,` )93,, \ p 0 / 11 „Not .eI1 •• . I r. • . C). , li 461 „diTit,:‘ :1 -\ :. '...' • '. 1 0 t /722.\)46ali(4& •-•,, , ...,.i• ,. •••../1 ).:.1, . 0 Vik ..,/ 4& • % I \ , " -All ' 411111grAlli. 1111111a V*441' *NS .'(: 4 s. * 1 Ikt, , ,rt, . ,.../ ' c illpill 01111I \< � (• ^ . -0,..•D.•r:rill . 1 4 w f al0 I S mg E ttt 0.14 1 C.• \ t' ' , • .:•>'. ' '' 11, ,./,••'.- "N.'s\ i"14 Ltd.°3 ) Vilik a• X 4'"1#t Y. • • f ' ;O ` 14141 i ` x e Eaditi; r c //' fi, a IVI , ‘.: 3 i I 0 ikti N.... . _, , _ �r K I ,o' .._ , N e , _N , ,, , _ m r•• II L1oc1) 11 r �� I/. f/ I mr1 r xt" ie il1 if" N J. d. kal / IV 11 I...1..11 ` *' rr ``tom^ "' 'Ia a 1.---..... ..., 0/ a iti 1" , , I .I • at"Y •V• i !1 1\ �,_� I ,‘, ____ , „.. ,.. 7.___......, _,..... . 4,,,i � V di r n.1 V ,, lo . [..N. .• ,r 7 " 0 J O o `,.tu `J 1.1 1 0 SS( ;I;`� ^I i ^ter. !� H Q. F. \:.. .11(\\ .% I. . P----, .... , , „Fr, . „ . ,.„ . ? :\ ✓ yl y r J.� Vt , �I 11n , Ir. T. i• 1 s : l rya j_,,.,t,.. eV•1 .,, .4.........,: l_ — . _ . • U El'H ••/• / r 11� 01 ,! �1 I . , 4 I ICII 11 ' 1 -+'-- I \c t P q1 " • , I 1° 1 11 ': \j..is) N ,.... , , .L, . , [..: . .:, . . ,... , , ,., , ,,.. ..„ ,. J: L".t ... .,....., , , _...... . . .] . ....„..., �� r, W 01 • I t & I y w rt r• v1•r • — _ (' .T " EXHIBIT A n• II, ( 1 M r rJ1n It. , 'Y 1 ` I+l 10 w r�� f 0 STAFF REPORT 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ...-LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION----. • APPLICANT: FILE NO,: , Glenn E. Chilcote A.I.A. DR 17-90\VAR 27-90 .. PROPERTY OWNER; STAFF: L. Radley Squier Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION; DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 400 of October 26, 1990 .i 1 Tax Map 2 lE 8CB DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION; 4225 S.,W, Oakridge Road November 5, 1990 . NEIGHBOR_HQQD OCI A TION: 4COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION.: AcS """` . I GC/R-0 Waluga ZONING DESIGNATION; , i GC I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 2,510 squE4e foot addition and the associated site improvement,,o to a pne-story office building. The 4,evelopment requires a variance to the Site Circulation 5tand&i'ds [19,020(l,a.)] to allow a 13' wide driveway in place of the 24' required.The narrow dr.i�eway width is proposed to save trees, o H. APPLICAE E R 1 1I ATIOm I A, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48,300-48,305 Commercial Districts LOC 48.310 Site Development Limitations • LOC 48,535(4) Special Street Setbacks I . DR 17-90/VAR 27-90 Page 1 of 5 lJ • • U _ ... h ' B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: ��4 Impaci)Management Policies (p. 16) y 4110, ' Social Resource Policies (p. 61) Commercial Land Use Policy Element Commercial Land Use Policies GeneralholicyIII,Specific Commercial District '\ Policy for the following commercial district: C b IV-b. Oalaidge Mixed Use Sub Area (p. 110) C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.500-49 310 Variances LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval 1 LOC 49,620 Conditional Approvals D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: il 2.00)5 -2.040 Building Design �y 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights 6.005 -6.040 Transit System 7.00( -7.040 Parking&Loading Standard 8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005-9,040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 11.040 Dk' inage Standard for Major Development .. • 14,005- 14.040 I Utility Standard40 , 18.005 18,040 1 1(, Access Standard 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation-Private: Streets/Driveways 20.005 -20.040 ! Site Circulation -Bikeways and Walkways !), I III. FINDINGS A. Background: , i 1, The existing building is a 3,610 sq, ft. one story structure used as office and soils laboratory space for geotechnical (soils) and „eo-environmental consultants, This facility was converted from an original residence approximately 11 years ago‘to a office space, This request is for an expansion of 2,510 sgti; �',to include additional ' \ and additional men and womn toilet facilities, The exterior is proposed conference room fl 0 ex space offices for 10-12 personnel, expanded secretanal'area, the recently renovated existing building, p p 5ed to match The expansion will require additional parking. Existing parking is available for 15 vehicles. A new 12 car lot will be added to accommodate the proposed expansion, Two existing spaces will be removed to make way for a new access drive, No additional landscaping is proposed. 2, The site is included within the Comprehensive plan, Section IV-B, Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area, It is designated GC/R-0 by the Plan and is specifically zoned GC, 11 DR 17--90/VAR 27-90 Page 2 of 5 ° J .. ..„ , . • ,. . . <., ' V . .., 0 ,0 3. :rixisting uses adjacent to this property are as follows: North: the property's • backyard adjoins the Lake Oswego School District bus storage and repair facility and the Lake Grove Elementary Playground. Approximately 7/8 of the lineal feet 0 , of property abuts on the bus maintenance facility property. East: the property side yard adjoins the Simpson House Apartments, a 3-building two-story wood frame complex containing 15 apartment units. South: across Oakridge Road are tv4ki single-family residential dwellings. Both are comparable in size and scale with the subject building having been originally constructed at about the same time some 35 years ago. Also adjacent across Oakridge Road to the south, is one commercial ., 11 facility,The Lake Grove Garden Center, which extends south from Oakridge Road .' • , (,), to front on Boones Ferry Road. The northerly end of the garden center is used for plan storage sales and parking with a two-story,concrete block commercial structure fronting on Boones Ferry Road. West: a commercial building, The ,-- --- Oakridge Medical Clinic is a one-story wood frame, wood sided, metalroofed ( <) . , structure. ) 4. On April 2, 1990 the Development Review Board approved a temporary (one year) structure of about 500 sq. ft. to allow additional office use on the site. The approval was granted with conditions (See Exhibit 9). The temporary structure is proposed to be removed to allow the proposed expansion and parking lot. • B. Compliance with Criteriia• a , , ova. (9 , , o The applicant's mitten n ative (Exhibit 3) and the variance nmTative (Exhibit 4) demonstrate substantial compliance with the criteria for approval. The following report provides findings regarding the adequacy of the applicant's submission, ' , .,. 4111 1. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • . The applicant has ade.uately addressed Comprehensive Pin,requirements in the //written narrative (Exhibit 3,pages 7-10). However, the applicant objects to street --, improvements required along Oakridge Road (see discussion under "Utility Standard"). ) 0 , 2. City of Lake Oswego Zx ning Code: „ , . a. LOC 48.300-48,305 Commercial Districts ' The office is an allowed use in the zone. No change to this existing use is proposed, . b. LOC 48.310(1) , ) The Zoning Code requires that commercial structures be setback 25' from the ,\ • 1"C-N3 abutting residential property lien and that driveways have a 5' minimum setback, The applicant has previously received a variance to this section because the existing h \ - nonconforming structure is 5' from the property line and paving for the existing driveway is only a few feet from the property line, The existing variance does not cover the proposed parking area which is required to be 10' from the property line, The parking area, proposed to be built with about a 5' setback, should be reduced in size to provide the 10' setback, If the modification requires the loss of twaApartscisr, the proposal will stiO exceed the 21 space requirement of the Code, ------- ,,.., 0c . ., 1 ) 0 i I II ) i I I • DR 17-90/VAR 27-90 . • Page 3 of 5 I •I I • . 4.014, .. . ." 4 4 . . •. r , •. ti 'fir 4 , V. • c. LOC 48.310(5) 0 This section of the Zoning Code requires commercial structures within 60' of a residential zone to be "stepped down" in height to the residential zone. With a 5' i ' setback the formula calls for the building height to be measured at 40' minus 55' n. (one foot less than 40' for every foot closer than 60' to the property line). The resulting—15' height allowance causes an obvious hardship for the existing structure. A variance was previously granted for the existing structure. d. LOC 535(4) Special Street Setbacks • A special street setback of 30' along Oakridge Road, The owner has already dedicated 15' of additional right—of—r..'ay along Oakridge Road for future improvements. The City plans to "offset" the planned improvements in order to save fir trees within the right—of—way, • 3. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: a. LOC 49.300—49,335 Major Development Procedures Specific application requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable criteria for approval are addressed in those sections of p" this report and in the applicant's written narrative (Exhibit 3). Application materials v., submitted are listed as exhibits at the end of this report, No development schedule has been submitted, , • 'ws b, LOC 49.500—49,510 Variances 0 • The applicant has submitted a variance narrative (Exhibit 4) which properly ' addresses the criteria. 4. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: The applicant's written narrative (Exhibit 3) illustrates substantial compliance with j the standards, This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposal are recommended, • -• r a. Street Lights (5.005 —5,040) The City Engineer has recommended that an additional light be mounted on an existing pole to provide adequate lighting for the 1 w driveway until new street ' lights are provided with the future recommended street improvements, b, Utilities (14.005 — 14.040) The City Engineer recommends that half—street improvements for a 36' wide street be provided on Oakridge road at this time, The improvements should be designed .. for a 20 year life and should include street lights, drainage improvements and a 5' • sidewalk, The improvements should be designed and located to maximize tree protection, City Charter provisions for road widening apply, C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the 411) . , i, complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria, proposal - A' DR 17-90/VAR 27--9() ~ . Page 4 of 5 • 1 , . ' , 3. e ` III. RECOMMENI�;� 1''ION • The staff recommends approval of DR 17-90 and VAR 27-90, with the following conditions: • 1. The applicant shall provide half—street improvements along Oakridge Road and shall .. comply with City Charter requirements for road widening, Construction plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. e ' • , 2. Final plans shall be revised illustrating a 10' setback for the proposed parking lot. 3, The applicant shall provide final utility plans illustrating storm water collection systems • • with all drywells stubbed for connection to a street storm drain line, The applicant shall connect to the system if it is functional prior to occupancy, ./ 4. Landscaping shall be restored prior to final occupancy. +' 5. The applicant shall submit a development schedule for the review and approval of staff. 1 'A EXHIBITS ,. 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map t 3. Applicant's Narrative ` • "7•a. 4, Variance Narrative 5. Site Plan 6. Elevations ' 7. Roof Plan ; 8. Area Map • 9. Findings DR 1-90/VAR 10-90 16. IDR90-111.RepurtuDR 17-90 4 , I ' 0 DR 17-90/VAR 27-90 Page5of5 " •�•. n r �, • d a el 5 'an b♦ a , 0 N . 'r--,_.. .., 4 500 ' Q'' to4343 ;� I .,I v en, 6 /cso 6u• 7 60 8 90 9 • o I S/�ft fri vo 4co " `y 96 6V 14 900 14 800 ,, ``e-,• % 4340 r�r tu Ii b1 O °' /• I / 'el 1 J 0 .�r r ' • a / 41 15150 I �,o y / �; I QI aS. I M . 2 /moo ,/4 I 0 / I • 15100 I I .�' WN ;; 151so h . o SE COR ro `q •1 'ixo• C HAS.BROWN ( ti • ,-%rr•••— "' .••�et. e•.4.�s 14""'-4 ;C[t'mot-`y``N.` ',r / I /30 7J— • . /7� I '/• PeI` ,%GVq 5q 0 r; 3J0 200 IUI '' ,� ' I 0 15020 • 4309 4;'25 15875' I.., �I ,su' T - 700 �= n 15050 ose I I I �;� r, q q :p • • 15000 r', • ;AT n lie', ...TO, --- I---w.hT_' — /ro. 2 �fb .. • So -A. .4• 'J M / X.36".'l'I• — I T, ' • _ �p,so/ . -- 9 1700 1900• 9 2000�r • g - �'r� 7 %77/l� 2100 ° % ; 9�00 n ., 4284 4210 15955 21 00 Al x�/ 1g�3���+�'� , '.r •, :'I, r h SEE MAP ► -' -�-r 15�\1 15905 J a /��. NI ; ,. J r. r J J -> J A D ..) N /� �L , � �' /.`o N ' e, SUPPLEMENJTALAL 'r a ypo , o I� 1000 • a "� •/ �� 84.• - A 1 sl .." 76 \ \''t . 42, 1: • m J ,9 - : e. r• � q i � 2 IE CB , _Zrl e r 1�[ � $r ( IGat�� / 1800 ' - "�o i` �3�-t'. q' �J'k i� I !I rya 18035 t'q /'/ �.'4f- f� 0 .� v. w� 16045 0� ,, 1 ,�r�0 p 15948 16 5�, t�,aer ,i,5 „A✓� Al r ,) �.4 \fig • , ' 4 ,' j h D 1 a LV y4 .n j 1 IJ �. ,` i, �g6 \ r off" $ :G200 \\% 1, h \? . �' ".,�� �� EXHIBIT, _ 4 -�`, °fah �1 ,N 1 ,--C�aO� I. \l`, a » • �' h•I• r' ' M r,' . a lJr +�`� ri r tt `�, h r 7 ✓/i� 4 is t .W • -"' "A‘I'l R-3 '// . ''�" l:i: AC I F3� , F ar,Iww: Iy�111 , t +.\' .,... •1.1 •YtJ'--,n,„ t. , ..2 .•o ::"2: ' -.I 7 Pz.'" 0 1:1i..1..t.1'Sy, h' % ` ':. ;, ,,...\:::,�i :iL '1.i. aLt• 1 .,, M1 Il"9t�11_� - -' 'a:., .t• i.",r_pf::Y.'ai I • • --••��......►+rr" �^R�\ `t 1 / 1 'C.( \ ,'.V°f 4,. ••% • •`11''/ -yr..'.` :1.."u�i�- `I,.• ,, '1-- / . :t` 1 I `,\p.t.•' �•,,,,. ry.. J ,,,ty`�yri.{�•i�•, ,1 i 1.,. • / ‘ . .....,—...\ , rs, ,. C., ,, v4. ,... cs„.......... . . \—\ 't,R-7 .5 .., 1 f Li , I I , I., ' l Lij1 WLU3A ! 17 ; I .J ; r'! J1 • ' 1 ' PARK • I , .•fir 1 WIT 1 I' ' 1 • i I e' V1# I III I 1 1 •it 5 re ! '~ I «...b "' I ° R+ .a0 � t 1 • ..�; , , • 1 1 Ij Iy{ ( w, �jlj� I • •t ''''" •. • ,. I •1 • �' _'._. I 1 I •n.l r. I i d1 I, ,` 1 1 ! ��91• 1 1 o ..« '7..1..:.'' uricurt.;=:—.,. -. I I{,.._,t4_,1 %, t 1 1 ' ' , 1 5t '1 ,.'s— :0 •° �r • I 1 ' , .I I11 1 I 1."`` •3•t t1 . •, •l• ':v‹, ,•/,,•!r•- 1 .: 1 • 1 1 1 t y4.e' I :I , 1 ° t .I.., , i '", 1 tt P a .•�•'•,it, 1�• 0 1 '1 ,,, *• n •i,•r,'y- • M II , I I %t 1 �•'•. r, SUdngru•J1 1 t i,� .-1-1- _ ` un.'w �.�•,;''.,t • 1t 1 t `~ I l • •�� ,r''• tutu 1 14 I . 4 ) • •Y. ' 1. 1 ‘,, ‘, 't • ,.. ,,, �. t y.+ ...7 c�• ,; , ,r i ce/. tt ,:1 ., ,'/,, ,,,. .• % ,, 44. , ......- ut2 ' ,d frf , (-7 0%..1.1...,„.....,H.,;. ,. . . ..... ______., .,.. ..• .., , _,....44st,) ) „, , .... , , . i • .„, ,..-- . ,- 1-,4i .• ' . . tf .•,J� f•t1, •, �`',• ram.�'• u+ " / �1 •r y try--�'��' I a:,,/� ...�,1 y ' )l'••,:1' #•••• 1‘, "014' 4\\\ I •/ .4. \\\ 1. troW ."\\ ,. 4‘` 1/. ,e'.#, //' ,4,6,•'' 4, • Gill I ll'' 7 f 1 /' , MI6 • 9•v 1.• .„At tic: _..1t .a • 1 w ,1 + I` # / x •. ' YJ 5 cf ....fl ! I �.� rt _ JxNP—:. i�/ ,0% �J �, --.1 > `:1 , I 1 ° .�, , �. 1l ' VIICINITj " old , t. �, ~3 r� �� , . E X M 1191 T alb L.a�+. (.r-] .J4/ 1. 1 wmow...., ... -�._.... \ / 1 1 f 1 41 11 • - 1 - r 10 October 1990 • City of Lake Oswego Development Review Board Development Review Staff • REQUEST: Approval of design concepts for 2. 510 sq. ft. addition to an existing professional office building and expanded • parking. The, enclosed materials are submitted for Development Review action to allow expansion of an existing commercial structure and additional parking for L. R. Squier & Associates Geotechnical Engineers. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The existing building is a 3, 610 sq. ft . one story structure used as office and soils laboratory space for geotechnical ( soils ) and geo-environmental consultants. This facility was converted from an original residence approximately 11 years ago to office space. • This request is for an expansion of 2, 510 sq. ft, to include additional flex space offices for 10-12 personnel , expanded . secretarial area, conference room and additional men and women toilet facilities. Exterior will match the recently renovated existing building. • i Expansion will require additional parking. Existing parking is available for 15 vehicles. Expansion requires parking for 20. 4 " (21 ) vehicles. An additional 12 parking spaces will be created. ' `; ' Two spaces from the existing 15 will be deleted for an access • drive, providing a total ( new and existing ) of 25 spaces . The owner takes pride in preserving the existing mature tree `` cover . Considerable funds have been expended over the years on t. landscaping . Expansion has thus been sensitive to maintaining the "•` existing park like atmosphere with lawn and mature fir trees . Site disruption is kept to the minimum possible while allowing commercial expansion on properly coned property. This is accomplish fed by configuring the addition to generally fit between tree locations. 5 fir and 1 maple tree of a total 37 mature trees are required to be removed for expansion, NOTE! the one maple is a fairly poor tree with many dead limbs . !' COMPATIBILITY TO SURROUNDINGS Site is included within the Comprehensive Plan, Section IV-ii, Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area, pg. 110 ''4+ "The Oakridge area is a planned commercial and residential area served by Quarry Road, Oakridge Road and Scones Ferry Road. It is an expansion .if the existing commercial district . . " , The use of .. ' this parcel will not change. With improvements the site remains • under-Utilized as a commercial development . The area now is a successful mix of residential /commercial as "" 4J . . envisioned. Refer to enclosed drawing , ' Area Map' showing adjacent uses. Existing uses adjacent to this property are as follows ! .- U • 0 . '.%� . . i . :IL C JN L CI-IILCO I I A.I.A. +�',� 'x Aichltects,'Planners 17125 5.W. Bcsono I ell i Road Loki ©swe,n, 01 rgr n 97035 ` t r yy �' • North, the property. ' backyard ' adjoins the Lake Oswego School „. • District bus storage and repair facility and Lake Grove Elementary . . Playground. Approximately 7/8 of the lineal feat; of property abuts 4111 . :. the bus maintenance facility property which is a less than desirable use for this area but existing. The L. R. Squier improvements .. continue to upgrade and act as a buffering element between the Boones Ferry commercial area and the bbus maintenance faci 1 facility. gua�r i - industrial ' use of the y. Compatibility to the Lake Grove Grade school to the northeast is practically non-existent since the distance cancels visual relationshi• ps. 0 East, property sideyard adjoins the Simpson House Apartments a 3-building two story wood frame complex containing 15 apartment units. Visual residential scale is maintained through use of wood ,siding and low profile. South, across Oakridge Road are two single family residential dwellings, one of which is owned by the Lake Grove tl Garden Center . Alpo adjacent across Oakridge Road to the south is one commercial facility, The Lake 'Greve Garden Centers Which extends south from Oakridge Road to front on Boones Ferry Road. The northerly en d of the garden center is used for plant storage ,;.. sales and parking with a -story concrete block commercial i structure fronting on Boones Ferry Road. West a professional building, The Oakridge Medical Clinic is a 4 one-story wood frame , wood sided, metal roofed structure. • facility is slightly larger in scale than the proposed renovation although still maintains a ' fit ' to the basic neighborhood character with a sympathetic use of scale and materials and preservation of some mature trees . The subject project i5 to maintain continuity with this more recently ,+• • n ly built structure • Ewa:• •.. $approximately 7 years old ) with an exterior use of similar �' vertical cedar siding and a similar metal roof material and profile, :n summary then, this project expansion and renovation is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and sympathetic with surroundings. A good transition occurs from larger scale ':•_iildings on Boones Ferry (such as the U. S. Post Office Building ) o tory wood frame structures to a one-story office structure, Zee also notes on Building Design Data: A, site Coverage a ; Existing building 3, 10 sq, f t , ,,';; , is New building 3, r,10 sq i fh �� Total Building i,, 120 -Jq, it , B, Site Coverage Buildings 6, 120 sq, f t , 20. 9% Asphalt t Walks 1 , 9130 sq, ft , 44 , .3% Landscaping 10. 150 sq, ft. 34, y7�% • C Pa 29, 230 sq. f t , 10,r`,% _„� r Required 1 3�;,,:� sq t t P A 21 , 4 . , . , . spares Actual with to ;e ( Dement - uJ spaces . - I n 4 e '1 0.4.yy,,t • • A • �'J a �-1 w,' ^ r.? 3 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • ,i 1 . Historic resource preservation : No significance (Not applicable ) 2. Building design : L . , • Exist ing structure is residential in scale. Improvements have and will continue to maintain this scale and appearance. All ,,,:• of the criteria for complimentary relationships to adjacent structures wi l I be maintained through the use of appropriate • materials, roof lines, height and overall proportions and to match existing construction. See Section on Compatibility • to surroundings. Setbacks for the p expansion '" • proposed are substantially within ,, Code requireoents of property zoned for this use. ° The existing building and expansion is sensitive to extensive existing natural landscape consistingofaprrk-like park- like lawn and large stand of fir and maple trees scattered on-site. General landsca i ,7• throughout thesite p g g wi 1 i not b�3 rfisturbed with the exception of removal o,r' 6 fir/maple trees . A total of 31 fir and maple trees of 5" caliper or more will remain undisturbed. 3, Stream corridors :, None are in existence on this site . (Not alibl ) 4. Wetlands : A None (Not applicable ) 5. Street lights : t?` Street lights exist on Oakridge Road to adequately night- light tD l . the street. The additional 12 car parking lot will require additional night lighting on site, Two 75W. H. P. sodium *4' ;' �' directional lights on 18 ft . high wood standards to match ba existing will be installed. Also two 75W. H. P. sodium directional lights on 18 ft . high wood standards to match existing to be installed at the new drive. See Drawings. �'. 6. Transit system : Subject site is located within one City block of a maior arterial , Boones Ferry Road. at the intersection of Oakridge Road and Boones Ferry Road TriMet maintains a regular bus r schedule, • . .1, . Parking ,and loading : The gross floor area ( with additions ) of 6, 120 sq . ft , requires 4 21 . 4parking spaces ( pet ,w p r LOC 7. 015 one space per 300 gross sq, ft . ) 15 existing spaces are available with an additional 12 spaces to Ise developed ( requiring removal of 2 existing : Y b spaces ) resulting .in a net 25 parking spaces. Transit and pedestrian access reduction factors not required to be exercised , i n>J berth Loading and/or tone not required with this facility, .q 1 no regular or as g intermittent deliveries are required , .'.. Yr' • r Y ih - q , - 1 N _` y G! , 1 • t t a a 4 Minimum standards for the new 12 car parking lot on-site will • be met providing for parking and circulation. Existing 13 car o parking will remain as located on-site. On-site pedestrian 4111 . . circulation is provided through new walkways linking the 12 car parking with the additional space and the existing building. Existing walkways link existing parking with the existing offices. 8. Park and Open Space : Development will maintain 34. 7% of the site ati landscaped open o' space not including asphalt and walk areas , 7 'e intent is to S : preserve on-site a majority of the old growth fir and maple now existent. As a result development impact is visually and qualitatively positive providing a pleasant park- like atmosphere for enjoyment of employees and public, • S. Landscaping, street trees, screening, buffering : Fence screening and buffering exists at the east property line between this facility and the adjacent 2 story apartment units: Screening ,and fencing also occurs at the north property line adjacent to the bus maintenance facility and • " ' Lake Grove Elementary playground. Existing natural growth and berm as well as fencing will remain along the west property line. A number of mature Douglas fir trees along Oakridge road provide substantial ' street tree ' planting. The grounds ' \ will continue to be cared for on a regular maintenance schedule. 10. Fences : All fencing and screening at property lines as mentioned in Item 9 to be maintained as existing . See Drawings. 11 . Drainage standards for major development : One new oil separator catch basin with drywell will be installed in the new 12-car parking lot with drainage sloped to the basin. Two existing working catch basins exist with dry well systems which have been operating satisfactorily ( one for 11 years and one for 2 years ) . A storm line does not exist in Oakridge Road. The storm water drainage for parking and roof is and will be taken care of through on-site dry Y wells. Two drywells exist for the roof drainage of the building . In 11 years of use there hos bnnn no problem with drainage. A storm line for the catch basins has been stubbed to the property line for future hook-up to , ; , • a future street storm drain line. (Per City requirements, a 1 .... condition of Hearing II DR- 11-87) Storm water retention as discussed with Public Works will be dissipated through ex isting g xisr ting and new drywell systems . The soil 4- is permeable and adequately dissipates run-off . There is no drainage, water courses or surface drainage patterns on-site. The existing site a slopes p- pproximately 2 feet from the south east corner diagonally up to the northwest corner of the parcet , ~ lope thus is approximately 1 foot in 80 feet, essential f , at. eb . - '' 12, Drainage standard for minor development : ( not applicable ) • 13. Weak foundation soils : ( not applicable) `►.' . • • it rw / , ., . r 5 14. Utility _.tandard ♦ A. Sanitary sewer system - existing B. Water distribution system - existing N C. Sidewalks - new sidewalk linking the new parking with the building to be constructed with development. Street sidewalk is to be developed in the future as a 1 pedestrian walkway/bikeway continuous from Boones Ferry >,,,. Road to Quarry road in conjunction with potential future street widening, curbing and development. At this time the City has no plans for this work. As a part of _ • DR-11-87 Conditions, monies were deposited with the City to fund a future walkway fronting this property. Various types of walkways have been discussed. The overall plan from Boones Ferry to Quarry Road and beyond must be a,,, determined before this section can be constructed . D. street name signs - ( not applicable ) ro ' E. traffic control signs and devices - ( not applicable) F. street lights - existing installed as a Condition of DR- 11-87. G. underground utility and service facilities as required - existing lines including water, sanitary sewer, gas and telephone are existing and underground. 9 Electrical - existing overhead. To be installed under- �' ground from a street drop with development . ;.� • , H. streets, public - existing18' ft . wide r'< pavement exists with 4 approximately 4-6 ft . graveled shoulders each side. The Comprehensive Plan does not include Oakridge Road as either an arterial or collector street. Ref : Transporta- ' tion Policies General Policy Ill : pg. 154-.55. Therefore, it is classified as a neighborhood street and overall development of the street should adhere to General Policy IV page 156. Therefore, half-street improvements • should not be required for the following reasons : 1 . No development plans are in place or contemplated for .'' improvement' s , widening etc. by the City Pub lie Wurl.' for Oakridge Road. •� d, 2. Future storm drainage installation in the street may radically change existing street configuration and Q. elevations requiring a complete rebuildingof pave- A, ment. 3. Impact of half -street improvements along the property frontage and widening will impact and possibly destroy .,,4' a grove of 8 mature fir trees, r ' - 4. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy IV page 156, states, residential street systems to provide for a , • minimum of disruption. 15. Ni I lside protection and erosion ocntrcl ( not applicable ) • 16. Flood Plains : (Not applicable ) Parcel provides 150 lineal feet of frontage on IJal:ridge Road. .% level and at street grade. One 12 ft . wide entrance access r ' • t* 1 4 f , , !, • aY 1 6 p exists approximately 10 ft . west of the east property line and one 16 ft . wide exit exists approximately 20 ft. east of the 4110 , . , west property line with directional arrows designating entry 4,; and exit. See Drawings. Safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property conforming to City site clearances are provided, ( re : LOC Zoning page 279. 54) Access design then, based on the following criteria should be ';;. • • acceptable as designed. A. Topography : site transition to street is basically level . No grade changes are anticipated. r B. Traffic volume generated by improvements are minimal . , '1, '„• Anticipated to be 5-6 additional vehicles per day. NOTE: 5 employees to use the new facilities are now housed in a temporary mobile unit to be removed at conclusion of construction. Total vehicular employee traffic into site daily will be • 20-25. Additional vehicles in and out of site average 1 a IP'. every 2 hours or less , well within the existing capacity of Oakridge Road, C. Street to site clearances are excellent, well above code minimums. tt'. 16. Site Circulation Standards , Driveways and Private Streets : A, On-site new construction circulation has been designed to adequately provide for maneurvering and parking . B. Pt:iblic walkway/bikeway along Oakridge Road will be a future installation by the City connecting Quarry Road • " k$' with Boones Ferry Road ( refer to design Standard 014 (C) Sidewalks. C. An additional 13' 0" wide access drive is planned to meander through the existing trees to a new 12 car parking a lot located at the N. W. corner of the site to be used for employee parking. The drive width is designed basically a one-way lane to lessen impact on site and save tree:. . See Variance application submitted to reduce required drive width from 24 ' 0" to 13' -0" . 'f'• : o n , • ' As • ,� s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE . 1. Impact Management Policies ( pg. 16) Objectives : "to assure that new development and re-development is o compatible with community objectives related to the natural • • environment. community character , provision of public services facilities and programs , and enriches the quality of life. To minimize adverse affects of growth on : natural resources or processes physical facilities aesthetic character Comment : t Proposed designs are sensitive to these objectives. See commentary • i' under various development standards which address these General Policies . 2. Social Resource Policies ( page 61 ) Objective : " the development of a community environment designed ,, + to encourage creative community living and sense of Identity. " ' Specifically General Policies No. : I . "The City will develop and protect features valuable to community identity and preserve the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of residents . " V. "The city will strengthen neighborhoods identity through public i '� decisions which provide for neighborhood boundaries, social centers, residential privacy, pedestrian circulation and protection from disruptive land uses and ' traffic, " Comment : These policies have been taken in account in development of the site for commercial use. See commentary under Development ,,\ Standards . As discussed every attempt is being made to maintain a feeling of Neighborhood ambience to the site with landscaping and retention of a majority of large firs existing on the site. Impact of additional construction is sensitive to the site, built among o the trees, of low protile and designed with a pedestrian scale. • The buildings cover only 6, 120 sq. f t. (20. 9%) of a 20, 230 sq, f t. parcel . • 3. Commercial Land Use Policies (pg . 97) Objective : " to encourage development of commercial facilities adequate to satisfy community needs and to focus social interaction and community identity in conjunction with those commercial facilities. " General Policies : I . The City will encourage development of commercial areas to meet the community' s consumer needs . II . The City will plan for a mix of social , cultural , commercialJo and governmental activities within commercial centers , so that these centers are attractive community focal points . ' lii . The City will plan for the developnte.'nt of commercial districts • scaled in size to the area to be served. , e v 4Y , .w 8 IV. The City will assure provision of adequate streets, public 410 e facilities and consistent governmental policies, which will encourage private investment in the development of Lake Oswego' s commercial centers. V. The City will assure minimal negative impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential areas. Y Comment : , 1 . The existing and planned expansion he [ s meet t community consumer needs. kik II . The zone is in place for a General Commercial /Residential Mix for which this area has been designated and is progressing in that manner . III . The facility is scaled to its surroundings , maintaining a scale sympathetic to small commercial and residential use. � ' See comments on Compatibility. IV. Existing support utilities are available to the site. • Additional City improvements are not necessary at this time. At some future date it is anticipated the City will be involved in improvements to the street and storm drainage. V. Negative Impact : all existing residential buildings located near this property are actually located within the general commercial /high density residential zone (GC/RC) , therefore, as future development progresses the area should become less developed with single family residential . 4. Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area Policy ( pg . 110) (111 "The Oakridge area is a planned commercial and residential area served by Quarry Road, Oakridge Road and Boones Ferry Road. It is an expansion of the existing commercial district and as such . should be developed in a manner which assures : a. Revitalization of the adjacent businesses on Boones Ferry by improving traffic circulation, parking access and pedestrian circulation, b. Proper vehicle access and street design, c. Pedestrian Paths and bikeways Grove School and the commercial hdistrict Pto the ct uresidential a Park, ie . areas to the west . rJ, Shared parking and street access where possible, to relieve traffic congestion, e• Protection of adjacent residential areas from the noise and bright lights of commercial activity. f . Proper vehicle, pedestrian and bike access to the mast Office at Oakridge and Boones Ferry, g . Equitable sharing of the costs of necessary streets; and public facilities . ' h. Preservation of major trees in the area, Comment : • In-so-far as is applicable to this property these items are taken '. .• into account, The street improvements and other factors have been addressed under design development standards , Pedestrian access • through pathways is to be developed by the City inthe future and funds for this frontage have been put in escrow with the City for that future development , Preservation of trees is u,rpermost in the i 4 ' 9 • owner' s mind. Finally, the type of operation which occurs on this parcel ( professional office ) is low key with no impact of noise or bright lights. Operations are ideal to the Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area. 5. Pedestrian Pathways Policies (pg. 137) Objective : "to plan and develop a system of pedestrian pathways, which enable 'residents to travel safely on foot or bicycle between parks, schools, public places and residential areas. " Comment : Addressed in Development Standards and various other Policies . 6. Transportation Policies ( pg. 150) . 16 Objective : " to develop a coordinated transportation system which serves the Planned °Land Use distribution, and meets complex community needs and desires , including economic, social , conveni - ence, safety and aesthetic goals. " General Policies : I . "City will develop a balanced transportation system which will provide safe ,and convenient access to serve the approved land use pattern within the urban services boundary. This system will include major streets as well as neighborhood residential streets , " Comment :Comment : • As discussed, Oakridge Road is classified as a residential street and therefore must be maintained without additional impact to the area. Widening, curbs and half street improvements for this parcel will not only look strange but ti will declassify the street from a neighborhood designation. The existing street is adequate to serve the local business and residential area as existing. II . "The City will plan the use of street rights-of-way to serve human powered modes, such as bicycles and pedestrians, in addition to serving motor vehicles. " Comment : At this time pathways are planned in general for the west end of Lake Oswego including a pathway/walkway along Oakridge to /, connect various areas to the west and to the east. Monies have been put in escrow account with the City for this future pathway development fronting this parcel . At this time the City has no cohesive plan for development to proceed with construction. IV. "The city will develop and implement a system of bikeways and pedestrian paths, which provide energy efficient alternate means of circulation throughout the community. " Comment : • This has been in development stages for the past several years by the City and has recently been up-dated in a finalicerl pattern which will be implemented as funds are available, See • comment on item Il above. 10 VII . "The city will plan for adequate parking facilities to serve commercial , industrial , residential , and public facilities and will determine in which cases such parking will be provided on the street, and in which cases parking is the responsibility of the land user . " Comment : In this case all required parking for the existing and expanded construction is provided for and planned for within confines of the site including vehicular circulation. On-street parking is not required. VIII . "The City will develop street design standards which minimize the impact of traffic circulation on the c-,wmmunity' s residen- tial character . " \ '' Comment : We question the legality of the original public works require- ment for 1/2 street improvement including widening, -N,curbs and sidewalks. Oakridge Road (classified as a residential street in the Comprehensive Plan) should remain in its curre >f; stake from Quarry Road to Boones Ferry Road until such time total planning for the street is completed by the city Public Works Department with proper reclassification. Currently, the city has no plans for impeovements to this street. See also discussion in the Design Standards Section and other Comprehensive Plan Sections above. 1111 0 • COMPLIANCE WITH LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES 11 r +y, rt ti l 4111 Goal I . Citizen Involvement : to develop a citizen involvement program. Answer : proper advertisements and announcements of the anticipated changes to tihe property will be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project per City requirements. There will be adequate opportunity for input at the Development Review Hearing. Goal 2. Land Use Planning To establish a Land Use Planning Process and Policy framework. Answer : This project conforms to existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. Goal 3 & 4 (not applicable ) Goal 5. Open Spaces , scenic and historic areas and natural resources . d To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. Answer : Within the general commercial underlying `zone for this parcel , 78. 5% of the property is to remain in open space 00* with a 'stand of large fir and maple trees to be preserved complementing the inventory of open space within the Lake Grove area of Lake Oswego. Goal 6 through 13 ( not applicable ) Goal 14 Urbanization Goal : to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Answer : The parcel of land to be developed is located within the urban growth boundary and Well Within the urbanized area of Lake Oswego. The land will Provide for increased utilization of land zoned for commercial development . We request approval of the proposed improvements to the existing site as described in conjunction with the variance found necessary to lessen site impact and to adequately provide for the improvements necessary for the business to continue to function at this site. (See accompanying variance documentation) Cordially, Glenn E. Chilcote A. I . A. GEC/vc • .A 20 September 1990 City of Lake Oswego • Development Review Board Development Review Staff RE: Class II Variance at 4255 S. W. Oakridge Road REQUEST: A variance is required to properly protect a valuable natural resource (mature trees) from adverse impact. The extent of building expansion is outlined in the Development Review Board application to which this variance application is attached. 0 VARIANCE REQUIRED: 49. 510( 1 ) A-D Required 2-way cross Aisle width of 24' -0" reduced to 13'0". EXPLANATION: ;> Additional 12 car parking is to be located in the only open space available on-site without impacting tree cover. It is proposed to create a meandering 13' 0" wide drive defined as "cross aisle" to access the required parking. This is a reduction in code width of 11 ' 0". See Site/Floor Plan for location and configuration of drive. This site circulation ® driveway is workable for the following reasons : 1 . The driveway is 100 ft. in length, short enough to avoid conflict. 2. The lane is easily visible from one end to the other with no obstructions. 3. Adequate maneuverability is available at the neW lot at the north end and at the existing drive at the south end. 4. The lane is designated for employee parking only. Employees will be familiar with the route. • a A variance to the Development Standards is requested based on the following reasoning: A. "The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. " V Answer : Relocating the required parking to any other available location on site will require removal of several additional mature firs. This is the only reasonable site location. a less than 24 ft, wide drive to this lot will reduce property impact, thus reduce hardship. 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. " IT GLENN E. CHILCOTE AAA. Architects/Planners 17125 S.W f3oones Fr:hi Road Lake Oswc y' '' • `fir. , Answer : Development is not injurious to the neighborhood. The driveway modification will lessen impact as opposed to _ other solutions. The improvements still leave the property4111 considerably underdeveloped as allowed by the General Commercial Zone,. C. "That the request is a minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. " it Answer : Code required parking is 25 spaces for the development including one H/C space. Site development provides for 25 spaces or the minimum required by Code. To access these spaces circulation driveways are also kept to a minimum. Ij D. "The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. " Answer : Requested driveway width reduction and location meets the Comprehensive Plan criteria for General Commercial (GC) for this site. Specifically Impact Management General Policy I and Social Resource Policy I which both address reducing site impact. We request approval of the stated variance to Development Standards as outlined in conjunction with the Development Review submittal to which this is attached. Cordially, Cj Glenn E. Chilcote A. I . A. GEC/vc S jl 4 . ,111 ' • , c. , • . • • . '14* .. ,, • NW MI.111 1.4"4" •11071 'N 4,40140 V21,V=4"..C. IAD C.:1-0,e-ktrsvp-tyviro-roalaav • o j 1 goispguy .vrmr 7.11.L.VI=SSY '14 2 WI="all .41 11: . VIV 1-.....-000=,/ tali 1 .1 • ' 0 r"--) [ 07.4c/cp'..) g uu^_10 7 11 .... .11 NOIC,Miva 2-014.10 I tr. 41. ii,r• ' a It I ii I .• 1 i _ Y ,,r fr ,, • _ '-:—. I I.. . /— .ifiNi t,v.* • — — k. s , t.,.., , _4 , 1 ''. ' ' t , • 1 u I) I , L. ' ' ,,,...._......, ', • -:., p: •,,,, i t‘ , ,, ---1 ill -it*. 1 _i • •. .'". a..••• , #1 rt. 1 1 1" q-a) i'4-114 -.1 , ,,,- -.._ v 'fli) 1 1 fr.......11 , a ,' , . II r .1 [3:=111,10.6 . —" I 'ki t , • . . V. i ir u ,..........1 ......••••••••• ri 4 ,,r,:-‘ l \ \ 1.14,6'H.A.if \ '7-7- ; )1 '— —1. • i ,I i • ..... •••• • k'.. . .1 i ••.,.....r.., . 0 I.,. ...V.. 1&.. • ) .21$ ir". , 1 . 1 .r.''''... --- '' '''•''‘ j ti tj. I re ---4 f,*" . r s 1 '1 hE51 .it 1 1 1 1 \ 's. t, 1 • „ ' - is c. ..4,,,,m_ -„_. -,— oit . . 4, ii ,1,411. 11 tL__ lish___,.:, , . v- • . \•, ‘ a ."7 1 , •••.... r:,,i'''..":7'.. , ; /b ___ 1 s ....' it I ) c.,. ° 4 . 1 .;.,------ , • , 4= , ... ti 1 (4 ' t 1 C II) .' <> '--- -- — . Ir p • it 1 / •h /1 s'N ,,------, 1,, 40 tq 1 m I I 1 1 s.; \ s'... __• i I 4 I. . • , 1 'II r..) 1 i . I: 2 . i •- , .,.. . , A • i / . t , r N ..,' ' 1 a . , ....,... 4, 1 , 1 • ........_ . et, , 1 I ) 1.',._ -s,....: a N. 1 ) .,1,1., i •. ui I(.) :1,...../42N4ld1;.. • . 4t1% It al • \ St ' * ' •ti 1 •, 2 , ,•'' r..:,-i ki \ ki• IN 4... 0.:.:%;:a. \ \ .. J , . • 154k :. --- 'I.'" '4" \th • :s 0 , t ; 1 J. / !ilfi.. ' .. 1.. l•i a. 1 ,-2" •, U.? • ' . * \ 01 ... ::....o. 0 it 0 i 0 ' ... .matt .a.shicw. ------- -- • ( mwes.0 $ '". A .,• j 1 , * it . 111 • ,, \ ,..... -...-...0- \ Az'.`: 1 i ---.-----4.---... i 1 . p se•a'go a ret4 wpm-"--------"-- "4 EXHIBIT A \.. , . i--- • , .,) . • • =7• "�•••�+n �71.yv;lam ij . CD [L I, al 1 I . . . . -.....„, vrtr '"yN al9K "1J)vat U \ ^��+.J ; NoKt�wdxa.1I.d4 L .E$ �._.__. y� �z' _ I ve 1 _ust ; Mi iiiiiiiii ', ..,..,' ',J1 1 D ■111 • Z ... .� 0 " si MINNs L O, j ;j rNMI nrI;--..- , . pm = +.e._T2__,_, .._.__.___.. i� p 3It _ , , M f Lit •te r ■wwl ''WUXI - .rwl1 �I 141 imam aC i '!it .. ,■ ,a w. tN Arai, y yi 11o�r- 1 , (:3 zi mg, 1 I 0 .• J 41 .11 � _... I e• i1i 1 i • , ,. `` EXHIBIT ' 1 • ,, , • ,r ' ' •o, . • . .• , . 1 . . . ., • , 4•4•44. . 4 nTh •=1"4 14141V447r1141.47 ...\ "G" ,V-a=lf 247 ,..11 , .nociuwv [... clrfiernstivo-Niviroca.wor it 1 i 1-(1/ 1 . viv coopoccw -pt.,:ci.L.Yr=sW umx.Nri it OgCCIFL-0 g U--13 Ho vei Iti. , lgRea 27dd:2 i 2 t, ily * is 1 ,, • — 1 _...../ . • .. . 4 . . ,. . . . 4 , ? . . ... •-.. . 1 r 1 . . ,. . 1 ' i I I ,.. ,.......... 1 I . ./4.. . I 0 ' , . . .,. • / • —._....,„._ i aj‘gi I : 41111.' /J. . i I [ I 2 -----\\1 .. . . . -•-- •-- , Km. . . ,•-=-6-1 *? . 2 ! I 1 , 4 .Mimmilm ....1 .....— A , -411".41 .. a U. • , , . , , ..... .. _I __ 0 wor.„11 Mil kv, Alp . it I 2 , . • 1 41,, ' : , willi 1 MN 71-.1 ilia 1 4 . .... X- -t-----T!-----—1 - 1 1 .. ., • ! 1 1 I , . • 0 , i I . I \,.. , ., EXHIBIT , • i Ii .. . .4..4444 44.., 4 .4 • ,. . . , ........ ....,,......, i . . . , ... 1 . 4 n. ' ; l Yr 41 :'1. , . i ,p,••";'., °O.,• , • ., ••, .I {{ ',. 1, ° . f , rr • R w I _ O (0 0 W U�y,,•'i•r: i, ►t ' I �• ' —_.r!0 I1� N a U__ 0 . y o,rt09! ._' m / it I i•Ii t • I I:. • •%; y :i 1• •,....4. I: dll'4, Y "� rot I , • 71 ' ;. �' � -emu t j h a I ''• • 3' : / I llH i 1• u 1 _ 11 I a• m i O U �^--�tr • ` \ J I_ — O wi 0 O c I` ... � � „� �;` • ,� IrI Q p.ad •Epla�.p Lea- y C _,.w__-- —_._____� r-.—� r. _ __ _. u�—W O 1 m _J a ii i r,c 0 11) ' ~ Qr• C Co pI. e a o •. 12.tn Ic qI u c a 0 1 o ,c a r I °• v E I v ii n q o r ¢ e R p 9 C U o t o �� 1 , ° o ti P. i o 3 ° • 1 j(74 ,,j/ •, o r U I . • I m 0 t1 / J / / -1/- , —_ c o z I o /✓ a . 1 r / I 11 ; pI /J 164( Pb,4 p 1 m a" .0 ! /� o4� EXHIBIT d c m u W obc .�. D . 11 Q a N o o N / l / h, A , 4 /�) • } o • 1 5 . 0 2 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OF THE ,5-.)CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ) DR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 6 FOR A 12 ' X 42 ' MOBILE ) (L. Radley Squire) COMMERCIAL OFFICE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 7 STRUCTURE AND A CLASS II ) 8 VARIANCE TO LOC 48 .510 (2) ) • 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 The applicant is requesting development review approval for a 12 ' • 11 x 42 ' mobile commercial office structure. The applicant is also 12 requesting a Class II variance to LOC 418.510(2) a, which limits 13 temporary structures and uses in commercial districts to two ` 14 weeks and which does not list temporary structures to• be used ,as 15 office space. The structure is being requested for a 12 month 16 period. The site is located at 4255 Oakridge Road, 3 lots east 17 of Quarry, Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CB) . 18 • • 19 HEARINGS 20 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered 21 this application at its meeting of April 2, 1990. 22 , 4. ' w 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS ' 24 A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: 25 i/ 26 LOC 48 . 300-48. 315 GC Zone Description (setbacks, 27 lot area, lot coverage) Temporary Structures, Uses 28 LOC 48 .510 Special Street Setbacks LOC 48 .535 (3) 29 10 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: 31 LOC 49. 090 Applicability of Development 32 Standards LOC 49. 300 Major Development Procedures 33 IOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval \ 34 ID PAGE 1 DR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 EXHIBIT ' 4 + , • ' S ' / ) r ( / . . Illi . . ,, 3 C. City of Lake Oswego Developm4nitStandards: 4 l), 2. 005 - 2. 040 Building Design 5 5. 005 - 5. 040 Street Lights % 6 6. 005 - 6 . 040 Transit System 7. 005 - 7. 040 Parking & Loading Standard 7 8. 005 - 8. 040 Park and Open Space 8 9. 005 - 9. 040 . Landscaping, Screening and 9 10.005 - 10. 040 Buffering Fences 10 11. 005 •• 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major 11 14. 005 - 14 . 040 Development Utility Standard 12 18.005 - 18. 040 Access Standard. 19.005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation Private • 13 Streets/Driveways 14 20. 005 - 20. 040 Site Circulation Bikeways and Walkways 15 16 D. City. of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 17 Impact Management Policies 18 General Policy II IIII ' 4 19 Economic Resource Policies .. 20 General Policy I Y 21 Commercial Land Use Policies 22 General Policy I • 23 Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area Policies 24 Transportation Policies 25 General Policy VI 26 General Policy VII 27 CONCLUSION 28 , The Development Review Board concludes that DR 1-90\VAR 10-90 can 29 be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application ' 10 of certain conditions. 31 32 FINDINGS AND REASONS 33 The Development Review Board incorporates the March 23 , 1990 34 staff report on DR 1-90\VAR 10-90 except for sections discussing PAGE 2 OR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 9 w t ,. , . ,, . , fl ,...__ 0 . , 3 4 the variance criteria and Building Design Standard as support for 5 its decision, supplemented by the following: 6 1. The Board found that Exhibits 11 and 13 , which were submitted by the applicant at the hearing, provided 7 evidence that the variance criteria were met by demonstrating that the 12 months requested is the 8 minimum amount of time needed (Exhibit 11) and that the • ' 9 size of the proposed unit is the minimum necessary to . 10 temporarily relieve overcrowding in the existing structure (Exhibit 13) . n 11,, 12 2. The Board found that the variance criteria which require the applicant to demonstrate that. the request is "a 13 reasonable use similar to like properties" is not met by 14 comparing the proposed unit to similar structures on School District property. They found that portable 15 units on the site are a reasonable temporary measure to relieve the hardship of overcrowding since the property 16 owner submitted a development schedule (Exhibit 11) for 17 plans to construct a permanent expansion. 0 18 • 3 . The Board found that the type of unit proposed does not 19 meet the Building Design Standard (DS 2. 005 - 2. 040) but that full application of this standard is not necessary 20 since the structure is only proposed for a 12 month 21 period. 22 4 . The Board found that the imposition of conditions to 23 require the roof material and the foundation skirts to m% cch colors of the existing• permanent structure and to 24 °Svide a gravel walkway would make the proposed 25 ri/ °jemporary unit as complementary as possible to Surrounding architecture. These features would provide 26 minimal compliance with the Building Design Standard (DS 27 2. 005 - 2. 040) . 28 5 . The Board found that the addition of conditions for 29 • limiting the structure to 12 months and requiring the , restoration of landscaping once the unit is removed l0 would assure that the granting of the variance would not 31 be injurious to the site or to surrounding areas. 32 33 ORDER 34 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake Oswego that: • PAGE 3 DR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 y A A • ' 41/1 ' ' tt � * 2 3 4 1. DR 1-90\VAR 10-90 is approved st)bject to compliance with 5 the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of 6 this Order. ‘ a 2• , The conditions for DR 1-90\VAR 10-90 are as follows: 8 1. Prior to issuance of a placement permit for the 9 temporary unit, the applicant shall: 10 a) Install a street light to City standard on the existing utility pole in the right-of-way adjacent H �, 11 to the site. 12 b) Submit a deposit for future development 13 pathway adjacent to the site ($20P of a 14 .,00 per lineal foot of frontage - $3, 000. 00) 15 . 2. Roof and foundation drains for the temporary unit a' 16 shall be routed to the existing drywells on the site. 17 3 . The applicant shall provide a gravel pedestrian 18 pathway to the temporary structure. II 19 4. The colors o`f the roof material and the foundation 20 skirts shall match the existing buildings on the site. 21 its The unit shall be. removed within one-year of the date . 22 of placement on the site. No time extensions o shall be allowed. 23 24 6. The site of the temporary structure shall be relandscaped to its former condition once the unit is 25 removed unless plans for a permanent addition have 26 been approved by the Board. 27 28 29 10 / 31 32 33 34 P III PAGE 4 DR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 ); t 1 , 1 2 3 4 I .CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by 5 the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 6 7 DATED this 16th day o.f April 1990. 8 "A;?* -&-ev‘. \4-------- 10 Robert H. Foster, C a rman 11 Development Review Board 12 13 14 i?abel.44 /41/144.,441 -.- . . Secretary 15 16 . ATTEST: 17 18 ORAL DECISION - April 2, 1990 ® 19 AYES: Sybrowsky, Greaves, Foster ., and Remy 20 NOES: Stanaway, Starr and Bloomer 21 ABSTAIN: None I 22 ABSENT: None 23 24 WRITTEN FINDINGS - April 16, 1990 • 25 � AYES: Stanaway, Greaves, Foster, 26 Remy, Starr and Bloomer NOES: None 27 • ABSTAIN: None 28 29 , ABSENT: Sybrowsky 10 31 32 33 34 ItoPAGE 5 DR 1-90\VAR 10-90-770 STAFF REPORT • CITyOFLAKEOS , E '1O L E G LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPLICANT: FILE NO,: Michael Feves DR 18-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Michael Feves Hamid Pishvaie LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 3000, 3100 of October 26, 1990 Tax Map 2 1E 8BD • DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: November 5, 1990 15630 SW Boones Ferry Road 110 COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Lake Grove GC ZONING DESIGNATION: GC I, APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 300 square foot addition to a one—story office/retail( building (Lanewood Center). II, APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A, Ci y of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: , Commercial Land Use Policy Element General Policy III, Specific Commercial District Policy for the following Commercial District: IV—A, West End Business District 110 DR 18-90 Page 1 of 3 d • B. City of ake Osweg nag Ordina~n_ce: • LOC 48.300-48.305 Commercial Districts LOC 48.310 Site Development Limitations C. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: • LOC 49(300-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2.005 —2.040 Building Design 7.005 —7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 9.005 —9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering M. FINDINGS A. Back and: 1. The existing building is approximately 11,313 square feet, one story structure used for retail/office purposes. The applicant's request is to expand the existing office space by 300 square feet, by enclosing a portion of the covered walkway, Exhibits 3 and 4. Expansion will require one additional parking space. Existing parking is adequate to meet the additional requirement. 2. The Development Review Board granted final approval to Lanewoo d Center on October 4, 1978, subject to seven (7) conditions (DR 22-78). All of the conditi of approval have been satisfied. 3. Existing uses adjacent to the site are as follows: North — Commercial South — Commercial East — Single Family Residential West — Boones Ferry Road and Commercial B. Compliance with.Criteria for Approval:. 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan: • The applicant's narrative adequately addresses Comprehensive Plan requirements regarding parking, landscaping and screening in Exhibit 6. 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: • a, LOC 48-300—48305 '' Commercial Districts (GC) The retail/office is an allowed use in the zone, No changes to this existing use are proposed, 3. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: ' a, LOC 49,300—49,335 —Major Development Procedures DR 18-90 Page 2 of 3 • I • a , fl • Specific application requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the • applicable criteria for approval are addressed in those sections of this report and in the applicant's written'narrative (Exhibit 3). Application materials submitted are listed as exhibits at the end of this report. No development schedule has been (� submitted. 4. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: '1 The applicant's written narrative (Exhibit 6) illustrates substantial compliance with the standards. This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposal are recommended. a. Building Design (2.005—2.0401 The existing building is of brick masonry construction with repeating precast arched porticos. As Exhibits 3 and 4 illustrate,the applicant proposes to expand the existing 4 office space by enclosing a small portion of the covered walkway. Building • elevation (Exhibit 4) and a color and materials description (Exhibit 6) have been provided to support the application. Staff finds that the proposed change to the exterior appearance of the structure will not materially affect the visual relationship of the structure to adjacent structures. b. Parking and Loading (7.005—7.040) As Exhibit 6 documents, the required parking, including the proposed 300 square foot addition, is 44 spaces. The existing parking area provides 50 spaces; therefore, . 0 this standard is satisfied. c. Landscaping. Screening and Buffering(9.005 —9,040) The existing landscaping in Lanewood Center is approximately 21% of the site area; therefore, satisfying the 15% requirement of this standard. III. CONCLUSION • The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with the applicable criteria, Conditions of approval can be attached to ensure continuing compliance with City standards, IV, RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of DR 18-90, with the following condition: 1, The applicant shall submit a development schedule for the review and approval of staff, / . + EXHIBITS I, Tax Map 2.' Vicinity Map 3. Site Plan ' 4. Elevation and Floor Plan 5. Letter by City Engineer(Robert R. Amptman), dated May 25 1979 6. Applicant's Narrative • Niko IDR9 IDR90-li ckepaits>DR1S-90 DR 18-90 ' Page 3 of 3 • • 1 * ^ b / �� k' r 0 fps*s• 401 7 / ai Jii: : . ..... 2 1 , 0 , / ,;. 4. .. .. > �se,"sx ( cgr ii, , co z�o h t 4ir, i 1 Pk 6.R,1 ro w 4 V I! / R N A4 .W�� �'A_ ,.,, RED CEDAR b , u o "k' 2 800 -- n. �° '� �/ Iss�o 270i q / 9 UJ 15560 it N ,< 4 / Is512 b �� / b. � y • ,. , u�a l"; 4 h 0 � I 3002600 iv y • /� 0AI319T 7 p t, 1 q 15600 F, ��p�`�P4a�I6`,9 `Q I5630 o r virlq.‘ ‘', j.s‘i\I''qt , ("' 5,6E.e. it.,:., 1 , - _ - . 4 4 ' ,' '' • 11 34re NOTE ON 2 4.-Jae ° I' O.r.i r, .1., • MMA•err A'bg0 NO, IsI. 9 ,t.o' N 49. �( 0 4,� iA S �,,, ....,. , �. 1 v . 4.io fb o as/moo• - .s..s 2 Ir LANE D N. i'v9 41'1'0'1‘v 4,11//I ..'44- 3100 /40. 0. eo�� f �R�y� �l'u 3417 34�6 li �����1� P o�1,1 fl' �� °� 3300 319b 't. 3166 , � : .... 7` ,ti 4°h ,u^' 3e30 e • p o$ a 4 0 910� 3 Co rl ��. u.re eu 9 h h' h f�f�1P0,0 S'01 �w �o� / ru�Y.y o r $; '4\r �' 5 5ti �� 1 2 2 r� 0 3200 I ��,ov ,,,AL d P� I� / Is1s0 ti o 3 41 I �.•ro ,' i'' III o • v3i15 . 34 w �� �� /°� .i ¢ �ti * I y '' EXHI611' b. ' w!e.eor .rre,s L{o1° o `/ 1 �f 8 i � 111111111iiiiiftiiiimitms2ihriminffeeilim.,.. 1, 1 • ' ..: '.1 �..1 D.I MCf (T arid mrp . pig,to � CLACCKAMAS CO,4. " Li / DV eoection 0 1 F -1x'JI 191 I ��--; r .,h.. �'I IV //,,I E I I I r I , 1 lu. I , P ( I I I Clue g 1; 1! 1 O"- 1 i1-1 .0 .j I S\ h♦ tlrf i� .{I juN1 S. w"�i.� r ;ti\\ .Y •..A1 �' 16 NHl � 'r r �,, _ I ,�r•l , ki Iw�11M1 1.." FNN :i l:•-il1'1' ‘/G :.1. •y' ,'t .;.r'Y, , • 1111 ,1 , Iri• I..` LC+_..Jo."' I 1 4_,' 1 /! ; .1 1 :0 I0' �"r:1;-i. 1J � �r.r0 ` rr/,3'\yr .;../dAlyliiw ' 5I 1 I!II1! °0 \ / 4"41.4i 7i\t n '.0Al.e134'%11 �.r.ak, O ' :t 1 4., i 1• �i wllwur ry \0\ f;. 4 ~\,yti1 <J)''• 1111 ti f� 1 Ir. nn. UN1 i �,",�^, nrl ili 11 ll�rlC q -+'� . -1 •1.�.•� i.. 1iwj$ -_I I H 1 H I \ V 4 I i rUUs. `I 1,.' + 1j4.1 -�' =4IF, UM �'}"'.�_'-I-1"..1. I W .• �%1'� ( I. I ;, •• • is • -- "-lira 1,1n. ..1'.1r-i-'111-r :'^1 /' k��`1 i 1w.I�pi11 i 11`;�I'11 i `\\ 1 1 1 'I .L�„L_ trlr. \ .... . ...IYli,elilililil9li 6t1 lent 7.1, WI �, \1 _1. li T.ei N� .rr II III I lilt' it Mee 1i +„, i l �.� ,Nn` 41 rrl-I-I-• 1 II �� ��ti 1. i 1 Ire,..- - - _ ...._._e'1 giw. �• -— !I- - a.- -l!if —r r i /�'�I . .. . •UN' WAY •.. . _ir1 i q;Ni.I. T`I.r 7,,, /-f-1._II I IIN-, I 4 I •^\ ! N,.'1 Intl; 1 I Iil li ► ,,,r ' V i 11 I`I Ili />.;-•��i..-\.% , i • 1 1--' 'a \ u.1 o..ic "1 I•i•I•� 11 .I.II.4-1.. /7 is N° /,1:.!' ♦\ S f H 1 8 1 �'\ • '1 Iri ISlilii°IE`.(a I I N. ` " r \ \ \♦ .. 1 1 ' \ u r uw 4 .,wu/u• 7 3 Inl .(- -y+ ti 1 r • 1 . i 11N1 0 I 4.II1 I.4i7 .� ��`.'CT' f l i r- Iww ...L--I. I • , ` I I .c _ •1 I ---•.I1u ...r_1_ 1 r' •4 I I r•_`-Al", Z. I 1, "'�."s'1 e cllnac.fna _ _ __- 1W1110P1 _L--•-- IIIIIy Y I I li r- I' - 1111I IIN „N � ' 110„ I • I L� �..V i I H;�(i ICI C'1.'�I� � I I I �`L.:.� f j IIN 1 IINI +r•�\ 5 r'-•-- .,.,.�� _ I , .ASCIs•2•,• - 11111; 1 1=1 1N.N uO-•--III•'`.\ 4:• . 1 u1i m1°n �y % 1 1 1i i1 i l., 111I .r11 . i I ❑ liwi"I I Y •+ ---I 1- -I.'I: uN�q• _J n I: �i.�/ •^�.. nrd 31l'\ ,• • y a ra t�wol •♦ ••.1 F i n I CI •..-___'-11--1_ ; "1--1 r •,� I rr"� nw01..1 '\ 1 1 ( I L•-1Nr N..1r-;�.,'1'b ' 1 ♦, Tt1'�1 1y . I ( •,w,'+ I I 1 ,I,,,.. y\ -,0,--,- N,1 J- L 1._. ' 1 uJ \1:,\•4..` •y/.�• .,, . __I ,1 q � \\% 1 I �• un iu.+1 -i' �1�-._IL.rJ�_ - ' \ �:! \,'4r „y_ I 1 •.1. • I i I I '•,T i I I L I- r.1. i A i •r1 1 I 1-• INI '�cl'i \ f _t. ':,42 y ;,.�... t P �y .\O I I 1 Imo/ 1:`1 Nr[1 VI --iI + llur 1, 1_Y 1 11u1 ,IM'\S\\ • �4 ` '!` 1 'n 17i- -�- 01 ...ilia! \1r• \1 I I I lC�jI "Tun•'U1, I _I� I II 1 h-. a\ i N,1`. ♦ I _ i I I ♦4 y��•• � � �.. �•I I� n �t I � I(�• rNd'I i I it '11 I hill \ �JZ ♦)' '� 1411_ 7 wy . k: I c/� \t , 1 1 1e i 7 4 , 'V t\ T.• Ial Y• u i uu1 I y +\ r' .....,\. a..1\ \ Iv, I.� L\1'C � J Jln 1. S 1 •` \ J ♦r-�a„ �.;�, ti ��' IL ,.i1.'I Ik ° 1 / �N1•^)' \ I ; - .�^S.\;;, \r 1\,3r 1� \ S 1,,vit jrT'`\ ri1N ‘,:*.‘1‘,..,.''''',,.. } ', ,, ,I , S 1 �\ rl �M�Y ✓ ti + \ \ '�\ L, 1 \'.'\4y..-1 1'1 \ I , ♦ 1 ••S y \ t \ \r�J,1‘� �'� f \ l'Ij11\N';' \y\t \ \ \ t \Y 1d� 1 ��r+- ,,,..1 1`I i. 1;a I. Z' t�,(: �\,L \\ '1 �••'- 'i'r ,dam. n\\ \� �.�\•�\�i S \\t \ \ \ 1���.- L. y. t� . i \t' hr \\ \ \`'` :,p,� n�°..\ {\\ .%` . \iv�' \ \\ \\ 1.%' r .a 's4.,nj H H,•I 1 FIB: -J°, ....,,Is \ \S \ . N \ \t rN'F t :W,\V a , \ 1 a 1 . 0_1_ ..I-1'. • ,,, I i,t S ;ti.,.'vi' 11 7i1!`•Y'11 III.. ' , ` { ! ,-*tXC'e ,,....,‘,$,,,,k'4.....ttii,‘ 1 c r i '•I . C 4s 1 a -1 / r alEXHIBIT 1 \ G t t+ ,. 171y I r1r,r+ r, r'. • • : ii i A • x�- ----- i ..,�.._ c�.rx K�gArs~ ' , •i s rt.,afe, G F F I C E! . I 6. -.. . — RETAIL - M l PR o POS Ea ADDI TIaNSL ' r/korea/0 a 49 RFA ? i 1 . �� 44 , i , i 71 MA N A I cot f p r d 4 rRAP PIC c0 3 i rI � s' _ t .1 _ a �tf-� , A o� fin' �Si 2ar . q ,J -- _ _ ,n ' cr y.ma - .1 ...1-',-,...,,,.. 1, (490 1/4 f. . ) . . s S, / ; ` y ar, r - eV,s 4 * .J4 J ' ' '��,� ''' �Gr '' I 4 I" • 1 ,4NEwooD c. ENT GR • S,/j T Er PLAN r / / .1 • 4 EXHIBIT . .7, 11 k 17 PRINTED ON Nb.l000N DLEARpnINT• j "I o •• . • • . . , . . ..,, . . • . . . . ' • . .. . .. . . . '-. t/N4.'.':• .` * • 1( .2,., / ' . ...., , )1( , . ... .. .. -- . . • I . , - , I 4•• i ! , .... i . ,--:_- - ... I tio . , .• , i , . RE 110 /E 1.41191.1. ;41,, itviAlOottis f . ) S if 00 X , .....2.:‘<„,. -..,_. , --- ,,----,-----7, .---......... r..M.e.i—trrwri!..21..,, 1 0 ./ • ,.0 •' ' ..4. . ••' , ••• • 04 *0 • ".• , ..,/ ,,,,,/ • . , f:=1 tr-L,........,.. ..._ ,,.„,r. 0,, . , dd( s., ;i.212 , )Ia F i ,,i..4 8. ' )1.214 sd i 8 ' .... — n 'I ,TZ-", .....•*-••••,, . . .. . .. , 1 , I ' I , ; 1! . . ; . , ') ) i `• !,1 i !ill.i. i 4. ' • .1 1 I 0.1.' i t • I 1 1 4 'N ..._-- •ti ../.." ... TA, ITI,LL 13F 3 o A)2 E ,i I,,' • i.\ • 4 ti, W/A)Po W S (3) ,givo no 0 6 4 -- 00 R 6) 1 EXHIBIT 4. , . ......,• .................................... PRINTED Oig NO.1000N CLEARPIONT• I\'r_ 1''e,.. '' 611'.,:• c, • ' . .. t lt...1�.• , \,, . . . t . /• r i, ,, .\\\,::77.:/// , CITY OF LAKE OSVA/EGO , May 25, 1979 .. • Lloyd A. Pajunen 2190 SW Glen Eagles Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 9.7034 SUBJECT: Lanewood Commercial Center 4e. Dear Mr. Pajunen: � A Enclosed are two copies of the approved site plan for to above project. One of these copies should be on the site, with the general contractor. The above approval is subject to the following : " ' 0 1 . Signing of a non-remonstrance agreement pertinent to a future formation of a local drainage improvement district (which Mr, ., Alen Sashike of Iron Mountain Investment Company consented to) . 2. Extension of the brick wall surrounding the trash collection point by 5 feet west, across the walk. The wall should be minimum 36" high looking from the north. 3. Installation of the automatic sprinkling system lines to all landscaped areas (including added planter at the northwest corner of building) prior to paving. Please be aware that contractor working within our right-of-way must be prequalified by the City. Very truly yours , ° � • t Robert R. Amptman City Engineer RRA/jb IPc�' James Praggastis d EXHIBIT Phil be Freest .; '., L -vt4z, `' . i 'IP ' "I'I1l 4l• ll 4►It111 ►4,ksi n111( I Iltr. ,,,'i I r1ti111r,r) tllllt,tl�; 'MI!I 1"flith!t. ball 0 cps CIRCUM PACIFIC PROPERTIES 331 N.UJ.18th Avenue P.O,Box 1024 0 Portland,OR 97209 Portland,OR 97207 (503)227.7659 h September lo, 1990 Mr. Robert Galante Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego Department of Public Works and Development Services 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97934 a RE: Expansion of Lanewood Center, 15630 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd. Dear Mr. Galante: Pursuant to our pre-application conference on August 30, 1990, I am pleased to submit the following application for • expansion of Lanewood Center located at 15630 S.W.> Boones Ferry Road. At the pre-application conference you specified that parking, landscaping and building design should be addressed in this application. PARKING • Code Occupancy Gross Area Requirement Spaces (sq ft/space) Required Real Estate Office 3 ,987 300 13 . 3 a I' General Retail 6, 200 300 20.7 Karate Studio 1, 426 see below 10. 0 TOTAL SPACE3 REQUIRED 44 . 0 " It is estimated that 10 spaces will be required for the Karate studio. This estimate is based upon the assumption that a maximum of two employees/instructors will be present at any given time and that no more than eight adults will be present to take classes. Historically, most of the clientele at the studio has been school age children who are dropped off and picked up by their' parents. Most of the classes ate offered during the evening and on weekends when the other business are not opened. Therefore, the karate studio has limited impact on parking at Lanewood Center. A II )k EXHIBIT i , %Jo 1)e.. l , . ,,: . ,. . . 4111 At present there are 50 parking spaces at Lanewood Center. Therefore, there is more than ample parking under the current code. LANDSCAPING Total area 35, 704 sq. ft. Landscaped area 8, 400 sq. ft. (prox. ) Percent Landscaped Area 21% The development code specifies a minimum landscaped area •,, of 15%. Therefore, Lanewood Center is currently well within the code requirement. The proposed expansion will not alter the present landscaping. 14 BUILDING DESIGN The proposed 300 square foot expansion will be accomplished by enclosing a portion of the existing covered walkway. Bronze aluminium windows and doors will be, installed in four of the existing brick archways. The finish on the windows and doors will be selected to match other windows and doors in the building This design will be complementary to the existing building because there will be III i very little, f any, noticeable Visual change to the exterior of the center. The required location, site and building plans are enclosed along with a list of persons within 300 feet of the subject site. Respectfully subm},tted, .4 :..,-- .C7 \ 7./ /./ \ 6/.( • c/ (,/,.. -:---/.• - Michael Fe4s e., III . . 0